Rose McGowan on Duke kids: Eh, they were probably guilty of something

posted at 6:29 pm on April 12, 2007 by Allahpundit

Don’t wave it off because she’s eye candy or an actress or whatever. What you’re getting here is raw candor in all its ugliness. They look like frat boys — rich, white, “cookie cutter,” the cardinal sin to noisy nonconformists — and so they “stand” for all the rich white kids who’ve ever taken advantage of their privilege at another’s expense. In which case, if they had been convicted, well, that’s rough justice even if it’s a tough break for the not-so-guilty parties themselves. Terry Moran couldn’t have put it better himself.

Ace has already teased this out in a bunch of posts today, but note what’s happening here, completely transparently: She’s trying to salvage the storyline of the black victim and the white aggressor by imputing to them crimes they simply must have committed by virtue of their race and class. It’s the inverse of those old psychological tests where you’re briefly shown a drawing of a black man in a suit being threatened by a white man with a knife and then asked to describe the drawing from memory — and somehow it’s the white man who ends up in the suit and the black man with a knife. This fiasco is the flip side of that. The next step, I promise, will be an attempt by some of the media to claim that Fox’s decision to publish the name of the accuser — which has been publicly available for months and months and has also now been published by media outlets closer to home — is actually a coded incitement to harass or threaten the accuser. She is and must be a victim, no matter how much harm she’s caused, and so no effort should be spared in restoring her pristine victimhood. Watch and see.

Behar, the dumbest one on the show no matter what Rosie says, also tips her hand by gratuitously emphasizing the whiteness of the “little white boys’ club” that hired the strippers. When Hasselbeck asks her to elaborate, she gets nervous and plays it off as a simple descriptive observation — they were a boys club, and also they were white. Nothin’ more to it than that. But of course there is: she’s suggesting, like McGowan, that they’re guilty of something, namely sexism, even if they’re not guilty of rape. Which doesn’t mean they belong in jail … but does mean they’re sort of the aggressors in all this, doesn’t it? White aggressors, too. Which makes sweet little Crystal conveniently a victim again.

A lot of analysis for such a stupid show, I grant you, but I wouldn’t have bothered with it if I didn’t think this reflected a much wider body of thinking. Meanwhile, highbrow media is starting to cover its tracks on this subject. Shamelessly.

Thanks as always to the ‘Busters for watching the skies.

Update: Ace is filled with heart-ache that I haven’t named the accuser, Crystal Mangum. Thus endeth the heart-ache. I didn’t name her before because we all know what’s going to happen if someone so much as looks crossly at her on the street or leaves a bag of dog shinola on her porch: like I said, the media will use it as a pretext to restore her victimhood and scapegoat the hell out of its political enemies, which in this case means right-wing media and blogs. They do this to Michelle all the time, most notoriously when that lunatic who sent Olbermann a letter with fake anthrax turned out to be a fan of hers (and Coulter’s and Laura Ingraham’s) and Olby naturally turned it into a six-minute hit piece about the right-wing’s “culture of violence” or whatever with her photo splashed all over it. It’s easy to say, “well, he’s a douche,” but among the eleven or so people who watch his show I’m sure there were a few who didn’t know better and took him at his word. Which is precisely what he was counting on. Mangum’s name is out there, I’ve linked to at least two articles here that state it, and now I’m stating it myself essentially because Ace dared me, but there comes a point where you do what you can to limit their opportunities to show their bad faith and breathtaking disingenuousness.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Rose = Dumb as a box of hammers, but she is easy on the eyes. :)

JayHaw Phrenzie on April 12, 2007 at 6:34 PM

Maybe that’s why Marilyn Manson got rid of her, what a vapid moron.

And Ace totally called this, its the liberal narrative, and they just can’t help themselves but to continue it. If they’re guilty or innocent, the conclusion is the same.

Bad Candy on April 12, 2007 at 6:35 PM

So when do THEY get fired for their stupid comments.
Oh, and has Rosie ever apologize for her “ching ching” sound effects?

Gregor on April 12, 2007 at 6:35 PM

They’re all so friggin dumb.

greggish on April 12, 2007 at 6:36 PM

Our cultural elite-the universities, government, law, media, entertainment,etc.- consists of everybody who got picked on in high school.
And now they want revenge.

billy on April 12, 2007 at 6:36 PM

Haha. Kudos, though, to McGowan for going to the other extreme and pointing out Sharpton for what he really is, a race baiter.

Ian on April 12, 2007 at 6:37 PM

Her cleavage looked good though. I didn’t actually listen to her though. I’m just a cookie cutter guy though, so I always look at cleavage.

lorien1973 on April 12, 2007 at 6:37 PM

Unreal.

Wouldn’t Rosie, Behar and Candy Girl, er McGowan be guilty of sexism as well by taking advantage of the lower class as well? Perhaps the pool boy?

Kokonut on April 12, 2007 at 6:38 PM

New holiday – National STFU Day.

Tru2my2 on April 12, 2007 at 6:39 PM

so, they’re not guilty of THIS but they’re guilty ofsomethinganyway……

sheesh

whatta buncha maroons……

Lonevoice on April 12, 2007 at 6:40 PM

I think Rosie is guilty of something.

Save a whale send Rosie to Jenny Craig !

William Amos on April 12, 2007 at 6:42 PM

Rose McGowan is one of my favorite actresses, and while she’s not much of an actress, she’s actually not stupid. She buys the left’s lies however. No matter what the truth happens to be, rich white males will forever be the sexist, racist, potential rapists–the biggest threat to mankind since global warming. And if those rich white males happens to believe in Jesus, you better watch out. He’s probably a serial killer too. Just watch an episode of any of the Law & Order franchise shows and play “Guess the Perp”.

I think I’m going to make that a drinking game.

violet on April 12, 2007 at 6:43 PM

Just another example of why this show would be so entertaining to watch if they actually filled the fourth seat with someone who could stand ground and fire back at the nonsense. They throw up softballs, but Hasslebeck just lets them fall to the floor.

*clunk*

Ferris on April 12, 2007 at 6:43 PM

I’m not even going to watch it. I knew it would happen.

Look closely at that caption though, not more than 6 brain cells in it.

Talon on April 12, 2007 at 6:47 PM

They throw up softballs, but Hasslebeck just lets them fall to the floor.

Ferris on April 12, 2007 at 6:43 PM

And that’s exactly why she’s there. They knew what they were doing when they chose her for the spot.

Gregor on April 12, 2007 at 6:48 PM

You have a bunch of white boys sitting around with black girls, coming in and stripping. Alright, they didn’t rape them, but-“

Wasn’t one of their sins against liberalism the fact that they requested white strippers?

rw on April 12, 2007 at 6:51 PM

Cripes… these people aren’t even human. They’re POD people! How is it possible to be so ignorant and uninformed given their position on a TV show like The View? One of the Duke players, who attended the party, WAS BLACK! They didn’t even test his DNA. And both strippers have been attempting to cash in on this whole LIE since the beginning. The Duke LaCrosse defendants had $400,000 bails while a young African American male had a $50,000 for killing someone. The women on The View are putrid, save Hasselbeck, but she’s just a ditz stuck there by Baba Wawa for “balance”… such cretons!

And Rose McGowan wishes for innocents to be guilty because they represent her tormentors from her past? What The F***?!
It’s funny she should feel that way seeing how she owes her entire career to former college boys turned producers/directors. I’d be willing to bet on the fact that she never once had to pay a visit to the castintg couch… because she has a mattress tied to her back! She was ENGAGED to Marilyn Manson of all people for 5 years(

SilverStar830 on April 12, 2007 at 6:52 PM

“Please don’t sue me …”

No; sue her. Sue Nifong, sue Terry Moran, sue Rose McNobody and Joyless Beanhead, sue Duke, sue the 88, sue the Black Pansies…Sue.Everyone.

Jaibones on April 12, 2007 at 6:52 PM

Yeah, Rose is quite shaggable…too bad she’s dumber’n a box o’ rocks.

fusionaddict on April 12, 2007 at 6:52 PM

So, the charges were false, but in the spirit of the discussion, they are still guilty. Is she practicing Ratherism?

geckomon on April 12, 2007 at 6:54 PM

Guilty by looks, association, being white.
These women are guilty of shear stupidity.
Oh, and being white. Call em as I see em.

Kini on April 12, 2007 at 6:54 PM

Shouldn’t they be discussing the stripper’s LIES and Nifong’s covering up of those LIES! Not the “theymustadonesomething” angle?

silenced majority on April 12, 2007 at 6:54 PM

Yeah, Rose is quite shaggable….

nope. she’s a robot. she’s like one of those robots every tenth sci-fi short is written about; the robot which was programed to think it’s human.

in other words, a pasty, indoors robot who shops at hot topic.

do not want.

jummy on April 12, 2007 at 7:05 PM

Have the Ladies of The View ever discussed the Duke basketball team? The one with all those black boys.
Rutgers BB has only black women or young ladies though, right?

Stephen M on April 12, 2007 at 7:09 PM

This from a woman who more than once has spread her naughty bits on film for the benefit of those very same horny white frat boys.

I mean for chrissakes….in her lastest film she’s a chick with a machine gun leg. Who does she think the majority of her film audience is?

Oh…and nice work there, breaking up Rodriguez’s 16 year marriage.

The Ugly American on April 12, 2007 at 7:09 PM

Allah, Don’t ever again refer to Rosie as a “babe”. It’s sick.

amerpundit on April 12, 2007 at 7:09 PM

Well, since she has such great boobs and wore such a fashionable leg gun in Grindhouse, I will overlook much of what she says.

Khyber Pass on April 12, 2007 at 7:13 PM

Where in the world did the networks find these insufferable morons? It’s almost as though they bought several truckloads at bargain prices then distributed them equally among all the mindless talk shows.

rplat on April 12, 2007 at 7:13 PM

When all this was coming out last year, at a demonstration, someone from the Durham NAACP (although he said he was not speaking for the organization just before he said this) indicated that even if they weren’t guilty, it would be appropriate for them to be convicted, since in so many other cases, whites had gotten away with raping black women. Seems kinda like reverse lynching, but it’s okay ’cause they were rich and white.

I think Rose would agree. And, by the way, it’s so sad that she was so “persecuted” in school.

eeyore on April 12, 2007 at 7:13 PM

This from someone who used to sleep with Marilyn Manson?

Behar = blithering idiot. She’s not only stupid, she really looks the part.

JammieWearingFool on April 12, 2007 at 7:21 PM

Dumb, Dumber, Dummest and Dumbo…….

robo on April 12, 2007 at 7:21 PM

In the category of “ignorant commies with a nice rack,” I prefer Selma Hayek. I demand that The View give equal time to Selma!

Oh, and also Catherine Zeta-Jones. I don’t know for sure that she’s ignorant, but I’m pretty sure she’s a commie, since she married Mike Douglas. So equal time for her too!

Anton on April 12, 2007 at 7:26 PM

rose mcgowan being “persecuted” by jocks in high school:

“so, i bet you’re probably going to take aimee to the ring dance. you know, she still plays with barbies. there are things she just doesn’t know about; isn’t capable of…”

“wait, you were talking to me? f**k off, morticia! i don’t want to get bit by the bats in your….”

rose flees away like a one winged dove. later she reconciles this highly embarrassing moment as some sort of highly serious political junk.

jummy on April 12, 2007 at 7:27 PM

Jesus Christ, what the hell has happened to our country? Can you imagine having a discussion like this if the race of the accused were something other than white?
Al Sharpton would be calling for rioting in the streets… Some how we have “progressed” to a point that it is OK to condemn “white boys” for anything and everything. And by an all white jury; The View. What is the matter with these women?
Put in a head lock by white boys on the way to gym class? Prove it bitch.

Babs on April 12, 2007 at 7:31 PM

So Rose McGowan was persecuted by the frat-boy types —
and Keith Olbermann was beat-up by the girls.

Hmmm. A pattern is beginning to emerge, dontchathink’?
Anyone care to formulate a hypothesis?

CyberCipher on April 12, 2007 at 7:37 PM

Just how many schools did Ms. McGowan attend? Apparently not one taught her the basics of the justice system, “innocent until PROVEN guilty.”

Hold on to your looks honey, because when they’re gone, stupid is all you got.

lawman2 on April 12, 2007 at 7:41 PM

nah dude. it’s better than that. it’s crystal gayle mangum! and i bet “mangum” is some drunken miscribing of magnum. she’s the original crack baby; she’s a roller-disco baby!

jummy on April 12, 2007 at 7:43 PM

the character in all this with a “really long list of inappropriate things” is the nappy headed ho!

ctmom on April 12, 2007 at 7:45 PM

Hmmm. A pattern is beginning to emerge, dontchathink’? Anyone care to formulate a hypothesis?

I’ll try. Liberals are full of rage due to their perceived grievances of what society has done to them. So if they were bullied by say a white businessman once then all white businessmen are guilty and thus the economy should be regulated. The funny thing is that they have so much in common with aggrieved Muslims its unreal. It’s the same projection and resentment. I mean the tenets of liberalism and Islam are mutually repuslive but the psychological sense of having been wronged seems eerily similar.

aengus on April 12, 2007 at 7:57 PM

I said it over on Volokh and I’ll say it here: these boys were not saints. CGM didn’t just show up on their doorstep and volunteer to strip – they “ordered out” for a pair of strippers and to all accounts at least one or two on the team acted repulsively.

These three are simply innocent of the charges made against them.

Let’s not canonize them, eh?

jeffshultz on April 12, 2007 at 8:02 PM

I wager that were I to accuse those snotty white broads of guilty of malicious and hurtful acts because, well the remind me of the Heathers of my high school and college years, they’d have a fit. I also wouldnt be surprised if they fail to see the parallel.

bains on April 12, 2007 at 8:05 PM

Oh…and nice work there, breaking up Rodriguez’s 16 year marriage.

I guess this is on Rose’s personal really long list of inappropriate things

PattyAnn on April 12, 2007 at 8:06 PM

Let’s not canonize them, eh?

It’s not canonisation but a justified sense of outrage that one demographic should be singled out as evil not exclusively because of their behaviour but because of their identity and status. I’ve never been to a strip club in my life but its not a crime. Boorish behaviour doesn’t mitigate wrongful arrest and national demonisation in my opinion.

aengus on April 12, 2007 at 8:07 PM

Doncha love it when rich, privileged white people tell you how rich, privileged white people are such criminals? Could you get more ironic than Terry Moran bitching about rich white boys using their connections?

Quisp on April 12, 2007 at 8:11 PM

I am disgusted and sickened, and that’s just about the babe remarks. Ever see Charmed? This woman has more collagen in her lips than Pamela Anderson has in her breasts. That said, this entire conversation was disgusting. In other words, because they were all white and jocks to boot, they have to be GUILTY OF SOMETHING. Pfawwww. This leaves such a bad taste.

Glynn on April 12, 2007 at 8:14 PM

The charmed one is just trying to enlighten the rest of us.

Rick on April 12, 2007 at 8:14 PM

WTF. How can she breath and walk with one foot in front of the other?

The best bumper sticker I ever saw said:

Liberalism needs victims

That is the essence of their movement in three words, and this dim bulbs display that thinking perfectly. Even poor Rose, who has achieved a degree of success is clinging to her “victimhood” from the past. To quote D.Henley: “Get over it.”

Mallard T. Drake on April 12, 2007 at 8:14 PM

Seinfeld was the show about nothing.

The View is a show about nothing worth listening to.

fogw on April 12, 2007 at 8:18 PM

I said it over on Volokh and I’ll say it here: these boys were not saints. CGM didn’t just show up on their doorstep and volunteer to strip – they “ordered out” for a pair of strippers and to all accounts at least one or two on the team acted repulsively.

These three are simply innocent of the charges made against them.

Let’s not canonize them, eh?

jeffshultz on April 12, 2007 at 8:02 PM

You know, men on this blog act repulsively from time to time. I don’t think we need anyone qualifying these guys innocence. I have tell you, your post disturbs me. A bunch of horny jocks got some strippers. How totally unmanly of them. Off with their heads. Better? Geeze.

Glynn on April 12, 2007 at 8:19 PM

We will all be in trouble when the fact that we “are no angels” is considered an adequate excuse for a false prosecution.

JayHaw Phrenzie on April 12, 2007 at 8:28 PM

McGowan’s got the Innsmouth Look. I don’t care how good her cleavage looks, one of her parents was a frog. And I don’t mean French.

Rob Taylor on April 12, 2007 at 8:48 PM

Is it so far above these women to give honest credit to people and their families who have been through hell unjustly and are now proved innocent?

If any one of these ungenerous women had been threatened with 30 years in prison it’s much more likely they would not have been able to even handle it much less with the grace and intelligence these young men did.

Speakup on April 12, 2007 at 8:54 PM

rose mcgowan’s guide to how to determine the guilt or innocence of a “rich white male”.

1) is the rich, white male wearing a crucif**ks teeshirt? if so, the subject is exempt no matter how rich, white or male he is. in fact, you should hump him.

2) tie a heavy stone to the rich, white male and cast him into a lake or similar.

2.1) did he float, sprout wings and fly off cackling? then he most certainly is guilty of colonizing the bodies of wymyn, or at least gaia. call the faculty head of the gender studies department and posse up. white wine does -25 damage.

2.2) does he appear to be drowning? well isn’t it just deliciously ironic? allow him to stay at the bottom of the lake as a totemic sacrifice to hetereosexist, hegemonic, h….

jummy on April 12, 2007 at 9:52 PM

Ummm I wanna know what Joy thinks is gross about a white guy wanting to look at a black girl?

BTW

Rule 1: Don’t mess around with strippers.

Rule 2: Don’t invite a stripper to your house.

Rule 3: TIP THEM IF YOU DO! (and over tip at that)

– The Cat

P.S. Rose, You’re white.

MirCat on April 12, 2007 at 10:08 PM

Oh…and nice work there, breaking up Rodriguez’s 16 year marriage.

Oh, like Rodriguez had nothing to do with it? He was powerless to stop her from seducing him? Please.

She’s wrong, obviously. I don’t like frat boys either–in fact, I pretty much loathe them–but unlike Rose, I don’t allow my prejudices to cloud my acceptance of the truth. I also try to avoid vilifying someone just because I disagree with them.

violet on April 12, 2007 at 10:14 PM

Rule 1: Don’t mess around with strippers.
Rule 2: Don’t invite a stripper to your house.

P.S. Rose, You’re white.

MirCat on April 12, 2007 at 10:08 PM

Good call, MirCat

Jaibones on April 12, 2007 at 10:41 PM

They look like frat boys — rich, white, “cookie cutter,” the cardinal sin to noisy nonconformists — and so they “stand” for all the rich white kids who’ve ever taken advantage of their privilege at another’s expense.

Ahhhhhhhhhh, can we say, the Kennedys?

PinkyBigglesworth on April 12, 2007 at 10:51 PM

Did Rose McGowan say she was put in a headlock by those guys?

She was a child model and had her first big Hollywood break at 19. She never went to college. What does she know about it?

John on April 12, 2007 at 10:55 PM

Three words. Fake but accurate.

smellthecoffee on April 12, 2007 at 11:05 PM

Remember the good ol’ days, when actors were considered just slightly above carnies in the social order?

B Moe on April 12, 2007 at 11:12 PM

I have held my opinion pretty much on this case until I knew more…from more than just the media’s bits and pieces. Now that things are out in the open…I got to say..what bullcrap for those poor 3 young men. It’s too bad the lying perp didn’t get charged but I bet they’d have had a time getting it to stick which is why they probably pursue it.

What a stupid witch to say such a thing. I hate the View..it is a really stupid show and makes women look mindless. You know, if someone is stopped by a cop for speeding, I can see that comment being said. And the reason why people would laugh at that comment dealing with a speeding ticket, is cause we all have probably been there and not got caught.

HOWEVER, to say that in a rape case is just showing her intellect is very low. Not everyone has the impulse to rape or push themselves on a woman. That is sexist of her not to mention just downright on the witchhunt side of her.

Highrise on April 12, 2007 at 11:28 PM

The View targets brain dead females and sissy mary’s. The liberals grasp of the issues they discuss are about as deep as a rain puddle.

And Hasslebeck is no better. Tonight, Hannity had the opportunity to skewer her for her PC responses, and he did challenge her, but ultimately he accepted her shallow silly view of what conservatism really is and let her off the hook. She deserves every bit of grief she gets on that show.

csdeven on April 12, 2007 at 11:50 PM

McGowan’s got the Innsmouth Look

Lovecraftian insults flung at a chick that plays a witch on tv? Good one. Very appropriate. That is how you insult someone.

austinnelly on April 13, 2007 at 12:02 AM

“Please don’t sue me …”

No; sue her. Sue Nifong, sue Terry Moran, sue Rose McNobody and Joyless Beanhead, sue Duke, sue the 88, sue the Black Pansies…Sue.Everyone.

Jaibones on April 12, 2007 at 6:52 PM

Yup ! ! And sue Sharpton and Jackson

Texyank on April 13, 2007 at 12:47 AM

Rose does look like she’s had a bit too much botox or something recently. Much more plasticky than her “Charmed” look. Really depressing, but her “other assets” are still doing their work, so decent as a pinup.

Seriously, the people who are saying “something happened” are going to get taken to the woodshed on 60 minutes on Sunday. I can’t believe that I’m plugging the show, given its history, but they’ve got an interview (linked from this site) with AG Cooper who goes into more detail on exactly how and why this never happened and the LAX 3 are INNOCENT. The AG is also going to release evidence next week further explaining exactly what they found and why they believe that the players were unjustly accused.

Sure some people will never learn and keep protesting, but the multiple press conferences and 60 minutes appearances are going a long way to restore things. Nifong’s apology, while idiotic and unacceptable, is useful in this regard too. You don’t throw the accuser under the bus when you have insufficient evidence, but when you’re looking at Federal and State criminal prosecution, never mind a torrent of civil lawsuits, blaming the accuser for lying about innocent boys does show that there never was a case.

I’m gleefully looking forward to the school of flesh eating piranhas that the families are about to loose on all involved. Nancy Grace is going to wear this, the NYT is going to wear this, Duke is going to wear this, the 88, Durham and especially defendant Nifong. You NEVER get into a lawsuit with a lawyer, nevermind a partner, nevermind a former head of practice, never mind when the lawyer in question is part of a major politically connected K street firm. If you do, you really, really, really don’t want to piss off his (powerful and connected in her own right) wife, especially by going after their child! Revenge is best served in Federal court!

libertarianuberalles on April 13, 2007 at 2:22 AM

Good Grief!!!!

Rose McGowan was shoveling some heavy duty manure, and some extremely faulty logic!

Is it a trend that total morons become “actresses?” (Carmen Diaz, Scarlet Johanssan, etc., etc.), while intelligent people, like Dianne N. Irving – Ph.D, MA, Marilyn vos Savant, Michelle Malkin, Condaleezza Rice, and others become physicians, Ph.Ds in Biology, Human Embryologists, college professors, University provosts, Security Secretary, Secretary of State, computer network engineers, midwives, and so on?

I think “The View” deserves name change.

Perhaps “The Distortion of Reality!”

William

William2006 on April 13, 2007 at 3:56 AM

Morons.. all four of them!

Viper1 on April 13, 2007 at 5:12 AM

Remember the good ol’ days, when actors were considered just slightly above carnies in the social order?

If you go a little further back, “actress” and “courtesan” were pretty much synonomous. Such people weren’t even received in polite society, much less looked to as thought leaders. Ah, the good ol’ days.

Quisp on April 13, 2007 at 6:55 AM

Funny how Rose and the View nutters forget that there was a Black member of the lacrosse team, and he was at the party.

William Teach on April 13, 2007 at 8:19 AM

So let me get this straight. SHE was “persecuted” in high school? Not buying that. With her appearance and attitude, she was most likely part of the “in” crowd doing the persecution.

Nice dismissal, BTW. “They’re guilt of something” and “They’re all white.” Sort of ties into the nonsensical lectures being made about the destructive power of “whitness” and how it must be stopped.
I notice how they brushed over the very real crime of false accusation made by the stripper.

Gene Splicer on April 13, 2007 at 9:25 AM

A lot of analysis for such a stupid show, I grant you, but I wouldn’t have bothered with it if I didn’t think this reflected a much wider body of thinking.

I’m sure it does, and I think it’s actually good that she said it. She just admitted that this was never about those boys but about their physical bodies, their whiteness, their preppie look and hypothetical wealth but not them personally.

She admitted that she wanted them to be guilty. They were white frat boys. It wouldn’t have mattered if all three were supported by scholarships that were lost because of this lie. And now we’ve got the proof.

Esthier on April 13, 2007 at 9:50 AM

So let me get this straight. SHE was “persecuted” in high school? Not buying that. With her appearance and attitude, she was most likely part of the “in” crowd doing the persecution.

Maybe not though. She seems like she could have been one of those girl who chose to hang out with the out-crowd.

We had them at my school, girls who could have been popular for their looks alone but prefered hanging out with “punks” instead.

Esthier on April 13, 2007 at 10:27 AM

Ironic: a home-wrecking whore who barely passed her GED judging the Duke LaCrosse players? And I can believe she was an outcast in high school. There were a lot of very beautiful punk-rock and cutter girls in my high school.

foxforce91 on April 13, 2007 at 11:04 AM

The really stopped short when they named that show “The View”. I think what they named their show is “The View…for shallow thinking, moronic idiots”.

What other show can anyone try to portray someone as being stereotypical racist, while exuding class warfare playing, stereotyping, racism themselves. Rose McGowan says “I’m sure they were probably guilty of something at one point in their lives”. Why? Because they were white and have rich parents?

Your right Rose! Maybe we should find all rich, white boys and hang them from the nearest tree branch we can find because we know they are all scum, they’re guilty of something and don’t deserve the presumption of innocence. Does this sound familiar?

I love liberals and their tolerances…;-)

Planet Boulder on April 13, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Maybe not though. She seems like she could have been one of those girl who chose to hang out with the out-crowd.

And I can believe she was an outcast in high school. There were a lot of very beautiful punk-rock and cutter girls in my high school.

Here is why I think she was not in the “out” crowd. It’s not just her looks, but her attitude. Speaking as a person who was in that crowd and considering that “we” were often the ones blamed when something went wrong, it was common for “us” to give people the benefit of the doubt knowing what it feels like to be labeled as guilty just due to our appearence.

Gene Splicer on April 13, 2007 at 12:35 PM

I worked in a prison teaching electronics a few years back, to help these guys better themselves, so when they get out they wouldn’t go back to a life of crime. (Yeah, right, whatever…)

Anyway, one day a discussion ensued in the class on an off-topic (not electronics) subject wherein the guys sitting in prison began to berate ME for being a “goodie-two-shoes”.

I reminded them that at the end of the day, I could go home and this place WAS their home until they served their time. One finally quipped, “Well, we all do bad things. It’s just that some of us get caught, and some do not.”

His implication was that we’re all bad people at heart, we all do criminal things (you know, rape, robbery, murder, car theft, like that…) and some of the UNLUCKY ones get caught doing it while the rest of us remain scott-free on the street.

That’s precisely what the bimbo next to Rosie was trying to say. All “boys” are bad. Those guys “just got caught”.

Well… wait, let me say something. Our legal system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.

Those young men got no such treatment, and for people like these… BIMBOS to go on live television and imply that they “must have done something somewhere else” just SMACKS of discrimination.

Rick Donaldson on April 13, 2007 at 12:56 PM

Here is why I think she was not in the “out” crowd. It’s not just her looks, but her attitude. Speaking as a person who was in that crowd and considering that “we” were often the ones blamed when something went wrong, it was common for “us” to give people the benefit of the doubt knowing what it feels like to be labeled as guilty just due to our appearence.

Gene Splicer on April 13, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Yeah, but that’s also part of what makes me think she was in that group. The outcasts were judged for looking different. I’ve known several from those groups who are more than glad when someone who doesn’t look different has a finger pointed at them.

Rose seems to be saying that because these kids don’t look like the type to do this thing, it’s actually better that they were charged. To me, that sounds like a jealous punk kid who never grew up, the kind who watched “jocks” get away with things she was never able to get away with.

Esthier on April 13, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Wow. Some of the comments are pretty hard on Rose here from a personal attack standpoint, but maybe I’m just not feelin’ this one.

Having said that, and given the subject matter and theme of the thread:

‘Jawbreaker’ Google it!

Readymade on April 13, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Rosie? Well, all the attacks on her are nothing compared to what she’s been doing to the American image.

Rick Donaldson on April 13, 2007 at 3:02 PM

Hey, I’ve got no problem with flaming Rosie. She deserves it, no doubt.

Obviously, quite a few folks think Rose is deserving in this case. Her statements were clearly off-base, but it’s just rare to see a non-serial offender being attacked on a personal level ’round these parts. Kinda like one of those message vs. messenger kind of things.

Or maybe I’m just biased by her ‘body of work’. ;)

Readymade on April 13, 2007 at 3:10 PM