From New York Daily News:
“Concerning Letterman’s comments about my young daughter (and I doubt he’d ever dare make such comments about anyone else’s daughter): ‘Laughter incited by sexually-perverted comments made by a 62-year-old male celebrity aimed at a 14-year-old girl is not only disgusting, but it reminds us some Hollywood/NY entertainers have a long way to go in understanding what the rest of America understands — that acceptance of inappropriate sexual comments about an underage girl, who could be anyone’s daughter, contributes to the atrociously high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others.’ ”
Todd Palin added: “Any ‘jokes’ about raping my 14-year-old are despicable. Alaskans know it and I believe the rest of the world knows it, too.”
My Comment
Not being much of a fan of Governor Palin’s, I think I can say that my outrage over the way she’s been treated by the media is probably pretty objective. So I’m glad to see her rip David Letterman on his tasteless (to put it mildly) comments. Missing from the column is another Letterman joke – about Sarah Palin’s look – that of a “slutty flight attendant.”
Perhaps next time, some one should “joke” about Letterman’s own looks. How about a “pedophilic bank teller”? Sounds shocking when it’s done to a man, doesn’t it?
Update:
This is quote from Bernhardt’s “funny” routine about Palin from October, which I blogged here (October 2). I’m posting it again to show how the anti-Palin “jokes” go far beyond what would have been said about any other candidate without provoking censure or outrage. That’s only the beginning of the routine. I took out the last part which went something like “one of my big black brothers here in New York will rape you” – that’s not a mistake – she really said that. I took it off because in the context of the elections, you never know whom it might set off. It manages to be offensive to Christians, black men, females, and Jews (yes, if I were Jewish, I’d be really unhappy to have Sarah speak for the Old Testament, a fine book that doesn’t need her in-ter-pre-tay- shun).
Now the election is over, I think it’s not irresponsible to post it in paraphrase in the context of proving that there’s a history of this sort of invective against Sarah Palin. Recall that the New Yorker cover of Obama as a terrorist (as stupid an editorial choice as I’ve ever seen) and the cartoon about killing the chimp both were widely considered incitatory – and rightly so.
But when it comes to a white, Protestant woman with fundamentalist beliefs, from a small town, who is pro-life, she doesn’t deserve any consideration whatever…
If this isn’t sexual, racial, and class-based discrimination, what is?
The woman is running for high office, and she’s a slut because she happens to be attractive? That doesn’t affect her job performance? That doesn’t affect how others see her and her work?
Phooey. Something really stinks in the way people think about these things here in the US.
Sorry. No intention to go all nationalist. But actually, Indian female politicians are treated more equitably.* No wonder the US hasn’t had a female president.
Now you got Uncle Women, like Sarah Palin, who jumps on the sh*t and points her fingers at other women. Turncoat bitch! Don’t you f*ckin’ reference Old Testament, b*tch! You stay with your new Goyish crappy shiksa funky bullsh*t! Don’t you touch my Old Testament, you b*tch! Because we have left it open for interpre-ta-tion! It is no longer taken literally! You whore in your f*ckin’ cheap New Vision cheap-ass plastic glasses and your [sneering voice] hair up. A Tina Fey-Megan Mullally broke down bullshit moment.” (rest of the comment censored)
*On second thoughts, I remember some of the language used about Sonia Gandhi, which was also racial. I wrote a piece about it on the net, “The New Post-Colonial Racism.” But it wasn’t misogynistic…
It’s all about programming. Letterman is brainwashed to the extent that he is not capable of independent thought. The culture in which he exists and has shaped his mind believes that anyone who thinks differently that they (and especially challenge their monopoly of virtue and power) represent pure evil, hence deserve no respect and barely acknowledment of their existence.
While I tire of dragging the Nazis into any painting project, the mentality isn’t that different as to their portrayal and treatment of jews, in that if the Palins of the world were consigned to a concentration camp, Letterman would doubtless find it endlessly amusng to watch them being raped by guards. Does this make Letterman evil? Perhaps. Mostly it makes any ideology that confers such power to be the very locus of evil.
Well said.
Ideology is the underlying problem.
Which is a fancy way of saying people are thoroughly brainwashed.
I don’t believe in evil as a substantial reality.
Like Augustine, I think evil is just the absence of good.
Letterman obviously thinks he is pursuing a good (fighting provincial bigots), entertaining, making money.
That wry delivery is very funny. But I don’t watch TV much and haven’t in years. Had no idea he was still around.
His comments seem less racial or religious than unconsciously misogynstic.
Never attribute to design what can be attributed to stupidity. Letterman’s show has been recycling the same stale shtick for the last couple of decades. The talented writers tend to work for (ahem) other networks. So if you look at the Top 10 list about Palin, you’ll see the lame lines of untalented writers trying every trick in the book to be funny; the shocking ad hominem attack is one of those tricks.
I think in this case, they were too lazy to research that the woman has more than one daughter, making the “joke” even more horrendous than they originally intended.
I’d like to see Letterman try making a similar joke about Obama’s daughters and see what happens…
Yeesh. Tough crowd. I thought we outgrew the “proper polite behavior” knee-jerk reflex to “obscene speech” a long time ago. (At least as far back as Larry Flynt?) I guess we didn’t.
(I would rather have the pedophilic bank teller making lewd and partisan jokes, than have him censored and un-opinionated and politically correct.)
yes boo, you hit it right on the head. The double standard is so blatantly evident in the media that the dumbing down has all but been acheived. Its refreshing to read your bright insight and know that there are still people who can think for themselves.
Hi Dennis –
false alternative I think.
No one said he should be censored (although free speech isn’t properly understood here)
We said it was vulgar and out of bounds.
Rightly so.
You’ll notice the people using the vulgarity would never dream of criticizing Israeli policy, would they? They’re quiet on the things they should speak up on but loud on anything trivial and simply offensive to someone not even in the public eye.
I’ve elaborated on the problem of representation in first amendment law in my first book, at some length. The public understanding of first amendment freedom is actually childish and superficial…
Larry Flynt was no hero.
Lila
Not a false alternative at all. I really would not watch letterman, or any other comedian, if they weren’t riskee; that’s the whole point of comedy. Incidentally, I wouldn’t even constrain this freedom to the realm of “comedy”–it’s essential to our intellectual growth; our human nature. The bank teller was speaking up on things that HE wanted to speak out on–namely his dislike for Palin–which is entirely understandable. (It is well known that Republicans are stereotypically incompetent with humor and other creative qualities.)
How was Larry not a hero?? (And have you seen The Aristocrats (2005)?)
Hi Dennis –
*It is. We can have civil discourse and political freedom.
* the word is risque
* we know it’s a comedy routine
* if someone thinks jokes about raping a 14 year old girl are funny, I’d suggest their intellectual development isn’t high
*The generalization about Republicans is foolish. I voted republican once. “Mobs’ has had terrific reviews for wit (wit, that was entirely lacking in Lettermen, hence his need for vulgarity at the expense of a child)
*Some of the funniest writers in the English language – P. G. Wodehouse, Stephen Leacock, Mencken, Saki, Evelyn Waugh, Hilaire Belloc, Dorothy Parker – were conservative in temperament.
and you’d be hard put to find explicit and nasty language of this kind. Where you’ll find this sort of thing is in the “work” of third rate comics like Sarah Bernhadt who “joked” about Palin being raped by her “big black brothers” – called her a “goy bitch”.
I notice that tape got pulled off various spots on the internet – seems like even the first amendment diehards thought better
*Let’s see all these “brave” defenders of free speech talk about things that do really require courage to talk about:
*Israeli domination of US politics and foreign policy
*Russian-Jewish mob influence on Wall Street
*CIA money laundering through Wall Street
*Anglo-American banking establishment
*Israeli war plans, mossad activity
*Catholic church cover up of sexual abuse
* Catholic church manufacture of saints/relics/miracles
(Catholic church complicity with CIA
*Zionist complicity with Nazis
OR
on sociological/anthropological issues
*genetics and IQ
*gender and IQ
Now – that’s bravery..
Larry Flynt ended up on the right side of a court case. Doesn’t make him a hero or make up for years of abuse of his family members.
Obscenity isn’t the issue alone.
There is such a thing as fighting words and incitatory speech.
There is speech as harm.
It’s the thesis of my book, as I said and it’s been and will continue to be influential because it’s a powerful argument.
It is not (a false alternative). Who defines what civil discourse is? I honestly found the joke civil, albeit *slightly* RISQUE. (It didn’t mention rape, but rather promiscuous sex involving a 14yo. And it is an appropriate opposing extreme to the advertising image the Palin PR people dish out.) Moreover, I can imagine many people who would consider anarchist (aka. voluntaryist) movements (who actually act on their advocacy) to be un-civil and seditious; far more uncivil than lewd jokes.
The generalization of the un-creativeness of the *stereotypical* republican is not foolish at all. It has to do with the general psyche of the party, (or at least the newer neo-conservative elements of it), which is “macho”, as opposed to the stereotypically feminine/motherly qualities of the Democratic party. Whenever you see Democratic campaigns, you invariably get pretty talented musicians and poets and comedians; with Republican campaigns, invariably rigid humorless fear-mongering.
I completely agree with you about the cowardly mainstream media, how it avoids any serious issues. Though, in fairness, David never pretends to be a journalist–merely an entertainer.
I’m thrown back a bit when I hear you advocate things like “incitatory speech” or “speech as harm” :S. The article also said this: “[the joke] contributes to the atrociously high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others.” Rrrreally?? Again, the same two *serious* issues: (1) Personal tastes /clearly/ vary a lot–I found the joke entirely harmless and moderately entertaining. Should we muzzle David and prevent me hearing such jokes for the *alleged* and probably entirely un-justifiable sake of /some other/ potentially ignorant and dangerous people? (2) Who defines what is harmful speech?
I’m sure I’m creating a scarecrow around your words–please clarify the situation :P.
(P.S. Re: Larry, I never heard anything about him abusing his family, just his long and *heroic* battle against obscenity legislation. Incidentally, he was shot by one of his racist readers supposedly upon reading an issue of his magazine involving an interracial couple, so I suppose /some/ lunatics do exist out in the wild–though I would still never even entertain the idea of censorship.)
Oh mb4–you hit it so right! Very good illucidation and everciation of the rationalization of Denis. Yes, freedom of speech is perfectly o.k. against strawmen and those the mob/media have deemed open for attack and ridicule. The hypocrisy, stupididy and nastiness in todays american media is astonishing. The mindlessness of the Bill Mahr’s, Letterman, and 90% of “commdians” is sick. Where is Lenny Bruce? Where is Mencken? Where is (yes its true) Jack Anderson?
Its sad and funny how so many people (denis) think that there really is a difference between Republicans and Democrats beyond that of differeent shorts for wrestlers. If Orin Hatch and Ted Kennedy as is well known are true best friends, just how different are the parties. Oh, the Obama adminstration has shown creativity and initiative beyond that of the Bush? Just a different brand ol Denis. Retreading Italian Fascism under the guise of “inclusion” amd empowement is not much of a feat. Continuing the work of Paulson and his bunch is not change….Ugggg.
Now on to the fact that for appearances sake that blue collar whites are open targets and Palin and her family represent the uncool or unhip portion of the population. If only Palin where Black she would be the medias favorite……Too bad she is white and from samll town Alaska and not black from a small town in Georgia. Media would have her down as amodel of a woman triumphing over adversity and keeping family as best she can under the stresses of daily life. She is white and blue collar and thus fodder.
Hi Dennis –
I think you are confusing two things.
*First amendment rights pertain to our right to be free of FEDERAL GOVT restraints
They don’t say anything about what the public might tolerate, or deprive of us of the right to
1. Indulge in effective counterspeech (which is what we are doing)
2. Advocate boycotts (which I’d like to see)
3. Publicly shame or ostracize.
You certainly should be free to say whatever obtuse dumb bigoted remark you want to make. And I should be free take my custom elsewhere and tell everyone what a bigot you are.
*You are ignoring context. I’ve heard jokes that would curl your toes told privately among males of a certain cast of mind. I don’t like them but the jokes are told privately. If you go to a strip club and get offended by risque humor that’s your look out. But we are talking about things posted on the net, where the audience is extremely wide and where the material exists in perpetuity. There is real harm involved.
And even if we were talking about government restraints, there is such a thing as context.
Please go and read first amendment law – there is such a thing as time, place, and manner restriction.
In any case, as I said, this isn’t a censorship discussion at all. This is a discussion about public culture. Yes, it stinks. It’s saturated with violent pornographic imagery that is subliminally racist and misogynistic. It’s not a culture that supports the raising of children. That may or may not be a good thing, nor do I think the federal government should be in the business of lending its weight to decisions about public culture.
But because the feds shouldn’t be, doesn’t me the public shouldn’t use its judgment!
The whole of idea of civil society falls, if you confuse the realm of government action and public discourse.
An example is sometimes worth a thousand arguments.
Would you also consider it funny if Letterman said Jews were “blood-sucking parasites” and deserved to be “eliminated”? Or that Muslims are “filthy animals that breed like rabbits.”
(I picked these examples not for shock-value but because in fact the latest public shooting was by a man who apparently believes that Jews should be killed and who probably read a lot of antisemitic screeds that say precisely this sort of thing. And anti-Muslim rhetoric, of course, is central to the justification for civilizational war).
And if you don’t find the antisemitic/anti-Muslim remarks funny, why do you find the misogynistic ones funny?
By the way, Letterman did not say rape as such, but he did imply that Willow was promiscuous (which we don’t know and which is highly irrelevant even if it were true) and he did talk about keeping Eliot Spitzer away from her. (Now, Spitzer was reported as liking “rough play” with prostitutes and to be fond of sodomy – and that’s not an image most fathers and mothers would like associated with their underage daughter)
*Read what Larry Flynt’s relatives had to say about him
Yes, I would find that Jew-joke funny :P. Like I mentioned earlier, I strongly believe that we /need/ extreme “comedy” — I am of the strong opinion that open and free discussion is ALWAYS a good thing — infinitely better than repression. Would muzzling anti-semitic or pedophilic bank tellers help them or us? (NO! :b). I am an unwavering advocate for Absolute Free Speech. Absolutely no chains attached. Of course there’s not much that can be done when puritanical mobs oppose me. By the way, I’m still not sure what you mean to do about the problem of “David”. You don’t seem to support censoring him. And, surely you realize that all this publicity is absolutely great for him, eh? (Ie. the public loves this stuff.) But, if some opportunistic censors among the public arise and demand action, what would you say to that? Does the first ammendment not protect him? (Not that the constitution is of any use anyways.) Wasn’t the whole point of that paper supposed to protect individuals from mobs, governmental and otherwise?
Also, I think “public culture” has improved fantastically over the past decades centuries, albeit it’s still far from where I’d like it to be. I don’t think I would be able to tolerate living in the repression of the past.
As I said, you’re confusing government censorship and the publics right to be outraged or the right of a citizen to express his outrage.
If it’s ok to express outrageous things, it should be ok to express outrage, no?
Re- the antisemitic remark, I don’t think, in the context of war and US-Israeli policy, and in the context of discussions about and anger over anti-semitism….I really don’t think it’s “ok” or “funny” to call Jewish people blood-sucking parasites.
It’s one thing for Jewish people to crack such jokes among themselves (as some Jewish comedians have). It’s quite another for, say a Christian fundamentalist to. That understanding of context is what is completely lacking in political discourse today. It is a sign of barbarism.
The sign of culture is to be able to understand convention, context, non verbal signals and so on.
To take everything to an extreme limit based on a mistaken fundamentalism over words is the essence of barbarism.
Re censorship – I am not advocating government censorship at all.
I am advocating personal responsibility for the social consequences of your actions.
If we cannot practice restraint, we will bear the moral responsibility when restraint is forcibly imposed on us.
r, hey, I didn’t mean to suggest that the R’s and D’s are /that/ different. Their differences are almost negligible to either one vs. a libertarian, and twice as great vs. a voluntaryist. But, come on, you have to acknowledge there is some validity between those personality stereotypes. How many musicians/artists/poets do you see on the Red side? Why isn’t Bob Dylan with them?
Yes, public culture has improved….Yes, letterman, barney frank, denis and the absolute free speechers would have elevated periclean greece and taught disraeli a thing or two.
Making cheap jokes on televsion (a divise designed to sell advertising, nothing less or more) at the expense of those whom are the accepted targets of villification is not accepted. I suppose using my absolute free speech to suggest acts upon somebody’s mother or daughter (say Denis’)is considered funny and well edifiying for our “public culture”–whateve that means.
First amendment or not–its about social and cultural mores and a commerical sensibility to shock to sell ads.
There is little hope for this ol republic.
Robert – well said…public culture today is pitiful…that’s why I think leaving is the only hope for many of us..
I’ll write a piece on that later..
Dennis –
Dylan was complex. He converted to Christianity later in life..
He was quite conservative in many things in his world view (imagery from the Bible repeatedly peppers his songs)
In any case, artists are not very well-versed in economics.
I would no more base my economic ideas on what artists think than I would base my literary technique on what economic theorists think.
You are committing a common fallacy called the fallacy of false authority…
ie. Madonna likes “x” toothpaste, so you should too
Artists are herd animals like everyone else, under a veneer of mostly superficial unconventionality..
The truly original thinkers are few and far between, like the truly courageous. The large part of it is just convenient posturing for admiration from others of your own way of thinking.
And now, I sign off for the day…
You can’t seriously be suggesting that Letterman or Flynt bear ANY responsibility if “restraint is forcibly imposed” on them?!
You say it’s not ok for “some people” to make fun of Jews. So what? Would you stop me? (Ie. run to The Government Goons and ask them to beat me up/muzzle me?) I am perfectly ok with your personal opinions of outrage–(are you ok with my personal opinion that it was an entertaining joke?)–I’m just curious to know whether you think SOME people’s outrage (majority or otherwise) over speech can ever justify violent censorship. You seem to be suggesting that it can :|, albeit quite indirectly; as usual :D.
Hi Dennis –
I really have to run, but you seem to keep making up strawmen arguments. I didn’t say any government goons are going to get you or that I would advocate it. Please stop posturing. No one has violently censored anyone here. The only thing that is routinely censored in public debate are topics similar to what I mentioned.
Childish nonsense has free play all day long…that’s not the point.
As for censorship – it’s already here (censoring of detainee photos) – Letterman’s freedom to make offensive jokes doesn’t seem to have helped the public’s right to see evidence of outrageous political abuse – as your slippery slope argument implies.
As Robert says – TV is more about commerce than about free speech.
But it seems you don’t get the point.
I’d advise actually studying first amendment law. And theories of representation…
Anyone can have opinions and make unsubstantiated innuendo
Informed opinion and convincing arguments are different things.
True, you didn’t *directly* advocate violent censorship, but you (and r) certainly implied it.
Lila: “there is such a thing as time, place, and manner restriction.”
Lila: the censoring/punishment of “incitatory speech” of so-called “harmful speech”? (both concepts which I wholeheartedly reject)
I hope I didn’t come across as suggesting that Letterman (or other people that YOU deem as “vulgar”) are in any way bastions of truth and wisdom, or that their primary motivation is anything but profit and entertainment, but the slippery slope is /definitely/ there, and you don’t seem to be appreciating it. (Or rather, half the time you do when you explicitly reject the idea of censorship, and the other half you don’t when you imply violent censorship. By the way, if I may ask :b, what did your book that you mentioned earlier propose to do about “incitatory speech”? (Ie. speech that YOU consider incitatory, but some/most others don’t.))
Also, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a “better” place to live. I think everywhere is about the same, or far worse :\.
O.K.–this should be the least intelligent thing I have ever read on your blog:
Also, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a “better” place to live. I think everywhere is about the same, or far worse :\.
Very Churlish–and a reason why I have started to avoid my fellow Mercuns. Yes, St Lousi, Phoenix just the same as Florence, Basel, Sydney. This sort of nonsense and the attendant attitudes and ignorant certainty has many of us headed for the exits. Yes, do stay here Dennis, the other places are just the same or worse, please don;t bother leaving.
Hi Robert –
Don’t bother arguing. He just says whatever he wants to say and then puts it into my mouth.
WHERE DID I ADVOCATE OR IMPLY THAT I AM FOR VIOLENT CENSORSHIP?
nowhere.
I said, people who incite others bear a MORAL responsibility for their actions.
THEY CERTAINLY DO.
But that doesn’t imply I like government censorship.
I said, if you call Jewish people “parasites” and
say they should be “eliminated” and some
nut job tries to shoot a Jewish man, you DO
bear some moral responsibility.
Moral is NOT legal
We are talking two different
things here.
“Time place and manner restrictions”
are part of BASIC constitutional law.
Go and read it up on wiki and understand
what you are talking about at a basic
level first, please.
CENSURE IS A DIFFERENT WORD FROM CENSOR…
Please…please…
first google and read a few elementary
things before arguing so aggressively
and putting words in my mouth
that I never said.
that is the essence of disinformation
We actually are talking about the exact same thing. As I’ve mentioned a few times before, I found the joke entirely acceptable and enjoyable. You clearly didn’t. How can I possibly bear ANY responsibility for another person’s actions?? (If some fanatic mother of a 14yo beats me up, or if some bank teller goes ahead and rapes a 14yo?) Is it my fault that they have no (or at least not my) sense of humor?
You have indeed stated repeatedly that you are against censorship, or rather you “don’t like censorship” — but that simply doesn’t fit in with the rest of your sentiments. When you raise foggy (and IMHO absurd) ideas of “harmful/incitatory speech”, that *inevitably* leads to violent censorship — for the sake of our own safety. If indeed speech can be harmful, then OBVIOUSLY it should be regulated and the harmful speeches cenSORED, and the speech-makers held responsible for the speech-listener’s actions. I may be adding a little decorative straw to your argument, but the skeleton was always there.
I didn’t say violent, I said force, meaning coercion through the law.
Yes – restrictions. That’s what the time, place, manner qualifications of first amendment law are about.
I’ve made my point about that.
I am no fan of Palin, and I think she should accept Letterman’s apology and let it go at that.
Carrying on about it only increases the commentary about her daughter.
Not decorative straw at all. You don’t understand first amendment law. It’s not something where anything I say goes any time I say. It really isn’t.
However, my point was never about the first amendment – you still don’t seem to get that. My point was about self-restraint in the public realm and the coarsening of culture. I am not suggesting that Letterman be censored by the government.
But if people want to tune him out, attack him in letters, denounce him, that’s their right.
Censoring free speech has nothing to do with it, as it had nothing to do with Imus.
People kicked him off the air. That’s not censorship. That’s choice and public pressure.
And great defendant of free speech that he was, Imus groveled and crawled for pardon.
Likewise, if Letterman were so sure that what he said was impeccable, why apologize?
Because it’s got nothing to do with principles.
It’s all about popularity.
L said what he said because it was a cheap shot he thought he could get away with, Palin being a conservative white woman who is unpopular with the liberals who make up his audience.
When he found he had misjudged his move and had provoked a storm, he ran for cover since he doesn’t want to be kicked off the air or boycotted or lose out financially.
There’s not an iota of principle in any of it.
And now Palin is milking it for all it’s worth.
And the media is feeding that.
The whole thing is demented.
Surely you realize that force = law = coercion = violence? Any law, no matter how innocent it may appear on the surface, is backed by a very real and lethal gun.
Also, incidentally, I strongly do believe that freedom of speech means anything I say goes any time and any place I say it. I guess we differ in opinions here — you feel that speech should be restricted somewhat — obviously to where YOU feel it is appropriate :\. This Letterman joke, and that Bernhardt soliloquy are perfect trivial examples of how absurd /any/ such restrictions are… I found them joke *entirely* acceptable; you apparently didn’t. What happens now? (The NY article has the balls to suggest that Letterman’s joke increases sexual exploitation of minors! That’s incitatory, no? Shouldn’t it be illegal and censORED then?) Why on earth should Letterman apologize to Palin *for a joke*?? Why on earth *should* he do anything at all? (I’m not saying he shouldn’t — I think our opinions and suggestions to Mr. Letterman are entirely irrelevant, and the issue is entirely moot. None of us even watch his show for Pete’s sake!)
I suppose I do understand where you’re coming from though — it was slightly vulgar — but I think you’re blowing it entirely out of proportion by linking it to some greater “coarsening of culture”. It’s cheap late-night entertainment, for Pete’s sake! :b — what do you expect? It’s better than Jerry Springer, n’est pas? And, really, what’s worse, Letterman’s lewd and imaginary joke, or Palin’s very REAL stance on the illegalization of abortion for any reason, at any point of gestation, which directly and blatantly affects real people’s lives? (I’m sure I could list countless other greater absurdities that she spews out–like her ignorant and absurd religious/fantasy beliefs that she supposedly believes to be the truth, thus contributing to the religious-infection among youth, a FAR more vulgar and coarse and offensive routine IMHO–or her support for the bloody slaughter of Iraqi civilians, etc, etc.) Why aren’t you (or her :b) outraged about those things that I find TERRIBLY offensive?
So, in conclusion, I guess you don’t find Dave’s joke incitatory? And so disagree with the article’s analysis? I’m still /really/ curious as to what you would consider incitatory (ie. criminal/censORable/illegal.). The Bernhardt thing? Neo-nazi literature? (Personally I consider history textbooks vile and incitatory–but you won’t see me running to goons to violently threaten the publishers.)
DAVID LETTERMAN’S HATE, ETC. !
David Letterman’s hate is as old as some ancient Hebrew prophets.
Speaking of anti-Semitism, it’s Jerry Falwell and other fundy leaders who’ve gleefully predicted that in the future EVERY nation will be against Israel (an international first?) and that TWO-THIRDS of all Jews will be killed, right?
Wrong! It’s the ancient Hebrew prophet Zechariah who predicted all this in the 13th and 14th chapters of his book! The last prophet, Malachi, explains the reason for this future Holocaust that’ll outdo even Hitler’s by stating that “Judah hath dealt treacherously” and “the Lord will cut off the man that doeth this” and asks “Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?”
Haven’t evangelicals generally been the best friends of Israel and Jewish persons? Then please explain the recent filthy, hate-filled, back-stabbing tirades by David Letterman (and Sandra Bernhard and Kathy Griffin) against a leading evangelical named Sarah Palin, and explain why most Jewish leaders have seemingly condoned Palin’s continuing “crucifixion”!
While David, Sandra, and Kathy are tragically turning comedy into tragedy, they are also helping to speed up and fulfill the Final Holocaust a la Zechariah and Malachi, thus helping to make the Bible even more believable!
(For even more stunning information, visit MSN and type in “Separation of Raunch and State” and “Bible Verses Obama Avoids.”)