Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

Soooo who's watching Sarah Palin's "Real American Stories", or at least following the news about it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/31/AR2010033103720.html
Fox News Channel has dumped an interview with James Todd Smith -- better known as LL Cool J -- out of Thursday's debut of the Sarah Palin-hosted occasional series called "Real American Stories," after the rapper-turned-actor whined about it on his Twitter account. That's real American!
In its promotional material for the new series, scheduled to unveil at 10 p.m., FNC said the show would "feature real-life tales of overcoming adversity throughout the American landscape." Among those to be featured were country singer Toby Keith, who, FNC said, will explain the inspiration behind his song "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue," and Cool J, who was going to speak about his success in this country in a segment called "In Their Own Words."
Except Cool J actually spoke to FNC about his success in this country back in 2008, not recently.
As part of a Web project.
A Web project also called "Real American Stories."
Tuesday, when Cool J got wind of his being a star of the Sarah Palin show, he tweeted his outrage:
"Fox lifted an old interview I gave in 2008 to someone else & are misrepresenting to the public in order to promote Sarah Palin's Show. WOW," he tweeted.
Wednesday morning, when The Reporters Who Cover Television got wind of Cool J's tweet, an eczema of news reports broke out on the Web, whacking FNC for perpetrating this outrage on the co-star of CBS's "NCIS: Los Angeles."
FNC explained in a statement Wednesday that it "did not commit to restrictions on its interview with Mr. Smith so therefore the network did not need his permission to use the interview in this program."
But at some point during the day, the network decided to cut bait and pulled the Cool J interview from the show -- and from its Web site, explaining:
"Real American Stories features uplifting tales about overcoming adversity and we believe Mr. Smith's [also known as LL Col J, to everyone] interview fit that criteria. However, as it appears that Mr. Smith does not want to be associated with a program that could serve as an inspiration to others, we are cutting his interview from the special and wish him the best with his fledgling acting career."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001550-503544.html
Country music star Toby Keith said Wednesday that, like rap star LL Cool J, he was not aware he would be featured on a new Fox News show hosted by Sarah Palin that is slated to debut today.
The first episode of "Real American Stories" was scheduled to feature interviews with LL Cool J, Keith and former General Electric Chief Executive Jack Welch about how they overcame adversity to achieve success. The interviews were reportedly taken from a Web site that Fox launched in the summer of 2008.
"We were never contacted by Fox" about the new show, a representative for Keith told the Web site HitFix. "They're promoting this like it's a brand new interview. He never sat down with Sarah Palin."
Keith's spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times that she had no problem with the segment running.
Fox pulled the segment featuring LL Cool J after the rapper complained about the use of the footage.
The debut of "Real American Stories" is one more example of Palin's departure from traditional politics and foray into media.
So that's two of the three celebrity guests; I'm willing to bet Jack Welch never sat down with Sarah Palin, either. Isn't this just blatant misrepresentation, which Fox can be sued for?

Another example of what's becoming a classic slogan (especially regarding Sarah Palin); "Fox News: We Can't Be Bothered To Show Current Footage"
 
Last edited:
If I were the family, I'd just power right through them. They can't physically obstruct whatever they're protesting.

Snyder has claimed in a couple of interviews that they did obstruct the main entrance to the church. Now did they actually obstruct the whole entrance or did he just not want to subject his wife and family to their hate? I don't know but I would guess he just didn't want to walk through them to the main entrance so it will be up to the court to figure out how much obstruction is allowed.

Firstly, I don't see this as a case question of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is paramount to holy in my mind, no one should be denied the right to say what they want, no matter how angry it makes me feel. And on that scale, these guys rank a solid ten.

The question we should be asking is wether freedom of speech give them the right to actively harass a funeral, at any place they wish and at any time they wish. I don't think so. There's respect, and there's disrespect, and there's respect for the dead. You don't act in this appaling way in the presence of grieving people, it is despicable, and the protest could be carried on somewhere else. You can't deny them the right to spew their insane hate, but you can limit where they can do it. I am sure there shouldn't be much of a problem making it illegal to protest without the permission of the family of the dead withing a one mile radius of a funeral. I believe laws of this nature already exist on state level in some states. Just pass the laws, and you're rid of the problem.

Penalties could be.. big fines.

Exactly and I don't even think the limit even needs to be as much as a mile. A 1,000 or 1,500 feet would be plenty. That would cut the line of sight out for most areas or at least severely limit it. They could still be on the funereal route which is what they want and honestly should be allowed. If we allow protesters to protest the parade route of the presidents or some other elected official, well we used to allow that Bush always wanted protesters pushed off to some isolated area off the parade route, then we should allow them to do that.
 
Good lord, Kevin Rudd's "response" to Robin Williams calling Australians British Rednecks was lame.... Nice defelction, pissing off Alabamans with a you are too come back... bet that took years of diplomatic skill to think up...
 
Firstly, I don't see this as a case question of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is paramount to holy in my mind, no one should be denied the right to say what they want, no matter how angry it makes me feel. And on that scale, these guys rank a solid ten.

The question we should be asking is wether freedom of speech give them the right to actively harass a funeral, at any place they wish and at any time they wish. I don't think so. There's respect, and there's disrespect, and there's respect for the dead.

Respectfulness is far too subjective and too easily spun to fit certain agendas(it's also irrelevant). I for example, find respect for the dead to be a very weird concept. The thing is, funerals aren't for the dead, and to be honest, the dead don't really care that much what you do or think. The funerals are for the friends and the family and it's them who I personally think should be shown respect and decency. Fortunately the constitution doesn't give a rats ass about what I or anyone else thinks is respectful and I don't think it should, regardless of the setting. One of the strengths of a protest is that your stirring things up to get your message across which may include actions that the general public find even intensely disrespectful (like flag burning).

You don't act in this appaling way in the presence of grieving people, it is despicable, and the protest could be carried on somewhere else. You can't deny them the right to spew their insane hate, but you can limit where they can do it.

No, you really cant (and shouldn't) so long as its on public property. The further away you go, the more diluted your message becomes. You think they would have the press they do if they didn't hold their demonstrations so near the funerals? You think the million man march would have been as powerful if they weren't allowed near the capital?

I am sure there shouldn't be much of a problem making it illegal to protest without the permission of the family of the dead withing a one mile radius of a funeral. I believe laws of this nature already exist on state level in some states. Just pass the laws, and you're rid of the problem.

Penalties could be.. big fines.

Once you start legislating based on "respect" and "decency" that then the flood gates open for removing any sort of thing that people find "disrespectful" and "indecent". Should people protesting abortion clinics should be moved to another place because its disrespectful for the women who may have agonized over the decision?
An atheist might want to protest say, a ten commandments monument being put up at a government building or protest children being required to say "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. Most people in this country would think it wildly despicable and unpatriotic on top of thinking the atheist a devil worshiping, hate filled sin-monger. So should they be able to tell the courts that their protests are disruptive and massively disrespectful, offensive, and insulting to their core beliefs and have the protesters replanted 1,000 ft or whatever away from the building or school where they won't be seen and can't be heard?

Once you start making exceptions like that it becomes a slippery slope.


The constitution is specifically designed to protect the people who want to get their message out (no matter how despicable you think it may be) from majority who hold your same opinion regarding these matters, and its one of the biggest reasons why its worth dying for.
 
Last edited:
^Yes, as much as it pisses all of us off the see the Westboro assholes protest service funerals we can't ever restrict free speech.

And I can add that though I don't usually like the "slippery slope" argument (Oh noes! Let's ban pot/gay marriage because it might just maybe possibly lead to worse drugs/pedophilia!!) in this case it is completely true. In my country, I already see this, under the guise of political correctness and "diversity" abridging freedom of speech, just look at the old 2005-2007 religious hatred legislation, that basically said anyone who offends a religious person could see themselves jailed or fined, which was not only wrong on an ideological level but a practical one as well (as you said, how exactly is "decent" and "inoffensive" to be defined and who does the defining?).
 
You can't stop these people. What you can do is fight fire with fire.

In the UK there was a massive kerfuffle about "Jerry Springer: The Opera". I was doing standup at the time and with this, the Mohammed cartoons and the Gvt trying to pass a Religious Hatred Bill limiting pisstaking of religion, we decided that the best thing to do was take the piss.

Best thing was, the look on the faces of the protesters and journalists, who had turned up expecting one thing and got another. :)
 
Respectfulness is far too subjective and too easily spun to fit certain agendas(it's also irrelevant). I for example, find respect for the dead to be a very weird concept. The thing is, funerals aren't for the dead, and to be honest, the dead don't really care that much what you do or think. The funerals are for the friends and the family and it's them who I personally think should be shown respect and decency. Fortunately the constitution doesn't give a rats ass about what I or anyone else thinks is respectful and I don't think it should, regardless of the setting. One of the strengths of a protest is that your stirring things up to get your message across which may include actions that the general public find even intensely disrespectful (like flag burning).
I'm in favor of people having the right to burn the flag, it is just a piece of cloth. But I don't think you should be able to do so in the presence of a funeral. There's a line you don't cross, and this is way over that line. I won't say respectfulness is too subjective, we can legislate it very specificly at the elements involved, not to mention I truely hate mandatory minimums, so we'll allow judicial discression (that should be a given, but sadly, it's not in every case).

We could also make the law only applicable if you're caught doing it, let's say five times. That give us another legal safeguard to protect the general public. And let's not forget this law is only applicable on occations of funerals within close distances of funerals. If you want to spew your hate from a distance, you're absolutely free to do so. I'm not in favor of legislating the opinion, just the place where you can do it.

No, you really cant (and shouldn't) so long as its on public property. The further away you go, the more diluted your message becomes. You think they would have the press they do if they didn't hold their demonstrations so near the funerals? You think the million man march would have been as powerful if they weren't allowed near the capital?
The capital was not a funeral. I am not advocating a general principle where the federal government can deny protesters access to places like the capitol, I am talking of a very specific ban of disturbing funerals.

And you know what? If the million man march weren't allowd near the Capitol, I'm absolutely convinced they would have gotten as much coverage, just that would be a story.

Once you start legislating based on "respect" and "decency" that then the flood gates open for removing any sort of thing that people find "disrespectful" and "indecent". Should people protesting abortion clinics should be moved to another place because its disrespectful for the women who may have agonized over the decision?
No. It's not a funeral.

An atheist might want to protest say, a ten commandments monument being put up at a government building or protest children being required to say "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. Most people in this country would think it wildly despicable and unpatriotic on top of thinking the atheist a devil worshiping, hate filled sin-monger. So should they be able to tell the courts that their protests are disruptive and massively disrespectful, offensive, and insulting to their core beliefs and have the protesters replanted 1,000 ft or whatever away from the building or school where they won't be seen and can't be heard?
No. It's not a funeral.

Once you start making exceptions like that it becomes a slippery slope.
I'm not one to attack slippery slope arguments, but I really don't think that's realistic.

The constitution is specifically designed to protect the people who want to get their message out (no matter how despicable you think it may be) from majority who hold your same opinion regarding these matters, and its one of the biggest reasons why its worth dying for.
And I agree with that. But they will still be able to get their message out, they can even be in the same city.

This is the one and only law regulating where you can and can't say something I want. The one and only.
 
http://store.barackobama.com/featured-products/men-s-health-reform-is-a-bfd-t-shirt.html

ofa-tee-hcv_bfd-gray-m.png


:lol:

And while we're talking about religious nutters...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125459990&sc=fb&cc=fp

A judge has sentenced an anti-abortion zealot convicted of murdering a prominent Kansas abortion provider to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 50 years.

Scott Roeder, 52, faced a mandatory life prison term for shooting Dr. George Tiller in the back of Tiller's Wichita church last May.

Sedgwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert could have made Roeder eligible for parole after 25 or 50 years. He gave him the harsher sentence because he said the evidence showed Roeder stalked Tiller before killing him.

Before he was sentenced, Roeder testified that he killed Tiller because he felt doing so would protect unborn children. He accused the judge of "duplicity" and said his trial was a miscarriage of justice because he wasn't allowed to present testimony about the evils of abortion. He said the deaths of a few providers like Tiller must be weighed against the millions of abortions that have been performed.

"I stopped him so he could not dismember another innocent baby," Roeder said. "Wichita is a far safer place for unborn babies without George Tiller."

Earlier Thursday, an attorney for Tiller's family, Lee Thompson, asked Wilbert to give Roeder the harshest sentence possible, saying anything less would encourage other anti-abortion fanatics to follow in Roeder's footsteps.

"It will happen again and again," Thompson said. "This is domestic terrorism. This act will be repeated by this person if he ever sees the light of day again."

Roeder was barred from describing abortion procedures during the testimony portion of his trial, and prosecutors were careful not to turn the trial into a referendum on abortion.

On Thursday, Roeder told the court that Tiller "dismembered living children with the nod of approval from the state."
He said God's judgment against the U.S. will "sweep over this land like a prairie wind."

"He will avenge every drop of innocent blood," Roeder said.

Earlier during his hearing, Roeder interrupted a prosecutor questioning a Topeka psychologist about his motivations for killing Tiller by shouting he did it "to protect unborn babies."

The judge warned Roeder that if he interrupted again, he'd be removed from the courtroom until he was allowed to make a statement.
The first of several character witnesses to testify on Roeder's behalf said he had prayed with him since the 1990s and had not believed the defendant to be a dangerous individual, according to the Wichita Eagle.

"Not one time did I hear him speak of violence to anyone," said Eugene Frye, who quoted biblical Scripture in an effort to explain Roeder's anti-abortion beliefs.

Frye said that the first time he saw Roeder agitated was when he learned that a jury had found Tiller not guilty of misdemeanor charges in the months before he was killed. Frye asked the judge to give Roeder "the lesser sentence."

The Eagle reported that another witness, Katherine Coons, insisted that Roeder's act was "not a hate crime," saying, "He just had a heart for babies."

The judge earlier denied a motion for a new trial and rejected a challenge by the defense to a Kansas law that would allow Roeder to be sentenced to a "Hard 50," or a life sentence with the possibility of parole in 50 years. The judge also indicated that the evidence showed that Roeder stalked Tiller before killing him, which could qualify him for the harsher of the two sentences.

Public defender Mark Rudy argued there were no aggravating factors to warrant that punishment.

But District Attorney Nola Foulston asked for the maximum sentence, one that would effectively keep Roeder behind bars for the rest of his life.

"This person presents a clear and present danger," she said.

Prosecutors seeking the harsher sentence must show an aggravating circumstance, such as whether Roeder stalked his victim before killing him.

Roeder testified in January that he had previously taken a gun into the doctor's church and had also checked out the gated subdivision where Tiller lived and the clinic where he practiced.

Thompson said the slain doctor had believed strongly in women's rights.

"The impact of his death on women throughout the world is like an earthquake," Thompson told the court. "They ask, 'Where can I go? What will I do?' I have to say, 'I'm sorry, I can't tell you.' That's the impact of this crime."

Thompson emphasized that Roeder's deeply held religious beliefs could not mitigate the crime of murder. He said the circumstances were made worse by the fact that Roeder had no remorse for his crime and instead "brags about this murder."

In the months since Tiller's death, his clinic has been closed and Kansas has been left with no facility where women can receive an abortion late in their pregnancy. The state has three clinics ? all located in or near the Kansas City area ? that offer limited abortion services for women up to their 21st week of pregnancy.

One of Tiller's contemporaries had vowed to fill the gap, but that hasn't materialized. Kansas lawmakers are moving to enact tough new rules to dissuade other doctors from taking Tiller's place.
 
Last edited:
^^ A thing that does surprise me is that the conservative media pundits who were essentially issuing a fatwa over George Tiller, are getting away with it. I remember how Bill O'Reilly consistently refereed to him as "Tiller the Baby Killer", and explained how he must have killed thousands of babies or late therm fetuses, while Glenn Beck agreed "there must surely be a special place in hell for this guy..." Over there they would have been forced to publicly apologize for spreading such hatred, and particularly after Tiller was murdered.
 
From Fox's response to LL Cool J not wanting his interview aired on Palin's show;
However, as it appears that Mr. Smith does not want to be associated with a program that could serve as an inspiration to others, we are cutting his interview from the special and wish him the best with his fledgling acting career.
What a fucking asshole.

^^ A thing that does surprise me is that the conservative media pundits who were essentially issuing a fatwa over George Tiller, are getting away with it. I remember how Bill O'Reilly consistently refereed to him as "Tiller the Baby Killer", and explained how he must have killed thousands of babies or late therm fetuses, while Glenn Beck agreed "there must surely be a special place in hell for this guy..." Over there they would have been forced to publicly apologize for spreading such hatred, and particularly after Tiller was murdered.
Nope, they get to spew all the hate filled rhetoric that they want, talk about locking and loading and sending people to hell ... then when someone actually follows their advice they had nothing to do with it. I can't properly put into words how angry that makes me.
 
^^ A thing that does surprise me is that the conservative media pundits who were essentially issuing a fatwa over George Tiller, are getting away with it. I remember how Bill O'Reilly consistently refereed to him as "Tiller the Baby Killer", and explained how he must have killed thousands of babies or late therm fetuses, while Glenn Beck agreed "there must surely be a special place in hell for this guy..." Over there they would have been forced to publicly apologize for spreading such hatred, and particularly after Tiller was murdered.
This is just another point in the growing list of examples where the "usual suspect" right-wing nutjobs push their vitriol down everyone's throats, and then claim innocence to save face when someone actually acts on things they say.

Jon Stewart actually talked about this, after the big conservative freak-out when HCR passed. Palin, being the stereotypical right-wing nutjob she is, actually orchestrates this point beautifully. She very blatantly references taking up arms, and then backpedals and blames the liberal media for taking what she says out of context.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how it would play if Jon Stewart begun talking about Glenn Beck going to hell and that the people should make him into a pinata.. and someone actually killed Beck.

Let me make it clear, I am oposed to murder, even if the guy is a murderer.. or Glenn Beck.
 
Ummm Glen Beck, well I suppose you are right, but it is Glen Beck - oh OK no exceptions. I am opposed to murder, even of Glenn Beck (that hurt).

And on the upcoming election. ...

Spectacular own goals by the Government I have spotted (You really only have to be semi-conchious really):

1. Joanna Lumley 1, Labour Minister (Kevin Thickie Jones) 0
2. Something foreigners will not quite understand but. ...

Employers NI contributions still to go up! Basically it is a payroll tax, they have made employing people in the UK MORE EXPENSIVE! Like with all the jobs going off-shore and automation what does a company need right now a bigger incentive to cut the head ount, yes siree Bob.

Thank ou El Gordo (PM, Banana Republic without the Bananas, UK).
 
Last edited:
I wonder how it would play if Jon Stewart begun talking about Glenn Beck going to hell and that the people should make him into a pinata.. and someone actually killed Beck.
Easy. Jon Stewart would fry, Glenn Beck would be martyrized, and right-wing pundits would use the event to push their message for years.
 
Indeed. Can't we just give Alaska to Beck? Let him run it as Palin's puppet master.
 
Indeed. Can't we just give Alaska to Beck? Let him run it as Palin's puppet master.
Beck is just a psychotic populist. I'd be amazed if he could run a lemonade stand, let alone a state.
 
I'm in favor of people having the right to burn the flag, it is just a piece of cloth. But I don't think you should be able to do so in the presence of a funeral. There's a line you don't cross, and this is way over that line. I won't say respectfulness is too subjective, we can legislate it very specificly at the elements involved, not to mention I truely hate mandatory minimums, so we'll allow judicial discression (that should be a given, but sadly, it's not in every case).

We could also make the law only applicable if you're caught doing it, let's say five times. That give us another legal safeguard to protect the general public. And let's not forget this law is only applicable on occations of funerals within close distances of funerals. If you want to spew your hate from a distance, you're absolutely free to do so. I'm not in favor of legislating the opinion, just the place where you can do it.


The capital was not a funeral. I am not advocating a general principle where the federal government can deny protesters access to places like the capitol, I am talking of a very specific ban of disturbing funerals.

And you know what? If the million man march weren't allowd near the Capitol, I'm absolutely convinced they would have gotten as much coverage, just that would be a story.


No. It's not a funeral.


No. It's not a funeral.


I'm not one to attack slippery slope arguments, but I really don't think that's realistic.


And I agree with that. But they will still be able to get their message out, they can even be in the same city.

This is the one and only law regulating where you can and can't say something I want. The one and only.

Why should funerals and only only funerals have such special status? The dead are dead, and the living will keep on living, despite the inconvenience. To let an exception as petty as this pass would be an insult to the principles upon which our nation was founded. Fortunately the supreme court is in agreement because they've already shut down legislation like this. Being offended and disrespected is something the government should absolutely NOT meddle with; it would be no better than these European anti blasphemy laws. And if you're going to say that our flag is just a flag, then the same can be said of a dead body. Its just that, a body, an intimate object. but just as there's significant emotional attachments to that body there's a significant emotional attachment to our flag as well. Also, once again, your message is nowhere near as significant if you allow yourself to be moved away from the scene where it would have the most impact and get the most press. The power of protest (like comedy and other forms of social/political commentary) often lies in its ability to offend and enrage and get people to think and question social norms. I just don't understand how a funeral is so special that it's allowed to bypass the document that in a soldiers case, he/she died to protect the principles of. It seems almost ironic...
 
Last edited:
Beck is just a psychotic populist. I'd be amazed if he could run a lemonade stand, let alone a state.

Hey couldn't handle his first marriage and imploded at every radio station he ran programing for at least until he got off the hard drugs. I wonder how much damage all that cocaine did to his brain.
 
Top