Hmmm... I'm not sure I clearly understand what happened here. From my understanding he made a joke about Palin having to protect her daughter from some adult and people equated this to trivializing rape? Correct? And then he also called Palin a "slutty flight attendant"? And this is all supposed to somehow be equal to calling the RU basketball team a bunch of "nappy headed hoes"?

Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see how this is the same. But I think maybe I need to hear the entire story. I do think that what he said was wrong and stupid and he should have to make a public apology but I think what happened here and what happened with Imus are two very different situations. The Imus thing was about race, this is about rape. I'm not saying any issue is more important than the other but they are not the same. Just think, if the joke was being made about a black woman in her child....would people care as much?

@ Bill
This has nothing to do with ideology. The Obama children were kept out of site for most of the campaign and in the White House. But Pallin dragged her disabled child onto the public stage to make a political point. She trotted out her family members out in public to reinforce her anti-choice views.
Pallin used her unwed mother daughter in the same manner. Bristol Palin (with a little help from mom) has made herself a public person with interviews and magazine articles. Again, I though the joke was in poor taste, but if you deliberately put yourself out there, you have to take the bad and the good.

I hope no one would be as crude as to make fun of her infant (your assertion that I would do such a thing is offensive), but none of this would have happened if Pallin did not try to brand her family as a conservative's wet dream.

@Sharon, you make a good point about Palin and how she made emblems of her kids. Still, and you acknowledge this in your comments, Letterman made a stupid, offensive choice with the joke.

Thanks Grampa.

With regard to your 5th paragraph, I agree and would also say that Palin's comment about keeping Willow away from Letterman was way over the top. I don't agree with how Palin handled this. Letterman's attack was bad enough, there was no need to fabricate anything more out of it.

I also agree with your 'Octo-mom' comment, but I wonder what the response would be if Letterman's remarks had been directed at Michelle Obama and her daughters. That seems to be a more appropriate comparison.

I would describe pres Obama's bowling comments as insensitive and offensive, but he did apologize, and I have no reason to suspect that was anything but a slip of the toungue. I bet he cringed even as the words were coming out. I was much more concerned with his association to Wright, but that is old news, too, and totally off topic.

@Bill - You make a good point about what constitutes the reasoning for the attack. I can't say that I was outraged by Imus's comment; more disappointed by it.

And you're right to a point - but I don't think 'double standard' is the accurate term for it. It all comes down to context and 'relatability' to the situation. I don't believe it's possible for everyone to have the same level of outrage to a given scenario. Too many people, too many backgrounds. It's when there is a shared sense of injustice (such as the Imus comment) that the lines are drawn.

And I would maintain that the difference between the Imus comment and the Letterman comment stands. Had Letterman's comment been about those two characters from 'The Hills' or the (albeit cruelly named) 'Octo-mom', there would have been nary a word said.

I think the problem here is not about race or ideology, but about where satire and ideology cross the line.

In Letterman's case, the intent was clearly satire. I don't believe for a minute that the people up in arms about this thought that Letterman was referring to the younger Palin daughter. It was more than obvious that it was in reference to the unwed pregnant daughter of a very conservative political figure.

In Imus's case, no one could mistake what he meant by 'nappy-headed hoes'. It wasn't a scripted delivery - it was a candid moment that (probably) cost him some credibility. Certainly, it earned him some lasting infamy, as this discussion proves.

Now (and I'm not going to let this ever go) - when Obama made that remark about bowling and special olympics participants - was it something that you shrugged off, or did it offend you? I found it as candidly offensive as the Imus comment, but only because it was close to my heart (and he's the POTUS - i thought he should have known better.)

@Grampa Caligula, as usual you make a thought provoking point. BTW I was very upset about Obama's bowling comment. He does indeed flash insensitivity from time to time. I don't like that about him. Maybe he triggers recognition in a trait I would like to change about myself.

Of course there is a double standard. Letterman = Imus. Hatred is not limited to issues of race only. Some of these comments highlite the point that the verbal attack was not racial. Why does that matter? Are you saying a racial attack on blacks deserves a harsher punishment than a non racial attack on whites? (Just to clarify the word "attack" - I consider both Imus' and Letterman's comments to be verbal attacks... that is what I am referring to with that word.)

@ Carmen - your argument is very similar as many used for Imus, specifically that black rappers said far worse things in their lyrics. Didn't work for Imus, shouldn't work for Letterman.

@ Sharon - you stated the Rutgers women did nothing to invite defamation. The reverse of that logic is that Palin's daughters somehow DID invite defamation. Would it be ok to verbally attack pres Obama's daughters? Or are Palin's duaghters more worthy of attack, simply because you disagree with Palin's ideology? You said it would be ok to verbally attack Bristol because Palin drug her on stage. Palin also used her youngest child to reinforce her pro-life beliefs. Based on your logic, some jokes about that child's mental disability would be just fine. Your argument is offensive.

@ Grampa - Interesting thoughts. Isn't it our nature that we would feel more outrage when our group is attacked, and less when it is someone else being attacked? Does that neccessarily mean it is a double standard? I found Imus' comments degrading. I understood the outrage. Just because I was not outraged to the same level... would you call that a double standard? Were you outraged to the same level over both Imus and Letterman?

Also - This blog rocks. Just found it.

Welcome Bill! Thank you for your thoughtful comments. So glad you like the site and I look forward to your participation here.

So - is there a race based double standard with regards to how Letterman’s comments are being handled as opposed to Imus?

Hardly - apples and oranges in this case. I'm hard pressed to believe that race had any play in Letterman's dialogue or its critisism.

Outside of race, maybe the real double standard is in where the outrage manifests itself.

I doubt that many of the people who found Letterman's comment degrading felt the exact same level of outrage as they did about Imus's comment. Letterman's comment was a (characteristically unfunny) joke about a person in the public and political sphere. Imus's comment was literally a backhanded racial slur that he had the misforture of uttering into a live microphone.

Maybe the real question should be: Is there a race based double standard with regards to who finds Letterman’s comments more / less offensive than Imus's comment?

The joke was in bad taste. I would not have had a problem if it was about Bristol. Palin dragged her pregnant daughter and reluctant boyfriend onto the public stage.The women of the Rutgers basketball team we just doing their job and did nothing that should have invited defamation. Black women have always been seen as less than feminine. We are neither white or male, we are the double Other.