Comments for A GLOVE TO LETTERMAN

A GLOVE TO LETTERMAN

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:28:29 -0600

[A Modest Request by Castle Denizen: Boquisucio] We have all heard David Letterman’s cheap attempt at comedy this week...

Comment from BillT on 2009-06-12

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:09:23 -0600

He really needs to man up and just apologize for the whole thing instead of making lame excuses.

If he were capable of it, he just might do that. I doubt he will, though, because he'd first have to be convinced that he needed to apologize. In *his* mind, he didn't say anything improper -- indeed, the Palin family should apologize for its failure to appreciate the Letterman "wit"....

Letterman's "wit" -- as far as I can tell -- lies solely in saying something and then grinning at the audience until it responds to the flashing "Laugh" cue signs.

Comment from Boquisucio on 2009-06-12

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:49:57 -0600

This idea of mine, probably won't get the legs necessary to make a bit of difference. The lefty pukes will keep thinking and acting the same way.

But dream if I may dream, If only he would be incommodated by a couple hundred gloves ("Floppy" , "Armored" or in between), in his place of business, maybe - just maybe, he would pay attention to Middle America for a change. Maybe then, he'd keep such discourse to his limp-wristed friends in Manhattan, and not share them with the rest of us.

Comment from AFSister on 2009-06-12

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:29:03 -0600

I'm with you, Cass. The public figure is open territory; family is not.

And I agree with you John- Letterman wouldn't have made the same joke about the Clinton's. This is a part of his on-going feud with the McCain/Palin presidential ticket.

I do, however, truly believe that Letterman and his staff mistook Willow for Bristol. I seriously doubt he would ever suggest that anyone knock up a 14 year old, even jokingly. BUT. He really needs to man up and just apologize for the whole thing instead of making lame excuses.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-06-12

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:06:00 -0600

I have just one test for him. Would the same joke about Chelsea and Hillary been funny back in the day?

If not, then don't use Boq's foppy glove, use this.

Comment from Grim on 2009-06-12

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 04:22:47 -0600

...that it would be meaningless to him because he doesn't see honor as relevant to his life. That was a chief benefit of the duel as a social institution. Whatever else you might say about it, it made the relevance of honor quite apparent.

Comment from Cassandra on 2009-06-12

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:48:48 -0600

Well, you started me thinking about this yesterday, BOQ, and I'm still mulling it over.

On the face of it, I tend to agree with AW1Tim (that Letterman wouldn't "get" the reference - that it would be meaningless to him because he doesn't see honor as relevant to his life). But I also think he isn't shameless. I watched his face during the non-apology and he clearly understands that certain things are just wrong.

What I don't think he understands is the idea that it's wrong to go after children and spouses of public figures. What makes such a joke any different than making that same joke about your neighbor's daughter (and yet I don't think even Letterman would have done that, though I may be wrong). He would have understood that it was hurtful, and also he would have seen his neighbors as real people who wouldn't react well to seeing their daughter held up to ridicule.

He sees the "wrongness" in joking about a 14 year old getting knocked up - she's far less able to defend herself and even if she'd done something to invite derision, we generally don't hold kids to the same standards as an adult, so it's not OK to poke fun at their foibles in the same way we might with a grown-up. He has just lost track of the notion that it's not any better to joke about an 18 year old when you get right down to it for a mistake she made when she was underaged.

Comment from AW1 Tim on 2009-06-11

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:46:42 -0600

The problem with this idea is not that it isn't clever, but that the entire effect would be lost on the recipient. From Letterman to Obama, the left hasn't a clue what "honour" means. It's like asking your dog about the theory of relativity. He'll just stare at you, tilt his head to one side, then lick his balls.

Pretty much the same with the left when it comes to the concepts of "Duty, Honour, Country". It's a wasted gesture.

Comment from Alan D. Briley, RN on 2009-06-11

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:07:45 -0600

Honor, yes.

Honor.

Death before dishonor! Airborne!

Comment from MCart on 2009-06-11

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:44:00 -0600

I always liked it when Bugs Bunny put a brick in the glove.

I miss REAL saturday morning cartoons.