the tycoon, the quarterback and the comedian

LDB · Jun 13, 2009

A well known tycoon had two sons. The older son was very athletic, lettering in baseball and football in high school. He went on to be the starting quarterback and Heisman Trophy nominee for one of the perennial national favorites. His only flaw was significant fraternity partying and drinking leading to some bad publicity.

The younger son was born over a decade later with Downs syndrome and developed early onset osteoarthritis in one leg that partially crippled him. He was a great kid who idolized his big brother and thought he hung the moon.

The dad was often seen at the older sons games and frequently took the older son to major league games around the country. When the dad had to go cross country on one business trip he took the younger son with him. They did a few vacation activities together when the dad wasn't in meetings. A few nights into their trip they went to the ballgame.

The next day a well known comedian's monologue included "Did you hear that tycoon and his son are in town? They've been vacationing some and last night went to the ballgame. Things were ok until the seventh inning stretch when the son was seen stumbling around like a drunken retard."

DougTravels · Jun 13, 2009

LDB said:
A well known tycoon had two sons. The older son was very athletic, lettering in baseball and football in high school. He went on to be the starting quarterback and Heisman Trophy nominee for one of the perennial national favorites. His only flaw was significant fraternity partying and drinking leading to some bad publicity.

The younger son was born over a decade later with Downs syndrome and developed early onset osteoarthritis in one leg that partially crippled him. He was a great kid who idolized his big brother and thought he hung the moon.

The dad was often seen at the older sons games and frequently took the older son to major league games around the country. When the dad had to go cross country on one business trip he took the younger son with him. They did a few vacation activities together when the dad wasn't in meetings. A few nights into their trip they went to the ballgame.

The next day a well known comedian's monologue included "Did you hear that tycoon and his son are in town? They've been vacationing some and last night went to the ballgame. Things were ok until the seventh inning stretch when the son was seen stumbling around like a drunken retard."

Yeah but he still went on to become Governer of Texas and a 2 term failure of a president!

LDB · Jun 13, 2009

There's one of the usuals responding as expected.

tallcal101 · Jun 14, 2009

Excellent Doug,good stuff. You get an A+ for homework today !!

By the way,whats the name of that author of the famous popularist book on the conservative womans liberation movement? Your an expert on such matters,perhaps you can point me in the right direction.

Turtle · Jun 14, 2009

This is just a parallel joke of what the other joke was reinvented to be, not what the other joke actually was. This joke focuses on the son and his actions, not on what some third party did to the son. Also, regardless of which son it was, the son's actions would not have been such that pointed out any hypocrisy of the tycoon to make it any kind of awkward moment, or as the joke says, something other than things being "OK".

The setup has to show the tycoon standing for something specific, not merely being anti-bad publicity. It would have had to be bad publicity that goes directly against what the tycoon stands for, and something that could also take place at a ballgame so as to be an awkward moment for the tycoon. Like, if the tycoon was an outspoken proponent of prohibition. If you want to stick to the drunken retard theme, then the third party needs to be a ballplayer, or perhaps another spectator, who is famous for drinking and/or getting drunk, as the third party is just as critical to the joke as the setup.

So with the tycoon being set up as being dead set against alcohol consumption (and being famous for it), and the athlete son being set up as a party hearty kind of guy, and the other son set up as handicapped, we have a visit to the ballgame.

"Did you hear that tycoon and his son are in town? Last night they went to the ballgame. There was an awkward moment, you may have heard about it, you may have seen it on the highlight reel. There was an awkward moment for Tycoon at the Yankee game, during the seventh inning, security escorted his son and Bob Uecker out of the stadium when they were stumbling around and spilling drinks everywhere out in the Batter's Eye Lounge.

Now that's comedy.

LDB · Jun 14, 2009

Yes, it's a parallel. It's tasteless and not funny. It insults and demeans someone who should never be insulted or demeaned. I may not have taken the time to fine tune it but for anyone who's head isn't stuck up where it shouldn't be it's equally clear that insulting remarks were made about the wrong person, a child. There's no defending it because it's indefensible to any decent moral individual. The usuals are showing their natural colors quite vividly though, of course.

greg334 · Jun 14, 2009

Hey Doug,
At least he became president, and did a lot more than you did.

layoutshooter · Jun 14, 2009

So did Obama and there is no more a vile person in this country.

DougTravels · Jun 14, 2009

greg334 said:
Hey Doug,
At least he became president, and did a lot more than you did.

Yes he has done alot more than me! We are paying for it now.

layoutshooter · Jun 14, 2009

Funny Doug, maybe you should be doing the Lettermen show. You really don't get it do you? They are ALL rotten. The Dumb-O-Crats and the Re-Bum-Li-cans. They are ripping you off day in and day out and you support the crime. Too bad.

tallcal101 · Jun 14, 2009

Two things Republican politicians should not be engaged in right now according to Mike McCarthy,right wing writer at large.

1) Taking on late night talk show hosts.Big mistake . Only helps Lettermans ratings and makes Republican canidates look foolish. Not my words,his.

2)Latino voting base will rise from 9% to 15% by year 2012.Currently,Repubicans own one half of one % of this base.The most popular infant first name in Texas right now is Jose.It is recommened that it is not prudent to call Sodermayor a rascist for her comments some years ago.A majority Latino vote will be required for victory with almost certainty.

Once again these words came from your side.They make sense to me.Newt had to eat his words to keep his speaking engagement at the Pow Wow as Sara was already uninvited.Jeez,who's on first Bud?

layoutshooter · Jun 14, 2009

Not coming from MY side, TallCal, I don't like the Re-Bum-Li-cans. Don't like the Dumb-O-Crats either. I am NOT into left wing politics and BOTH major parties are. I want them BOTH gone. Period. I am NOT into Right wing politics either. I would bet money that you or no one else could EVER classify my politics. Might be fun to sit down with you one day, you would learn a ton that cannot be learned in here. Shoot, I bet money that we would NOT need more that 3 or 4 referees!!!! LOL!!

DougTravels · Jun 14, 2009

LDB said:
A well known tycoon had two sons. The older son was very athletic, lettering in baseball and football in high school. He went on to be the starting quarterback and Heisman Trophy nominee for one of the perennial national favorites. His only flaw was significant fraternity partying and drinking leading to some bad publicity.

The younger son was born over a decade later with Downs syndrome and developed early onset osteoarthritis in one leg that partially crippled him. He was a great kid who idolized his big brother and thought he hung the moon.

The dad was often seen at the older sons games and frequently took the older son to major league games around the country. When the dad had to go cross country on one business trip he took the younger son with him. They did a few vacation activities together when the dad wasn't in meetings. A few nights into their trip they went to the ballgame.

The next day a well known comedian's monologue included "Did you hear that tycoon and his son are in town? They've been vacationing some and last night went to the ballgame. Things were ok until the seventh inning stretch when the son was seen stumbling around like a drunken retard."

Jeez I guess I missed the boat on the analogy of this thread.
It is a Palin theme.

Sarah is the Tycoon.
The teen mom is the drunken football star.
I guess he is saying that Willow is the retarded one.
Why did the tycoon give alcohol to the retarded child?

In this scenerio it is also obvious that the talk show host made a mistake about which son the tycoon took to the game.

Did the talk show host apologize in the story?

Did the retarded community organize a boycott? (Great analogy LDB maybe a little to close to actual events to be an analogy though)

I guess the host did apologize but the retarded community (IE Right wing nutjobs) did not want to hear it and decided to continue with their retarded boycott anyway.

I take it all back this is a great analogy and deep LDB!

Turtle · Jun 14, 2009

LDB said:
Yes, it's a parallel. It's tasteless and not funny. It insults and demeans someone who should never be insulted or demeaned.

Correct. This joke was set up specifically to demean someone who should not be made fun of, and is thus tasteless and not funny. It is a parallel of what you interpreted the original joke to be about, which, as it runs out, is the incorrect interpretation. The original joke was a shot at Sarah Palin's hypocrisy and at A Rod's promiscuity, not at the underage daughter. It was a bad idea to use the daughter to set it up, regardless of which daughter it was, but the daughter was not the focus of the joke.

I ask you again, why do you think Letterman lied when he stated that he didn't know that it was the younger daughter?

I may not have taken the time to fine tune it but for anyone who's head isn't stuck up where it shouldn't be it's equally clear that insulting remarks were made about the wrong person, a child.

OK, how, specifically, is it clear that the insulting remarks were made about the wrong person, a child? Keep in mind that in order for it to be clear, meaning to be obvious and evident to all, there must be no assumptions about anything outside of the joke itself that anyone and everyone wasn't fully aware of at the time the joke was told. For example, you cannot assume that he knew it was theyounger daughter just because you want to assume that (especially in light of the fact that Letterman specifically stated that he did not know), and you cannot assume that the writers knew just because you want to assume they did.

There's no defending it because it's indefensible to any decent moral individual. The usuals are showing their natural colors quite vividly though, of course.

There's no defending the joke as you see fit to define it. The man stated straight up that he did not know it was the younger daughter. Let's hear how your morals rule in branding him a liar when he has zero history of lying.

If you cannot answer why you think he's lying, then it's your own colors that are shining bright.

layoutshooter · Jun 14, 2009

Turtle said:
Correct. This joke was set up specifically to demean someone who should not be made fun of, and is thus tasteless and not funny. It is a parallel of what you interpreted the original joke to be about, which, as it runs out, is the incorrect interpretation. The original joke was a shot at Sarah Palin's hypocrisy and at A Rod's promiscuity, not at the underage daughter. It was a bad idea to use the daughter to set it up, regardless of which daughter it was, but the daughter was not the focus of the joke.

I ask you again, why do you think Letterman lied when he stated that he didn't know that it was the younger daughter?

OK, how, specifically, is it clear that the insulting remarks were made about the wrong person, a child? Keep in mind that in order for it to be clear, meaning to be obvious and evident to all, there must be no assumptions about anything outside of the joke itself that anyone and everyone wasn't fully aware of at the time the joke was told. For example, you cannot assume that he knew it was theyounger daughter just because you want to assume that (especially in light of the fact that Letterman specifically stated that he did not know), and you cannot assume that the writers knew just because you want to assume they did.

There's no defending the joke as you see fit to define it. The man stated straight up that he did not know it was the younger daughter. Let's hear how your morals rule in branding him a liar when he has zero history of lying.

If you cannot answer why you think he's lying, then it's your own colors that are shining bright.

Now Turtle, please explain how the daughters actions are a sign of Sarah Palins hipocrasy? I might be able to based on my beliefs but I would like to hear how you came to that based on what I have read from you in the past.

LDB · Jun 14, 2009

Letterman may or may not have known which daughter was in town. Nobody can know for sure. I agree he has no major history of lying. That doesn't mean he's a saint and would never bend the truth if need be. It may have been the writers' idea and he just went along with the script. Based on the amount of media negativity Palin is hit with all the time I suspect it was commonly known which daughter was in town with her. I believe it was reported in at least 2 newspapers the day before and that those are a major source of Letterman monologue material.

My position remains that before a joke like that is used someone in the Letterman organization should have confirmed who was the subject of the joke. No, it wasn't batboy whoever, it was Palin and the daughter, the 14 year old daughter. Letterman wasn't man enough to do a sincere and straight apology. He had to dance around it, make a few more jokes during it, and never take ownership.

chefdennis · Jun 14, 2009

lettermans "rant" after was strictly to "Cover his azz" he screwed up by not knowing which daughter was there for whatever reason and then trying to make it ok to make out that it was ok to say it about the older daughter. He took some heat and felt the need to cover his butt..even he said it was in bad taste...admit he screwed up and give it a rest.....there is no justifacation for the joke at all and i don't need a long winded explanation on how it is justified either....did he have the right to perform it, yeap, was it a smart move, nope, it was pretty stupid....

DougTravels · Jun 14, 2009

chefdennis said:
lettermans "rant" after was strictly to "Cover his azz" he screwed up by not knowing which daughter was there for whatever reason and then trying to make it ok to make out that it was ok to say it about the older daughter. He took some heat and felt the need to cover his butt..even he said it was in bad taste...admit he screwed up and give it a rest.....there is no justifacation for the joke at all and i don't need a long winded explanation on how it is justified either....did he have the right to perform it, yeap, was it a smart move, nope, it was pretty stupid....

Wow! I agree with Chef!