ESPN's Dana Jacobson learns the Internet is always listening

Deadspin has done a good job covering this. She didn't curse Jesus, she cursed Touchdown Jesus; those are two very different people, but I'm sure that line will bring in some fine comments. I'm a Notre Dame fan and I couldn't be less offended. The only thing that upsets the Catholic in me is that ass at the Catholic League or wherever trying to make hay out of this. It was a celebrity roast. Jeffery Ross said all manner of nasty stuff (some of which made it to YouTube) and no one's complaining about what he said. Because it was a roast: you're supposed to say nasty stuff.

posted by yerfatma at 09:30 AM - reply - flag:

I'm not sure it's really about being a Notre Dame fan or not. "Touchdown Jesus" is still Jesus, and cursing Jesus is something that offends multitudes of people. My only question is, do people treat this differently because it involves Jesus (someone they're not probably going to run into on the street or work with in the next cubicle or have to make sales to) than they would an issue if she would have said "Fuck the _____" (enter whatever group you wish)? True, it's a roast, but as the headline says, these days "The internet is always listening."

posted by dyams at 09:48 AM - reply - flag:

I agree with yerfatma. Jesus was (depending on whos account you believe) the son of God, a profeit, a great teacher, or at the very least a great man. Touchdown Jesus, is little more than a mascot. this would be about the equivilant of me saying brutus buckeye can go f*** himself, which i say all the time. My biggest problem with the catholic church (and many other denominations too while we're at it) is that it seems like they look for opertunitys to be offended. Get over yourself. We were made in the image of God. We have a sence of humor. Stands to reason that God has a sence of humor too, doesnt it?

posted by elijahin24 at 10:08 AM - reply - flag:

"Touchdown Jesus" is still Jesus Hardly. I realize the actual mural which has been nicknamed "Touchdown Jesus" represents Christ, but the mural also represents Notre Dame football. If she meant "Fuck Jesus", why add the "Touchdown" at all? True, it's a roast, but as the headline says, these days "The internet is always listening." Which is an unclever way of saying, "The Internet has allowed the vast masses of unwashed idiots to express their unfounded opinions quickly." It's no different than before the Internet except we have access to wider audiences than just the people in line at the grocery store. The only other difference is that opinions now are even less based on facts or primary sources. How many people will pop into this thread and deliver an opinion based not on the facts (as best they can be gleaned), but on your statement she was "cursing Jesus"?

posted by yerfatma at 10:12 AM - reply - flag:

How many people will pop into this thread and deliver an opinion based not on the facts (as best they can be gleaned), but on your statement she was "cursing Jesus"? Take some time and look around other sites. I'm not the only one saying it. When the words "Fuck" and "Jesus" are uttered in a three-word statement, in front of a large audience, they (the audience) begin yelling at and booing her, and a person present at the funny "Roast" (a comedian, no less) takes it upon himself to go up and lead her away from the podium, then I would call those "facts." It was offensive, and calling the mural of Jesus near Notre Dame Stadium a "mascot," (as is done above) to a football team, of all things, is demeaning and ridiculous and goes to show what a high-opinion sports tends to have of itself in relation to the universe.

posted by dyams at 10:32 AM - reply - flag:

[C]alling the mural of Jesus near Notre Dame Stadium a "mascot," (as is done above) to a football team, of all things, is demeaning and ridiculous and goes to show what a high-opinion sports tends to have of itself in relation to the universe. I think her comments were in poor taste, but the outrage of the Bill Donahue types is a bit much. That said, calling a mural of Jesus near Notre Dame stadium "Touchdown Jesus" is, to me, offensive, demeaning and ridiculous and goes to show what a high opinion sports tends to have of itself in relation to the universe.

posted by holden at 10:44 AM - reply - flag:

We should not judge as Christians and be forgiving, but the fact remains that in the end we have to anwser to God. When He asks why should I let you into my heaven, what will you say!!!!

posted by RA at 10:47 AM - reply - flag:

I'm sure that even though I (and others) find some of this offensive, and I'm also sure many won't find it offensive, a question I have (with this Jacobson thing following on the heels of the Kelly Tilgham thing) is are males involved in making statements, whether they are viewed as poor taste or disrespectful, handled more harshly by their employers than females? It seems the females receive a "slap on the wrist" while their male counterparts are often released from their job duties.

posted by dyams at 10:51 AM - reply - flag:

Dyams, that was my question as well. I'll add this: Which is the worst of the faux pas; Jacobson's drunken religious rant, or any racial comment ala Tilghman/Limbaugh/Jimmy tha Greek? Interesting discussion to be had, I think anyway.

posted by hawkguy at 10:56 AM - reply - flag:

are males involved in making statements, whether they are viewed as poor taste or disrespectful, handled more harshly by their employers than females? Funny, I had the exact opposite reaction, that no man at ESPN would have been treated like this. Sean Salisbury texted pictures of his penis to co-workers. Gary Miller got arrested for pissing on cops from the second floor of a bar, yet they're fine, upstanding members of ESPN and those stories were never mentioned by ESPN whereas it took ESPN a week to decide they shouldn't be reporting on Dana Jacobson. calling the mural of Jesus near Notre Dame Stadium a "mascot," (as is done above) to a football team, of all things, is demeaning and ridiculous Then you must get really upset by the actual ND mascot, which caricatures an entire ethnic group as short and short-tempered. When the words "Fuck" and "Jesus" are uttered in a three-word statement . . . "Fuck Jesus haters."

posted by yerfatma at 11:04 AM - reply - flag:

a question I have (with this Jacobson thing following on the heels of the Kelly Tilgham thing) is are males involved in making statements, whether they are viewed as poor taste or disrespectful, handled more harshly by their employers than females I can't imagine the alternate universe where men would have it harder working at a place like ESPN than women. I have never heard the term Touchdown Jesus used to actually refer or mean Jesus. It sounds like her comments were directed at Notre Dame and their football team, not at Christianity. Either way based on the reception that her comments received, I recommend never mixing drinking with public speaking (or work at all for that matter).

posted by bperk at 11:17 AM - reply - flag:

This discussion isn't about religion by any means. This was about Dana Jacobson approaching the podium and in an attempt to be funny given her drunken state, failed miserably. The whole "Touchdown Jesus" IS Jesus argument is absolutely ridiculous and like holden put it, "calling a mural of Jesus near Notre Dame stadium "Touchdown Jesus" is, to me, offensive, demeaning and ridiculous" and reminds me so much of this.

posted by BornIcon at 11:28 AM - reply - flag:

I never heard too many details about Salisbury's incident, but what I did hear, all wondered why Harold Reynolds would be let go so quickly, and not Salisbury. I think it has a lot to do with the complaints that come from those involved. Any college girl(s) who may doing work or internships with ESPN, probably feel if they make a huge complaint about Salisbury, they can probably kiss their career aspirations goodbye before they even start. If the heat gets to be too much, the employer (ESPN, in this case) then seems to act as if they are "forced" to do something drastic. Miller pissing on a cop, as stupid as it sounds, but it was probably lucky for him it was a cop, and not a group of women. But whether it be Tilgham or Jacobson, or whatever female, since they're becoming more and more prevalent in sports media, it stands to reason that eventually we're going to see one fired for poor judgement, ala Don Imus. This was about Dana Jacobson approaching the podium and in an attempt to be funny given her drunken state I agree. The fact she had the whole bottle of vodka in her hand, at the podium, actually cracks me up. What a drunken buffoon. The fact she feels like a complete ass and will always be associated with this incident is probably a fairly stiff consequence.

posted by dyams at 11:37 AM - reply - flag:

I thought the best bit about living in America was that you're allowed to say whatever you want. When did they stop that? It's a shame. It was a good rule.

posted by JJ at 11:48 AM - reply - flag:

I never heard too many details about Salisbury's incident, but what I did hear, all wondered why Harold Reynolds would be let go so quickly, and not Salisbury. Because, if the stories are true, Reynolds was setting up ESPN for a gigantic sexual harrassment lawsuit if he didn't get let go ASAP. All that Salisbury did was make an ass of herself in a public place. Nobody gets sued for that, so ESPN doesn't have to worry too much about it.

posted by grum@work at 11:48 AM - reply - flag:

I think her comments were in poor taste, but the outrage of the Bill Donahue types is a bit much. That said, calling a mural of Jesus near Notre Dame stadium "Touchdown Jesus" is, to me, offensive, demeaning and ridiculous and goes to show what a high opinion sports tends to have of itself in relation to the universe. The mural is actually called "The World of Life", and has no actual connection to football or the stadium, save for its proximity to the stadium. The "Touchdown Jesus" name is a joke, as he is holding his hands up in the same manner that a referee would when calling for a TD. Obviously that is not what he is actually doing. Intentionally painting a Jesus signaling a touchdown, I agree, could cross the line. But pointing out the irony of that mural being visible from the stadium is merely having a sense of humor. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

posted by Chargdres at 11:48 AM - reply - flag:

FUCK JESUS geekguy just made one of my main points. If he'd have said, "Fuck _____'s," refering inappropriately to any race, this entire thread would have had to be shut down, people would have been threatening each other and disrespecting everybody, and on and on. But it only had to do with Jesus, so many feel free to say it. It's messed up when you really think about it. Tiger Woods (for example) gets more respect than Jesus. I thought the best bit about living in America was that you're allowed to say whatever you want. You can say whatever you want, and Jacobson did say what she wanted. That "rule" still exists. Another rule that exists is that any employer can fire that person if they desire. If the outrage became too much for ESPN, they'd do just that.

posted by dyams at 11:53 AM - reply - flag:

...goes to show what a high-opinion sports tends to have of itself in relation to the universe. If you want to talk about an entity with a high opinion of itself, look no further than the church.

posted by cl at 11:55 AM - reply - flag:

I have it on good Authority that Jesus thought it was a funny joke. He also thinks the mural is beautiful and wishes He could be reborn as an NCAA referee. I guess He'll have to ask His Dad about that.

posted by Hugh Janus at 11:59 AM - reply - flag:

Tiger Woods (for example) gets more respect than Jesus. I can put my fingers in his wounds. Also, Jesus can pretty much take care of himself.

posted by yerfatma at 12:01 PM - reply - flag:

The mural is actually called "The World of Life", and has no actual connection to football or the stadium, save for its proximity to the stadium. The "Touchdown Jesus" name is a joke, as he is holding his hands up in the same manner that a referee would when calling for a TD. Obviously that is not what he is actually doing. Intentionally painting a Jesus signaling a touchdown, I agree, could cross the line. But pointing out the irony of that mural being visible from the stadium is merely having a sense of humor. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Chargdres, I was being a bit cheeky to draw attention to what I considered somewhat hyperbolic statement by dyams. The main point being, referring to that mural as "Touchdown Jesus" is making that figure, in some ways, a de facto or unofficial mascot.

posted by holden at 12:03 PM - reply - flag:

Why are we having this discussion here? We are weeks away from the original incident, the punishment has already been served. This belongs on a media discussion website, if anywhere at all.

posted by apoch at 12:06 PM - reply - flag:

If he'd have said, "Fuck _____'s," refering inappropriately to any race, this entire thread would have had to be shut down... I'd be offended at the hypothetical person's misuse of the apostrophe, that's for sure. I don't really get what disrespecting a historical individual has to do with disrespecting an entire ethnic group. As for Tiger Woods being more respected than Jesus (this is getting pretty ridiculous), I would just say that Tiger's PR people must know better than to do all sorts of heinous things in his name.

posted by cl at 12:07 PM - reply - flag:

To paraphrase Allen Iverson, "We're talking about words? Words man." The words only have power if you give that power to them. FUCK TIGER WOODS Really.

posted by geekyguy at 12:10 PM - reply - flag:

You all got it wrong, it was Touchdown Hey zues (jesus). At least with the Christian religion there isn't a fatwa out for her life. Lighten up people, have you seen the Comedy Central Roasts? Way Out There!

posted by scuubie at 12:20 PM - reply - flag:

Tiger Woods (for example) gets more respect than Jesus. I can put my fingers in his wounds. Unfortunately, as soon as you got near him his caddie would beat the hell out of you. when I made those comments, I was being fucked extremely hard. What's his take on this subject. (Kidding, kidding (Not that there's anything wrong with that)).

posted by dyams at 12:25 PM - reply - flag:

She should've been fired on the spot!!!!!! One week suspension, WHAT A JOKE. SHE SUCKS AS A SPORTSPERSON ANYWAYS. Bring back Thea Andrews and "FIRE" the worthless Dana Jacobson

posted by packerfan4ever at 12:29 PM - reply - flag:

"By publicly saying, 'F--k Jesus,' while representing ESPN, Dana Jacobson has crossed a very well-defined line," reads a statement from the coalition. "Her comments are so outrageous and inflammatory that the only proper response for ESPN is to immediately release her." This strikes me as a very un-Catholic reaction. I understand they changed their tune after "meeting" with ESPN, but I still think that immediately calling for Jacobson's firing is a bit rash and unforgiving.

posted by 86 at 12:37 PM - reply - flag:

Fuck Jesus Garcia (mean hispanic I know) Jesus , Fuck Me! (double exclamation) Fuck For Jesus (charity hookers) Just Feed Us (misheard lyrics)

posted by Ricardo at 12:49 PM - reply - flag:

Bill Donahue is about as Catholic as Fred Phelps is a Baptist. Every hour you ignore their spittle-froth ramblings is an hour added to your lifespan. Dana Jacobson was out of line, and lost her shit at kind of a bad time. This story will follow her everywhere for the rest of her career, but it won't (and shouldn't) destroy her. This was a private event. I see this as the equivalent of someone having one too many at an office party and telling the boss what they really think. No more, and no less. The alleged blasphemy angle is too ridiculous to even address.

posted by chicobangs at 12:56 PM - reply - flag:

The alleged blasphemy angle is too ridiculous to even address. If Jacobson's comments are similar to comments you, yourself would make in public, whether it be in front of a small, private audience or a group of co-workers, then maybe "ridiculous" is a good way for you, yourself to describe it. If, on the other hand, you wouldn't think of saying that sort of thing, regardless of the situation, then I don't really see how it can be labeled "ridiculous." True, some go way too far with their demands due to words uttered by a sloppy drunk, but you shouldn't be surprised when the topic is what it is.

posted by dyams at 01:09 PM - reply - flag:

Blasphemy is taking the name of God (some god, any god, whoever's god) in vain. It has nothing to do with whether you, yourself would say it. So call what she did blasphemy, but it's a big so what. We live in a secular society, where no one needs anyone else's approval for appropriate use of the name of a god, and accusing people of blasphemy just makes one look like a would-be theocrat.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:15 PM - reply - flag:

Geekyguy, keep up the good work. That instead of a profanity laced tirade concerning my opinions on religion, oversensitivity, and Notre Dame.

posted by tahoemoj at 01:20 PM - reply - flag:

I have said worse, I've said worse on Sportsfilter, I've said worse sober, and I've said worse to the face of people who were actively and devoutly Catholic. At worst, I apologize for the virulence of what I've said, but to have to repeatedly pay, in money, career and reputation, for something people think they heard (unless you're still trying to convince me that "Touchdown Jesus" is also our Lord and Savior, though that assumption itself violates at least two commandments), or worse, what they heard second-hand from others, is not only un-christian, but not really moral in itself. Jacobson shot her mouth off, was put in a time-out until she calmed down, and apologized to everyone concerned. What more do people expect? A pound of flesh? Seriously? So yes, "ridiculous" is exactly the word I'd use to describe this to-do. "Tempest in a teapot" is another. "Pissing on my leg and insisting it's raining," even.

posted by chicobangs at 01:21 PM - reply - flag:

Christ, and I thought I had problems!

posted by volfire at 01:28 PM - reply - flag:

I see this as the equivalent of someone having one too many at an office party and telling the boss what they really think. This was like her telling the boss of bosses what she thinks of him.

posted by HATER 187 at 01:51 PM - reply - flag:

We live in a secular society, where no one needs anyone else's approval for appropriate use of the name of a god, and accusing people of blasphemy just makes one look like a would-be theocrat. LBB, I wish you were right. But look at that idiot of a president we have, who claims he gets his marching orders from Jesus. If this is true I would say FUCK JESUS for that alone. Or look at the three Republican candidates who believe don't believe in evolution (and, by the way, why can't evolution be considered "intelligent design?" I never understood that). As far as Bill Donahue? Here's a quote from him: We've already won. Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, okay? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost. [MSNBC, Scarborough Country, 12/8/04] And more here So I say Fuck Bill Donahue too.

posted by cjets at 01:55 PM - reply - flag:

"When she started slugging vodka straight from the bottle, the whole crowd just groaned. Most people in the audience, including me, felt bad for (Notre Dame head coach) Charlie Weis, because he was sitting right next to the podium and she was just going off on him and Notre Dame. They got her off the stage once, but she somehow found her way back to the stage and just dug her hole deeper." Only thing she didn't do was put a lampshade on her head and start taking her clothes off.

posted by dyams at 02:05 PM - reply - flag:

Hollywood likes anal sex From his lips to God's ears. I'm watching the wrong movies.

posted by yerfatma at 02:09 PM - reply - flag:

I don't even believe she has anything to apologize for. Except for the sake of appeasement to her employers who don't appreciate negative publicity. IT WAS A ROAST. Making fun of people is the intent. Hollywood likes anal sex Who doesn't?

posted by Ricardo at 02:10 PM - reply - flag:

Not Catholics, that's for damn sure.

posted by chicobangs at 02:22 PM - reply - flag:

It was a roast. Anything is fair game at those IMO. Another storm in a teacup kept in circulation by fucking worthless blogger scum who need to get real lives.

posted by Drood at 02:38 PM - reply - flag:

Hollywood likes anal sex Who doesn't? Not Catholics, that's for damn sure. Actually, as long as a priest isn't involved, you can pump that pooper for all you're worth, and it wouldn't bother me at all. Your anus, your business. Wait, now I'm not sure if you meant Catholics don't like anal sex, or Catholics don't not like anal sex. Damn words. Tiger Woods (for example) gets more respect than Jesus. If Jesus could hit his one-iron straight, that might change.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 02:56 PM - reply - flag:

LBB, I wish you were right. But look at that idiot of a president we have, who claims he gets his marching orders from Jesus. If this is true I would say FUCK JESUS for that alone. cjets, I hear ya, but we've still got a long way to go as far as the country being sodomized by religion. We have explicit constitutional protections against a religious takeover of the state, as opposed to nations where religion is to some degree a matter of law. I retain the right to tell members of the God Squad to blow it out their irrelevant asses if they chide me for a blasphemer.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:09 PM - reply - flag:

I try to avoid any controversy ginned up by Bill Donahue, whose entire job is being offended on behalf of all Catholics to get media for his group. I've referred many times to Touchdown Jesus here on SportsFilter, often in a manner that would be considered mildly blasphemous. I'm not clear on why we should treat that figure as if he were hanging in a church, as opposed to being a playful sports icon. On the scale of offensive religious persecution, "Fuck Touchdown Jesus!" ranks somewhere around Ricky Bobby saying grace to Baby Jesus instead of Adult Hippie Jesus. It was a roast!

posted by rcade at 03:21 PM - reply - flag:

Help me Jesus! Help me Jewish God! Help me Allah! AAAAAHHH! Help me Tom Cruise! Tom Cruise, use your witchcraft on me to get the fire off me!

posted by jerseygirl at 03:34 PM - reply - flag:

Had Dana said 'Fuck Gays, Jews, Blacks, Feminists or Nappy Headed Hoes', she'd be gone instead of just suspended. Christians are an easy mark these days. I'm all for free speech, but we should all be a little more respectful of each other's beliefs. I've lost a lot of respect for her.

posted by Shotput at 03:39 PM - reply - flag:

They say that, and a lot worse, at most roasts Shotput. Sometimes uncensored on basic cable.

posted by jerseygirl at 04:00 PM - reply - flag:

Had Dana said 'Fuck Gays, Jews, Blacks, Feminists or Nappy Headed Hoes', she'd be gone instead of just suspended. Christians are an easy mark these days. Dana Jacobson said "Fuck Christians"? Damn, this story keeps changing.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:07 PM - reply - flag:

Very good point, Shotput, and well-said. These celebrity roasts were made popular back when the famous "Dean Martin Celebrity Roasts" were big. Back then these individuals believed in free speech, but also good taste when it came to being funny. I'm a firm believer in free speech, but good taste, unfortunately, seems to be a thing of the past.

posted by dyams at 04:09 PM - reply - flag:

Some of the most racist jokes I have ever heard were at the Flavor Flav roast, which was attended by such luminaries as Snoop Dogg and Ice-T. Really anything flies at these roast and I don;t think you can judge someone based on what they say while roasting.

posted by HATER 187 at 04:24 PM - reply - flag:

Thats a semi-reasonable point, shotput, but i wouldnt equate this to gays, jews, blacks, etc. it would be more along the lines of saying fuck the musical "Rent", fuck all music by snoop-dog, and fuck any biography of nancy pelosi, or hillary clinton. It was the art she insulted, not the people.

posted by elijahin24 at 04:26 PM - reply - flag:

Back then these individuals believed in free speech, but also good taste when it came to being funny. Yes, Sinatra and the Rat Pack were the very models of decorum when talking about Sammy Davis Jr. Broads, too. You're making up a history that never existed to validate some weird point. At the end of the day, she said this at a company party, not a public forum. It only got out because people like to Kill Thr Idols.

posted by yerfatma at 04:28 PM - reply - flag:

LBB, I think that you see shotput's point though don't you? If she had pointed to the most recognizable person in each example shotput mentioned (although she may have actually been mocking the statue), would things have gone a little differently? Either way, i don't think that Christians should be so up in arms about this. If we cared so much about Jesus and what He taught, we would be more concerned with loving and serving others, and not trying to get people fired. Christians can only look bad when they start screaming for equal rights or fairness.

posted by brainofdtrain at 04:30 PM - reply - flag:

What seems tasteful to you now, dyams, wasn't exactly family content back then. My mother grew up in the time you're referencing. Back when a skirt above the knee was absolutely sinful. Now no one is super shocked when Paris Hilton's herpetic reproductive system flashed at us as she gets out of a car. Times change. Definitions change. Mores change.

posted by jerseygirl at 04:46 PM - reply - flag:

I'm offended that Mike and Mike are considered worthy enough for a celebrity roast.

posted by goddam at 04:49 PM - reply - flag:

Either way, i don't think that Christians should be so up in arms about this. If we cared so much about Jesus and what He taught, we would be more concerned with loving and serving others, and not trying to get people fired. You mean Jesus didn't say start an unprovoked war in Iraq and kill half a miillion people and displace 3 million others? Someone better tell the president.

posted by cjets at 04:49 PM - reply - flag:

Christians are an easy mark these days. Yes, it's not like Christianity is the dominant religion on the entire North American continent or anything.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:50 PM - reply - flag:

posted by brainofdtrain at 05:13 PM - reply - flag:

brainofdtrain: I think that you see shotput's point though don't you? If she had pointed to the most recognizable person in each example shotput mentioned (although she may have actually been mocking the statue), would things have gone a little differently? I don't know, but I don't think that was quite his point. I think his point was that a slur directed at "Gays, Jews, Blacks, Feminists or Nappy Headed Hoes" would have resulted in Jacobson's firing, and that it was therefore wrong that a slur directed at Jesus (or at Christians, it's not clear which shotput was talking about) didn't result in the same sanction. The first problem is in the premise: as a number of people have pointed out, roasts get pretty damn outrageous, and people aren't routinely fired as a result. Apart from that, though, I got the sense that shotput was saying that everyone rushes to the defense of gays, Jews, blacks, feminists and nappy-headed hos whenever they are attacked, while Jesus is fair game. That's demonstrably untrue as well, but even if it were, did it ever occur to you that Jesus doesn't need defending? He's doing just fine, and so (in these United States where this incident took place) are his followers, and they have throughout our country's history -- which cannot be said for gays, Jews, blacks, feminists, and nappy-headed hos. These are groups of people who have historically been an underclass in this country, and if their situation is improved over what it used to be, they still come under attack every day. In contrast, Christians as a group have never been under any real threat in this country. They have never lacked the vote. They have never been at risk of being deprived of their civil liberties. They have never been selectively targeted by law enforcement. They have never found entire categories of jobs, parts of town, and types of businesses closed to them because of their religion. Even in the present day, far from being the martyrs tossed to the lions that a few petulant Christians have us believe they are, they continue to be so politically and socially dominant that they can actually muster a group of individuals calling for someone's firing for not-on-the-job behavior that, in their view, insulted their religion. Sorry, but if Christians want to complain about how they're the target of slurs, they're going to have to get in line behind a lot of people, and if they want to argue that they're targeted worse than others, they're just going to make me laugh and laugh and laugh.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:16 PM - reply - flag:

LBB, I wish you were right. But look at that idiot of a president we have, who claims he gets his marching orders from Jesus. If this is true I would say FUCK JESUS for that alone. Or look at the three Republican candidates who believe don't believe in evolution (and, by the way, why can't evolution be considered "intelligent design?" I never understood that). You mean Jesus didn't say start an unprovoked war in Iraq and kill half a miillion people and displace 3 million others? Someone better tell the president. As far as I can tell, this topic has absolutely nothing to do with the war, Republicans or the President. If you have an agenda, on those topics, I'm sure you could find somewhere more appropriate to spout them.

posted by tselson at 05:23 PM - reply - flag:

fuck this

posted by irunfromclones at 05:33 PM - reply - flag:

Your final paragraph is right on LBB, But I don't want Dana fired. And Imus shouldn't have been fired either. We all need thicker skins, but most importantly, and this IS my point, we need to treat each other with a little more respect. Comedy shouldn't be about ripping someone a new A-hole, just opening it up a little bit. Ooops back to that anal sex thing again.

posted by Shotput at 05:36 PM - reply - flag:

As far as I can tell, this topic has absolutely nothing to do with the war, Republicans or the President. The topic is Jacobson's alleged slurs on Jesus. These comments are being protested by Conservative Christian groups. As a result, Christianity and Religion itself has become part of the topic in many posts. In responding to other posts, I point out how religion has affected the President and the upcoming election. Funny, how you pick my posts in particular to try and censor, rather than the wide range of topics being discussed in this thread.

posted by cjets at 05:54 PM - reply - flag:

At the end of the day, she said this at a company party, not a public forum. And the people at that company party were the ones that had to drag the drunken mouth off the stage. What was their problem? It's a roast, after all! Anything goes! As George Costanza says, "It's like Thunderdome!"

posted by dyams at 06:24 PM - reply - flag:

Funny, how you pick my posts in particular to try and censor, rather than the wide range of topics being discussed in this thread. Why is that funny? I guess I failed to see how wide the range of topics on this thread is. I can't nor do I want to "censor," anything. If you feel that the war in Iraq, calling the President an idiot, insinuating that the Republican candidates are idiots because they don't believe in evolution, insinuating that the President believes that Jesus told him to " kill half a million people..." etc. are entirely on point, have at it. On topic: I think the only thing that Jacobson should apologize for is drinking straight from the bottle. That's just rude.

posted by tselson at 07:32 PM - reply - flag:

And the people at that company party were the ones that had to drag the drunken mouth off the stage. What was their problem? It's a roast, after all! Anything goes! With you 100%. I still think if a man had said all of that stuff and not seemed too drunk, no hay problema. But let some woman think she can get away with acting like a guy and it's time to knock her off her pedestal and send the pics & dirt to the newspapers.

posted by yerfatma at 07:45 PM - reply - flag:

Back then these individuals believed in free speech, but also good taste when it came to being funny. "And they call it ... The Aristocrats!"

posted by rcade at 08:02 PM - reply - flag:

Why is that funny? I guess I failed to see how wide the range of topics on this thread is. I can't nor do I want to "censor," anything. If you feel that the war in Iraq, calling the President an idiot, insinuating that the Republican candidates are idiots because they don't believe in evolution, insinuating that the President believes that Jesus told him to " kill half a million people..." etc. are entirely on point, have at it. Funny(ironic) because rather than debating the point, you told me to take my comments elsewhere. Exactly the tactic of the current administration. Don't ever argue the point an anti-war protester is making, just call them unpatriotic and move on. Funny also, because you took my quotes out of context. Here's my original give and take with LBB (sorry to drag you into this, LBB). We live in a secular society, where no one needs anyone else's approval for appropriate use of the name of a god, and accusing people of blasphemy just makes one look like a would-be theocrat. LBB, I wish you were right. But look at that idiot of a president we have, who claims he gets his marching orders from Jesus. If this is true I would say FUCK JESUS for that alone. LBB states that she lives in a secular society. If I take issue with that, then what better way to make my argument than to cite our president who believes that he has a personal dialogue with Jesus. If you find it off-color or offensive, so be it. I find the whole situation offensive. I'm not jumping into a Super Bowl thread shouting "Bush sucks" or the Hitler/Cowboy thread yelling something similar. I'm responding to posts about religion with comments about how religion affects politics. And in this country, unfortunately religion strongly affects politics. I realize that this is a sports forum, first and foremost. But many interesting non-sports issues are being discussed in this thread, which is one of the reasons I enjoy spofi.

posted by cjets at 08:29 PM - reply - flag:

Preach on, cjets! Im with ya. Im one of the "phony soldiers" rush loves to bash. I have been to iraq. I dont think anyone needs to go there anymore. This dialog with Jesus that our president has is really quite perplexing to me. I grew up in the church and the Jesus i remember was a pacifist, yet more blood has been shed on his behalf than any other figure in history. I think anyone would be justified in saying fuck the image of Jesus that promotes bloodshed. And that they could say so without mentioning a word about the son of God. But this wasnt even about that. It was about a painting. A mural. Do we get up in arms when an unflattering image of him is drawn in a political cartoon? or on south park? how about when churches reinact the crucifiction and have the bad kid play the part of Jesus? Its Not Really Him. Im sure of it. This is another stupid excuse to feel oppressed. Get over yourselves, forgive, and get back to the lords work of bashing gays, and opressing women.

posted by elijahin24 at 09:34 PM - reply - flag:

Funny(ironic) because rather than debating the point, you told me to take my comments elsewhere. Exactly the tactic of the current administration. Don't ever argue the point an anti-war protester is making, just call them unpatriotic and move on. You didn't make a point. Funny also, because you took my quotes out of context. No, I fail to see how your response is appropriate to Ms. Lbb's comment, which was on topic and which I agree with. Cjets, forgive me, but I don't want to debate any of these types of issues with anyone here at Sportsfilter. I love sports. I just think that sports are what makes Sportsfilter so great...not interesting non-sports issues, I try to avoid those. I'll try harder. On preview: Oh, fuck.

posted by tselson at 09:54 PM - reply - flag:

Get over yourselves, forgive, and get back to the lords work of bashing gays, and opressing women. There's no ban on discussing how sports and life intertwine, but we're crossing the line here. Let's pull it back to sports. If you feel the need to continue this type of discussion take it to email.

posted by justgary at 10:17 PM - reply - flag:

Cjets, forgive me, but I don't want to debate any of these types of issues with anyone here at Sportsfilter. That would go down easier if you didn't continue to debate the issue for the four paragraphs that preceded this one. But I accept it in the spirit it was offered. And I'm sure we can agree that continuing to discuss whether or not my earlier posts were on topic or not is definitely not on topic. And Elijahin, I couldn't agree more.

posted by cjets at 10:19 PM - reply - flag:

Fair enough. I appologise everybody. Please dont demand that i be fired.

posted by elijahin24 at 10:19 PM - reply - flag:

Oh, fuck me. Please look between our comments, cjets. That's what happens when we abandon sports. For the love of God, what was about a painting? Or, " A mural?" How did this stupid topic lead to the Lord's work being about bashing gays and opressing women? how about when churches reinact the crucifiction and have the bad kid play the part of Jesus? Its Not Really Him. Im sure of it. This is another stupid excuse to feel oppressed. It just goes downhill, cjets. That's all. My email's in the profile, if you wish. On preview: That would go down easier if you didn't continue to debate the issue for the four paragraphs that preceded this one. Either I don't know what a paragraph is or you'll have to show me which four. There's no ban on discussing how sports and life intertwine, Nor should there be. They are "intertwinable!" Politics...the same...but much more crappy and less amicable to debate. I'll go away now.

posted by tselson at 10:42 PM - reply - flag:

Paris Hilton's herpetic reproductive system Best. New Adjective. Ever. Comedy shouldn't be about ripping someone a new A-hole That is the point of a celebrity roast.

posted by HATER 187 at 10:58 PM - reply - flag:

I'm offended that Mike and Mike are considered worthy enough for a celebrity roast. Are you kiddin' me? Do you even hear Mike & Mike in the morning? If not, then your opinion on whether or not they're "worthy" enough to be roasted are unqualified. If anyone is deserving of being roasted, it's these two guys. That's what "Touchdown Jesus" would've wanted anyways.

posted by BornIcon at 06:56 AM - reply - flag:

You know, maybe it says more about me than about the statuary in question, but I always thought of those arms-in-the-air-eyeballs-to- the-sky Jesuses as "I just got stabbed in the back" Jesus (and they always creeped me out). No sports content, I know, I know...

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:15 AM - reply - flag:

Do you even hear Mike & Mike in the morning? Yes, I have. Quite often actually. In fact I was listening for a few minutes this morning. Does that mean my opinion counts now?

posted by goddam at 07:56 AM - reply - flag:

A little but not much after your "I'm offended that Mike and Mike are considered worthy enough for a celebrity roast" comment.

posted by BornIcon at 08:10 AM - reply - flag:

Do you even hear Mike & Mike in the morning? If not, then your opinion on whether or not they're "worthy" enough to be roasted are unqualified. If anyone is deserving of being roasted, it's these two guys. They annoy me to no end. I like hearing folks talk about sports who really research, know their sports, and can provide some insight. Greenberg talks like an ignorant sport fans with his talk of steroids, Maris's asterisk, ticket prices/player salaries, and his book. I can take Golic, but not Greenberg. No roast! Of course, it is self-serving for ESPN to have these events to boost up their ratings.

posted by bperk at 08:24 AM - reply - flag:

A little but not much after your "I'm offended that Mike and Mike are considered worthy enough for a celebrity roast" comment. They're completely inane. Like bperk said, Golic is ok, but Greenberg is awful. He seems more interested in schilling his books than actually engaging about sports issues. It's stunning that ESPN tries to put them in everything now like they're a Patrick and Olberman for the Who's Next Generation. Unless you're saying no one can express an opinion unless they like what you like. In that case, roll up the carpets everyone.

posted by yerfatma at 08:52 AM - reply - flag:

"I just got stabbed in the back" Jesus

posted by JJ at 09:01 AM - reply - flag:

Never said that at all. Everyone is entitled to their opinion(s). I don't think that I'm alone in saying that I enjoy the Mike & Mike show and considering that they've been on for 9 years now, they obviously must be doing something right. They may not be the typical, sports radio show and that's exactly what I dig about them. They can laugh at themselves, they ask questions to pro athletes that many fans would love to ask and they have great chemistry. Would you rather have a Mike & the Mad Dog roast?

posted by BornIcon at 09:04 AM - reply - flag:

Personally, yes. I love Chris Russo (I have no idea why and wouldn't ever try to defend that position) and Francesca knows his stuff on most sports. For me, Francesca/ Golic would be a wash and Mad Dog > Greenberg. Never said that at all. Everyone is entitled to their opinion(s). Do you even hear Mike & Mike in the morning? If not, then your opinion on whether or not they're "worthy" enough to be roasted are unqualified. Does that mean my opinion counts now? A little but not much after your "I'm offended that Mike and Mike are considered worthy enough for a celebrity roast" comment. So it's not that people aren't "entitled" to their opinions, it's whether you feel they're qualified to hold them.

posted by yerfatma at 09:58 AM - reply - flag:

I really enjoy Greenburg and Golic, and I don't tune them in because they are the two most knowlegable sports personalities there are. They're entertaining. As for Mike and the Mad Dog, I listen to them often, but Francesca always comes across to me as quite condescending. I may be wrong, but that's the vibe I get from him.

posted by dyams at 10:20 AM - reply - flag:

I've typed out three or four points and deleted them because it would just revive a pissing contest that seems to be finally running out of steam.

posted by chicobangs at 10:21 AM - reply - flag:

Francesca always comes across to me as quite condescending. I may be wrong, but that's the vibe I get from him. If you're wrong, that makes two of us. Then again, if you took calls from sports talk fans all day, you might get a little condescending too.

posted by yerfatma at 10:29 AM - reply - flag:

So it's not that people aren't "entitled" to their opinions, it's whether you feel they're qualified to hold them. Yea, that's it. It took you that long to figure that out? Com'on man, your better than that. I really enjoy Greenburg and Golic, and I don't tune them in because they are the two most knowlegable sports personalities there are. They're entertaining. Yes they are.

posted by BornIcon at 10:30 AM - reply - flag:

Hell, I get condescending just listening to sports talk fans.

posted by apoch at 10:31 AM - reply - flag:

Then again, if you took calls from sports talk fans all day, you might get a little condescending too. That's honestly one of the reasons I can't watch it on a consistent basis. The callers they get can absolutely drive me up the freakin' wall! Living in New York, and having gone to college with and lived with many New York City-area folks, it causes me to experience certain flashbacks that I'd just as soon forget.

posted by dyams at 10:51 AM - reply - flag:

If it makes you feel any better, back when I was in high school/ college and had the chance to listen to either FAN or EEI, I always when with FAN because the while the callers were only marginally better, the hosts managed the idiot callers much better. On EEI you can be a complete moron, but if you agree with one of the hosts, you might get 20 minutes to air your lack of a viewpoint. Yea, that's it. It took you that long to figure that out? Com'on man, your better than that. Is there a point here?

posted by yerfatma at 11:15 AM - reply - flag:

Yeah but when Sean McAdam is on EEI makes it all better for me. I can't get FAN in/around Boston and on the south shore.

posted by jerseygirl at 11:24 AM - reply - flag:

Mad Dog is a big ol' sexist. Just sayin'. (I think he got taken down a peg or two on that one, though)

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:46 AM - reply - flag:

Is there a point here? Actually, you really didn't make a point with your, "Lemme butt in this conversation that really has nothing to do with me but I sure as shit do like to type though" comments.

posted by BornIcon at 11:58 AM - reply - flag:

Here we go again: this is a free-for-all discussion. You jumped ugly in, by your rules, a conversation that had nothing to do with you, calling out goddam and telling her she couldn't have an opinion on your heroes Mike Golic and Mike Greenberg because they're so super-awesome that she obviously doesn't know anything if she doesn't love them. I called you on it and you immediately danced away from that position, saying you didn't say that. Given the obvious inconsistency and the fact you do this all the time, I wanted a little clarification. Not sure where it says I can't butt into any convo on the site.

posted by yerfatma at 12:06 PM - reply - flag:

I can't get FAN in/around Boston and on the south shore. This was back in the early '90s (before EEI cranked up to 50,000 watts) in Newport, RI, so a little closer as the crow flies.

posted by yerfatma at 12:07 PM - reply - flag:

On a lighter side, a few of the funny lines from the "Mike & Mike" roast: On Greenburg's recent game show hosting: "They called it "Duel" because the only two people who watched it shot each other. Mike Greenberg is to hosting game shows what Michael Vick is to hosting dog shows." Nick Bakay on Wink Martindale's hair: "Wink's hair is so bad that Donald Trump called and said to take it down a notch." "Mike & Mike are so dull they make Mike Tirico's show feel dangerous," Bakay added. Baltimore Ravens safety Ed Reed had jokes written for him, but didn't read any. Admitting he was drunk, Reed was pulled off the stage by Washington Redskins running back Clinton Portis and former Jets star Joe Klecko. "I didn't realize his middle name was "Can't,'" host Jeffrey Ross joked.

posted by dyams at 12:38 PM - reply - flag:

Video here.

posted by yerfatma at 12:42 PM - reply - flag:

Jeffrey Ross might just be the most cold-blooded person in America. "If you had everybody in this room sign a football, it'd still be worth less than a new football." Classic.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 03:19 PM - reply - flag:

Jeffrey Ross was built for stuff like this, and he knows it. He lives for these things. He's ruthless.

posted by chicobangs at 08:49 AM - reply - flag:

She had every right to say what she said, after all this is still the United States, the last I checked anyway. That's not to say that her comments weren't in bad taste, because they were. We have freedom of religion in this country and on the flip side we have freedom from religion. It's a twisted web that doesn't make a lot of sense. Her being suspended for a week did not help or hurt anything. Funny how a country that was founded on religious freedom has so many people that are so dead set against it.

posted by B10 at 11:42 AM - reply - flag:

Taking the devil's advocate position here -- something I never, ever do -- the United States' freedom of speech guarantees do not guarantee that you can say whatever you want, wherever you want, and still keep your job (or not get suspended from it, or whatever). If I were, for example, to offer the opinion that the average customer in my industry can't count past ten without taking off his/her shoes, my employer can almost certainly fire me for it (I can think of a couple of situations where this might not be true, but they're not relevant here). When you express an opinion or otherwise behave in a way that could hurt your employer's business, they've pretty much got a free pass to cut you loose. "Free speech" in a roast is protected from that kind of response only by convention, not by law. In cases like this, where a bunch of people got pissy and pressured the employer to DO SOMETHING, the protection of your free speech depends on a bunch of fuzzy factors, including how much the employer really feels your behavior reflects on them (like, were you speaking in some out-of-work context but in a way that somehow reflects your employment -- "...a writer for blah blah blah"), and on whether or not they've got a spine.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:52 PM - reply - flag:

Sure, but all her employer did is suspend her for a week, which is understandable given she made an ass of herself at a company XXXmas party. How it becomes a subject for debate among the masses is strange to me. And if Bill Donahue, et al, are going to get upset when people say nasty things about the Catholic Church in private gatherings, there's about a zillion Catholics on the planet he's got a beef with.

posted by yerfatma at 12:56 PM - reply - flag:

The Constitution's free speech clause applies only to the government. Amendment 1 says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So employers can do what they want in this regard and, as lbb pointed out, any decision is subject to the company's balancing of interests among its various stakeholders. Having said that, Congress has passed employment law, which has stood up to court tests, which prevent discrimination based on personal and political beliefs. So ESPN could not fire, say, Stuart Scott if he came on the air one day and explained he'd recently converted to a very evangelical sect of Satanists.

posted by billsaysthis at 03:37 PM - reply - flag:

They might be able to fire him for fucking around on the job, though. That's why this is such a fuzzy area.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:51 PM - reply - flag:

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Comments