BS: Pimpin' Chelsea

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 11:57 AM

re: other uses of the word 'pimp'

It seems to me there is some confusion: there is the word 'primp' or 'primping' which was earlier used to mean "Dress or groom with elaborate care" ,,(I actually heard a woman use it about 50 years ago..)

I am guessing that something like a Mondegreen is occurring, and that 'pimp' has sort of slid sideways over the years and that 'primping' has become almost archaic.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 12:15 PM

This reporter is from the younger generation, and isn't a boomer. Honestly, I think he was going for the politico reporter hot shot thing--he was appearing as a guest on the tragically unhip Tucker Carlson show. Now, I know for Repubs Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter is as hip as it gets. Hence their tendency to use popular vernaculars of the youth culture inappropriately, in the same way Imus got caught up in using the nasty boomer racist vernacular inappropriately.

Bottom line is, the American public is fed up with the shock jock mentality, and the spurious and scurrilous attack game against some of the finest young women (who are perceived as innocents in both cases) in the country, as happened in the case with Imus, and with the 'well bred, well heeled' Chelsea case.

As far as I'm concerned, it is time to hoist the media by their own damn petard, and I think a lot of other folks see it that way too.

In other words, the fact that it is Chelsea Clinton this time isn't the most relevant corollary here. That it is being done as a repulsive partisan attack against the Clinton campaign, by going after her kid, is what disgusts most people, including me.

If that is the length the media is going to go to stir the shit pot, then, I think, people want the media to suffer the consequence, including their corporate network daddies who keep encouraging this sort of shock mock journalism for the ratings.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 02:12 PM

I think the news media is constantly paranoid about running out of things to talk about. That's why they put idiots in front of microphones to say dumb things. That way, they can carry on a debate for days expressing personal opinions about trivia without having to do any research or actual work needed to report the real news.

                The cable channels are full of these fools: Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly... There's no end to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:35 PM

Janet--

"too rabid"--i.e. not fitting into your neat plan to call all Obama supporters hypocrites for not protesting Schuster's remark. Remember who started this thread--and obviously is feeling a bit "rabid" about Schuster's phrase.

Perhaps you could simmer down a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 09:28 AM

Our reactionary guest friend is right.

What right does the little child Chelsea have, at the age of 28, to support her monther's career choices.

It is simply shameful to pimp her out like that. Not only that Chelsea refuses to answer 98% of the questions shouted at her.

She won't even meet with Bill    O'Reilly.

yes this is a case of right wing perceived child abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 10:56 AM

Have you ever been watching Bill O'Reilly when the guest is saying something he disagrees with. He cuts off the speaker's mic and talks over him/her.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 12:18 PM

I cannot stand to watch O'Reilly that long...and I am close to refusing to watch Chris Matthews because of the way HE interrupts & talks over guests. ....and this Beck character! Lordy!

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 02:28 PM

Yeah, I can't watch Glenn Beck for more than 2 minutes.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 03:42 PM

*grin*...no doubt you switch the channel to Nancy Grace whenever Beck comes on.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 03:54 PM

I don't know of any candidate who has not employed family members to do some stumping for them. It's an old political game.

I think there is a healthy reaction though when people want to defend the rights of a young lady against obvious mysogyny. I think these dirty talk show hosts ought to be held accountable for their foul mouths. When you call a young lady a whore, then you need to be heard from.

As to free speech, well maybe we should all call everybody "whores" and be done with it. Lets put this on the media and see how it plays. This would certainly solve our problems. (sarcasm intended).

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Charley Noble
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:45 AM

GG-

"In other words, the fact that it is Chelsea Clinton this time isn't the most relevant corollary here. That it is being done as a repulsive partisan attack against the Clinton campaign, by going after her kid, is what disgusts most people, including me."

Nicely put!

Now should you re-examine your own mis-characterization of Michelle Obama as a "trophy wife"? You don't have to love and respect her but your characterization in another thread was insulting and inaccurate.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:52 AM

No Charley, there is no need for me to re-examine what you term a 'mis-characterization'. Because, IMO, it isn't.

The media taking cheap shots at upstanding young women by referring to them as whores and prostitutes to prove their machismo is disgusting.

But so is Michelle Obama's attempts to claim sexual superiority to Hilary Clinton, and blame her for her husband's sexual infidelities by saying "You got no business in the White House if you can't take care of your own house."

That is a trophy wife mentality, plain and simple. You might not get that, but women do.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:07 AM

It's just an opinion, of course, but anyone trying to describe Michelle Obama as a "trophy wife" would have to be blind, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:24 AM

I can't help thinking that we tend to read into this things that are not there, sort of projecting our own fears and dislikes. Let's go to the start of it all: Both male and female prostitutes have pimps; so, why is the statement "misogynistic"? had Chelsea been a son rather than a daughter, the statement would have applied equally - but would the outcry have been the same? I am not 100% sure it would have.

As a statement it may be crass and misjudged, it might even have been meant to upset, but was it "offensive"? Are we being a little too delicate here? If the Clintons took out a lawsuit for defamation, would it have stood? Again, I am not too sure it would have.

Note also the use of "sort of ...", where Shuster uses the expression to compare or clarify, but does not attribute it directly. I am sure any defense lawyer worth his/her salt would have had a field day with that.

I think therefore that there is a material difference between this case and the "nappy headed ho" one - the latter statement is clearly both misogynistic and racist, as no other interpretation could exist, and defamatory to boot. The former is intended to upset and taunt, but I don't see them in the same category. In fact, the real taunt here as I see it was the implication that Chelsea has no will of her own and little child-like she is being trotted out and exploited by her folks. Nothing to do with being a woman, of whatever colour or profession.

As for Chelsea's campaining for her Ma, well, she's a big girl and that's her business. Couldn't care either way.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:00 PM

George - You seem not to be in agreement with Ron Davies.

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:07 PM

But we still love each other...:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Pimpin' Chelsea
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:22 PM

Well, Rig, in general, with very few exceptions, it's you that I have to avoid agreeing with. It's when I do that I have to really watch out. But fortunately, you're almost a perfect negative indicator.