All of which, I suppose, is a circuitous route toward expressing strong agreement with the thrust of DrZ’s piece. As a culture, among our central tenets have historically been the defense of innocence and meritocracy. To tolerate an innocent child being sexually assaulted, if only verbally, before an audience of tens of millions, should be socially intolerable, and thus not tolerated. For a presumptive Justice of the United States Supreme Court to express the opinion that one’s biography rather than one’s skills and the caliber of one’s mind qualifies one for such high office should be politically intolerable, and thus not tolerated. Legal penalty is not required here, for that violates another of our highest tenets. Ostracism, scorn, and ultimately dismissal from our collective consciousness are the keys to such a sacred intolerance. Interestingly, in ancient Athens, ostracism was held to be a harsher penalty than death — maybe we’ll arrive there again . . .

To let something like this slide is to concede that Sarah Palin and her daughter are less worthy of respect – less human – than Obama and his daughters.

Not to be the “vocabulary police” but don’t you mean something like “argue” or “believe or “promote“?

Thanks, katy.. DONE !!
Now, can someone direct me to the list of his advertisers ?

pambi on June 11, 2009 at 8:47 AM

Go to HillBuzz. They have everything with links. Lots of them. Then come back here.

Thanks, katy.. DONE !!
Now, can someone direct me to the list of his advertisers ?

pambi on June 11, 2009 at 8:47 AM

Ancestry.com
Best Western
Bowflex
Capitol One
CBSports.com
DiTech
EBay
Earn My Degree
Embassy Suites
JohnFreida.com
Intel
LasikPlus
Lexus
Lifelock
Mars Candy
On The Border Restaurants
True Credit by TransUnion
TV.com

Tell CBS what you think of Dave…

http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/fb_global_form.php

katy on June 10, 2009 at 8:04 PM

Thanks, katy.. DONE !!
Now, can someone direct me to the list of his advertisers ?

Here’s a politically incorrect question. If all of the white people in positions of power are removed from those positions, and white people in general become the minority in this country, does that mean that the U.S. will start to be more like Africa, South America, and the Middle East?
I can’t wait!

ExcessivelyDiverted on June 10, 2009 at 8:20 PM

Yes in does. The world is full of examples: countries in Africa and Latin America.

History has also given us examples of what is in store for the U.S.: the ancient Egyptian, Roman and Greek civilization come to mind.

Tell CBS what you think of Dave…
http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/fb_global_form.php
katy on June 10, 2009 at 8:04 PM

Thanks for the link. I sent a note expressing my disgust at how low DL has decided to stoop for a cheap laugh.

Like so many social / fiscal conservatives nowadays, I find myself thinking “what’s the use” but I persist in the hopes that it’ll make a difference…no matter how small.

Everyone’s a protected special class….except white Christians, white Republicans, and anyone who is white who won’t admit that he or she is part of the inferior race. All other races, creeds, and political beliefs are special and deserving of “tolerance.”

Oh, and I should add that anyone who is NOT white who holds these beliefs are race traitors. I was remiss in not mentioning them.

I’d buy it.

Everyone’s a protected special class….except white Christians, white Republicans, and anyone who is white who won’t admit that he or she is part of the inferior race. All other races, creeds, and political beliefs are special and deserving of “tolerance.” We’re not.

We insist on using terms like “African-American” because we understand the importance of addressing people with dignity and respect.

Funny how we never insist on the term Caucasian-American.

….The fact that nobody amongst the cultural elite bats an eye at Letterman’s joke, or Megan Fox’s bigoted remarks, or Sotomayor’s racial supremacist mindset, is proof that I am right.

I think our society started falling apart back when President Clinton had the audacity to soil the Oval Office by having oral sex with Monica in the peoples office. The outrage that most Americans felt at that time was offset by excuses of the offense by those on the left. Once that happened and his behavior was excused, the crassness of our society started to sharpen. Now no one would be the least bit bothered if O’bama did the very same thing in the future. It fails to shock us anymore and we’ve become a society now that has become so crass that Letterman felt comfortable making those kind of statements. If he were still alive, can you imagine someone like Johnny Carson delivering this kind of back alley humor? Even Jay Leno has more class than Letterman. 30 years ago our society wouldn’t have allowed this to stand. They would have run Letterman out of town on a rail.

FreedomLover on June 10, 2009 at 11:20 PM

I always thought the battle to keep Clinton in office did serious damage to the culture, and it’s only gotten worse over the years. Our politics was hardly a landscape of jolly good fellowship before that, but The Year of Lewinsky seemed to change something for the worse. Comparisons to Watergate often point out that Nixon was no slouch in the obstinacy or lust for power departments, but in the end, he and his party had the simple decency to arrange his resignation. Twenty-five years later, we got a taste of what might have happened if they had decided to fight until the bitter end.

I’ve never forgotten the nauseating spectacle of Clinton’s hit team going after Ken Starr – can you imagine if George W. Bush had assigned a team of character assassins to fan out across the airwaves and savagely destroy, say, Patrick Fitzgerald? In the casual ugliness of Letterman, or Megan Fox’s robot holocaust fantasies, you can see echoes of Alec Baldwin going on national television to encourage the violent murder of Henry Hyde and his family. A generation before Clinton, his desperate commitment to hold power at any cost, and destroy anyone from government officials to private citizens who threatened him, would have been considered monstrous. A generation later, the young daughters of an inconvenient politician are fodder for thoughtless atrocity on a show carried by one of the major networks, beamed into millions of homes.

The Clinton impeachment saga cost the Democrat Party a chunk of its soul. Feminists who howled with outrage over the merest whiff of sexual harassment were suddenly happy to give the world’s most powerful sexual harasser a coupon book of free passes. Civil-rights figures who questioned the black authenticity of Clarence Thomas spun on a dime and declared Clinton to be “the first black president,” cheapening the mighty, centuries-long saga of black civil rights into a cheap trinket that could be pinned onto the lapels of a white politician they especially liked. The party that created the Office of the Independent Counsel, in an ostentatious display of dedication to the cause of “good government,” threw away even the pretense of principle to burn a bothersome Independent Counsel at the stake. The Democrats, and their constituencies, have never been the same since.

In his book he laid out the premise that the more outrageous or deviant an act is, once it’s witnessed by the population a sort of numbness sets in within us.

Exactly. Which is why the left constantly pushes the envelope(with the help of the mass media), just a little further each time, until what is abnormal and obscene is the new normal in people’s eyes.

Tell CBS what you think of Dave…

http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/fb_global_form.php

katy on June 10, 2009 at 8:04 PM

Submitted less then five minutes ago…

Apparently it is just fine with CBS to slam white Christian conservative women and their children, but if “Mr” Letterman had said something like this about “Mr” Obama’s children or even worse, (God Forbid!) Ms. Sotomayor he’d be slapped soundly around buy both cbs and ge officials, right? This is why the Late Show’s ratngs have slipped so badly against Tonight show both old and new and I firmly expect that our good friend Dave will lose even more viewers now. I for one will never watch his show again. So sorry CBS but your liberal Christian hating slip is showing AGAIN!

“I’d barter with him, and say instead of the entire planet, can you just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America?”

Notice she picked the group least likely to give a damn about what she said. Unlike other groups, who would already be in the streets, burning somebody’s car or chopping off somebody’s head.

Well played, Megan.

Yeah, she sure is courageous, isn’t she?!

Do I need Doctor Zero’s permission to make a video of this for youtube?
(Yes, I’m a noob.)

JakeRightThought on June 10, 2009 at 11:12 PM

If so, you have it!

I wouldn’t be surprised if he had kiddie porn on his home PC.

I think our society started falling apart back when President Clinton had the audacity to soil the Oval Office by having oral sex with Monica in the peoples office. The outrage that most Americans felt at that time was offset by excuses of the offense by those on the left. Once that happened and his behavior was excused, the crassness of our society started to sharpen. Now no one would be the least bit bothered if O’bama did the very same thing in the future. It fails to shock us anymore and we’ve become a society now that has become so crass that Letterman felt comfortable making those kind of statements. If he were still alive, can you imagine someone like Johnny Carson delivering this kind of back alley humor? Even Jay Leno has more class than Letterman. 30 years ago our society wouldn’t have allowed this to stand. They would have run Letterman out of town on a rail.

I wrote a polite email to Allah asking him to be intolerant of a certain poster who is doing nothig but spewing hate here. I’ve written eamils and letters to sponsons of Letternman’s show and I will boycott. I’m getting very tired of all this. I feel that we are going to end up in another civil war in the country if the Hatefilled Left doesn’t back off and soon!

BTW…I’m a fan of all you write!

What infernal serpent
Has lent him his forked tongue?
From what pit of foul deceit
Are all his slanders sprung?

What red devil of mendacity
Grips his soul with such tenacity?
Will one he cruelly showers with lies
Put a pistol ball between his eyes?

I blame the Republican party for not fighting back against the demonizing of Conservatives that’s been going on since the 1970’s. I’m sick of hearing people say “nobody wants to hear a political party whine about media bias”. Well the Democrats whine and rant and rave about everything and it never hurts them.

Does the media benefit from their left wing bias? No, it hurts their ratings. Does Hollywood benefit from churning out left wing movies? No, these movies always flop. Do universities benefit from being controlled by hard left professors? No, the Duke rape case hurt that university’s credibility. The only ones who benefit from demonizing Conservatives are the Democrat party and the American Left. And who is hurt the most by this propaganda campaign? The Republican party.

And yet, the Republican party walks on eggshells around all this hatred. They don’t want to get too close to Rush Limbaugh. They don’t want to harp on media bias. They don’t want to complain too much about academia or Hollywood. But the fact is, in order to mount a serious counter attack against the likes of Letterman, the Republican party must lead the charge. Otherwise, we don’t stand a chance.

ardenenoch on June 10, 2009 at 9:54 PM

I seem to recall Rush employing legal resources to go after someone who insinuated he was a racist, back in the mid-90s. He said something about how important it was to fight that kind of garbage, relentlessly and vigorously, before it takes hold. Conservatives will never get much help from the media in protecting their reputations – Andrew Sullivan is still employed by his magazine, after all, long past the point where they should have cashiered him and apologized to their readers for associating with someone so deranged.

We would do well as a culture to develop aggressive intolerance for smears and bigotry. I’m going to do what I can to lead the way. For example, I’m feeling a rising swell of intolerance for someone who would abuse the privilege of posting on a conservative web site by trying to hijack a thread with mindless crap like “It was the far-right and is the far-right that opposes equality.”

I thought you made some great points forcefully and lucidly but I also felt you shot down your own balloon with this:

A cretin like …

It is no better than calling somebody a hooker and I’d like to encourage you not to sully your prose with name-calling; its ugly and self-defeating no matter who does it.

YiZhangZhe on June 10, 2009 at 8:31 PM

I take your point, but I would point out some significant differences:

1. David Letterman is both a grown adult, and a highly compensated public media figure. Bristol and Willow Palin are teenage girls who have not forced themselves into the public sphere – the only reason Letterman knows who they are is the identity of their mother. Insulting Letterman for his boorish behavior is qualitatively different than his launching vile insults at those girls for cheap laughs.

2. Letterman started all this. I don’t believe I’ve ever referred to him as a cretin before today. He earned it.

3. “Cretin” is a term referring to someone who is willfully obtuse. Letterman followed up his rape joke by calling Bristol Palin a hooker. There is a point at which a word like “cretin” stops being an insult, and becomes an adjective.

4. “Cretin” is pretty weak tea as far as insulting language goes. It wouldn’t be easy to start a bar fight with it. (Well, I guess that depends on the bar.)

YiZhangZhe on June 10, 2009 at 10:24 PM

Regarding my own earlier post: I do realise that there is a wide range of opinion among people who consider themselves to be homosexual or Muslim or both. I have merely attempted to give a simple example to consider for the debate, not a comprehensive description of humanity.

“I’d barter with him, and say instead of the entire planet, can you just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America?”

Notice she picked the group least likely to give a damn about what she said. Unlike other groups, who would already be in the streets, burning somebody’s car or chopping off somebody’s head.

Well played, Megan.

Geez, am I a bigot to not “revere” religions that are “hostile to our common culture”? Especially if the goal is to change our laws? Not participating via “segregation” is one thing, but being actively “hostile”?

Buy Danish on June 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM

I don’t think we have to like a particular religion to afford it due reverence. Provided the followers of that religion respect our laws and customs, and understand that our commitment to religious freedom does not restrain us from answering their challenges and criticisms, we should respect their commitment to search for divinity, and restrain the worst of human impulses. Reverence for the religious practices of others doesn’t require the slightest bit of agreement with what they practice, any more than our respect for free speech requires us to agree with the content of that speech – a point often lost on the Dixie Chicks of the world, who confuse criticism with oppression.

“Nappy Headed Ho’s”……….

THAT would have been wwwwaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy over the line………..

(/sarc)

is the far-right that opposes equality.

SouthernGal on June 10, 2009 at 9:43 PM

I oppose the pursuit of ‘equality’ and I am not far-anything.

I oppose it for the simple reason that the usual way that ‘equality’ is used is meaningless. When people talk about achieving equality their arguments often have all the intellectual substance of soap bubbles.

Nobody is ‘equal’ to anybody else. The only way that we can call ourselves equal without the language losing its meaning is to qualify the equality: For example “everyone is equally valuable in the eyes of God” or “everyone is equal before the law.”

Of those two only the first one could actually be true in practice and then only if one believes in that ‘god’ in the first place. Equality before the law is a desirable goal but it will never be truly achieved until we are all perfect. The fact that the law exists even implies an inequality since somebody must evaluate the competing interests and decide whose idea of justice should prevail.

I have a question:

How should we reconcile the desires and ideas of a group of homosexuals with the desires and ideas of a group of followers of Mohammed the so-called prophet?

Their goals and ideas are completely at odds with one another.

You would like these two groups to “embrace empathy” for one another. Your first problem is that ‘empathy’ is not something that can be ‘embraced’ so lets resort to plain English … you’d like them to empathise with one another. Could be tricky … one group wants to have sex with the other and the other group wants to kill the first group for wanting to have sex with them.

Second you want them to have ‘solidarity’ with one another which implies that you want them to help one another achieve their respective goals even though what each group wants is utterly reprehensible to the other. That is going to be messy in so many ways.

Social justice? Will they agree about that before one group is killed by the other or afterwards? Who is going to concede what to who? Who decides what concessions should be made, and who enforces the concession rules, and how? Why is the opinion of that arbitrator not equal in value to the opinions of the warring parties? Why should they pay any attention to this arbitrator?

Long words and cute phrases don’t magically turn nonsense into a sensible policy. Any society that tries to attain your impossible goal will tear itself apart trying, to be replaced by something far more oppressive than itself … which is, sadly, exactly what is happening in the free world today.

What you are asking people to accept and believe is a fantasy that is daily shattered when it encounters real people and real situations.

YiZhangZhe on June 10, 2009 at 9:51 PM

What you are suggesting is unacceptable in civil society. In 2009 America we should not be having to worry about having gunfights over whose religion is better.