We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
All the talk about Letterman reminds us of our prescient post from June, Hey Jenny Slater, Hey Jenny Slater, which was a reaction to Letterman's unfunny jokes about Sarah Palin's baby. One quote from the post:
Letterman's congenital problem manifested itself in spades. He is a Beta male in an industry filled with Beta males. Even the industry's a Beta. He's not even an entertainer -- his job is to talk to and about entertainers. They say politics is show-business for ugly people, and the similarities are manifest. Politics is often home to Beta males that try to cut in front of the big men on life's campus by the side door. Same deal. That's why they get along famously.
That's why men like Letterman always end up groping the help. All the Beta males do this. Look at John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Bob Packwood, Newt Gingrich... this will grow monotonous. They're lame, and know it, and so they try to get themselves in a position of power over the men they used to resent, and the women they never had a shot at. But the men are all dorks of one sort or another, and the women they never had a shot at are still out of their range. They can lord it over whatever women are handy, but eventually find that they are in the thrall of someone as defective as they are.
Why spin this against Letterman? As the previous article suggested, in the bigger scheme of things, he's nobody. [irony]Rogue [\irony] elements of CBS news are big fish here. Enemy of my enemy and all that...
What was most chilling was the audience laughing at his revelations, especially when he made fun about the women he slept with. One of those moments when I thought, parts of this country are really sick.
Would it be embarrassing if it were made public? Perhaps it would," Letterman said.
"Especially for the women," he managed to joke.
Worse in a way than the Hollyweirdos defending the child rapist.
In what way? The man had consensual sex with adult women. It was nobody's business until an extortionist essentially exposed it. We're not talking about someone who betrayed public trust. He's just another goof ball entertainer doing goofball things. Michael Duvall did far worse. Mark Sanford did worse and he's still governor. Some would say Newt did worse. And let's not even talk about Steve Nunn. I'm not defending DL, but really, defending a child rapist is worse? Get a grip.
What's horrible about it is his laughing, applauding repetoire made public for the world to see .... as well as his wife and son. That's disgusting. Affairs are nothing these days it seems, but to have some slimeball like Letterman make a big joke out of it and in doing so, mock his wife and son.... good god. What a piece of shit.
You all are using the wrong term to describe Polanski's conquest: She was no child. I'm not defending him, but get it right.
And such is life for grown women who choose to get involved with unstable goofballs. Self-deprecating comedy is how the guy deals with life so why should any of this be a surprise. The "package" also comes with millions of dollars in permanent financial security, rubbing elbows with the rich and famous, and access to bush league power that mere money often cannot buy. The humiliation was coming one way or the other, dl just took control and at least showed the decency (for lack of a better word) to not use weasel language like "inappropriate behavior" to describe what he did. I'm certain all dl's "victims" will get over it. Maybe the problem is with the women who choose to be with such men. I often wonder (fantasize?) what kind of world it would be if women found engineers as sexy as certain emotional basket cases, which is how dl often openly portrays himself.
Polanski's victim was a child. 13 years old, granted, not 7 but still 13. A 13 year old may "understand" how to use her sexuality, but there is no way that she understands the loaded weapon she is playing with. I'm sure she new what she could buy with $100 back then too, but if he took advantage of her financially, would it still be her fault? I resent any implication that as a man I am some sort of dog (wonder if there's ever been a study of the sexual decisions of dogs, perhaps it's even insulting to them) who can't say no. Between the girl, her mother, and rp, he was the one grown-up who had the most "choice" of action and would have the least to gain from the "opportunity" presented. He could get any 18 year old if he so desired. I'm sure there were plenty around and available.
My original point is that focusing on someone like letterman, whom we all agree doesn't matter is wasted energy when the real problem whose vulnerability is begging to be exploited is CBS News. But apparently the conservativosphere is too wrapped up in a false sense of moral superiority and may not just waste another opportunity but possibly even turn it against themselves. Note the masthead here, "Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for." I am quite certain I am free from david letterman. OTOH, of CBS News and conservative "moralists" I'm not so sure.