House of Eratosthenes

I’m divided about Charlie Sheen, although not by any means unresolved or uncertain. As a matter of fact, there are many things in life about which I think it would do me good to learn a bit more, but there are very few subjects on which I have less curiosity than Charlie Sheen. Among the things about which I am ambivalent, I think it is fair to say Charlie Sheen represents the one item on that list about which I possess the lowest level of curiosity, the one item on which I have the least to learn.

Do I need to elaborate upon the reasons for which I feel ambivalent? I have some sympathy for when he’s asked why he likes hot looking women…as if it’s some kind of mental illness…and he replies, “duh.” Not only am I on Charlie Sheen’s side in that exchange — I am deeply, deeply suspicious of the man who is not. Charlie Sheen ranks much higher on my scale of acceptability, than some virtual gelding who goes through the motions of pretending “proper” men should not find attractive women to be attractive. I think those lightweights are selling out their own sex, but I also think they are much worse than that. I see them as liars, who are complicit in an effort to ruin the lives of others who speak truth.

From what I have read, Charlie Sheen is a working man. He shows up for the job on time, and he delivers. He seems to be a pain in the ass to any kind of employee, boss or co-worker…but not because anything that has to do with getting the job done. I think he’s a dick, but I think the guy who fires him because of some personal friction, is a bigger dick. In short: I have contributed productively to successful projects, working shoulder-to-shoulder with people who disagreed with me about things. I have little interest in forcing everybody else to do likewise. But I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who fail at this. I figure if I can do it everybody else can too. I think the “team player” thing has been vastly, vastly overdone, in all walks of life. I think we have neglected the getting-done of the job at hand, even if it’s a silly job like show business, to this “lesson” more properly relegated to the second-grade classroom of “learning to work together.” I think Charlie Sheen fails at this, is proud to have failed at this, but the goal is substandard, nonsensical, useless and childish in the first place. I think it needs more resistance. When Sheen/Estevez puts up his resistance against it, I am in his ball park and I am on his side.

Next item of Sheen-mania: “Winning…”? I’m ambivalent about this more than anything else. Yes, it sounds pretty stupid and yes it probably should. It’s also a falsehood in my opinion. I have a few people in mind who I think are “winning” or have been “winning.” Charlie Sheen has not been on that list. He is certainly not on that list now!

But why do I not like Charlie Sheen? Not because of any one thing he’s uttered in particular; he’s going through the motions of being this rugged-individualist guy who doesn’t care what anybody thinks. And it is the polar opposite of the truth.

Charlie Sheen is trying to get attention. I cannot respect people who try to get attention. They keep saying all kinds of stupid bullshit things.

Like for example…this.

9:18 – “Nothing terrifies a troll more than its own reflection,” Sheen continues, before shifting gears into politics. “In a recent poll, they told me I’d bring down that whore [Sarah] Palin. I don’t have time for that nonsense.”

9:20 — People start booing Sheen. Not playing around, but actually booing him. Sheen yells, “I already got your money, dude!”

We here happen to like Sarah Palin, but let’s leave that alone. We happen to be friends with lots of people who don’t like Sarah Palin, if Charlie has something insulting to say that by itself doesn’t make him a bad person.

And it’s not necessarily the word that brings it to my attention.

It’s the entire family of words. Trollop, whore, cunt, twat, plate-of-warm-meat, jezebel, tramp, bimbo, gang bang party favor, tootsie, hoe-bag, strumpet, tart.

Nouns that indirectly refer to the organ that is between a woman’s legs, for the purpose of implying that the target of the insult has sexual intercourse with an inordinately large number of men, or has a great number of sexual adventures of a casual nature across a relatively brief expanse of time.

Calling all people who do not like Sarah Palin — and let us say, for the purpose of argument, that I am also a person who does not like Sarah Palin.

Why would you go calling her a whore? It just makes us look like dumbasses.

Now let’s re-emerge back in reality, and acknowledge that I do, in fact, like Sarah Palin: I already know these Palin haters are dumbasses and don’t need to see anything by way of ancillary proof. But it does prove what I already know. They’re dumbasses.

Why do you go calling her a whore? Can you think of any way in which she is qualified to be on the receiving end of such an insult, even remotely? No, you can’t. I say this makes Charlie Sheen, and all the other Palin haters, look like exactly what they are. People stranded in “opposite land.”

I would rather have Palin watch my house while I was on vacation, than Charlie Sheen. And I think most of the Palin haters would rather have Sarah and Todd watching their houses than Charlie Sheen, while they were on vacation. I think they know what I know. I think this is why they hate her so much. It’s like Stockholm syndrome; they have this inexplicable fascination with, and attraction toward, flaky unreliable scumbag ditzy slutty people. And so they project these slutty attributes upon clear-thinking reliable people who are not sluts, that they know are not sluts.

They try to make an issue out of Sarah Palin, and “tea party people,” being well-read or not well-read. But it’s all nothing but a big smoke screen, a big red herring. Being erudite or worldly or having a passport has nothing to do with it.

She possesses good judgment and is wholesome, and they hate her for it.

But why call her a slut or a cunt or a hoe-bag or a twat, or any of these derogatory words for women who have indiscriminate, frequent or vast magnitudes of sex? Why do that?

After years and years of moving in next door to her to spy on her, and comb through her trash, there was not a single sexually titillating thing discovered about her except — correct me if I’m wrong, but I think this is an exhaustive list:

– Her daughter got knocked up
– She showed her legs, wearing running shorts, with awesome looking legs sticking out of them, on the cover of a magazine, and it was a damn good-looking cover since Sarah Palin’s legs are so good-looking…
– Some bikini picture had to be photoshopped. That means it wasn’t real. Which means, they couldn’t find a real picture. Which means, you know what her legs look like but you don’t know what her stomach looks like.

That’s a whore? You can’t even find an old boyfriend pre-Todd? Just one? Someone who will spill some secrets? Just one? After all this energy spent looking…it would not be an overstatement to say an entire industry has been built on this effort, between August of 2008 and the moment in which I’m writing this…still, there is nothing. That’s a whore, huh?

Sorry Charlie. You’re a falling star, burning out. But I think you know that already.

Title of this post taken from the comment made by cruzin77.

Cross-posted at Washington Rebel.

They called Palin a “whore” because it’s all they’ve got. It’s the word they use for any woman they don’t like.

I think you pointed out, Morgan, that 99% of the Palin haters cannot even tell us what her policy positions are, much less articulate why they wouldn’t be desirable for the country. “Drill baby drill” doesn’t count when asked what her policies are, by the way.

What irritates me even more than that, is that these self-appointed guardians of women’s rights and honor (the NAG gang and the like) consistently give people like Sheen a pass on this.

Sheen is a douche, end of story. Just another overpaid Hollywood brat who’s struggled for years with substance abuse, womanizing, and money problems. What else is new? Yawn. I’ve paid very little attention to his antics – I have my own problems to think about.

But I don’t think I’m watching “Two And a Half Men” ever again. It wasn’t that funny to start with, frankly. Sheen, a brother of dubious sexuality, a string of mentally-ill girlfriends, that sarcastic fat lady from “Mr Deeds” and an overweight, wisecracking son. Hardy hardy hardy har. Won’t the laughs ever stop?
- cylarz | 04/04/2011 @ 00:44
Sheen is a douche, end of story. Just another overpaid Hollywood brat who’s struggled for years with substance abuse, womanizing, and money problems.

Give him his due, at this point I don’t think he’s “struggling” with a damn thing. He doesn’t pretend to be doing one thing & really be doing another…except perhaps for the cute little game he seems to be playing, along with many others, of “I’m not saying I’m taking the hard stuff and I’m not saying I’m not, if you ask I’ll change the subject since it isn’t legal yet even though we ‘all’ know it damn well should be.”

But unlike the other celebs, when he does these things he fully intends to do over & over again, he refrains from lying to people about how sorry he is, or pretending he’s doing something different from what he’s really doing. That doesn’t entitle him to much; nothing, really. But in my book he’s at least a notch above the others.
- mkfreeberg | 04/04/2011 @ 08:14
“All roads lead to ~~Rome~~ Sarah.”

Are you after some sorta “Defender of the Faith” title, Morgan? 😉

Apropos of something: HoE is painfully slow today.
- bpenni | 04/04/2011 @ 11:19
The “whore” refrain cracks me up. Doesn’t “whore” mean “sleeps around a lot by choice?” And isn’t “sleeping around a lot by choice” how a girl shows that she “owns her own sexuality?” And isn’t “ownership of her own sexuality” the very definition of empowered feministy goodness?

Therefore, Sarah Palin is, by their own admission and the transitive property of equality, the very paragon of NOW-sanctioned feminism.

Well played, ladies…. well played.
- Severian | 04/04/2011 @ 14:28
Well, Buck, it does indeed appear to be that the fact that you hear people calling Sarah various names seems to be the bulk of the case against her. She talks funny. So? (So she’s stupid.) She’s from a small town. So? (So she’s small.) She’s from a “backwoods” state. (So she’s backward) So? She’s a good looking woman. So? (So she’s a whore.) She did that TV show. So? (So she’s an attention “whore”.) She hunts. So? (So she’s backward.)

All things designed to get people to be ashamed of agreeing with her.

That’s the point.

The damning “facts” about her have all turned out to be false.

It is all they’ve got. Call her silly names until nobody will question the silly names for fear of being deemed silly themselves.

It does get a little old, and she has been unfairly, and relentlessly, attacked from every corner of the media, a significant amount of that coming from the established insider right.

Pointing out that people are wrong about what they’re wrong about is part of what this blog is about.i

Bill Whittle covered the whole thing pretty well here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmEE61iVhCA

If all the right gets is whoever the Peggy Noonans and Bill Buckly’s of the world will approve of…. we might as well keep electing Democrats and get the pain over with more faster.
- philmon | 04/04/2011 @ 16:15

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“Now We Know Who the Half Man Is”Sunday, April 3rd, 2011

“Now We Know Who the Half Man Is”
Sunday, April 3rd, 2011