Unbelievable! Never did I suspect, when I wrote the post about the ridiculous, racist, vicious terrorism-supporting professor Mika Tosca, that her insultingly insincere and dishonest apology would become the model for Jew-haters now crawling out of the ooze of 2023 corrupt progressivism. And yet…here we are! This morning I posted about Beverly Hills doctor Andrew Thierry, who posted on on Instagram that “Zionists are gynocidal, demonic, greedy, pedophilic retards,” and then expected us to believe that his words were misunderstood, and he was sorry for that. Now we learn that, to channel the doomed character Randy in the “Scream” films, that we aren’t merely dealing with an ethics horror sequel, but a trilogy. For Cornell University history professor Russell Rickford, who said that he was ”exhilerated” over Hamas killing babies, children and civilians in its October 6 sneak terrorist attack and taking hostages too, is now trying to apologize…because he senses that his job might be in jeopardy. So he’s lying.

“Hamas has challenged the monopoly of violence. And in those first few hours, even as horrific acts were being carried out, many of which we would not learn about until later, there are many Gazans of good will, many Palestinians of conscience, who abhor violence, as do you, as do I. Who abhor the targeting of civilians, as do you, as do I,” Rickford said at a pro-Hamas rally. “Who were able to breathe, they were able to breathe for the first time in years. It was exhilarating. It was energizing. And if they weren’t exhilarated by this challenge to the monopoly of violence, by this shifting of the balance of power, then they would not be human. I was exhilarated.”

When his remarks caused predictable controversy, the professor dug in, telling the Cornell student newspaper that, while naturally deploring the loss of life, “We are acutely aware of the devastation, the daily destruction and degradation caused by Israeli policies, caused by Israeli apartheid, caused by the occupation. So in that context, this act of defiance of boring across the wall was a significant symbol. It really signaled that the Palestinian will to resist had not been broken.” Got it. He approves of terrorism against Israel.

Buuut then the Cornell Board of Trustees started making sounds that seemed to shake his sense of security, so, just like that (and just like Tosca and Thierry, he didn’t mean it. His approach is also redolent of the Pazuzu excuse, as you can see:

“I apologize for the horrible choice of words that I used in a portion of a speech that was intended to stress grassroots African American, Jewish and Palestinian traditions of resistance to oppression. I recognize that some of the language I used was reprehensible and did not reflect my values. As I said in the speech, I abhor violence and the violent targeting of civilians. I am sorry for the pain that my reckless remarks have caused my family, my students, my colleagues and many others in this time of suffering. As a scholar, a teacher, an activist and a father, I strive to uphold the values of human dignity, peace and justice. I want to make it clear that I unequivocally oppose and denounce racism, anti-semitism, Islamophobia, militarism, fundamentalism and all systems that dehumanize, divide and oppress people.” 

Yup, what he said and later confirmed did not represent his true beliefs. Sure. Tell us another. Heck, we’re all stupid. The American public believes anything good progressives say: illegal immigration is just immigration, speech that the Left doesn’t like isn’t protected by the Constitution, the January 6th riot was an insurrection, racial discrimination isn’t discrimination if the target is whites, and men can be women by saying they are, the economy is great, and Joe Biden is sharp as a tack. I am convinced that this succession of Jew-hating progressives claiming that their recent slurs were just big misunderstandings is the result of the complete contempt their movement has for the intelligence of the average American.

And the scary part is, they may not be wrong.

In recognition of this phenomenon, I am adding a #11 to the bottom of the Apology Scale, “The Impossible Apology.” It reads,

“The Impossible Apology. An inherently unbelievable apology for conduct or words so unethical and so extreme that nobody could possibly say or engage in it accidentally or unintentionally. Such an apology for words or conduct of signature significance, indicating that the speaker or wrongdoer is unethical and untrustworthy because no individual who is ethical and trustworthy would behave in such a manner even once, is not merely cynical and a travesty, but insulting to its intended audience.”