Thursday, June 18, 2009

Fire David Letterman: Part II: Now Backed by NOW

UPDDATE BELOW

The whole nasty Letterman attack on Sarah Palin and family is an outrage and will not blow over. Yes, Letterman after making light of it for quite a while, he finally admitted he was wrong. Good, but the Left Won't Accept Letterman's Apology. If you are still defending Letterman's remarks as 'a joke' or 'innocent' then you just don't get it. Letterman needs to be fired as an example that we will not tolerate these personal attacks.

Cynthia Yockey, my new favorite feminist will not relent: "David Letterman deliberately and viciously and with malice-of-forethought made vile, sexist attacks repeatedly on both Gov. Palin and her innocent teen-age daughters in order to destroy her career and force her out of politics in order to protect her children. " Ann Coulter is on the bandwagon as well, she is linking to Yockey.

More news: the National Organization for Women (NOW), one of the original and still one of the largest feminist organizations in the country (and still leftist) condemns Letterman and urges its members to write CBS and tell them what they think. Wow, Now that is over the top. Thanks.

In related news, Al Sharpton is finally coming out in favor of firing David Letterman. Oops -- that was a joke. Speaking of Jokes, I wish the MSM would stop referring to Letterman's viscous attacks as 'jokes'. They are attacks, not jokes as I explained last time. In the comments of that previous post, copithorne hasn't seen Letterman's attacks and wants to know what the fuss is about? (S)He says "David Letterman is not 'the left.'" Au contraire mon ami... Letterman tows the CBS line on the issues of the day. The MSM is the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. Saturday Night Live and 60 Minutes fill in for Letterman on his regular days off.

To take in the full scope of the Democratic Hate Machine -- give a read to Ashley Herzog:
It doesn’t matter whether they’re forbidding Carrie Prejean to say things Joe Biden is allowed to say or fantasizing about raping overly opinionated conservatives. Sexist liberals have always been open about their desire to prevent women from talking. Two years ago, some slobbering loser responded to one of my Townhall columns by writing, “I don't know Ashley Herzog. Never heard of her before today. I would, however, go so far to say that I would date her if she promised not to say anything.”

Nice work. Especially from people who are constantly screaming about the right’s “war on women.”
Which reminds me -- does anyone know why blacks were granted the constitutional right to vote more than fifty years before women? I mean, what was America thinking? 'Sure we can give blacks the right to vote, but not women.' Seems like a riot doesn't it? Can we ask Al Sharpton? According to Yockney, Al Sharpton "...is trying to frame his successful campaign to get Don Imus fired as right and just because he, Sharpton, was protecting an entire race, while the campaign to get Letterman fired is invalid because Letterman’s remarks were only directed at three individuals and therefore not offensive."

Seriously, it took us 53 years after passing the 15th amendment (race no barrier to vote) to pass the 19th (women's suffrage). Why? They had to wait until the Democrats were out of favor. Republican Senator Aaron Sargent wrote the women's suffrage amendment in 1878 but it could not get passed in Congress until Republicans again won control of both houses 40 years later. If history is any guide, then it will be 50 years from Don Imus firing to Dave Letterman's firing. Let us hope not.

UPDATE: News News News!!! Yielding to Pressure, Olive Garden Pulls Letterman Ads. Politico via Instapundit

Now, the advertisers start to pull out... one by one.. and Letterman is History without them.

Bye Bye David! Why don't you give the Greaseman a call find out what he is up to? You two are going to be spending a lot of time together.

UPDATE2: The Olive Garden is now denying it canceled anything in response to Letterman's attacks. However, they have no more advertising the rest of this TV season. They also issued this statement:
The Olive Garden media schedule is planned months in advance. The schedule for Late Show with David Letterman was completed earlier this month. We take all guest concerns seriously. And, as always, we will factor those concerns in as we plan our advertising schedule in the future.

It is a non-denial denial.

16 comments:

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Actually, I think the Letterman thing is done. He apologised - the second time, nicely. His comment was vulgar, and there was clearly some element of finding it more acceptable to kick Palin than to kick others, but that's not a pure either-or situation. He does kick Democrats at times, even if not so tastelessly. The fault was a matter of degree.

suek said...

"Letterman tows the CBS line on..."

Psst...(sotto voce)that would be "toes the line" ... you know...as in getting right up there to get a fast start in a foot race, or getting as close to a designated line without stepping over it.

I know...I'm not really being a grammar/idiom nazi, but certain common errors just bug me...!

"reigns" instead of "reins" is another one. As in "handed over the reins (_not_ reigns) of power...

OBloodyHell said...

> "reigns" instead of "reins" is another one. As in "handed over the reins (_not_ reigns) of power...

And "rein in the hyperbole...".

People make the same sort of homophone errors with "sight" vs. "site", and don't get me started on "its" vs. "it's".

Bob in Los Angeles said...

Yes and I hate those ignorant trailer trash yokels who write 'your' when they mean 'you're'

Unlike Carl, who is an attorney, I was trained as an engineer, which gives me plausible deniability for all spelling errors. Says so in my diploma.

Hey pssst...of course I know the difference between tow and toe -- it was a TYPO. E and W are next to each other! With your permission I will correct that mistake. Thanks.

suek said...

Typo. Mmmhmmm. Ok...

OBH...also "site" and "cite"...

No doubt the list could go on at length. And I have no doubt that the texting of our young people has _something_ to do with it, but actually, I'm more inclined to think that much is due to the lowering of standards in the educational system and the change from phonetic to sight reading in the 40s.

Carl said...

I'm with AVI and OBH on this one--Letterman apologized; case closed.

OBloodyHell said...

> I'm more inclined to think that much is due to the lowering of standards in the educational system and the change from phonetic to sight reading in the 40s

Ad nauseum. I had a parent who taught me to read, so I never suffered from that problem -- I was reading at "3rd grade" level when I was in first grade.

I also believe that one aspect of the educational system is to make you associate reading with pain and misery, thus, when you get out of college, you'll never read anything you don't have to. Widely read is widely knowledgeable, and knowledgeable sheep is the last thing the government wants.

Other than the obviousness of it, I'd cite the "F" I got in 5th grade -- for the reading class. It wasn't that I didn't read, I just didn't want to read the disgustingly boring tripe they were cramming down kid's throats. I read 2001: A Space Odyssey instead. But that wasn't being a good little sheep and following the diktat of authority, so, of course, I got an "F". That, combined with the fact that they vastly held me back in math by not giving me additional attention in that area (I'm quite sure I could've been doing Calculus at 12 -- as it was, I taught it to myself at 15) has made me a lifelong enemy of public education.

Bob in Los Angeles said...

Well Carl, like it or not, the case is not closed. Letterman probably isn't going to get fired, and that is a shame, because we simply are missing a great chance for the country to unite behind a conservative against unfair ad hominem attacks from the main stream media. Letterman may not get fired but you can be assured I will be referring to Letterman's disgrace frequently as an example of MSM machine.

Because you and others like you choose not to make an example of Letterman means that we will miss an opportunity to regain momentum. It isn't about Letterman or Palin it is about power and using it in the way Democrats have used it to destroy our best and brightest.

Power is the issue, not Letterman. He is chump change.

suek said...

>>Because you and others like you choose not to make an example of Letterman means that we will miss an opportunity to regain momentum. It isn't about Letterman or Palin it is about power and using it in the way Democrats have used it to destroy our best and brightest.>>

Now Bob in LA...

That's a very interesting statement. Deserves some thought. You pose the following problem:
Actions taken by Liberals are morally objectionable to Conservatives. In order to counter those actions, Cs need to respond in kind. Cs find it unacceptable to respond in kind because the actions are morally unacceptable to them. Cs will therefore lose. Or Cs will take actions morally unacceptable to them and win (maybe) but will have become(effectively) the same as those whom they wish to defeat.

It's a dilemna. Do you see any way out?

Carl said...

suek:

We follow our morals by promoting better public policies, not by complaining about the (very real) double-standard in discourse.

suek said...

Agreed.

But what if it means we have no shot at regaining political power? What if loss of political power means that we become a dictatorship? What then?

It seems to me that turn around from the direction we're heading means either regaining political power or resorting to some form of military power. Either results in moral insult.

The only other option would be to accept living in a society where we return to the catacombs - if not literally, then figuratively.

Carl said...

suek:

That would worry me, but I believe your alternatives are a false dilemma.

suek said...

Good article. Very encouraging.

I started a new Bookmark folder - called "Keepers".

I may need to re-read that a few times. 2010 is critical, I think.

Anonymous said...

The worst thing is Letterman is not even funny.

OBloodyHell said...

> We follow our morals by promoting better public policies, not by complaining about the (very real) double-standard in discourse.

Oh, I think we need to complain and highlight this again at every opportunity. Beat the Dems over the head with it, constantly.

I think it's clear we need to bring up this kind of BS at every point, esp. when discussing things with "minority" individuals. We should be prepared to show the Dems for the two-faced hypocrites they are and have always been --

1) They won the South by appealing to racist resentment after the Civil War

2) The 1940 GOP platform had a specific plank in it about racism (see "Negro") while in 1948 the Dems had a racist schism creating the Dixiecrat party (those racists were in the party in 1944 and back in it again in 1952).

3) The 1964 Dem convention specifically excluded duly elected black representatives from voting on the nomination, at the behest of the highest delegates, including both Humphrey and Johnson, which I'd argue directly led to the racial turmoil and unrest in the late 60s and early 70s.

4) The Dems had no problem with the blatant racial slurs directed against Colin Powell and Condi Rice by other Dems and liberals.

All these points need to be harped on, put into the public mindset on a regular basis. Probably THE biggest lie of the 20th century was the depiction of the GOP as the party of racists.

Sexism is much the same. Bob-la notes, it was Democrats who blocked the passage of Women's Sufferage for decades. It was the liberals and democrats in Hollywood who shoved women back in the kitchen after WWII: contrast the personality, typical in the 1940s, of the female lead in That Way with Women(March, 1947) with the female lead in Mother Is a Freshman(March, 1949) -- two years apart. In the first, the woman is spunky, sassy, and self-assured. In the latter, she is helpless, financially incompetent, and "needs a man to do her thinking". It was a radical shift in a mere two years, and it reflects the mindset of Hollywood as to "what was right".

====

I also concur with suek -- we really do need to toss out the Dems in 2010, if they don't lose their majority, that will be bad.

Ther's a graph floating around, I've seen it within the last week, of the number of people who call themselves "conservatives", "moderates", and "liberals" -- it's like 2-1 conservatives-vs-liberals, with moderates a fat mortar of about 35 percent. Mind you, I think there are a lot of self-deluding blatantly liberal people who think they are "moderate", which skews that, but it still shows that the liberals are hardly the vast majority that fools like copi think they are (I'd link to his statement to that effect except I don't feel like searching for it).

I think the Dems know this is the way it will happen, too. And that is why they are in such a rush to pass all this crap and place limits on how later Congresses can affect things.

.

OBloodyHell said...

Ah. Found it, over on Eject! Eject! Eject, as part of Bill's latest piece.

The graph is here

The piece is here