Surge in Honesty Demanded. Bring It On!
Don Surber at 5 a.m. wants to know if he’s alone in being disturbed that Obama wants a broadcaster fired for his words. Heck, I’ve wanted Imus fired for being boring and wasting airspace for years. My big question is whether Obama, who says he’d fire anyone on his staff who said something like “nappy-headed hos,” would consider a suspension instead if that person was responsible for bringing in millions of dollars worth of revenue, or donations or whatever to his operation.
In other campaign business, great speech from McCain. WaPo wants to make it all about political posturing, but McCain has been consistent in his support for the war, while periodically criticizing the execution. Obama is quoted halfway down calling for a “surge in honesty,” and I encourage him to initiate one. WSJ calls the speech McCain’s finest hour. Leadership sometimes means bucking public opinion. You listening, Obama, Hillary, etal?
Hillary, meanwhile, not afraid of the White House. Don’t say. Oddly, this article about her visit to Fort Drum only mentions her talking about health care, not you-know-what on which she’s been waffling lately after several years of holding the line on the war her husband for which her helped lay the groundwork.
Topics: pols
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:25 am on Thursday, April 12, 2007
20 Responses to “Surge in Honesty Demanded. Bring It On!”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
April 12th, 2007 at 11:44 am
“several years of holding the line on the war her husband for which her helped lay the groundwork.”
I suppose an English translation of that would come out to be: “Let’s blame Pres. Clinton for the war in Iraq. Yeah, that’ll do it.”
April 12th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Well,
It would be Mr. Clinton, actually, who initiated and signed the executive order making regime change in Iraq a priority of the United States. Congress also passed a measure demanding the same thing shortly thereafter, iirc, and I suspect I do.
And no one that I know of is blaming Clinton for the war in iraq. It is Saddam and Osama who are responsible for that.
Come to think of it, to be frank, there is NO war in Iraq, per se. The operations there are simply a campaign in the GWOT, much like the actions taken in Afghanistan, Somalia, the Philipines, Indonesia, etc. Soe areas, some operations are more sustained, more troop-intensive, than others, but there is NO war in Iraq. It is simply a part of the great war we are fighting, and to be blaming the United States for “starting” any of this is disingenuous at best.
Respects,
April 12th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Well, Obama and everybody else got their wish: Imus is out all around. And while I think Imus is creepy and repulsive, I’m a little disturbed by the complete disregard for free speech, even when it’s hateful free speech.
April 12th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
How ’bout that surge, huh?
Can we go home yet?
April 12th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Corndog, I find myself in total agreement with you, we should lay the credit for the Iraqi war at Clintons desk. I also think that we can do the same with the GWOT. He’s wanted a legacy for some time now (since he saw what the sucessor administration could do with a challenge) so I think that he should have one. It’s a pleasure to see loyalists of your caliber keeping up the good fight until his desires are achieved. Gung ho!
April 12th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Oh, come now, Rebecca! Don’t forget that hateful free speech is perfectly acceptable when coming from anyone other than a Rethuglican, wingnut, or a stupid cracker. Why, look at the Duke lacrosse players……don’t hear any apologies for all the nasty names hurled at them white boys, do you?
Except for Nifong, of course, whom I hear is checking out back issues of Cell and Exercise Yard Decoration Made Easy.
April 12th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Hey alfie, don’t you love it? Almost makes you wish you could help, doesn’t it.
April 12th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
AW! Tim,
So are you saying that al Qaeda has gotten stronger or weaker since we invaded Iraq?
RealJeff and Rebecca,
You do know that radio airwaves are public domain and, thus, the First Amendment is not a blanket protection, right?
April 12th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Imus could be the new lounge act at the neocon lifeboat known as AEI.
Looks like Wolfowitz is coming home and he could use a good chuckle.
April 12th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
corndog, if the airwaves were public domain then free speech would be the law. The airwaves are in the domain of the FCC who regulates them in the name of the public. That doesn’t make them public domain (which means free with no restrictions.) To verify maybe you could check the regulations concerning Ham radio.
April 12th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
How ’bout that surge, huh?
Yea, jihadis dying in droves. Real bummer for your side isn’t it?
April 12th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Corndog is saying we shouldn’t blame the Clintons for not doing their job?
April 12th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
jihadi = any person (or structure) in Iraq, PA?
April 12th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Projecting I see.
April 12th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
You do know that radio airwaves are public domain and, thus, the First Amendment is not a blanket protection, right?
Speech in the public domain (e.g., the radio waves) is not protected by the First Amendment? That sounds like a fascist talking to me, corndog.
But say it’s true…..I can sue Nancy Pelosi for fraud as presenting herself as representing the United States to a foreign power.
Cool! Excuse me, I need to call my attorney……KA-CHING!!!!
April 12th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
You do know that radio airwaves are public domain and, thus, the First Amendment is not a blanket protection, right?
This sentence makes no sense to me. It would seem to be a complete contradiction.
That said, radio stations and companies are owned by corporations, who may fire whom they like if they feel the person has violated corporate policy. But when Barack Obama and other politician/celebrities start demanding that people be fired for voicing an opinion (however repugnant that opinion may be, barring incitement to violence), free speech comes under attack. If the loathsome Rosie O’Donnell were fired for spewing her idiocies, the left would be screeching “free speech” to high heaven.
That’s why I no longer respond to Alpie. He’s free to type his opinions, no matter how angry, ignorant, and hateful they are. And I’m free to ignore them.
April 12th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Well said, Rebecca!
And the funny thing is, “radio waves” (AKA “radiation spectrum”), are decidedly NOT “public domain“. Those frequencies are a common resource controlled by the Federal government (much like the states control water rights). They are not available for the taking……people go to jail for pirating frequencies.
For commercial broadcasters (TV and radio), that license they hold from the FCC allows them to broadcast whatever they like……with certain limitations, like no profanity or obscene materials (e.g., p0rn). Good taste generally controls the content, although that is less and less the case these days, such as with “shock jocks” (e.g., Imus).
Now, this would seem to support corndog’s assertion……except that the FCC took no action whatsoever. My point is that, instead of some official FCC action (and I have seen those), the broadcast companies bowed to their commercial interests, as expressed through social and political pressure, and canned Imus. In this case, that pressure was placed by those scam artists Sharpton and Jackson*, and the newbie senator, Obama.
On the other hand, far worse things, subsequently proven to be false, were said about the Duke lacrosse players. Free speech, expressed hatefully, on the same “radio wave” medium as Imus was: radio and TV. And the consequences were……nothing. Where are the apologies from Sharpton and Jackson, who dived into the Duke fiasco with glee? Retractions? Well wishes? A little help for the accuser (who seems to need it right now, she doesn’t sound very stable)?
Nada. Zip. Zero. Free speech here was in fact constrained by (gasp!) capitalism: they stood to lose money.
Hmmmmmm, indeed, taking corndog literally**, he is supporting my contention that people should be held accountable. After all, if there is no “blanket protection” for the First Amendment in the public domain, there are rules on what you can say, and those rules must be enforced, jawohl!
Spoken like a good little fascist, corndog.
================================
*: I’ll say one thing for Jackson, though. Everytime he has intervened in a hostage situation outside the US, he has succeeded in getting all the hostages released. I’m not sure how, but I’ll give him that much…..which does not clear him of being a scam artist here in the US of A.
**: That’s hard to do with a straight face!
April 13th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
RealJeff,
You’re exactly right, for once (excpet you confused what public domain is). And this is why the First Amendment is not a blanket protection. Rebecca, it’s not a question of the company making the speech; it’s the forum that the speech is going out on. In this case, the forum is radio waves, which are government property and, thus, subject to restrictions.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Time for a remedial reading course, corndog. What I said was (emphasis added for your benefit):
“For commercial broadcasters (TV and radio), that license they hold from the FCC allows them to broadcast whatever they like……with certain limitations, like no profanity or obscene materials (e.g., p0rn). Good taste generally controls the content, although that is less and less the case these days, such as with “shock jocks” (e.g., Imus).”
Further, as a reminder, this is what the First Amendment 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.”
Pretty straightforward, don’t you think? “Congress shall make no law….abgridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”. Yet, somehow, you morph this into “restrictions” on free speech on “public domain” in the form of “radio waves”.
You don’t like the message, so let’s clamp down on the speech. Spoken like a good fascist, corndog.
Or an idiot who wouldn’t know the First Amendment if it beat you in broad daylight with a titanium cluebat.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
PS: corndog, don’t forget, what pushed Imus out of this job was pure capitalism, the desire to make lotsa moolah, the craving for cash, etc. Imus has been pretty offensive for a looooooonnnnngggg time, now, and no pink slip was forthcoming. I can’t imagine CBS and MSNBC not getting regular complaints about that twit*.
And let us not forget that paragon of rationality, intelligence, and charm, Rosie O’Donnell. She’s been quite offensive to a large portion of Americans for quite some time. When does she get fired?
Answer: she makes too much money for the networks, so they keep her sleazy butt on the boob tube. Money, corndog, money, the root of all evil. Not the First Amendment.
Have a nice weekend!
==============================
*: Although I must admit, Imus did ridicule Sharpton mercilessly, and for good cause. Imus just forgot that the sharks were circling.