In case there was any doubt, Sarah Palin is bat shit crazy.

[deep]

Because she got knocked up. Not because she chose to keep the child.

I presume you mean pregnant?

if she did not choose to keep the child no one would know she was ever pregnant

so it is because she chose to keep the child.

 

[2861U2]

Clearly an exaggeration, but obviously some things aren't OK, but others are. If you want to have a discussion about taste, then fine, and I agree it wasn't the most tasteful of jokes - but to demand that he is fired, or whatever the massive overreaction has been, especially post-apology, is silly.

There has been some over-reaction, sure. I can't speak for others, but I never called for Letterman to be fired, and once he apologized (the second time, not the phony first apology) then I considered the incident over and done with.

I'm sure in comedy clubs across the country there have been much, much worse things said about the Palins and others. But when you're on a nationally televised show with a responsibility to advertisers, I think Letterman was showing bad judgment in telling the joke- a joke that was a) tasteless and offensive, b) confusing, by his own admission, and c) in my opinion, not a funny joke at all, no matter who the subjects were. Like I said, Johnny Carson never would have told that joke.

 

[Diemen]

and c) in my opinion, not a funny joke at all, no matter who the subjects were.

Well, that's never stopped Letterman before.

 

[deep]

c) in my opinion, not a funny joke at all, no matter who the subjects were. Like I said, Johnny Carson never would have told that joke.

I actually rewrote the joke with different subjects to see if it changed my opinion

here is what I came up with

a. The Obama's went to the ball game, during the 7th inning stretch A-Rod knocked up Michele.

b, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi went to the ball game, during the 7th inning stretch A-Rod knocked up Pelosi.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think he showed extremely poor taste.

That's all I think too-nothing more, nothing less. Not the first time for comedians, not the last. I don't think he has a pattern of going that "far" as someone like Imus might, but he's past my bedtime now so I haven't watched him for quite a while and don't record it anymore. Whatever anyone else thinks about what he said really isn't worth my time or anger, I'm not going to waste time labeling them or getting all bent out of shape about it. Make jokes about things Sarah Palin has said or done, things that matter and are relevant and leave her kids out if it-that's just my personal preference. If Governor Palin runs again in 2012 things will take care of themselves.

Tuesday afternoon's "Fire David Letterman" rally proved to be a failure, as it drew more press than activists, CNN reports:

A crowd of 15 protesters upset with the late night comic held signs and occasionally shouted as they stood across the street from Letterman's studio.


But they were often hidden from view by the more than 35 members of the media there to cover the protest, and out-shouted by a few very vocal counter-protesters.

New York Magazine videographer Jonah Green was one of those press members, and he captured a disturbing video of several of those protesters in hate-filled rants against the CBS "Late Show" host.

Among the more alarming lines of attack -- particularly given that the rally was held because Letterman supposedly made a joke about Sarah Palin's teenage daughter Willow -- was that Letterman's son Harry was born out of wedlock (he recently wed Regina Lasko after dating for over a decade).

"Should we talk about his son?" one protester asked Green. "I believe his son was born out of wedlock. I believe there's a term for that."

"Is someone making jokes about his child?" asked another. "Especially, you know, when he had a daughter out of wedlock himself" (he didn't; 5-year-old Harry is his only child).

"How dare he?" asked yet a third, the most offensive of all. "When he has a bastard son, and a slut for a wife" (Letterman's wife Lasko has kept a notoriously low profile).

It should be noted that Sarah Palin's teenage daughter Bristol gave birth to baby Tripp (out-of-wedlock) in December and broke up with the baby's father, Levi Johnston, in March.

Other conservative talking points thrown around at the rally included, "Close the borders!" and "I only watch Fox News," as well as the general sentiment that Jay Leno is a better host than Letterman .

 

[diamond]

It's been an educational thread exposing each poster's biased opinions.

 

[Irvine511]

It's been an educational thread exposing each poster's biased opinions.

you've exposed the cowards and hypocrites brilliantly, as per usual.

thank you for your service.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

It's like an after school special

Or a very special episode

 

[diamond]

and a choir of jaded cynics.

<>

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I like baseball

 

[diamond]

This could become a trend:

Olive Garden pulls Letterman ads
Tagsavid Letterman Back to top Listen Print Comment Email Recommend Subscribe By ANDY BARR |

CBS late night comic David Letterman.
Photo: AP

Following a week of back and forth between CBS late night comic David Letterman and Sarah Palin over a crude joke he told about the Alaska Republican governor’s daughter, the Olive Garden restaurant says it is cancelling all of its scheduled ads on Letterman’s “Late Show” for the rest of the year.


In an email to a Letterman critic obtained by POLITICO, a spokeswoman for the Italian restaurant chain wrote that “there will be no more Olive Garden ads scheduled for ‘The Late Show’ with David Letterman in this year's broadcast schedule,” citing the talk show host’s “inappropriate comments.”


“We apologize that Mr. Letterman’s mistake, which was not consistent with our standards and values, left you with a bad impression of Olive Garden,” wrote Sherri Bruen, the company’s guest relations manager.


Bruen said the company “screens network television programs whenever possible,” but explained that “telecasts, such as ‘The Late Show’ with David Letterman, are taped on a daily basis, preventing advertisers from reviewing the content prior to airing.”


A spokesman for the company confirmed Thursday that for now it has cancelled all its remaining scheduled ads on the CBS program for the rest of the year.


Conservative radio host John Ziegler, who previously interviewed Palin for his film “Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted,” organized a lightly attended protest Tuesday outside the “Late Show” studio.


Ziegler has listed contact information for 14 advertisers on Letterman’s show, including Olive Garden, on his website dedicated to the comedian’s firing. He called the news an “obvious victory” but vowed to continue “our quest for some sense of accountability for Letterman in this matter.”


Letterman has apologized for his comment last week about Palin’s daughter getting “knocked up by Alex Rodriguez” during the governor’s recent visit to a Yankees baseball game. Palin attended the game as part of a trip to New York.


“I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception,” Letterman said. “And since it was a joke I told, I feel that I need to do the right thing here and apologize for having told that joke.”


After repeatedly blasting the late night comic in statements and interviews last week, Palin accepted Letterman’s apology on Tuesday.


“Letterman certainly has the right to ‘joke’ about whatever he wants to, and thankfully we have the right to express our reaction,” she said in a statement.



Olive Garden pulls Letterman ads - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

 

[Irvine511]

and a choir of jaded cynics.

diamond: breaking hearts and necks since May 2002.

 

[joyfulgirl]

This could become a trend:

so could this:

As Furor Over Palin Joke Rages, Letterman Rises in the Ratings - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[diamond]

diamond: breaking hearts and necks since May 2002.

db9:the counter weight of reason in FYM.




Samson vs The Philistines

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Your humility is overwhelming

 

[BVS]

This could become a trend:

organized a lightly attended protest

Yeah, you're probably right.

 

[diamond]

Your humility is overwhelming

I know, and to think that some scholars claim Job had it tough.

 

[purpleoscar]

I think it's better to say that the difference between liberalism and conservativism is that the former largely operates in a land of make believe and fantasy, of nice but ultimately unrealistic ideas, and the latter sees the world as it really is and tries to make gradual, subtle and sensible improvements to citizens' and families' everyday lives that ultimately work better than what the liberal dreamers dream up. (I exclude revolutionary neo-cons such as Bush/Cheney from my definition of conservatism.) Liberals (as properly defined) tend to go for revolutionary changes, conservatives (as properly defined) are always and everywhere sceptical of revolutionary change.

I agree with much of this. I would add that conservatives believe that there is a huge fountain of history that should be looked at before moving in revolutionary directions. Liberals like to push at it all the time. An example you can see is with Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle had typical views of women based on the period of time he was living in but Plato was more idealistic and felt women could be leaders. Plato was right about women but wrong about many other ideas. (Eg. Believing philosopher kings being absolute and that they should give their wealth away at the same time). Aristotle looked more at nature and results and Plato looked at what he "thought" was the best arrangement for society. The debate is based on "how much do we really know about human nature?"

If liberals want to convince the public to go their way then they have to use scientific methods to prove their case before the public does away with what they are used to. Small experiments and changes (that can be reversed) are preferrable to large upheavals.

Bush was radical with preemptive strikes and interfering in Iraq. If Iraq falls apart and people continue to prefer living with a dictator then those facts will counter Bush's assertions that all people throughout the world desire freedom. Of course Bush is hoping he'll be proven correct in the long run.

 

[yolland]

An example you can see is with Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle had typical views of women based on the period of time he was living in but Plato was more idealistic and felt women could be leaders. Plato was right about women but wrong about many other ideas. (Eg. Believing philosopher kings being absolute and that they should give their wealth away at the same time). Aristotle looked more at nature and results and Plato looked at what he "thought" was the best arrangement for society.

Of course, if Plato was correct about women's capabilities and Aristotle was wrong, then one implication of this is that Aristotle was not, in fact, deriving all his convictions from careful observation of nature as he liked to believe, but was also looking in nature for confirmation of what he wanted to be true.

 

[BVS]

If liberals want to convince the public to go their way then they have to use scientific methods to prove their case before the public does away with what they are used to. Small experiments and changes (that can be reversed) are preferrable to large upheavals.

Yeah, we should have used science before we let women vote, freed them black folk and let them marry our white women.

Bush was radical with preemptive strikes and interfering in Iraq. If Iraq falls apart and people continue to prefer living with a dictator then those facts will counter Bush's assertions that all people throughout the world desire freedom. Of course Bush is hoping he'll be proven correct in the long run.

How neo-con of you...

 

[martha]

If liberals want to convince the public to go their way then they have to use scientific methods to prove their case before the public does away with what they are used to. Small experiments and changes (that can be reversed) are preferrable to large upheavals.

Give us some examples of how conservatives have used scientific methods to make their case. Please.

 

[purpleoscar]

Of course, if Plato was correct about women's capabilities and Aristotle was wrong, then one implication of this is that Aristotle was not, in fact, deriving all his convictions from careful observation of nature as he liked to believe, but was also looking in nature for confirmation of what he wanted to be true.

Well I wouldn't look at Aristotle with quite a modern lens as that. The question is whether our understanding of nature is correct or not. Nobody understands the universe completely and absolutely. Aristotle didn't have a scientific method to work off of but at least Plato and Aristotle were a good start. Whether he wanted women to be inferior I don't think is what scholars would view it as. Women running countries and slavery being abolished was very avant garde for 300 years before Christ. Aristotle wrote eloquently about a woman's role in the family and how important that was (and still is when chosen as opposed to being forced). I would say that Aristotle had a delusion which would be more appropriate. Because none of us have absolute knowledge we are deluded in degrees.

On the other hand Plato's idealism of the perfect state looked like an ancient version of communism where babies are taken from the womb and sent away from the mother to be nursed by other lactating women to break the familial bonds. Most people (including liberals) would support mostly a basic family especially with all the child murderers and sex perverts out there that would have an easier time with a government/family situation to prey on. Biological parents or even permanent guardians would have a motivation to protect their kids and would succeed better than bureaucrats.

So in the end the left and right duality have some purpose in checking each other to keep stability. This is especially important since humans are creatures of habit and have trouble with change. I don't think anybody in N. America would enjoy having the equivalent of the Cultural Revolution every generation. The left and the right both feel they are scientific when it comes to human relations but the scientific method (when done properly) is the only thing we know that can change minds of the public towards improvement because when there is a way to measure that improvement convincingly the public follows eventually.

 

[BVS]

but the scientific method (when done properly) is the only thing we know that can change minds of the public towards improvement because when there is a way to measure that improvement convincingly the public follows eventually.

False. You could show some people all the science in the world and they aren't going to change their minds because it will interfere with their status quo. You see it everyday in here.

 

[purpleoscar]

Give us some examples of how conservatives have used scientific methods to make their case. Please.

Throughout the twentieth century economists felt more and more that the government should be involved in markets (including communism). The right understood how concentrated power corrupts because there is a huge history of that happening before. They understood how the price system worked when there was competition and it was always better than a fixed pricing system. They understood that personal self-interest can be used to raise capital to match with new technologies. When put together there was the largest improvement in the standard of living ever. Communism couldn't keep up no matter how "intellectual" they thought they were. Communism looked more like an industrialized version of feudalism. Instead of aristocrats with economic license (irregardless of effort) we got totalitarian bureaucrats with economic license. Entitlements require another class of people who pay for them but don't receive them.

When it comes to religion conservatives could see how it could be a force to teach the population self-discipline. The problem though was that much of this relates to philosophy as opposed to a scientific view of the universe that was provable. In fact the problem we have now is that people abandoned most religions (because they are scientifically unproven or plainly proven wrong on their view of the origin of the universe and our place in it) but where is a secular code of conduct that all people can agree on to create self-discipline? This is why many people revert to hedonism, narcissism, nihlism, or they continue traditional religions to get what they feel they need.

Gay marriage is an area that conservatives will probably lose on in the long run. In Canada it's recently been legalized and most people move on with their lives and the sky hasn't fallen and psychological peer-reviewed studies don't show any lack of benefit children receive from being raised by homosexuals. As long as conservatives don't have convincing scientific evidence they will tire out and give up on the fight. Religious fake science studies aren't convincing enough in the long run. I mean it's possible for adults to tolerate even if they don't accept, and each religious community has their own choice on who they include or exclude much like a club. You could loosely call it 'Burkean conservative' because of Edmund Burke's idea of multiplicity and people with different lifestyles in society can co-exist as long as their personal freedom's didn't clash with each other (in which a law system would be needed).

Politics is almost like a pendulum where it swings a little too far one way then it gets pulled back the other way and vice versa. Conservatives often conserve what used to be called liberal.

 

[anitram]

That scientific method is sure doing wonders for conservative creationists. We've got them convinced!!

 

[purpleoscar]

False. You could show some people all the science in the world and they aren't going to change their minds because it will interfere with their status quo. You see it everyday in here.

That scientific method is sure doing wonders for conservative creationists. We've got them convinced!!

It takes a long time and many generations for some changes to happen. Some people will never change but they also die. New generations seem to have a habit of challenging things and charting new paths. Democracy was eliminated because of Phillip of Macedon and you would think it could never comeback again and many centuries past before it did but most importantly it did. Over the centuries you can see many changes have occurred despite enormous struggles.

Of course some scientific opinions are bunk, outdated or have lousy evidence so a constant repeat of evidence and competition of ideas will be inevitable. Look at eugenics, phrenology, creationism, Aristotle's Organon, Einstein vs. Newton, etc.

There are some who believe dinosaurs and humans lived together and that the biblical idea of how the earth and sky are made up is correct. These are not the main points of view but a vocal fringe. They don't believe in evolution because the evolutionary theory has flaws but they can't replace evolution because their point of view has even more holes. (More like just one big hole). As evolutionary evidence piles up it becomes harder and harder to disagree. Creationists don't have anything as good as carbon dating and if they don't counter with good scientific evidence it will be hard for most people to take them seriously.

I don't think it's important to convince all people of a particular point of view all the time. There is a slow steady change if you are willing to see it.

 

[anitram]

It takes a long time and many generations for some changes to happen.

Yes and my point again is that if we waited for conservatives on many issues of human rights, we'd still be waiting.

I don't think that it is right to say to a person to wait to be treated like an equal citizen in his or her nation. And this is the essential result of your slow and steady wins the race argument. Sometimes, people can't afford to wait and shouldn't be made to wait.

 

[purpleoscar]

Yes and my point again is that if we waited for conservatives on many issues of human rights, we'd still be waiting.

I don't think that it is right to say to a person to wait to be treated like an equal citizen in his or her nation. And this is the essential result of your slow and steady wins the race argument. Sometimes, people can't afford to wait and shouldn't be made to wait.

I find that taking a long time actually upholds what makes the most sense precisely because it often takes a long time to prove something as truthful. Communists thought they were scientific and they didn't want to wait. Nationalist Socialists didn't want to wait either.

There once was a time when some men in ancient Rome would actually kill their wives as punishment for not having a baby boy, and gladiatoral games were accepted entertainment. I wish that didn't happen but Rome fell slowly. Humans have habits and they move slowly. It's just the way humans work. If we had a liberal dictator (contradiction in words) passing legislation without a congress, even if it were a benign dictator, the temptation for corruption would be so enormous that you couldn't expect the next generation of dictators to follow exactly in the same spirit of empathy and good intentions. Also some good intentions lead to unwanted and unexpected results. If someone feels that absolute equality is possible and they want to experiment so they kill the king and replace him with a "dictatorship of the proletariat" how do we reverse it when it appears to be even more tyrannical? More bloody revolution? At least with the American revolution they created a system that didn't require more bloodshed to change the government every term.

The reality is that hard work is needed in politics and a story thread of evidence over time is more convincing than some guy saying "World pollution credits are necessary to save the planet. Take my word for it!" Well keep piling on the studies and over generations and people will come around. Or they won't because the studies suck. The hard work is proving things are true.

 

[anitram]

I find that taking a long time actually upholds what makes the most sense precisely because it often takes a long time to prove something as truthful.

Yeah, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks should have patiently waited for the racists to catch on. Hey, in a generation or two, they'd have finally got their seats at the front of the bus, so no biggie.

 

[BVS]

Yeah, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks should have patiently waited for the racists to catch on. Hey, in a generation or two, they'd have finally got their seats at the front of the bus, so no biggie.

I know right, I wish someone would have told them if you wait the racist will eventually come around and then the conservatives will say it's OK.