« Quick Programming Note | Main | "Meat Market" Advice »

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Rove’s Nickname, Doonesbury, and a New Four-Letter Word


Since instances of stupidity are so rare these days, I thought I’d point out a recent example.  CNN reports:

About a dozen papers objected to Tuesday's and Wednesday's "Doonesbury" comic strips, and some either pulled or edited them.

The strips refer to Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, as "Turd Blossom." . . .

The term is said to be one of several nicknames Bush uses for Rove, one of his closest allies and who is widely credited for Bush's election in 2000 and re-election in 2004. The mainstream U.S. media have rarely mentioned the nickname, but it has gained traction in the international press and on the Internet.

Since when is “turd” is a four-letter word?  I guess since always, but now in more ways than one. I can think of many terms for Karl Rove, and “Turd Blossom” is much nicer than any of them. 

Posted by Daniel Solove on July 27, 2005 at 09:58 AM in Daniel Solove, Odd World | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rove’s Nickname, Doonesbury, and a New Four-Letter Word:


I totally disagree with you Adam Solove.

Posted by: Allison Williams Esq. | Apr 28, 2014 4:06:03 AM


Just because a newspaper exercises its rights with regard to what it chooses to print doesn't mean that people have to like it. Many stupid things are said -- indeed, many odious things -- and I respect people's right to say them. But that doesn't mean I have to respect what they say. Are you suggesting that just because a newspaper exercises its editorial judgment, it is immune from any criticism by scholars or others? I don't understand your argument. Moreover, since when is the word "turd" offensive to kids? I think that it is quite common for children to use the word "turd." And Doonesbury isn't really a children's comic strip, as it deals mostly with grown-up themes. There are certainly instances where newspapers might use their judgment wisely, but this isn't one of them in my opinion. There are many things I disagree with that I don't think are stupid; but there are also things that are stupid. You should call a spade a spade, whether you're a scholar or not, and you should call stupid stupid too if that's your opinion of it.

BTW -- There are very few Soloves in the country, and I know of only one group in Ohio that aren't related to me. It's quite ironic that you'll be at GW's Elliot Sch. I teach at GW Law Sch.

Posted by: Daniel Solove | Jul 27, 2005 5:05:03 PM

Is it so hard to believe a section of the paper read by three-year-olds wouldn't want to run the word? Newspapers exercising their commercial and Constitutional rights for their readers' benefit now qualifies as stupid? This is an interesting stand for a scholar like yourself: "I disagree with what you say, so you must be stupid."

Posted by: Adam Solove | Jul 27, 2005 1:42:11 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.