Tina Fey Gives Conservative Women the (Big) Bird

This past weekend PBS televised the Kennedy Center’s Mark Twain Prize for American humor. The recipient was Tina Fey, best known for her impression of Sarah Palin on SNL. Apparently the actual presentation ran longer than the televised special so PBS had to perform a bit of editing. This is part of what Ms. Fey said that was broadcast:

“I would be a liar and an idiot if I didn’t thank Sarah Palin for helping get me here tonight. My partial resemblance and her crazy voice are the two luckiest things that ever happened to me. All kidding aside, I’m so proud to represent American humor, I am proud to be an American, and I am proud to make my home in the ‘not real’ America. And I am most proud that during trying times, like an orange [terror] alert, a bad economy or a contentious election that we as a nation retain our sense of humor.”

Mostly apple pie, grandma, and ‘red, white, & blue’ stuff, right ? If you just watched the broadcast it appears Fey was playing nice and ‘oh, gee thank you Sarah’. Now read what PBS left on the cutting room floor:

“And, you know, politics aside, the success of Sarah Palin and women like her is good for all women – except, of course –those who will end up, you know, like, paying for their own rape ‘kit ‘n’ stuff,” Fey said. “But for everybody else, it’s a win-win. Unless you’re a gay woman who wants to marry your partner of 20 years – whatever. But for most women, the success of conservative women is good for all of us. Unless you believe in evolution. You know – actually, I take it back. The whole thing’s a disaster.”

Of course PBS says it was simply a time thing that they cut these comments. Right. This is akin to showing “Antiques Road Show” where someone brings in an authenic copy of the Declaration of Independence and cutting the part where the expert tells us it’s value. I would submit the recent NPR debacle with Juan Williams and the subsequent call for no public funding of PBS/NPR played a significant part in PBS’s decision to edit Ms Fey’s comments. For a tv/radio network that constantly produces programs that investigate and shed light on a multitude of mostly lefty issues, PBS/NPR shut the blinds and pulled the curtain on Ms. Fey’s remarks. My favorite word of late, hypocrisy, comes to mind.

As to what Ms. Fey said that was not broadcast it shows why, as with many Hollywood types, their belief systems do not necessarily mirror much of America. She begins with, “politics aside”, and goes right into a political diatribe. The rape-kit reference is to 2000 when Palin was mayor of Wasila, Alaska and has been debunked to the extent that even the MSM pretty much stayed away from it in the 2008 campaign. And only the ill-informed would combine a pro-gay statement with a pro-evolution rant aimed at making those who question a theory look uneducated. Nothing is more anti-gay than the theory of evolution. I’m not aware of any male-male or female-female species that has evolved over the ages-there is no way to continue the gene line (Please don’t bring up that some species are hermaphroditic, it’s not the same thing).

For you conservative women, to Tina Fey, …”your success–is a disaster”. And PBS, bless their heart, didn’t want you to hear that.


  1. What a catch of something to write about, Randy!

    I’ll confess I just said a couple of days ago how I think the Tina Fey version of Sarah Palin is genius. Tina Fey is right, she was given a gift. I guess this is proof she can kick that gift around any way she wants.

    There’s no way I’m going to get everyone to think like me. For this round, I’m going to let it go. Of the five things or so she comes up with, three of them are funny, and that’s good enough for me, because I’m looking for humor.

    Those who choose to laugh at Sarah Palin will always laugh at Sarah Palin. I reject the idea that laughing at Tina Fey is the same thing as laughing at Sarah Palin.

    I’m curious about the NPR decision to edit. Are they trying to repair their image? It seems to me like the pre-Juan dumping NPR would have had no problem letting the whole speech go public.

  2. I just finished watching her acceptance speech. I can’t remember the last time I laughed so hard. You’re right, the woman is a genius. Mark Twain would be proud.

  3. Here’s the video. The part about Sarah Palin starts about 12:24

  4. I have no idea if Mark Twain would be proud, Dan R. And I said Tina Fey’s parody of Sarah Palin is genius, but I didn’t go so far as to call Tina Fey genius. Yes, to me there’s a difference. Fey pulls this one thing off, but as the entirety of the speech shows, sometimes she misses.

  5. Randy in Richmond says:

    As you observe, one of my points is exactly that the pre Juan PBS/NPR would have run this part of the tape. Thus my sarcastic ‘bless their heart’ reference. They are playing safe, will probably do a Clinton and move toward the center on other issues also, hoping this all blows over.

    When Sarah Palin should be laughed at, I will laugh also. When bitter, uninformed idealogues attack her based on lies and legend, I will attempt to defend her. I expect to change the mindset of absolutely no one but I will point out the wrongfulness of their statements.

    And how about that Bristol Palin. 🙂

  6. Randy in Richmond says:

    Dan R
    I agree that Mark Twain would probably be proud of Fey when she ‘plays’ Palin. Probably not so much when Fey ‘plays’ Fey as in her statement not broadcast. And I completely agree with Fey when she says she makes her home in the ‘not real’ America.

  7. I’m sure Mark Twain had his share of misses as well. Leno and Letterman fall flat with some of their jokes on a nightly basis. Nobody’s perfect … well, except me. 🙂

  8. If you can’t understand the simple word “theory” as a workjng model of science rather than just some sort of wild-ass guess, then I’m not sure you would be able to understand the other subtleties in Fey’s speech, either.

    Take the rape-kit remark as a metaphor if you like. Realize that your anti-gay attitudes are based more on the Divine Ickiness Theory than on any social good. Understand that counter-evolutionists are marginalized by serious sscientists. Do all that and then get over yourselves.

    Tina Fey made her chops as a writer, actress and producer. I quote, “She has received seven Emmy Awards, three Golden Globe Awards, four Screen Actors Guild Awards, and four Writers Guild of America Awards. She was singled out as the performer who had the greatest impact on culture and entertainment in 2008 by the Associated Press, which gave her its AP Entertainer of the Year award.”

    To reduce her career to a single impersonation of a half-term media spectacle of Palin is to drag her down to Palin’s level. That’s like saying that Bob Hope was best known for his golf club.

  9. Randy in Richmond says:

    Grumps, I have learned something participating on this site and others. Apparently those on the left have difficulty expressing their beliefs or making statements without using inuendo, nuance, subtleties, or fuzzy metaphors. We on the right, at least me, listen to or read what you say and actually believe it. But apparently we’re supposed to know when one is talking out of the other side of his or her mouth and more importantly–when one is not. I choose not to play that game.

    I didn’t reduce her career to anything. She brought up Sarah Palin in her comments and I responded to them. And your “drag her down to Palin’s level” tells all I need to know on where you’re coming from. This ” media spectacle” you try to denigrate endorsed roughly 53 candidates in the November 3rd elections of which 34 won. Her half term as Governor, time on Alasksa’s oil commission, and years as mayor equal that much more leadership experience than our President had when elected, which was essentially none.

    I never said Fey shouldn’t have been presented the award. My comments on Fey are concerning what she said in her acceptance speech and it’s relation to PBS. And I don’t care about all her show-business achievements when she denigrates the success of conservative women with whom she differs.

    And when somebody tells me to get over myself, I know they have no or little argument.

  10. John Foust says:

    OK, I’ll bite. Why is evolution anti-gay?

    What makes you think evolution isn’t a fact?

  11. Randy not much would change in your diatribe if PBS had aired Fey’s comments in there entirety. You don’t like Fey, PBS or NPR which you previously said you never listened to, we get it; I didn’t like the $billions in subsidies to the major over the air broadcasters pre- cable for their broadcast rights. Surprisingly you don’t believe in the theory of evolution but accept the notion of global climate change endorsed by the author of the The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg behind the movie “Cool It”. After 30 years in the visual arts, its not only Hollywood, the majority, in my opinion, of artists lean left I guess they don’t mirror society-maybe that’s being an artist. Finally, if you were more informed about Twain he lived to skewer blowhard politicians with a ferocity not exhibited by Fey.

  12. Randy in Richmond says:

    John Foust
    Let me ask you. How would gay people evolve in a biological manner ? Remember they can only be with others of the same sex. Evolution is all about natural selection and the passing of genes on to offspring. Put very simply, gay people cannot evolve. Again, if you explain to me how this can happen I’ll retract my statement.

    I was taught evolution as espoused by Darwin is a theory. I have not read or heard that this has changed but if so please provide a link to a site proving it has been changed to fact. Not that parts of it are fact, we all agree on that, but that we (man) evolved from lower animals.

  13. Randy in Richmond says:

    Well, right off the bat, PBS didn’t air the comments. If they had I would still have written the post sans the PBS connection. That makes it more interesting to me.

    Please provide where I said I accept what Lomborg has said or written. I just said he wrote it. I also said his new film could be described as the anti-An Inconvenient Truth and based on what I have read from independent reviewers of the film that is an accurate statement.

    As to your Twain statement. My point is to what Fey says in her acceptance, not about whom she says it. We all know that it is aimed directly at Palin. I refer to Fay’s comments on gays getting married and evolution being used in the same breath.

    Here’s one quote from Twain on evolution:
    “Well, then, was it? To my mind, it don’t stand to reason. They say it took a hundred million years. Suppose you ordered a Man at the start, and had a chance to look over the plans and specifications — which would you take, Adam or the germ? Naturally you would say Adam is business, the germ ain’t; one is immediate and sure, the other is speculative and uncertain. Well, I have thought these things all over, and my sympathies are with Adam. Adam was like us.”

    And a quote on women:
    “After all these years, I see that I was mistaken about Eve in the beginning; it is better to live outside the Garden with her than inside it without her.”

  14. “Suppose you ordered a Man at the start, and had a chance to look over the plans and specifications— which would you take, Adam or the germ? ”

    I’d take neither. I would do a redesign. I’d first do away with the nipples, I’ve never been able to utilize mine. And the appendix? … extra baggage, get rid of it. The gorilla hair growing out of my ears? … ridiculous! I’d give man a good set of wings … or, at least the ability to out run a lion. I mean really, what the hell was He thinking?!

    I’m going to hell. The good news? I’ll be keeping company with George Carlin!

  15. “. It would be my wish that every school that required or offered students to view An Inconvenient Truth should do the same with Cool It” (RR 11/12), strange you would make it required viewing if you didn’t accept/endorse it’s viewpoint. Lomborg doesn’t argue about global climate change only what pragmatic solutions are appropriate. He has utter disdain for climate deniers. Maybe your taste run more to the Discovery Institute message.

  16. Wait, Dan R. I thought that “the appendix is useless” thinking had been debunked and renamed the appendix a purposeful part of the digestive system.

    And you are right. Men don’t need nipples, but then humans don’t technically need two kidneys. Or a spleen. You did capitalize “He” though, so now I’m beginning to think you are a man with a hobby rather than a mission.

  17. Randy in Richmond says:

    I think I’ve figured it out. You figure I write like those of you on the left and most things I say are nuanced. Not so. I do use sarcasm sometimes but usually everyone will know.

    I recommend this movie, not necessarily because I agree with everything in it, but because it disputes most everything Al Gores’ movie lied about or greatly exagerrated. My decision was based on reading 3 reviews of the movie with this being two of them.



    And I do believe in global climate change. It’s been going on for millions of years and will continue to do so, and man can do very little to affect it one way or the other. A significant volcano eruption or certain sunspot activity can dwarf anything man could ever hope to do to the earth’s climate.

  18. I believe the global climate is changing, too. Just like when man caused the dinosaurs to die off. That was one bad millennium. For dinosaurs anyway.

    I can be tricked into caring for the environment because generally it’s good for my wallet. However, when they start talking about stuff like shooting ash into the atmosphere to cool earth down, those goofy global warming folks really cause me to shake my head in disbelief. I mean, how are you supposed to take a scientist seriously after he says something like that?

  19. Great post Randy.

  20. Had God instructed Noah to build a much, much, much bigger boat, Noah would have been able to accommodate all of God’ s creatures. Dinosaurs would be roaming the earth today. I’m telling ya, this God of ours is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

  21. Randy, sometimes I read the things you write and have to pour myself a glass of wine. Homosexuals evolve just like every other human being. Being gay isn’t a separate species no matter what your side wants to believe. There science is not on your side.

    And Cindy, I quite like my nipples.

  22. Lorax, 1) I didn’t start it. Blame Dan R., and 2) although you like them you do not need them.

    What a thread to start the morning!

  23. Randy in Richmond says:

    Never said gays are a seperate species. Let’s take two seperate groups of eight people. The first group are 4 gay guys and 4 gay women. They are sent by spacecraft to Jupiter. Assuming they do what gays do sexually what will they evolve to in say 100 years. Nothing

    The other group is obvious. 4 heterosexual males and 4 heterosexual females. In 100 years they at least have the chance to evolve-i.e. pass their genes along to other generations.

    Have another glass. 🙂

  24. Randy you’re like the old pro athlete who claimed he was misquoted in his autobiography. You endorsed a movie diametrically opposed to your views (?). You, apparently, believe humans have played no role or can affect climate loading. I live in WI and where I sit a glacier receded only 10,000 yrs.ago-yeah climate changes that’s not the argument, what is the role of humans.
    And Cindy extremists generally should be dismissed from all sides; Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill, running for chair of the House Energy and Commerce Com. quotes from the Bible, God told Noah he won’t destroy all creatures again. God = Bobby Ferrin ? Don’t worry be happy.

  25. WJ, huh?

    Let’s look at a technical glitch in your logic.

    “God told Noah he won’t destroy all creatures again. God = Bobby Ferrin ? Don’t worry be happy.”

    Except in that story God did not destroy all the creatures, He had Noah put them on a boat.

    I know I get lazy about some stuff, but the Noah story is ancient history. It’s tough to get that one so wrong.

  26. Sorry Cindy my Biblical history is close to my typing skills slapdash at best. John Shimkus quotes from Genesis 8, 21-22; ” Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though all inclinations of his heart are evil from childhood and never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done.
    As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will never cease.”
    Maybe it’s me, but I prefer when House Committees aren’t Chaired by Biblical literalists.

  27. Randy in Richmond says:

    For what it’s worth Noah was earth’s first drunk. I don’t think there was an AA then. And the rainbow is God’s sign that earth will never be destroyed by water (floods) again.

    And here is the definitive Noah story you must listen to. You will not regret listening to it.


  28. I am no biblical scholar, but I am guessing there were drunks prior to Noah. Fruit+bad storage options= fermentation >wallah! a happy buzz. Pretty sure Noah wasn’t the first.

    Thanks for the link, Randy in R. Going to check it out now.

  29. Randy in Richmond says:

    I should have qualified my diatribe. Noah is the first drunk mentioned in the Bible. Thanks..

  30. You’re confusing evolving with reproducing. And, that is to say, humans don’t really evolve much in 100 years.

    What you don’t understand is that you don’t have to be gay to have a gay offspring, and you don’t have to be straight to have offspring. Lots of homosexual couples choose a surrogate, and logically, almost all gays come from straight families.

    So, I’m still wondering what kind of point you’re trying to make…that the human race can’t exist without straight people? Well, that’s an obvious one.

    Also, you’re operating on the assumption that people are either gay or straight. As science (oh what a foolhardy friend!) has shown, sexuality is not binary, but on a spectrum. So there are many people who are attracted to the same sex, yet choose to procreate with someone of the opposite sex.

  31. Lorax, I don’t know how a species manages to evolve without reproducing. Virgin births are poo-pooed by many in your mindset.

    I guess that’s the long way of saying I’m not sure it’s Randy that’s confused.

  32. WJ – Maybe you should just be more careful with your sources. If you have a problem with John Shimkus, throw money at his next opponent.

  33. 90% of people are still straight. The species continues to reproduce. I don’t see the problem.

  34. Randy in Richmond says:

    You have changed the discussion. My point was, and continues to be, gays can’t evolve in the scientific sense. Just like only males or only females can’t evolve. It’s impossible. This doesn’t make them bad or wrong, it’s just a scientific impossibility.

  35. Dear Lorax, either you are blindly missing the point or you are choosing to miss the point. Either way, you missed the point.

  36. That’s a ridiculously pointless argument. They can’t evolve? Yes they can. They evolve with the rest of the species. Can they evolve alone? No, because they can’t reproduce if they choose not to mate with a female. And evolution has less to do with individuals and more to do with the species.

    I’m not missing the point – and while I appreciate the patronizing, “Dear Lorax” – I am lost on why this even important to note.

    People can’t walk if they don’t have legs. Doesn’t mean much beyond that. Doesn’t have implications for the wider species.

    From a “scientific sense,” Randy is really misinterpreting how evolution works. Then again, he probably doesn’t “believe” in that science either.

    I try not to get into these battles with you guys anymore for this reason.

  37. Randy said:

    “Nothing is more anti-gay than the theory of evolution. I’m not aware of any male-male or female-female species that has evolved over the ages-there is no way to continue the gene line…”

    Gay individuals using sames sex partners do not have the potential to contribute to the evolutionary process because they do not produce offspring. Yes of course they can choose to mate, but that changes the whole gay thing, don’t you think? And even then they can not possibly mate with each other.

    You come up with a way that two people of the same sex going at it can make a baby where each contributes DNA as a product of their action and I’ll listen to your babble. In the meantime, learn to separate your feelings from the argument. There was absolutely no reason for the tangent you created except your incredible need to defend what you felt as a slight.

    It wasn’t a slight on Randy’s part. It was a statement of fact.

  38. I didn’t think it was a slight.

    It’s a misinterpretation and twisting of the Theory of Evolution. Biology (and common sense) confirms that female-male is the dominant pairing among human beings. That much we can agree on.

    But the misinterpretation is that the ToE is anti-gay. Biology suggests that there is a genetic component to being gay–which has nothing to do with whether or not the parents are. So, the presence of gay people in the species has nothing to do with whether or not gays are reproducing.

    the ToE doesn’t have ideology or prejudices–it is based on Biology. Homosexuality exists in many species in the world, and has for thousands of years.

    Gays cannot contribute to the evolutionary process? That doesn’t mean that the ToE is anti-gay. Women who are infertile cannot contribute to the evolutionary process either–does that mean the ToE is anti-woman, or anti-infertile people?

  39. There you go Lorax.

    It was a struggle but you got there finally.

  40. “Biology suggests that there is a genetic component to being gay–which has nothing to do with whether or not the parents are. So, the presence of gay people in the species has nothing to do with whether or not gays are reproducing.”

    Well there’s a new point to your argument. I disagree that you’ve produced a clean rebuttal as you continue to pull these little goodies out of your back pocket and twirl them around as proof. Pop in a link or two when you find a new exit door. As to your last paragraph, if the theory of evolution shows anything, it’s that life is not fair. Be the wrong color against the rock and you’re someone’s dinner instead of a daddy.

    The theory of evolution demands the biological making of offspring to even exist as a theory. I do not understand what’s so hard to get!

    I also disagree that “the ToE doesn’t have ideology or prejudices.” The ideology is to produce the most capable version of the species for the given environment. The prejudice is against any component that lessens that individual’s perfection of the task.

    Your statement goes back to my earlier suggestion: you have assigned moral values to this debate when all that was set forward was the science.

  41. Randy in Richmond says:

    You say homosexuality exists in the animal world–yes it does. And every time it is practiced it contributes zero to the evolutionary process. Women or men who are infertile contribute zero to the evolutionary process. Those who practice celibacy contribute zero to the evolutionary process. Likewise gay men or women contribute zero to the evolutionary process. Evolution is also anti-infertile woman or man or celibant in the same sense.

    And all of this discussion diminishes not the fact that Fey mocked and ridiculed conservative women because they believe marriage to be between a man and a woman, and also that God’s divine hand is what sets man apart from the rest of the animal kingdom–something evolution (thus the theory) has never done. And don’t get me wrong, Fey had every legal right to do so.

  42. Lizzabon says:

    It is obvious you have had no formal education regarding biology, or even science in general. You point to the fact that evolution is a theory. Yes, that’s true. So is gravity – hence, the theory of gravity. A theory is the closest you can get to a scientific truth, as it means that the hypothesis has passed empirical tests. This article provides a simple and accurate explanation.


    Or, look anywhere else you choose. Even the most basic biology textbook will provide a similar explanation.

    Additionally, a large portion of animal life (read: not just mammals, which constitute a very small percentage of the total animal life on earth) engage in parthenogenesis. No males are present, apart from certain species, which produce males only to introduce variety within the gene pool as a mechanism to overcome environmental fluctuation. Read a bit about this, and you will realize that indeed there are many female only populations that have survived millions of years as a single sex population.

  43. Randy in Richmond says:

    If you really believe gravity to be theory, take your most expensive piece of glassware outside and drop it from 10 feet onto some concrete.

    And when you can produce the link no one has yet found in Darwin’s theory that links man to the rest of animals–let me know. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. My point about reproduction as it relates to Ms. Fey is about humans. Again, when you provide how 2 female humans or 2 male humans can reproduce maybe you’ll have something.

    You link a site with no attributed author that makes astonishing scientific statements with no links, proof, or data of any kind.

  44. Lizzabon says:

    This article was published in the peer reviewed scientific journal Physical Review Letters, produced by the American Physical Society. In it you will find an explanation of the theory of geometric gravity. Notice that they do indeed include the word “theory” in the title as well as throughout the entire article.

    MacDowell S.W., Mansouri, F. 1977. Unified Geometric Theory of Gravity and Supergravity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 38: 739-742.

    Hm… I will have to test the “theory” that my best glassware will fall to the ground when I drop it! I’ll admit, it’s hard to believe. I’m not sure that it’ll actually happen, since, you know, it’s only a theory.

    My point being, the general public does not typically distinguish between the colloquial definition of “theory” and the scientific usage of “theory.”

  45. Randy, you are on shaky ground here. Sure, evolution is a “theory,” but when scientists call something a “theory,” they don’t mean the term in the same way as the layman does in ordinary contexts. A scientific theory isn’t an educated guess (that’s a hypothesis), and it certainly isn’t an uneducated guess in the way that the average person uses the word “theory.”

  46. Randy in Richmond says:

    Every physics book includes the formulae for the law of gravity. The theory part is that we don’t know why these formulae work or that they haven’t been applied to every single atom or molecule. In the case of evolution the link between animals and man has not been found or discovered. That’s why it is called the ‘missing link’.

    And really, this discussion theoretically will never end because if one believes God is at work in the process, as I do, the scientific method is shot to hell. (puns intended)

  47. I don’t know about anyone else, but I am so over Tina Fey. I think it was a mistake for her to ride the Sarah Palin ridicule train for so long. Didn’t hurt Palin and now if I catch a glimpse of Fey, she morphs ( in my mind) into a opportunist, one-note cairiacature that’s not very funny.

  48. Randy, it’s views like yours that fuel the public perception that the GOP is anti-science and uneducated.

    There are plenty of links between man and animals, which is no surprise, since man IS an animal (and a primate, a mammal, etc.). And man is going to kill every scientific argument with “God might have intervened somewhere in the process” every time there is a roadblock, then there would never be any scientific or technological progress.

  49. Randy in Richmond says:

    Ah, the elitism rises to the top and the dialogue becomes personal. It’s easier to predict than the weather. When we conservatives have a differing point of view, especially one based on believing in God, we are stupid and uneducated. Plus believing in a God that had a hand in why we are here is anti-science.

    Well, I’m going to have some grits and go sit on the sofa on the front porch until the wrassling comes on TV later. Burp !!

  50. I know nothing of R in R other than from reading his posts and comments of FC. Arrogantly dismissing the intellectual capacity of someone who has an inclination to Creationism IS predictable – I saw it coming, made a mental note, “I bet Randy gets accused of being ignorant and stupid.”

    From what I’ve read on this site over the years, R in R comes across to me as being neither anti-science nor uneducated. There are plenty of intellectually gifted GOP AND Dem-leaning endorsers of Creationism that I’ve known, so I take issue with the spittle of words and belittlement that so easily slide from TofE believers to dismiss intellectual equals who do not line up to follow the doctrine of evolution. Predictable. Tiresome.