Rosie O'Donnell, often the first to blast someone who makes any "negative" comments about homosexuals has stuck her foot in her mouth by mimicking "Chinese" broadcasters.
O'Donnell set off a firestorm when she mocked Chinese broadcasters
commenting on Danny DeVito's drunken Nov. 29 performance on "The View.""The fact is that it's news all over the world. You know, you can imagine in China it's like, 'Ching chong, ching chong, Danny DeVito, ching chong chong chong chong, drunk, 'The View,' ching chong.'"O'Donnell's imitation was followed by laughter from her co-hosts and a loud "gong" that producers threw in.
This offended some folks. Should they ignore it as free speech or are those offended right to say she was out of line?
It would seem that if Michael Richard's had said that same thing (Michelle Malkin's video is pretty great [as an Asian American herself]), this would be all over the news. I have not seen it at all (though I imagine it has been played a little) and definately not as much as Richard's or Mel Gibson's drunken comments. (But that still gets brought up).
I like Malkin's comment that if she were a white male, [and not a homosexual woman], the news would be all over her asking for an apology. It seems she also asked Senator Amato (Repub) to apologize on the senate floor for similarly making fun of Judge Ito's language during the Simpson trial.
Also, she seems to have done this "bit" in the past as well and promises to do it again.
In addition, a few weeks ago she called Kelly Ripa's comment to Clay Aiken homophobic (Ripa did not want Aiken's hand covering her mouth because "she didn't know where it has been".-which seems it is just not something you to someone you really don't know regardless of one's possible sexual preference), but this is ok.
That is strange. What do you think?
Derrick
6 comments:
I think that Rosie is a little confused. She is angered by situations that she seems to keep fresh by her own continuation of them. I often wonder why Rosie touts free speech, yet is many times vocal about someone elses misuse of it ( in her mind at least,or so it would seem to me). Rosie certainly says what she wants, when she wants, and where she wants. She also has the platform in her own broadcasts. I guess I have a tough time trying to just figure her out.
In my opinion, Rosie is a boorish, loudmouthed, waste of quality television time. Don't watch her....and could care less who she is talking about today, or any other day. I'll continue to exercise my right to change the channel...
Anoymous (if that really is your name), tell me how you really feel. :-) I do agree that it is important to exercise our right to change the channel. There are probably many times where I should exercise that right more than I do now (though I am not at home when Rosie is on).
I think sometimes people mistake a lot of talking, or talking louder or having good "sound bites" as having a good reason to take a view seriously.
Problem is, many in the American culture, do not take the time to think through their point-they just make them and offer little reason why anyone should take their ideas seriously. And many peopl, it seems, buy into the idea that if you have a "microphone", you actually have good ideas.
But as Koukl has often said-smart people make silly mistakes when it comes to spiritual matters. We must offer more than assertions and being loud.
Derrick
I think it is strange that Rosie assumes Kelly Ripa was referring to Clay's sexuality. Personally, I hate people putting their hands on my mouth...especially during cold and flu season (yuck). I think Rosie just wants to talk...loudly..and act like a victim. It would be really nice if both sides of any issue could be represented and discussed with intelligence rather than with feelings or loudness.
Tracy,
I would add that while we argue with intelligence, we also keep in mind that some issues engage our feelings.
That makes the issue of defending a point of view we feel invested in more difficult because it can be easy to be blinded by our own passion for our position that we are not eing open to other ideas.
And keeping in mind that just because it is possible that we are mistaken, does not mean it is reasonable to think we are without good reason.
Derrick
That's true.... I know. Sometimes I tend to lean a little too much in favor of only objective arguing on certain issues.
Post a Comment