Wanda Sykes, performing at the White House Correspondence Dinner, made some jokes at Rush Limbaugh's expense. For some this was apparently cause for upset. Why? She was there to entertain and she was just doing her job. The lines that seem to be drawing criticism are:
I think maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th highjacker but he was so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight.
Rush Limbaugh, I hope the country fails, I hope his kidneys fail, how about that?
Taken out of context maybe they do seem horrible, but having watched the video of her performance they were, as delivered what they were meant to be....funny. So I'm failing to see what the hoopla about this is.
Miss California, Carrie Prejean, is going to learn her fate today. The final decision belongs to Donald Trump however, two people whose names I've already forgotten, (I think one is a former Miss CA and the other a gay rights activist, but don't hold me to that) will be giving a press conference to "state their case" on why Prejean should lose her title.
From what I understand since they can't go after her for having and expressing an opinion that they don't like, they want her removed because of some partially nude photos of her that were taken when, according to Fox, she was a teen.
Ummm....helloooooooooo? Maybe my definition of "partially nude" is different from everyone else's because I think that women posing on a stage in high heels and bikinis, a long standing tradition with these pageants, while having their pictures taken as well as being aired on national tv are in fact.... partially nude!
According to TMZ two of the photos showed her topless, but let's face it, this isn't really about the photographs.
This is nothing more than a lame attempt by these people to strip Prejean of her title simply because she believes differently than they do and said so. Its akin to a child stealing another child's dessert at lunch because they wouldn't let them have a turn on the swing during morning recess.
The Christian Children's Fund is changing its name to Children's International Fund. It's speculated that this is a 'PC' move. (Don't get me started about what an idiotic concept PC is!). It may be that or it may simply be that the new name more accurately describes what they are. It doesn't really matter since the decision has been made.
What's bothering me about this is the people who are considering or who have already decided not to give to this charity anymore based solely on this issue. This is a good cause, not one that I personally donate to for the record, but still a good cause. I think that people recognize that even if they aren't by definition Christians. I expect not all donors would consider themselves Christians and they donate because they believe in the cause irregardlesss of who started it.
Were these people donating to this cause simply because it was a Christian founded charity without thought or care of what the charity was or because they wanted to help the children the fund is intended for? Do the children the charity helps only matter if the fund has the word "Christian" in its title? I would hope not. More to the point, do these people feel that withdrawing their support for children in need based on this (rather trivial when you look at the big picture), issue a Christian act?
A lot of air time was dedicated to these stories and others this morning which brings me to what's really bothering me.
I have, and others as well, written to various media outlets asking if they would give a few minutes of their time to various missing person cases that may benefit from wider coverage. We weren't asking for full segments on each case, just a brief report that the person is still missing, the basic details, and their picture shown.
Unfortunately it seems that to report something (even briefly), which may actually be helpful to someone isn't as important as telling us about David Hasselhoff's drinking problem and the crap his wife is leaking to the press about him.
Well there's my rant for the day for what its worth...
