« CHRISTIANISTS!!!!!... umm.... not | Main | You Can't Say That: A Partial Defense of Letterman/Playboy »

June 11, 2009

Dave, You Ignorant Slut...

Here's a clue for you: when even your own side thinks you stepped over the line, that's generally considered to be a bad sign:

UPDATE. Letterman’s bosses knew that the joke was wrong: The remark was aired live, but CBS removed it from the transcript it makes available to media, including the New York Times, which publishes Letterman’s opening monologue on its blog site.

Update: To add a thought and the Letterman video from last night - Letterman claimed he didn't see a problem and was unaware of this until "today." But someone at CBS edited that transcript before this even became a public issue. Someone at CBS, possibly on Letterman's staff, was the first person to have a problem with this. Letterman is lying here, I believe

I happen to think Letterman's lying too, but since I can't prove that I don't see how it benefits anyone to accuse him. Of course you just *knew* the jackassery would continue, didn't you?

I'm about to make everyone mad again. First of all, Letterman's jokes were offensive and tacky. His subsequent attempts at self beclownment only make him look like a bigger ass, though unkind observers might have thought that was impossible (at least, before he managed to one-up himself with that arrogant and snotty non-apology). I don't think children or family members of politicians are EVER appropriate fare for nasty partisan sniping. But then I can get my whole self-righteous jones on because I've already objected to equally-if-not-more-tacky and disgusting "jokes" made by conservatives for precisely the same reason: you don't gratuitously and viciously insult a politician's family because it's easier than going after the politician on the merits. I've noticed exactly zero outrage on the right about what amounts to the same indecent behavior.

And yes, I'm going to be tiresome and keep reminding people why it matters just as much when we do it.

People ought to be able to see the larger principle at issue here. If it becomes acceptable to target the families of politicians, no one but sleazeballs who lack the decency to protect their own families from this kind of slime will seek public office. How is that a win for anyone?

So my question to you all today is this. There has been a huge amount of outrage directed at Letterman. I absolutely think all three jokes were tacky and inappropriate no matter who they were directed at. Machts nichts. Willow makes a slightly more outrage-a-licious target because she's underage. It seems more than mildly idiotic to joke about statutory rape. But even if Bristol were the intended target (and I don't believe for one moment she was), how would that make it any better? What did Bristol Palin do that justifies the insinuation that she's an easy target for any jerk who wants casual sex... so easy, in fact, that she can be casually knocked up during the 7th inning stretch?

Oh yeah. She did exactly the same thing Letterman did: comprise one half of a long term relationship that produced an unintended pregnancy. Hmmm. Does this mean Letterman - at 62 - is a slut, too?

Well of course not, silly. We all know there's no such thing as a male slut. We don't even have a word for that.

That said, I also think the accusation that Letterman was joking about the rape of a minor is a bit overblown. First of all, if it were truly a rape joke it wouldn't matter if the target were Willow or Bristol. But I don't see even the slightest hint that he meant it to be a rape joke, and pretending it was to bolster an already justifiable sense of outrage only obscures the real point: why is referring to any of these women in crudely sexual terms "OK"?

What makes the rape thing hyperbole? Last time I checked, A-Rod hasn't been accused of raping anyone, though I'll admit I haven't closely scrutinized his sexual history. It's reasonable to interpret both the A-Rod and Spitzer jokes as being directed at the men involved rather than Palin's daughters. Both men demonstrated loose morals and a serious inability to keep their trousers zipped. The problem is that the jokes also portray the Palin daughter(s) as easy prey for men everyone knows have the morals of an alley cat - in short, as promiscuous ditzes who lack the sense or the willpower to keep their legs shut.

And while we're on the subject, juxtaposing "slutty (flight attendant look)" with the name of a state Governor who has never been credibly accused of any kind of sexual licentiousness or misconduct is just as inappropriate and offensive as going after her daughters. This is not edgy political humor. It's just plain nasty.

Innuendo is an ugly thing. Because no one ever spells out the intended point explicitly, it's subject to interpretation - and consequently far too easy to deny. Letterman is dead guilty of acting like a colossal ass. On the other hand, what makes Letterman's joke any different from literally hundreds of similar comments and even posts I've read on conservative blogs?

The real issue here is that people on both sides of the political aisle don't see a problem with reducing women to sexual objects. It's a way of dismissing their real accomplishments: suddenly the "value" they offer is purely sexual.

Jokes like this are merely crude variants on, "Don't worry your pretty little head about that, sweetie." They're dismissive and contemptuous, and until people on both sides of the political spectrum get fed up with sexist and patronizing behavior, it will continue because it validates the view that respectable women can be treated this way with impunity.

It's a perfectly reasonable point: they can. We permit it.

It continues because society at large has no problem with it (until it's done to someone on their side, that is). Then we go all outrage-y... sort of. I'm not sure whether this nonsense continues because decent people - male and female alike - are afraid to speak up or because the majority of Americans secretly agree that it's perfectly acceptable to equate the Governor of Alaska to some porn star. After all, both are great to masturbate to aren't they?

Ha ha ha. I kill me, sometimes.

To be honest, I see very little daylight between Letterman and the folks on the right and the left who, every time Palin's name comes up, can't wait to make some moronic joke about hoping to see her tits, seeing her naked, f***ing her, or hoping she'll do porn.

And of course it's always passed off as just a joke. Humor truly is subjective, isn't it?

Update: Oh. Dear. Lord. What is it about this story that seems to bring out the stupid?

This makes sense:

"I think that when a woman is running for public office we should avoid sexualizing her"

Hmmm.... do ya think? But then she has to go and ruin a perfectly sensible comment:

"... maybe when you play the flirt and invite males to see starbursts bouncing off the walls (Lowry again), then maybe you invite the sexual punchline."

You have it straight from the horse's mouth ladies. Whatever you do, avoid the wink.

You're just inviting sexual slander.

Posted by Cassandra at June 11, 2009 10:52 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Well, if you're trying to pick a fight, sorry, I agree with you. The only place we part company on this is I decided Letterman had no redeeming value years ago and see no reason to pay any attention to him. I think you give him more discussion than he's worth.

As far as unfair treatment of women, people of color, gays, Muslims, Christians, Air Force... (insert offended minority here) I accept full responsibility for my statements and actions. Sorry, can't help you with the other cads actions. :-)

Posted by: Pogue at June 11, 2009 12:45 PM

I'm not trying to pick a fight :)

I will admit to having a bit of a bee in my bonnet about not having written as much about liberals when they step over the line lately. It's just that (1) sometimes I'm not even aware of it, and (2) when I am everyone else seems to cover it so much, and part of me just thinks, "Ummm... OK, so why didn't it bug you when so-and-so did exactly the same thing to her?"

I just get tired of constant outrage fests. Every day someone on the right or left is spazzing out about some new crime against humanity, and there's nothing new or remarkable about it.

Anyway, I thought I should be fair and note that Letterman is a twit. It's just that being me, I can't help but note that I don't see anyone getting upset at the disrespectful treatment of Palin on the right (and here I DON'T mean guys noting that she's pretty - that's not disrespectful). What bothers me is the "yeah, I'll be gratifying myself in front of her photo tonight!!!", which just seems kind of creepy to me.

If these same folks didn't get so darned outrag-i-fied when someone *else* has the nerve to objectify her, I'd let it go :p I guess I just wish they'd make up their minds.

Posted by: Cassandra at June 11, 2009 12:53 PM

Pogue makes a great point about the choices we make: "I decided Letterman had no redeeming value years ago..."

Letting them hang themselves is the best thing we can do; but when it comes to children, they are off limits. Bristol Palin isn't a celebrity or a celebrity skank; but because of her single parent status, and her mother as a Veep hopeful, she is a target for relentless mockery. She didn't have an abortion. She kept the baby. She has a loving supportive family, but she has also come out in favor of abstinence as the example of 'don't let this happen to you.' That has got to hurt and it comes with a price tag. I wish her well and hope she will find happiness and peace.

I think more of the Palins for being up front than acting like John Edwards; as if he had something to hide...

Oops, did I say that?

Posted by: Cricket at June 11, 2009 01:29 PM

Yeah, I saw that one coming on the previous thread. This kind of boorish behavior isn't a right/left thing. It's a human reaction to want to lash out at people you feel slighted by, often without any concern for the collateral damage. And often the "collateral damage" becomes the target itself because we know it'll hurt more that way.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at June 11, 2009 01:29 PM

We have no word or phrase for male slut?

How about John Kerry?

Posted by: Bad Cricket at June 11, 2009 01:30 PM

In days gone by, a man such as Letterman would be challenged to a duel by the father of the insulted wife and daughter. In this instance, the duty would fall to Todd Palin.

I'd pay good money to see that. They would have to start interviewing for a person to fill Letterman's time slot.

Letterman will never apologize in any meaningful way. Even if he said that he mistook Willow for Bristol (an easy mistake to make), his "joke" is nasty, mean-spirited, and contemptible. But this passes the feminist censors, because it is directed at a conservative polititian and her family. This is why I am so not a feminist.

Palin should never accept an invitation to appear on his show, no matter how many years and how much water goes under the bridge. But the entire effort on the part of Letterman and the Left in general is to beat Palin down until she doesn't see the value in seeking higher office, because she now knows family will suffer, big time. The Left is afraid of Palin, so she must be neutralized, before they have to deal with the strength of her ideas and her fearless nature on the campaign trail.

Posted by: MathMom at June 11, 2009 01:31 PM

But this passes the feminist censors, because it is directed at a conservative polititian and her family. This is why I am so not a feminist.


Palin should never accept an invitation to appear on his show, no matter how many years and how much water goes under the bridge. But the entire effort on the part of Letterman and the Left in general is to beat Palin down until she doesn't see the value in seeking higher office, because she now knows family will suffer, big time.

I agree, MathMom.

Posted by: Cassandra at June 11, 2009 01:36 PM

I don't know. There's a part of me (that I'm not so sure I'm proud of) that wishes Todd Palin would accept the invitation, walk out on stage and when Dave steps out from around the desk to shake his hand he'd cold-cock him and turn around and walk off.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at June 11, 2009 01:40 PM

Yu - I'd pay BIG pay-per-view charges for that.

I struggled last year to understand the relentless hostility to Palin, Bristol, and the whole abstinence-education thing. All I can figure is that people revert a little to petulant childhood when they feel someone is lecturing them on sexual morality. If they see Gov. Palin as the Church Lady and they aren't all that comfortable with their own moral or ethical positions, it's a pretty strong temptation to neutralize her by catching her in a form of hypocrisy. In this specific case, the comforting hypocrisy seemed to be some form of "she won't let us teach sex education in school, but look what abstinence-only policy did for her own daughter." It's just a small step from there to calling young Bristol a slut because she proved, with her pregnancy, that she'd been the unthinkable: sexually active within a conservative family that places a strong value on chastity and monogamy.

It's not that they believe all sexually active women are sluts; it's that they resent a woman who espouses sexual restraint but makes a mistake, and they know that the insult of "slut" is likely to sting to an unusual degree with such a woman.

Letterman should be responding to Bristol and Willow in grandfather mode, but then he'd have to come to terms with his own aging process, never an easy thing in show business.

Posted by: Texan99 at June 11, 2009 02:14 PM

What is Kathleen Parker thinking about? How does winking during a debate imply any sort of sexual invitation or connection? She must have misunderstood Rich Lowry. If I ever meet Ms. Parker at a cocktail party, I suppose I will have to be extremely conscious of my body and facial movements, lest she infer that I am coming on to her.

I liked it better when winking was a comedic plot tool, like the Seinfeld episode when George gets a piece of grapefruit pulp in his eye and winks an inopportune moments, leading to mayhem.

Posted by: Escort81 at June 11, 2009 02:18 PM

Yu -

Yu and I were thinking the same thing, but Yu were braver than me and actually said it.

My problem with that is that Todd would go to jail, and we'd have to hear about the Palins being trailer trash until Kingdom come.

Posted by: MathMom at June 11, 2009 02:25 PM

Whatever you do, avoid the wink.

That's what I keep tellin' you people, but you never listen.

Posted by: Jerry Falwell at June 11, 2009 02:52 PM

So that's why you don't like me, huh?

Well, excuuuuussssseeee me.

Posted by: Tinky-Winky at June 11, 2009 02:53 PM

The previous comments pretty much dilineate the absolutely baffling treatment of the Palins and why a joke like this is (if not funny) acceptable. The failure to adopt a moral absolute- in this case, the utter wrongness of child abuse and "humourous" anecdotes about it- points to how we've abandoned the higher aspects of humanity for cheap and cruel thrills at someone else's expense.
Just my thoughts.

Posted by: Osumashi Kinyobe at June 11, 2009 03:02 PM

I think we're seeing that a lot in society lately. It's no longer acceptable to say a thing is right or wrong b/c we can't use God as an appeal to authority (this shouldn't matter since there are other secular standards we could apply if we weren't so lazy).

So now we have silly zero tolerance rules and laws that are every more restrictive than the moral sanctions we're so desperate to avoid :p

On the winking thing, I'm with you Escort81. I didn't think the wink was sexual either. Sheesh.

I must be a total slut :p

Posted by: Cassandra at June 11, 2009 03:14 PM

I think the wink was very disarming, because it was probably the very first wink during a Vice Presidential debate in the history of the United States. Heck, it might have been the first wink in any formal debate, ever. I thought it showed that she was not cowed by the venue, nor the opponent. For a hick from the sticks, that's pretty darned awesome.

With that wink, she wrong-footed Biden and gave the viewing public notice that they were about to see something completely different. It was a tactic, and it worked.

So of course, she's a slut. Whatev.

Posted by: MathMom at June 11, 2009 03:31 PM

I stopped listening to Letterman months ago. I did not like his humorous attacks on President Bush or Vice-Presidential candidate Palin. They were simply mean spirited.

At the very least, he should be attacking Obama in the same manner. There is so much to laugh at, from his halting speech patterns to a habit of lying and doing the precise opposite of what he says, to say nothing of his praise of Islamic contributions to Civilization.

Any comic talent could make fun of our Teenager-in-Chief. The fact that Letterman today still needs Bush and Palin for laughter shows political bias and a lack of comedic talent.

Posted by: Diogenes at June 11, 2009 04:04 PM

The rape joke charge comes into play because Willow, the daughter actually at the game, is only 14. A-Rod "knocking her up" would constitute statutory rape, no?

Posted by: changer1701 at June 11, 2009 04:19 PM

I will buy off on that one :)

I just have some issues with conflating statutory rape and violent rape. They are not always one and the same, though certainly I'm not condoning statutory rape.

Posted by: Cassandra at June 11, 2009 04:28 PM

But this passes the feminist censors, because it is directed at a conservative politician and her family. This is why I am so not a feminist.

Well, it doesn't pass *all* the feminist censors. Real Feminists - those who are not wholly owned subsidiaries of the Democratic Party - are frothing at the mouth. New Agenda actually wrote an article called, "Sexism against conservative women is still sexism!". It's pathetic they felt they had to do it but at least they stepped up. Reclusive Leftist was furious yesterday and is sad today because - with the exception of a couple of feminist blogs she mentions - liberal feminists are ignoring this.

On Cassandra's larger point - that the right side is not exactly guilt-free on the icky sexism charge - I think it’s a shame morally and ethically when conservatives - supposedly the bastion of good sense, good behavior, and good manners - don’t act like grownups. I also think it’s stupid politically. Obama is not proving to be as woman-friendly as many Institutional Feminists expected. Wouldn’t it be nice if conservatives looked like a better alternative?

Posted by: Elise at June 11, 2009 04:33 PM

Well, that's a relief!

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at June 11, 2009 04:34 PM

If I may, I do have a modest proposal on

Posted by: Boquisucio at June 11, 2009 05:21 PM

Sexism is wrong no matter who does it. When one side, namely progressives, polish it like a cannonball they take it to a whole new level. When the right does it, it is a boorish cannonball that violates good taste and EEOC writs.

What we have is Letterman, one of many, throwing chum in the water to destroy existential threats to the regimes survivability. Letterman is engaging in the Machiavellian immoral equivalent of the dark-thirty knock on the door to keep the enemy (us) off balance. Rahm is contriving crisis to take advantage of a neutered opposition in disarray.

From an objective POV I believe the current administration is getting nervous as evidenced by their increasing reliance on, and ferocity of, personal attacks on the opposition.

What bothers me most is the passivity of women who give a pass to the perverted behavior of Letterman as simply a "Boys will be boys" antic. Most men would have been summarily fired from their jobs had they made the same remark. I am a white male and basically have no rights. Women, on the other hand are the sleeping giant. What is the pathology that prevents them from rising up to protect a sister?

Palin may be the dragon that has her nose tweaked one to many times before she rises up and smokes their pathetic and perverted butts. Remember David and Goliath? What a fine tale indeed when it is rewritten as Sarah and 'Goliath' in a duel for our souls. Fitting that it would be a woman who takes down these metro-sexual eunuchs.

You go girl!

Posted by: vet66 at June 11, 2009 06:32 PM

Michelle, you are RIGHT ON with your comments about david letterman. None of our television sets will EVER be on CBS. I think if you put all CBS executives and david l in a barrel, turn it over and they are all the same disgusting person.

Posted by: SandyS at June 11, 2009 07:06 PM

What bothers me most is the passivity of women who give a pass to the perverted behavior of Letterman as simply a "Boys will be boys" antic. Most men would have been summarily fired from their jobs had they made the same remark. I am a white male and basically have no rights. Women, on the other hand are the sleeping giant. What is the pathology that prevents them from rising up to protect a sister?

Well, I can't speak for progressive women but if I may hazard a guess there, conservative women HATE saying anything that either smacks of radical feminism or whining, so we suck it up (and not in a good way). I was that way at first, and then I saw that if no one was willing to call it what it was, it goes unchallenged.

Men have to fight for what they want, too, and no one faults them for it.

I think women need to learn to do the same. So long as we fight fairly, we shouldn't be ashamed to stand up for ourselves and more importantly, our daughters. That's why I tried to be even handed about the Palin insults. I think it's important not to play the victim card and to be fair. But I will never apologize for defending what I think is right. I'll listen to the arguments for the other side, but some things are pretty hard to defend.

I also think a lot of the problem is that many women don't want to be lumped in with the man-hating, excuse-making crowd who want a heaping helping of special privileges packaged up with their "equal rights". But I've never argued for that, and I'm tired of having to defend myself against bogus accusations. I think people say stupid things like that to try and make you shut up. And it works.

Sadly, I hear "boys will be boys" all the time from conservative women. I think that's insulting to men, but that's just one woman's opinion. It's not just girls or women who are damaged when we abandon our standards. I have two sons and a grandson. So I think about them, too, and the world they will inherit from us.

Posted by: Cassandra at June 11, 2009 07:32 PM

The Ten Top Reasons Dave Letterman Shouldn't Visit Alaska

10. Grizzlies can smell ‘dead meat' from miles away.

9. It's really difficult to walk back to shore from the deck of a fishing trawler 200 miles off the coast of Unalakleet.

8. Dave would be the only guy stupid enough to lick the flagpole in front to the Barrow post office in February.

7. 10,000,000 mosquitos would just love to perform fellatio on Dave, strapped naked to the float of a bush plane.

6. A man Dave's age would have a difficult time out-running a bullet from Sarah Palin's favorite moose rifle.

5. From the center of the Harding Ice Field no one can hear you scream.

4. Strands of silver hair sticking out of sled-dog poop make lousy Iditarod trail markers.

3. That pin-striped suit inside a crab pot at the bottom of Resurrection Bay, probably wouldn't keep the Dungeness away from Dave's genitals.

2. Fourteen year old polar bears have no sense of humor when it comes to performing kinky sex acts with some old bug-eyed dude from New York City.

1. Dave would have trouble getting a laugh when telling a Sarah Palin joke from the bottom of a crevasse on Mount Denali.

Posted by: Kaffir at June 11, 2009 07:32 PM

OMG :p

That was hysterical.

Posted by: Cassandra at June 11, 2009 07:34 PM

A bit off (I sure am...), but I was looking at comments in one of my favorite blogs recently where Kirstin Powers was being pretty severely attacked by conservatives. I haven't been back to that blog since. I guess I quietly read the comments and form a picture of who I think is behind the name and I was revolted when I was reading these attacks. On the plus side, I think seeing conservatives doing this weird sexist attack thing is rare, whereas with liberals it is the norm. I read KOS once and felt soiled afterwards.
The double standard angers me, though. Liberals announce their supreme court pick without mentioning her name, only her race and sex. How much more sexist and racist could you possibly be? They are quietly letting those of us who are hispanic women know that we are simply a sex and a race to them: don't get all uppity and think you have some merit of your own making.

Posted by: Carolynp at June 11, 2009 07:43 PM

Kaffir -

I forwarded your Top Ten List to Instapundit. It is the best response to date.

Boquisucio -

Thanks for the "Push-Back" idea, and address.

Posted by: MathMom at June 11, 2009 08:31 PM

well, i'm still mad about the Playboy "hate/love"
list of conservative women a couple of weeks ago; and don't like this kind of attack-mode being used on female public figures--not to mention the
fact that Sarah Palin is an elected official. Plus the fact that every few days in this country
another child or two or three becomes national news for getting taken, killed, abuses, etc.; too
brutal. Letterman did it on purpose, in my opinion, and I hope he is hounded out of a job this. The ass-bastard.

Posted by: Barbara at June 11, 2009 09:42 PM

"every few days in this country another child or two or three becomes"
a victim of violence. Just as women are demeaned every day in what passes for the music, entertainment and ad industries.

Consider raising a daughter in the current climate where every example and image of the modern female presented for public consumption is delivered by New York and Hollywood.

Is it any wonder that so many weak-willed individuals base their (lack of) appreciation for and conduct towards women on an MTV Spring Break Hook-up debauch fantasy.

Letterman? Well, as I suggested in another thread, good old Dave has been just slightly less relevant than Idi Amin DaDa these past 20+ years. Funny? No. Although Dave might just edge out Idi in the sick sense of what passes for humor among the Cosmo-Urban-Hip-Bi-coastal department... But just barely if at all.

NOTE: The personal opinions expressed here are from a card carrying NethanderthalsЯUS - Mess With My Daughter and 20 to Life is Worth It To Neuter Your Sorry Butt member and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of anyone living in or near HIP Urban Centers. Nor anyone unfamiliar with anatomy, field dressing their meat, or understanding that tendering respect is not based upon gender.

Posted by: bt-the resident-curmudgeon_hun at June 11, 2009 10:34 PM

"I'm about to make everyone mad again."

Everyone? Again?! Not hardly. It's wrong no matter who does it; political affiliation is irrelevant.

Regarding the slut definition, according to Wikipedia, it is "a pejorative term meaning an individual who is sexually promiscuous. The term is generally applied to women..." One of the (223!) Urban Dictionary definitions says it refers to "a woman with the morals of a man." I've been a slut (or whatever term you might prefer for a promiscuous male of the species) in my day, so far be it from me to hurl the epithet at anyone else.

Posted by: camojack at June 12, 2009 03:39 AM

I think, Camo, that I have a tendency to worry too much :)

I spend a fair amount of time trying to frame my arguments so that they will be understood. I don't mind at all if people disagree with me. But sometimes I write something and I can tell from the comments that a significant number of people think I was saying something that I didn't intend to say, and moreover that what I didn't think I was saying bothers them or makes them mad :p

I worry about being misunderstood a lot more than I worry about people disagreeing with something I've written. Misunderstandings tend to happen a lot whenever I write about any male/female cultural issue. That's not surprising because I'm not a man, and even though I try to think about how to best communicate what I'm thinking (and even about how it will actually be perceived by someone who's entire life is different than mine), at best I'm trying to put myself in someone else's shoes, as opposed to actually having walked in those shoes!

Anyway, that's where the "I'm about to make everyone mad again" came from.

I almost didn't publish this post b/c I really did think it might make people mad - people whose opinion is important to me. And I do care a lot about what my friends think. Sometimes I find myself thinking a lot about something, but I'm also aware that I'm sort of swimming against the tide of popular opinion. I genuinely don't want to push anyone's buttons, but if I think there's an important or interesting point to be made, I don't want to constantly second guess myself either.

Anyway, I am very much aware of how important Sarah Palin is to a lot of you and I respect that opinion. I think the Carrie Prejean brouhaha is another example like that. I just don't want people to think that I don't respect their opinions just because I may look at the same issue differently, or that I'm talking about them when in reality I was thinking about something I read somewhere else and didn't even link or refer to in my post.

It's not like I'm always right :p Often, writing is a way for me to think through an issue and it's your comments that help me see aspects I never thought of.

Anyway, I just thought that I should say 'thanks'. I don't do that enough.

Posted by: Cassandra at June 12, 2009 04:02 AM

Miss Prejean is so fired for not being photoshopped...er...photographed.

The article I read discussing her termination was really bizarre in that her manager, while being all sugary sweet harbored a mental backstabbing. She knew in her heart Prejean would be fired.

I think her manager (or whoever it was) should be Publicly Humiliated for a Thought Crime.

Whenever I read stuff like this, it validates my reasons for NOT having the One-Eyed Family Worship Center in our house.

Why yes, this is my half-way point through my first accounting class...I have one paper to write and then off I go with my book to a different cyber classroom to get more twisted logic.

I still have that silver stake...

Posted by: Cricket at June 12, 2009 11:16 AM

Hah!!! :)

I demand my props for not writing about her firing, Cricket :p

I think that, just as with everything else about Ms. Prejean, we are going to differ on this one. I had issues with her while the brouhaha (sorry Don!) was still in full frothing mode b/c she had already breached her contract not once, but three times by not disclosing those other photos, by allowing NOM to sign her up as a spokesperson w/out clearing that with the pageant as her contract clearly required, and by failing to show up for several public appearances.

I have read that since that time, she has failed to show for over 30 scheduled appearances.

In my book, that doesn't fly and they were completely within their rights to fire her. I wouldn't have waited as long as they did. But that's just me.

I have more to say about this but will keep my opinions to myself :p

Posted by: Cassandra at June 12, 2009 11:30 AM

Oh, I agree she should have been fired. The Donald gave her another chance by NOT stripping her of her crown because of what she said to the fainting Perez Hilton, but for her to go and act like a brat? Nup. That won't fly.

I wish her well, but the fact that she didn't follow through has earned her a rep for being difficult. She isn't a primadonna...yet.


Posted by: Cricket at June 12, 2009 12:13 PM

"...I genuinely don't want to push anyone's buttons..."

Can I get you to come push my daughter's Off button? School isn't *officially* out for another three hours, but last night alone was enough to make MH and I wonder about the wisdom of having a Verbal Exchange Student in the house....

Posted by: DL Sly at June 12, 2009 01:21 PM

Two things;
(1) If Letterman had made the same perverted "joke" about any of the women in my life I would have had him by the throat until he squeaked out two words - "I apologize."

(2) I don't think the final verdict is in on whether or not Prejean violated 1 or 30 or any of her contractual requirements. I will assume until proven wrong that she was fired for her religious views on same-sex marriage and refusing to sacrifice her religion on the altar of Playboy nudity. Interesting that the new Miss California hem and hawed before finally admitting she shares the same views as Prejean on this non-issue. I neither trust nor have faith in the credibility of those making the accusations against Prejean.

Posted by: vet66 at June 12, 2009 01:33 PM

I'm with the curmudgeonly hun. If someone had said that about one of my daughters in private, I would invade his personal space and give him the opportunity to take it back. If he didn't, I would fuck him up. If someone said that about one of my daughters in public, I would simply fuck him up at the first opportunity.

I guess that would be the American version of an honor killing, huh?

Posted by: Chris at June 13, 2009 08:47 AM

PO'd Alaska Dad + candyassed pervert who insults wife and daughter(s) = Pervert with a large security contingent, secure sleeping quarters and the ability to sleep with one eye open.

I don't know, but there is a line that can be/has been crossed where it's not humor, just crude. And crude people need a smackdown to clear their head and allow them to re-evaluate their position. Of course, it would all be done with the utmost of finess and control....like this:


Posted by: kbob deep in the heart of TEXAS!!! at June 13, 2009 10:19 AM

You're conflating two distinct points.

Michelle Obama is much more than just "family" of a politican; she is a public figure herself, since she is First Lady and did much campaigning where she made lots of controversial public statements.

She is a perfectly acceptable target.

The children of public figures are not. Ever.

This distinction is one of the conditions for calling ourselves civilized.

If you *dislike* the criticisms made of the First Lady, that is your right, but that is a separate discussion that turns on a different set of decency standards.

Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at June 14, 2009 02:08 PM


If the First Lady makes a political statement, that is fair game.

On the other hand, the kind of thing I objected to (saying she is ugly, has a fish mouth, and looks like a bunch of horny sofas ejaculated on her) is personal viciousness of the kind I would have been extremely offended by if it had been aimed at Laura Bush. I'm not about to apply a double standard just because there's a democrat in the Oval Office.

There is no reason - no reason whatsoever - for saying ugly and nasty things like that. It's not political criticism, and it's not based on anything she's done. It's just tacky.

Posted by: Cassandra at June 14, 2009 07:22 PM

Anyway, I just thought that I should say 'thanks'. I don't do that enough.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 12, 2009 04:02 AM

I suspect that many of us (myself included, of course) don't say thank you often enough...but no need to thank me; I derive a great deal of pleasure from you/your blog.

Posted by: camojack at June 15, 2009 04:06 AM

> I don't think children or family members of politicians are EVER appropriate fare for nasty partisan sniping.

It's funny, I'm not sure exactly what it is, but this puts me in mind of Vaughan Meader's First Family.

That made fun of the Kennedy's, and did so very well... but the difference was the spirit of it. The modern sort of thing is just so blatantly mean-spirited. As you call it, "nasty partisan sniping". They aren't making fun of someone just to keep them down to earth, they really and truly wish them pain.

Posted by: O Bloody Hell at June 15, 2009 06:41 AM

> We all know there's no such thing as a male slut. We don't even have a word for that.

Actually, Cass, there are any number of words:

Lothario comes to mind. A quick check on that term leads one to gigolo, lecher, philanderer, rake, seducer, skirt chaser...

Granted -- none have the negative cachet that "slut" does, but those are all negative terms for a "male slut". And I believe women apply the term "slut" far more viciously and even unwarrantedly than men do, especially amongst themselves (I can't be certain of that, but that's the impression I've gotten -- tell me it's wrong).

Frankly, though, until women as a group get their s*** together and stop rewarding men for screwing around, my heart's not going to bleed overmuch on the difference.

Posted by: OBloodyhell at June 15, 2009 07:18 AM

None of those words, as you point out, has the same meaning as "slut", and furthermore they are not looked upon the same way.

As far as women using the term, I've spent my entire life in the company of women (and women speak more frankly when men aren't around). Not just women who were my friends, but large groups of women, many of whom I barely know.

I've rarely heard the term used.

Posted by: Cassandra at June 15, 2009 07:37 AM

> None of those words, as you point out, has the same meaning as "slut", and furthermore they are not looked upon the same way.

They all have exactly the same meaning Cass, just not the same level of social disapproval. And, how they are looked upon depends entirely on the company. For the most part, it is still negative, unless your company is horny frat boys.

> I've rarely heard the term used.

I suspect you hang out with an unusual class of women. I somewhat doubt if you would hang out with women who did use the term. And that speaks well of you, I say.

I've heard enough women talking when they did not realize someone could overhear to know that there's a lot more sniping at other females in a typical female conversation than a typical male conversation (of either males or females).

Posted by: Just Us Pigs at June 16, 2009 01:54 PM