Archive for Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Conservatives seek victim role

June 17, 2009

Advertisement

A reader wants to know why I didn’t mention what David Letterman said.

John, from Monroe, Wash., wrote in response to a recent column on the shooting at the Holocaust Museum in Washington. I argued that high-profile media figures are filling the Zeitgeist with comments hateful of and demeaning to such marginalized minorities as Jews, blacks, Muslims and gays and that this validates people like accused shooter James von Brunn. I quoted a few examples.

John’s response: “Why no mention of David Letterman in the name of and license of comedy defaming Sarah Palin’s ... daughter with a bad joke about being ‘knocked up’ by Alex Rodriguez ...?”

In other words, John feels a column on racial and cultural hatred is incomplete because it fails to mention the “hatred” Letterman showed conservatives when he made his controversial joke about Sarah Palin’s daughter. I wish John was alone, but the column produced a number of responses like his. And the blogosphere is vibrating with the same argument: Letterman’s joke represents bigotry against an oppressed minority: i.e., conservatives.

Here, I suppose I’m obligated to render a verdict on the joke, so let me just say: I’m a fan of Letterman’s caustic humor and I believe the rules are different for comedians, that funny covers a multitude of sins, that a good comic can get away with saying things you and I could not.

But the joke was awful. As I’ve said before, the governor’s daughter is a teenager and did not seek the public eye. For those reasons, the issue of her sexuality — she is an unwed mother — should be treated deferentially when it is broached at all. Her mom had the right — the “duty” — to stick up for her and demand the apology Letterman delivered on Monday.

Where I part company with John is on his contention that Letterman’s joke belongs in a compendium that includes Jeremiah Wright complaining about “them Jews” and Tim Hardaway saying, “I hate gay people.” If conservatives were ever gassed or beaten because of what they are, I must have missed it.

But some conservatives admit to no such distinction. They see themselves not as adherents to a political ideology but as a besieged minority, which speaks volumes about the deterioration of that ideology since the days of Ronald Reagan. I mean, I often disagreed with the 40th president, but at least I understood him, at least he articulated an intellectually coherent vision: small government, fiscal restraint, foreign policy pragmatism.

By contrast, modern conservatism is defined by an Alice-through-the-looking-glass incoherence: small government except when it is growing larger than ever, fiscal restraint except when we are spending like Michael Jackson in a Disney gift shop, foreign policy pragmatism except when we are trying to transform the Middle East.

Indeed, sometimes it feels as if it is no longer defined by principles at all, nor by energy and ideas, but rather, by a limitless ability to feel put upon and slighted. To be a conservative these days is, or so they would have you believe, like being black in Birmingham in 1952. It is to be the victim of media, culture and law that hate you just for being.

Your first thought is to reason them out of it, but it is notoriously hard to reason people out of victimology because it: a) feels good, b) demands deference, c) relieves them of any responsibility for their own fouled-up condition. Victimology is as addictive as crack — and as mentally damaging.

For proof, look no further than a man who thinks David Letterman belongs on a list of homophobes, anti-Semites and bigots “because he made a joke about Sarah Palin’s daughter.” It is an asinine argument but I guess it makes sense to him. After all, he’s a conservative.

And nobody knows the trouble they’ve seen.

Comments

llama726 5 years, 11 months ago

No, Tom, he's pointing out that you desperately pretend to be an abused minority.

sandersen 5 years, 11 months ago

Nancy-

No, he is not. Exactly the opposite. He is calling out those whom are propagating the impression that the aforementioned group of individuals is enduring persecution and hardship.

Simply disagreeing with an ideology is not persecution. We all have the right to believe as we choose, so long as it is not injurious to another. Churches are not being padlocked, "white christian conservatives" are not being publicly flogged, beaten or persecuted. You have as much right as a "white christian conservative" to live life and find happiness as anyone in our great nation. There is no military or governmental effort to restrict your ability to believe or worship as you choose, hence no need for the ludicrous victim stance. No one is oppressing you.

That is the point of the collumn.

jaywalker 5 years, 11 months ago

"but it is notoriously hard to reason people out of victimology"

And Pitts' oughta know.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Is Leonard Pitts Jr. seriously writing about letting go of a victim mentality? WOW!

Maybe he needs to practice what he preaches.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

sandersen... "Churches are not being padlocked,'white christian conservatives' are not being publicly flogged, beaten or persecuted."

Did you see the persecution of some religious groups after Prop 8, and the persecution?

Plus, I think the whole idea of comparative victimhood is ridiculous. Simply because African-Americans may have suffered more historically than Native Americans (American Indians) does not prove anything. Both were victims. One group doesn't have to be more of a victim in order to be a victim.

Trying to assassinate the character of anyone who disagrees with your political beliefs is an attack. They are still a victim, even if the attack isn't physical.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 11 months ago

Last month, the O'dude's Justice Department winked at Black Panthers who intimidated voters.

"Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews. The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms. Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?feat=home_cube_position1&

How safe do you feel now?

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Were people who suffered because of McCarthyism victims? What about the Hollywood blacklist that existed at the time. Those people were physical victims, so I guess they weren't victims, right?

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Correction: "Those people were (not) physical victims..."

storm 5 years, 11 months ago

My bad, I thought Letterman's joke was about Alex.

disgustedagain 5 years, 11 months ago

"Pitts is a racist and a hater who dwells on whites claiming to be the victim."

Wow. Ludicrous overstated baloney of the day. And a perfect illustration of classic projection. So weird how many white conservatives are screaming racist lately because they were voted out and are currently considered a failing political group.

sandersen 5 years, 11 months ago

No one should be disallowed from believing/worshipping/living as they choose, as long as it is not injurious to others. I have yet to see where, as Nancy put it, "white christian conservatives" were being persecuted or made into a minority. There is no standard that can be shown nationwide that proves merit of this charge. Are you implying there is a blacklist of all "white christian conservatives"? That you have been intimidated by members of the military or government? That you have been told you have no right to worship or believe as you choose?

I have no right to tell you how to live, who to love or marry, what job you have the right to have or if you are allowed to state your beliefs to other adults at your job. The same should hold for all adult human beings in this country, and indeed in our world.

The fear-mongering is so ridiculous, but it is, at its very core, extremely effective at congealing the calm, logical thought necessary to create innovative solutions to ease rather than flame the discords of human existence.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

The reason why Pitts is defending and is so upset that some conservatives are using the victim card is because he wants a monopoly on victimhood.

If conservatives start usurping the victimhood idea, then the liberals will have no other political platform on which to stand. This is the real reason he is so vigorously defending his sole right to claim victimhood, he wouldn't know what to do without it.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Sandersen…

So I guess you don’t want to talk about the persecution of some religious groups after Prop 8 failed?

Also, it looks like you want to dodge the issue of comparative victimhood, and whether character assignation is an attack.

You can dodge if you want.

grammaddy 5 years, 11 months ago

Poor Nancy-Tom is just a victim all the way around.

sinverguenza 5 years, 11 months ago

Satirical -

Don't you mean after Prop 8 succeeded? Because that's what happened.

sinverguenza 5 years, 11 months ago

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

"Plus, I think the whole idea of comparative victimhood is ridiculous."

And that's a good point if you remember.

tolawdjk 5 years, 11 months ago

Dear conservatives:

What is it that we want to do?

Push forward with our core beliefs of fiscal restraint, limited government, andstrong national defense?

Or continue with a "he said/she said", ankle biting, name calling, tattle-tale fest on who is the most "oppressed"?

So Letterman made a joke. So the F what? He's a comedian who's views apparently don't mesh with ours...its to be expected. Palin should have voiced strong opposition to what he said, pointed out that it was in incredibly bad taste -and- that he obviously failed to do proper research because it was the -other- daughter that was in town. And then moved the frack on because there are more pressing matters facing the nation right now.

If Palin wants my vote she should get her rear -back- to Alaska and take care of the job she was elected for. This defacto running for 2012 isn't accomplishing -jack- right now. The democrats are in power right now and they will hang themselves with their own rope with or without her help. Alaska, however, needs to be governed...there isn't anyone else in that job. Show me what you can do there rather than getting into a pissing match because you were across the country at a frickin Yankee's game on someone else's dime and time.

If Conservatives want the job back, they need to act like Conservatives and not my three year olds. I gaurentee that the next Republican or Conservative President will -not- be one of the yahoo's that is getting face time right now because if you are getting face time right now it is because you are either a) not doing the job you were elected for or b) part of the old gaurd of poopheads that got us into the PR nightmare we are in currently.

Take a fricken year off already. Do the damn job you were elected for. Let the current Administration hang themselves. And most importantly, give the American public a damn break!

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

Sati, conservatives have indeed already usurped the victim card. Check out bearded-gnomes' recent blog about the poor, poor teacher who just may have been fired(!) for being conservative. Talk about your conservative victim - and local too! Or read any of Tom's posts about how mistreated conservatives are by the biased liberal media.

However, the big difference between other groups Pitts has written about in the past and conservatives is that these others truly have been victims to beatings, gassings, firings, housing and employment discrimination, etc... Conservatives have experienced none of this. They just find themselves for the first time in a long time on the short end of the political stick, and they want to blame someone other than themselves for their current shortcomings.

Pitts put it quite well: "If conservatives were ever gassed or beaten because of what they are, I must have missed it."

Spot on Leonard.

feeble 5 years, 11 months ago

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Were people who suffered because of McCarthyism victims? What about the Hollywood blacklist that existed at the time. Those people were physical victims, so I guess they weren't victims, right?

Uh, what point are you trying to make here? Joe McCarthy was a Republican Senator from Wisconsin who attacked left-of-center opponents by claiming they were communist, which is basically the MO of the current Republican Party.

BigAl 5 years, 11 months ago

I agree 100% with tolawdjk. On O'Reilly last night, Dennis Miller said that we are jumping on every little thing that anyone says and blowing it way out of proportion. Both dems and repubs. It is time to stop this nonsense. FOX news is constantly throwing the ex Miss California and Joe the Plumber at us. Why? What is it that they do that deserves national attention? Their 15 minutes should have been up a long time ago. Letterman's joke should have been mentioned but again, let it go. It simply isn't important and doesn't deserve all of the air time it is getting. This 24/7 news coverage isn't all good. All of these cable channels with their constant battering of people promotes hate and divisiveness. According to people like Sean Hannity & Rush Limbaugh, every democrat is terrible and according to Keith Olbermann all republicans are bad. Simply not true.

FOX News and MSNBC are promoting this and it really should stop.

gogoplata 5 years, 11 months ago

The problem is that a lot of Republicans call themselves conservative who are not really all that conservative. There are a lot of big government, pro war republicans who think they are conservative.

sandersen 5 years, 11 months ago

satirical-

"So I guess you don’t want to talk about the persecution of some religious groups after Prop 8 failed?"

As I have stated many times, indeed in the very post you are attempting to refute....

"No one should be disallowed from believing/worshipping/living as they choose, as long as it is not injurious to others."

and...

"I have no right to tell you how to live, who to love or marry, what job you have the right to have or if you are allowed to state your beliefs to other adults at your job. The same should hold for all adult human beings in this country, and indeed in our world."

The legislation you are referencing goes against the principles of both. Violence and destruction are always the wrong answer to our differences as humans. However, there is still no proof or widespread standard of the persecution of "white christian conservatives". I will not tell you what to believe or who to marry, as it has no effect on my life, on what I choose to espouse as a belief system or on whom I choose to love or marry.

I am sure it is too much to expect others with differing views to do the same.

bankboy119 5 years, 11 months ago

Sanderson,

"There is no military or governmental effort to restrict your ability to believe or worship as you choose..."

"I have yet to see where, as Nancy put it, “white christian conservatives” were being persecuted or made into a minority."

http://internetscofflaw.com/2009/05/29/san-diego-suppresses-prayer-meetings/

The county is backing down now that this received national attention.

As for being the minority...just look at the changing demographics. In some areas whites are the minority.

tolawdjk 5 years, 11 months ago

You didn't blink.

You didn't miss it.

Bush wasn't a conservative.

History will debate and judge if Bush was the worst President in history. However, I will say it is my belief that Bush was the worst Republican President in history.

He and his administration has did more damage than I ever thought possible. The govt was bigger when he left, the debt was bigger, our borders were no more secure (possibly even less so), -and- he had created a situation whereby the collective national reaction was soo far in opposition to his position that the country has no where to go -but- unstability.

And worse, it (the nation) is definately not going to be repaired by 2010, most likely not by 2012 either. Oh sure, the "republican party" will tout that a big change is coming in 2010, that the current batch of knuckleheads will be out on the curb like so much trash.

So the hell what?

There will just be a new batch of the same skin of "republicans" as we had two years ago in their place and the Nation won't be any better off.

sandersen 5 years, 11 months ago

Nancy-

Gee, tell me you are not attempting to let that fly....

We don't really have to start pulling out quotes from Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter or a whole slew of their counterparts, do we?

I guess only those on one side of the aisle are required to have a sense of humor...

Left_handed 5 years, 11 months ago

Bush couldn't stoop low enough to descend below the bar lowered by Jimmah Cartah as the worst president in history.

tolawdjk 5 years, 11 months ago

@Tom:

"BigAl, you big loveable lug you, your angle doesn't stack up. If a conservative (if you can find one) entertainment giant had said something equivalent about Biden's or Obama's daughter(s), they'd be unemployed as we sit here and post. They'd have endured about 72 hours of a major sh*t storm from elite liberal media/entertainment and would've been summarily fired."

So the frack what? So there are news sources out there that are blatently and unabashedly liberal. Who the hell cares.

Do they change your opinion? Do they change Soros's opinion? Does the ghost of Reagan rise from teh grave and say "You know what? They are right!"

That stuff exists because people like you let it exist. They don't say it because they think they are going to magically change people on the fence's opinions on something, they say it because it gets people like you red in the face pissed and gives Rush more fuel to give them more fuel.

It pays thier bills and puts gas in the Bentley.

The American public has the attention span of a fruit fly and the election cycle doesn't start for 2 more years. Three months from now it will be forgotten.

Tom, you are part of the problem, and not the cure.

sandersen 5 years, 11 months ago

bankboy119-

An isolated instance does not meet the burden of proof for widespread persecution.

"As for being the minority…just look at the changing demographics. In some areas whites are the minority."

So what.

We are fellow citizens of a great nation. And as I have stated before, being homogenous is boring as hell. Are, perhaps, some who have been for so very long the majority, frightened that their intolerance and inability to allow others to believe and live differently will inherently cause difficulties for them in the future? I think that very fear is what is driving so many currently on the "white/christian persecution" bandwagon.

We do not all have to agree on every point to peacefully coexist. We do, however, have to attempt, in good faith, to allow others to live or believe in a different fashion than ourselves without restriction, so long as it is not injurious to others.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 11 months ago

Gerald Walpin is a victim.

"Let’s unwind the timeline a bit to test this new allegation. Walpin pressed hard to prosecute Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson for defrauding the government over more than $400,000 in community service grants. Johnson, an Obama supporter, got a deal from the White House that allowed him to manage federal funds again and avoid paying back at least half of the grant money he used illegally. The White House cut Walpin out of those negotiations, and Walpin went to Congress about it. At that point, the White House called Walpin and told him he had an hour to resign or be fired. Now, if the White House thought that Walpin was somehow incapacitated or disoriented, why bother to make that call at all? In fact, wouldn’t an employer with an ounce of empathy send the employee to a physician for diagnosis first? Even without the empathy, the proper course would have been to address the issue with Congress first instead of making an intimidation attempt to someone the White House now paints as all but senile." http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/17/obama-playing-hardball-on-walpin-as-key-dem-calls-foul/

bankboy119 5 years, 11 months ago

Sanderson,

I don't believe this is the time, nor the place, to go through case by case every instance of persecution based on political ideology conservative or otherwise.

Two more instances though off the top of my head are Carrie Prejean getting a 0 on one of her scores by Perez Hilton in the Miss America pageant because of her answer in opposition of gay marriage and the backlash that occurred against her from the public because of it and the ongoing case about the teacher being let go because of his conservative stance right at LHS. If the teacher was preaching in the class he should be let go but his side is that it was because of his beliefs and that he was not preaching. He also gave comments that one of the assistant principals stated to him attacking his beliefs.

If you want to turn a blind eye and call them isolated incidents I don't know how to open them.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

"I have nothing to complain about other than liberals, the well funded and well orchestrated Georg Soros/Hollywod far-left smear/attack machine, ACORN, and the corrupt mainstream media."

Tom, sometimes I don't even believe you take yourself seriously. I think you are just trying to be funny at times, because this sentence is funny! Thanks for the laugh. Steve Colbert couldn't have done better.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 11 months ago

At least one Democratic Senator is unhappy with Barry's illegal firing of Walpin. http://mccaskill.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=314561

BTW: "“28 March 2009 at 6:40 p.m. beobachter (Anonymous) says… …Ok, I'm done, you don't need to ban my account, I won't be back.”

Flap Doodle 5 years, 11 months ago

More on the Chicago Way as practiced by the current occupant of 1600 Penn Ave: http://www.cncsig.gov/PDF/StHope/StHOPEFIN.pdf

jaywalker 5 years, 11 months ago

"However, yesterday, anti-Letterman protestors referred publicly to Letterman's son, who was born before Letterman married, as a “bastard” and to Letterman's wife as a “slut.”

I won't hold my breath waiting for the conservatives to display the consistency of moral outrage that they demand from everyone but themselves."

That's a swell philosophy, benny. Does it really need to be 'conservatives' who come out and denounce any idiot who would say such things? Shouldn't that sort of behavior be abhorred by everyone? I don't know who these "Letterman protesters" are and hadn't heard anything about it 'til your post, but I reckon the reason these people aren't or shouldn't really even be mentioned is because they don't have a national 'pulpit' from which to spew such bile, and they've already marginalized themselves by their comments. Seriously, do you think such people should be given ANY air time whatsoever? We generally don't reference things the Phelps Phools say 'cuz we already know they're idiots, why give them more voice? Anyone who would respond like that should be immediately laughed at and forgotten. The reason Letterman is a 'big deal' is because he has a national voice. The two aren't similar.

tolawdjk 5 years, 11 months ago

When's the last time you were happy, Tom?

The liberals most assuredly "get it". They know what they are doing, and in their view, the repercussions are acceptable.

Just like the last Administration.

They don't, however, give a prairie dog's flea bitten hiney what you think.

So why, in the name of all that is Holy, do you persist in beating your head against the font of "republican outrage" when all it does is make them giggle?

I'm coming to the conclusion that you are only happy when you aren't happy.

feeble 5 years, 11 months ago

Please Tom, regale us with more of your clever witticisms on the foibles of fair haired women! Nothing lightens the mood light a blow hard conservative rolling in their own misogyny.

Brent Garner 5 years, 11 months ago

Let's see. Imus got suspended and "fired" for making a negative comment about a predominently black women's backetball team, and yes, his comment was offensive. Dave "the mouth" Letterman makes a similarly offensive remark and everyone expects a mere apology to be enough. Imus apologized and it wasn't enough. What was the difference between the two? Imus' remark was aimed at some black women. Letterman's remark was aimed at a white girl. Anybody see any hypocrisy in this???

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

So much to respond to, and so little time. My apologies if I miss anybody

Sinverguenza… “Don't you mean after Prop 8 succeeded?”

Yes, thank you for the correction. I was in a hurry this morning and looking back made multiple mistakes in my posts.

“And that's a good point if you remember.” – Sin

Is that a complete sentence? If so, I don’t understand.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Beatrice…

I never denied that some conservatives have usurped the victim card. But contrary to what some liberals firmly believe, conservatives can be victims as well. They don’t have a monopoly on that claim, even though they are lost without it.

“However, the big difference between other groups Pitts has written about in the past and conservatives is that these others truly have been victims to beatings, gassings, firings, housing and employment discrimination, etc… Conservatives have experienced none of this.” – beatrice

Again, as I have previously stated, a victim is a victim. One can be a victim without actually suffering from physical violence. Comparing who was more victimized is just stupid. If someone was fired for being a conservative, or a liberal that should cause outrage for everyone. But liberals would rather say, yeah he was fired for being conservative, but at least he wasn’t gassed! Well, I guess that just totally resolves the issue! Everything could be worse, that doesn’t mean someone hasn’t unjustly suffered a harm.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

Tom, if liberals are like the blondes you describe, I guess we can then safely say that conservatives are like smokers facing the strong possibility of cancer yet they continue to smoke, all the while lashing out at those who tell them they need to change their ways.

You also are deliberately being dishonest about Letterman's joke and who it was intended to poke fun at -- Alex Rodriquez and the young, 18 year old unwed mother Bristol Palin. That is pretty obvious. He has rightfully apologized - twice - after learning that the younger Palin was with her mother during the trip to New York City (not part of her "Real America" by the way).

However, by rightfully ignoring the truth and Palin's acceptance of Letterman's apology, you are just piling on and exemplifying the concept of the "conservative victim."

By the way, this incident with Palin has actually helped Letterman's ratings, just at the time when Conan is trying to capture Leno's audience.

Brent Garner 5 years, 11 months ago

Mr. Shewmon, in my post I was attempting to point out that the leftists in this country want their man, Letterman, to be excused with a mere apology, while Mr. Imus, with whom I completely disagree, was pilloried and, for a time, forced from the airwaves. The difference between the two was the target of their remarks. Imus targetted blacks so therefore he was treated more harshly. Letterman targetted a white girl but wants to be let go with a mere slap on the wrist. To me this speaks of the hypocrsy of the entire race issue in this country. The basic premise of Mr. Pitts and others of his ilk is that the only people who can be racists are white people and usually white men. There are even universities who require incoming students to undergo sensivity training in which they are required to agree that white men are the source of the problems experienced by all minorities. To me it is ridiculous to claim, that because of a person's skin color, they are either capable of or not capable of racism. I have never seen any proof that bad ideas, bad conduct, and slipshod thinking were genetically linked in anyway. I feel Mr. Letterman should be just as harshly dealt with as was Mr. Imus, if we are to be consistent. But, if we want to have a double standard in this country, and it seems to me we increasingly do want that, then I guess as long as the victim is white, then an apology is sufficient.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Agnostick… “I'll dodge it, Satirical… 'cause it's insane, ungrounded, unfounded… and stupid. Kinda like you… ;)”

Thanks for breaking the typical liberal poster stereotype by not engaging in childish name calling, and thoroughly backing up your claims with ample evidence. Bravo!

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Feeble… “Uh, what point are you trying to make here? Joe McCarthy was a Republican…”

My point is that one can be a victim without suffering from physical violence, which is contrary to what Pitts and other liberals on here claim. Today there is a Hollywood blacklist, but there conservatives not liberals are on it. It is hypocritical to claim people whose character was assassinated by McCarthy were victims, but conservatives can’t call themselves victims of character assassination because they didn't suffer any physical harm (especially those who don’t put themselves in the public eye).

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Sandersen… “As I have stated many times, indeed in the very post you are attempting to refute….”

So are you going to directly answer my question about the persecution that followed the Prop 8 vote? Or are you going to continue to dodge my specific question by generally advocate against “disallowing” others from their beliefs (as if that wasn’t already protected by the U.S. Constution)?

“Violence and destruction are always the wrong answer to our differences as humans. However, there is still no proof or widespread standard of the persecution of ‘white christian conservatives’.” - Sandersen

So, persecution of some white christian conservatives are okay, as long as it doesn’t get out of hand? Joking about statutory rape of one 14 year old is okay as long as it doesn’t get out of hand?

You earlier claims that; “Churches are not being padlocked, “white christian conservatives” are not being publicly flogged, beaten or persecuted.” The persecution after Prop 8 is directly contrary to your claim. So is the de facto acceptance by the Obama administartion of voter intimidation by the Black Panthers.

Further you implied, agreeing with Pitts, that unless this persecution occurred then these groups or individuals can’t claim victimhood. Now all of a sudden, not only is one not a victim unless they suffered the exact same hardships as group X, but the suffering must also reach some undefined critical mass before anyone can claim a hardship?

It seems you keep adjusting the criteria before someone can claim they are a victim. It appears like Pitts, you are afraid to lose your only political platform. i.e. if we can't be victims all the time, then we can't take stuff away from other people that belongs to them.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Beatrice… “You also are deliberately being dishonest about Letterman's joke and who it was intended to poke fun at — Alex Rodriquez and the young, 18 year old unwed mother Bristol Palin. That is pretty obvious.”

First, if you hear the joke in full context he didn’t reference either daughter, but since Willow (14) not Bristol (18) went to the game, it could have only been in reference to Willow. As Letterman himself stated, his intent doesn’t matter, just like I am sure you didn’t agree with Imus’s statement about the Rutgers female basketball team, even though he clearly lacked the intent to offend.

Second, mistake of fact isn’t a defense in most jurisdictions to statutory rape (sexual contact with a child), and isn’t a compelling defense for a joke.

Third, as a female, how can you not be offended by Letterman’s comment which was blatantly sexist? Even the National Organizatino of Women backed Palin. I am sure if a conservative comedian joked about someone having sex with the female child of a liberal, like Obama’s daughters, you and the media would be all over it and demanding his resignation. But since it was a joke about a conseravtive, and it was done by a liberal, then we will forgive.

This double standard is one example of how conservatives can be the victim of the liberal media. Extremely rude and culturally insensitive remarks by a conservative is met with outrage by the media (Imus, Limbaugh), but if similarly rude and culturally insensitive remark is made by a liberal against a conservative, then it was just an “honest mistake” That is the real joke.

sinverguenza 5 years, 11 months ago

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

“And that's a good point if you remember.” – Sin

Is that a complete sentence? If so, I don’t understand.


I was referencing the fact that you had said making comparisons of persecution is stupid. And then you were making a comparison of persecution - the victimization of Prop 8 supporters to whoever else it was.

Just sayin'.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Sinverguenza.. “And then you were making a comparison of persecution - the victimization of Prop 8 supporters to whoever else it was.”

First, I wasn’t making a comparison. I was using that as an example that conservatives are sometimes persecuted, which was a contradiction Sandersen’s comment that conservatives are never victims.

Second, my argument was not that making any comparison about persecution is always stupid; my argument was that claiming one is not a victim because they haven’t suffered as much as another person (or group), is stupid. Just like it is stupid to compare someone that had $10 stolen and a person that had $100 stolen, and then make the argument that only the person that lost $100 is truly a victim since they lost comparatively more.

Just answerin'

uncleandyt 5 years, 11 months ago

Bingo ! , Leonard The truth is the truth. Years ago, we bought a pack of lies. They sounded good, so we swallowed them and bought the next pack. Yum! We offered our lies to friends and family and strangers, without checking the facts. We had Trust and Faith. We let someone else worry about What? and Why?

Flap Doodle 5 years, 11 months ago

"Years ago, we bought a pack of lies." Last November, a record number of imaginary-Americans bought a pig in a poke. We're only starting to see how bad things will get.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Agnostick.. “Yeah, I took a potshot at you, and a well-deserved one, too. You made a claim, and offered nothing to back it up.”

First, I didn’t make a claim, I asked a question. “Did you see the persecution of some religious groups after Prop 8…?” – satirical at 8:12 a.m.

Although it is apparent I don’t have to ask you the same question because you are apparently unaware of what occurred. I thought it was common knowledge, but I guess if all you watch is liberal media then all you heard about was peaceful protests. Here are a few links, but in case you dismiss them I challenge you to do your own research regarding Prop 8 and Mormons.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/14/open-season-on-mormons-in-california/

http://axisofright.com/2008/11/15/reign-of-terror-against-mormons-in-california/

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

Sati, you know with your 2:53 post you just proved Pitts' point, don't you?

I'm not offended by Letterman's joke, and NOW certainly doesn't speak for me, even though I may agree with their organization on some issues.

To the "joke," no matter how much chest pounding you do, it was obviously intended in relation to the Palin daughter who did get pregnant out of wedlock and then was paraded around with the father of the child on the campaign trail. Obviously. The fact that Palin's eldest daughter did get pregnant out of wedlock and has recently gone on national television (thus putting herself in the national spotlight again) to discuss the importance of teaching abstinence is what puts the concept within the realm of possibility for a joke. The daughter was never named during the joke, and it happened the younger daughter was traveling with her mother. A big oops, but not so far out of line to justify calls for Letterman's dismissal.

If Palin's daughters were all under the age of 12, as are Obama's children, or one of them had never been a single, unwed mother talking about abstinence, then obviously the joke would be beyond the realm of humor. Given the reality of the daughters' situations within the Palin home, I think comparisons to Obama's children more than a bit pathetic, however.

Now to the Imus case, since you brought it up Sati, in what way at all is Imus's calling a group of African American women who have just accomplished something significant in sports "nappy headed hoes" funny? How could it possibly even come within the realm of a joke? From where I sit, there wasn't any humorous possibility there at all. It was simply bigoted name-calling. So please explain the humor there, since you seem to think it falls in the same category as Letterman's joke.

Also, did you agree at the time that Imus should have been dismissed, or did you think that action was uncalled for?

Apparently, not only are conservatives playing the victim card, they've also lost their sense of humor and can't tell a bad attempt at a joke from a straight-out bigoted slur.

sandersen 5 years, 11 months ago

satirical- "First, I wasn’t making a comparison. I was using that as an example that conservatives are sometimes persecuted, which was a contradiction Sandersen’s comment that conservatives are never victims."

Not once in my statements did I say "conservatives are never victims". Our society is filled with daily events that create a perpetrator/victim scenario. What I did state was there is still no proof or widespread standard of the methodical and calculated persecution of “white christian conservatives". There is no "Liberal Inquisition" occurring. No need to hide in the root cellar to get away from the bad progressives.

The short-timer Miss California let her breasts fly across the internet at the speed of mice, and one too many nudie-pix in the face of her pretending to be on her moral high horse got her crown repossessed.

The ex-teacher from LHS had no tenure, and until you have that, you have no contract and no recourse... of course his rather disengenuious use of media spin instead of filing for unemployment or just finding another teaching position speaks volumes as to his motives, as he was most certainly not the only teacher/staff member let go under the budget cuts in our district.

If you could prove that there was a widespread conspiracy/movement to prevent “white christian conservatives" from marrying, from worshipping, from voting, from owning businesses, from adopting children via legislation somewhere, I would most definitely stand up against anyone's right to tell you as an adult citizen how to live your life and enjoy the pursuit of happiness we are all entitled in our country.

bankboy119 5 years, 11 months ago

Sanderson,

I was referring to the Miss USA pageant. She was in first place and lost because Hilton decided to put his own views ahead of being a pageant judge. She lost the pageant because of her views. She lost her Cali crown for the other reasons you pointed out.

And yes I understand what the district was saying about his tenure. I'm giving his side of the story. If his is true then it is an attack. If he is just using this to get air time it's pathetic.

sandersen 5 years, 11 months ago

A judge gives their opinion. Opinion, as we can all see on the boards here, is most certainly in the eye of the beholder, and is personally flavored by one's life and experiences. Lots of beauty pageants end up with a close race... there is always a winner and a runner-up. That's what judges do. Just like the Olympics. Just like the bikini contest at your favorite night spot. Just like American Idol. Just like any other contest that exists.

Want a different outcome? Make sure next time you are on the judge's panel...

bad_dog 5 years, 11 months ago

bankboy, everything I've read or heard stated by both Miss USA and Miss California pageant officials was that Carrie Prejean was BEHIND in the scoring at the time Perez Hilton questioned her. Obviously a poor score in that segment didn't help in her pursuit for the title, but no, she wasn't in first place and somehow lost it all because of her answer.

Given she was stripped of her Miss California title after reportedly failing to appear for 39 public appearances since the Miss USA pageant ended, you have to wonder about her priorities, committment to fulfill obligations and the kind of representative she would have made if she had won the Miss USA title.

gogoplata 5 years, 11 months ago

Conservative/Liberal Republican/Democrat

Are these the only eyes that people on this site see the world through?

Either side will try to vilify most anything the other does. Hypocrisy oozes from both sides of the the political fence.
Just maybe the answers to many of the problems we face could be found somewhere other than the republican and democratic parties. I know that will probably bounce right off of most of the hardened political partisans who post on this site.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Beatrice… “…it was obviously intended…”

Again, you point to intent, but even Letterman himself said his intent didn’t matter.

Also what you consider “beyond the realm of humor” is clearly different than what others think. Human is subjective, so even Imus’ comment could be considered humorous. Perhaps his comment was intended to just be a bad attempt at a joke. After all, intent is all that matter, right?

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Sandersen… “Not once in my statements did I say “conservatives are never victims”.”

Your statement was, “’white christian conservatives’ are not being publicly flogged, beaten or persecuted.” This is a blanket statement, “conservatives are not being…persecuted.” To disprove your argument all I have to show is that one conservative or one group is being persecuted. Which I have done.

“What I did state was there is still no proof or widespread standard of the methodical and calculated persecution of “white christian conservatives”.” – sandersen

No, your first statement, which I contradicted, didn’t not say “widespread.” Again, reference your comment above. Now if you want to change your statement then please redact your earlier statement. I love how liberals try to weasel out of their previous statements.

“The short-timer Miss California…pretending to be on her moral high horse got her crown repossessed.” – sandesen

When was she ever on her moral high horse? Since when does advocating for some morals adopted by a group mean that person adopts the all stereotypical morals of that group? So, even if she did think same-sex marriage was immoral (which I am not sure she ever said), doesn’t mean she couldn’t also think it isn’t immoral to post nude pictures of oneself on the internet. Also, many people that advocate in favor of same-sex marriage do so based on morals of equality. If they ever do anything that it deemed immoral do they receive the same persecution?

“The ex-teacher from LHS had no tenure” – sandersen

What a typically liberal response. You dodge the question of whether it is justifiable to fire a teacher based on their political ideology, and instead claim that (assuming) the school district had the legal right to fire him, it was justified. However, I am sure you would be singing a different tune if a liberal teacher was fired in a small conservative town.

“If you could prove that there was a widespread conspiracy/movement to prevent “white christian conservatives” from” – sandersen

Again, I don’t have to prove a widespread conspiracy, I just have to find some instances of injustice. “A threat to justice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere” – Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Even Pitts claims some “high-profile media figures” are leading to some acts of violence. This isn’t widespread. But even so, I think the persecution of Mormons was widespread, and allowing voter intimidation in the South has the potential of being widespread if not stopped.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

Okay, Sati, very true. Humor is subjective. I disagree that intent is immaterial, however, although it does sound good when making an apology.

Nevertheless, since you find an analogy here with what Imus said, would you please explain how Imus's comment could in any subjective manner be considered humorous rather than just bigoted.

I really think they are different in every way.

WHY 5 years, 11 months ago

What will be really funny is when her daughter is knocked up in two years by a meth addict. Conservative values are hilarious.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 11 months ago

There's the uncensored inner voice of the left wing, thanks for dropping the mask, why.

sandersen 5 years, 11 months ago

satirical-

Not a typical response, on the matter of the non-tenured teacher not being renewed, just a factual one. Who cares about his politics? There is no proof as to his being non-renewed due to his politics, simply hearsay. He might have still had his job had the budget constraints not been so tight. Considering my knowledge as to the dynamics of Lawrence, there are a great mix of all political leanings in this community. A number of programs were cut, as well as a number of reductions in staff. Why is this guy the only one chasing news mikes? Folks from both sides of the aisle lost their jobs...

In reference to Prejean, it is ironic that her intolerence and prejudice about the lives and loves of other adult human beings was met by intolerence for her displays of nudity and her inability to follow stated requirements and prerequisites for participation in the pageant. I personally find nudity completely inoffensive, however, rules are rules, and she was aware of them from the start.

I do love the Dr. King quote. And the world is filled with injustice. To repeat each singular instance of human injustice would take many lifetimes. No one is immune. I was, indeed speaking to the notion there is a widespread pattern of persecution to those termed earlier by nancy as "white christian conservatives". I believe, however, that your interpretation of my statements is not necessarily appropriate or without falsehood. From the level of outrage being broadcast on the airwaves, it seems that more than a few individuals are furthering the notion there is an epidemic of such persecution. I hold fast to the knowledge such epidemic is fictitious. I have yet to see evidence to the contrary presented here. The instances presented are about as methodical and comprehensive as stating that if a white car falls off a cliff in California, and another white car hits a bridge in Kansas, all white cars are cursed, and no one should drive a white car due to this fact...

jaywalker 5 years, 11 months ago

Seen this written a few times and wanted to clarify something that's fast becoming a myth: Letterman did NOT apologize twice. His first 'apology' was anything but; I saw it, it made me laugh, but it was a sarcastic reply whose only intention was to get further laughter.
I didn't hear or see the latest apology, but from what I've heard it was sincere.

"would you please explain how Imus's comment could in any subjective manner be considered humorous rather than just bigoted."

Not speakin' for Sat, but I don't think it could be considered in a 'rather than' format. The comment wasn't humorous whatsoever, though I reckon Imus thought he was being goofy enough at the time that it might 'fit in' somehow. It was really, really dumb, no matter which way you slice it. However, I don't think I would classify it 'bigoted', just moronic. I don't know Imus well, have never really listened to him, and maybe he's skirted the edge of bigotry before so this particular comment shows a pattern of behavior. But three words coming out of his mouth do not a bigot make, particularly when those three words are a common phraseology in a cultural lexicon. I was disgusted with Imus at the time but only for the unbelievable idiocy he displayed. I mean no offense to anyone, but if you and yours can throw around a certain set of words or phrases with impunity I have no interest in hearing your whining when someone else does the same, no matter the color of their skin.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

Jay, Don Imus is far from an idiot, so we should not just dismiss what he said as simply idiotic. It was a bigoted thing to say. Yes, they were just three little words, so does that mean he really is a bigot? I don't know, but regardless, it is still a bigoted statement, particularly so when coming from a white male radio host who understands perfectly well the subteties behind the meanings of words.

Why would it be from a white radio host, but perhaps not from someone like Chris Rock? Well, for one, from him it would just be sexist. However, on whether one group gets to use a word or phrase and another doesn't, consider you and your family. You might say something that is less than respectful about a family member, but if you heard someone outside the family say the same exact thing you may well take umbrage. Same thing here, and not that unreasonable a concept. Language is a funny thing that way. Groups often use words themselves that others use against them as a way to usurp their meaning. That doesn't mean it is okay -- really, I should say that doesn't mean it is polite -- for others to continue to use them to attack others. Sometimes politeness is forced on others through societal pressure. Don Imus learned that lesson the hard way.

Whether or not Letterman apologized once or twice, it isn't that important, since he did and Palin accepted. Done.

Did Palin ever apologize for saying that Obama "pals around with terrorists"? Just asking.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 11 months ago

"Did Palin ever apologize for saying that Obama “pals around with terrorists”? Just asking."

Ayers, Bill Ayers.

RIng a bell?

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

"Pal around"? Got a clue?

Of course, by your definition, then certainly Palin pals around with drug dealers. (Levi's mom)

Brent Garner 5 years, 11 months ago

Agnostick

I have no idea where you got the idea I was making a reference to libel law nor why you brought that up. It was not a threat of a lawsuit that got Imus rightfully punished but the embarrassment and revulsion caused by his comment. Again, as you point out, his comment was aimed at a group of black women. Letterman's comment was directed at a white woman. Again, I am not speaking of libel law. As typical of liberals you seem to want to resort only to that which is legal. You prefer to ignore that which is unethical simply because it is legal. I hope I do not need to remind you that just because a thing is legal does not make it ethical or moral or right. So, coming back to my point, Imus was "canned' however briefly for his very offensive comment about a group of black women. To be consistent as a society then, Letterman should be "canned" for a similar period as punishment for his highly offensive comment about a white woman.

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 11 months ago

Am I to assume that most or all of the posters are nice, middle class people, living by your nice middle class rules. It is okay to make rude jokes about Sarah Palin and her family because somehow they aren't as good as other people. Do none of you know a single mother? Someone who has changed and worked hard to create a life for herself and her young one? Can you think of someone more suitable to give advice to teens, to kids her own age?

jdamin55105 5 years, 10 months ago

I would not engage in the same type of smut that conservative do to people such as Barack Obama.

They do this out of desperations. Since the 1950s the conservative ideal has slowly slipped from the majority. Barack Obama was the first liberal candidate to win the majority of votes since JFK (Bill Clinton won a three way race). Why, Because the conservatives don't have solutions. They only know how to obstruct any one who wants to give solutions. When they get in power they are totally at a loss because they have no one to obstruct but themselves. They are negative, backward looking, and offer no real solutions. And the solutions they do offer are insane.

The best thing to do is to ignore them. I honestly believe that the current conservatives will soon be a figment of the past such as horse and buggy or prohibition.

The true nature of conservativism is more shared by the libertarians than the republicans anyways. It was not originally a party of the religous and gun lovers. The libertarians represent the small governement that republicans did originally.

Conservatism will limp along for a few more years, but this is only because many conservative will not admit they are wrong. Eventually the republican party will need to redefine itself and seperate themselves from the extreme right to survive.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.