Craig Crawford's Trail Mix

Good Morning Craig.

Free Speech is hard for sure and we here are working the experiment of the internet too. But one great thing about Crawfordslist AKA Trail Mix is it is turning out to be a neighborhood. you like some and don't exactly like others. Some gell with some and some don't with others. A neighborhood and a community. Free Speech is important for any experiment.

Yep, I know from experience that it's tough to find comments that are disagreeable, but you gotta have a thick skin. and you have to realize that the "trolls" that are in the business of provocation, pure and simple, may try to hijack comment threads, but a lot of times are drowned out by those who actually want to exchange ideas and opinions. you've definitely given me something to think about this saturday morning, craig!

Democrats fear GOP voter mischief

I"NDIANAPOLIS -- Indiana's Democratic chairman said the party will challenge any longtime Republicans who try to use the state's open primary to create "mischief."

Dan Parker said yesterday that he's concerned that some Republicans might use the crossover interest in the presidential race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as an opportunity to target other Democrats on the May 6 ballot.

"If there are Republicans sincere in their intent to support our candidates, then we welcome them into our party. If their motives are only to play mischief, we're not going to sit back and let this happen," Parker said.

Indiana Republican Party spokesman Jay Kenworthy suggested that Parker, a superdelegate who supports Clinton, shared the former first lady's fear of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" -- a term she once used to describe allegations about an affair between former President Bill Clinton and White House intern Monica Lewinsky."

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080404/NEWS02/804040957

Are the examples you cite -- speech that provoked some kind of nasty commentaries or an unpleasant outcome like losing employment -- really examples of an attack on free speech? That may be true, but consider the following:

Does free speech come with a guarantee of access to a particular platform?

I mean, do you have an inherent write to a column in CQ while I am relegated to the much less potent realm of a nearly anonymous Comments section?

In situations where the truth triumphs over free speech, shouldn't the speaker accept the consequences of abusing free speech?

Can a witness in a trial be free to speak anything they like rather than what is constricted by the oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? If they lie or place subjective speech above the truth in this case, should we name a martyr's day after them when the courts throw them into prison for violating their oath?

I think the examples you cite are attacks on freedom of speech, but an abuse of power (i.e., power means having a privileges or greater access to media and thus to an audience).

Neither church or state, under the U.S. Constitution or any similar document, sanctions the misuse of a privileged platform to utter free speech.

For example, Rhandi Rhodes can say anything she wants but is Air America obliged to provide her a platform? I can yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater simply to create a panic but am I not liable for any damages caused by that panic? Can pastors preach violence and violent language in the pulpit of a church founded on non-violence in word, thought, and deed?

I would simply say that RR, myself, and the pastors must accept the different negative consequences of abusing free speech or, if you don't believe in any consequences for any free speech, at least abusing the platforms from which such examples of free speech are uttered.

JMHO

Free speech in a blog. Kind of a mixed bag because within a particular thread there's no place for someone to escape deliberately hateful speech while still participating. Then, we don't want people to self-censor exploratory concepts or alternative philosophies--that's what really kills thought.

But, then, even the world's great Speakers' Corners will often have authorities watching to keep things under control.

When someone says something I really think is outrageous, I want to ask that they substantiate what they've said. But with a restriction of two links allowed within a comment, that type of substantiation seems difficult to achieve.

I've never been into blogging before this venue so, I don't fully understand how things work behind the scenes. But I suppose there's a log that can pinpoint the originating IP address of any particular comment. That alone should be enough to dissuade people from doing beyond-the -pale activities.

Honestly, this blog is really sedate compared with many of the unmoderated Usenet newsgroups. That, of course, is a tribute to Craig and the blog's regular commenters.

Dear Craig, Everyone:
Good Morning to all.
Great article Craig and I have a good mini op-ed for it I will post in a few minutes
Sincerely,
Heather

This morning's WSJ has an excellent Page One story on their income tax returns. It's really a must read for those of us who want an accurate appraisal of what they disclosed:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120733962298890681.html?mod=todays_us_page_one

When people say how wealthy they are, income tax returns really don't say too much. They're not balance sheets. They don't say what they've spent money on, etc.

Craig...agree 100%

A man thinks that by mouthing hard words he understands hard things.
---Herman Melville (1819 - 1891)

Free speech is your right to say something. If it gets you punched in the nose, those are the breaks.

While I agree that Sen. Obama should not be blamed for the remarks of Randi Rhodes, an apology from him to Sen. Clinton would not be out of order considering where the offense occurred.

As for Rhodes, the difference is whether someone is speaking for themselves or on behalf of someone else. Imus should never have been run off the air. Maybe fined and certainly castigated but lose his job, no. It was his show and everyone listening knew he was apt to say something shocking.

Rhodes was speaking at an event promoted by Sen. Obama. She was ostensibly speaking for him not herself. Is she free to do it? Sure. Should she get spanked in some way? Darn right.

It seems to me that in political campaigns, the reason that people have to disassociate themselves from the campaign is mostly damage control. It is the fear of offending any potential voter. And to make it worse, everything will be up on Youtube for endless loops. Prior to the internet a lot of this stuff was filtered out as unimportant by networks and editors. Now it is just put out there and rarely in the context of the conversation, speech or exchange. Same problem with photographs in the era of Photoshop.

So with the hyper sensitivity of political correctness and the relentless monitoring of everything any public figure says, we are now looking into the gun barrel of self censorship that will stifle public discourse. Then the obvious reaction to this, is a complete lack of restraint on blogs & message boards where people hurl the most outrageous attacks and innuendo.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/04/stop-the-word-police.html#comment-63353

"I suppose there's a log that can pinpoint the originating IP address of any particular comment. -- posted by Flatus"

Yes, Flatus, there is such a thing but I don't use it. Once I did give in to curiousity to see who was really behind a series of anonymous comments, but it felt wrong for me to do so and decided never to use that feature again.

As far as the two link limit you mention, that became necessary as one of the tools to block the influx of commercial spam (which i don't consider genuine speech worthy of protection). For those using registered Typekey names to post comments, I am supposed to be able to pre-approve those names so that you can include unlimited links -- but it doesn't seem to work in every case.

Brainwashed Obama supporters will not like this video, but should watch:

The King Maker (Axelrod's Obama)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZydhWoEHCdM

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/04/stop-the-word-police.html#comment-63352

mwarren57, you gave us a reasonable and eloquent discussion of the complexities of speech issues. thanks.

certainly there are no guarantees of a platform for anyone's speech. but still, i am a follower of William Douglas' First Amendment absolutism. for instance, he would not even bother to watch porn movies at the supreme court when justices were passing judgment in those cases because he believed it all deserved constitutional protection, sight unseen.

Air America is to blame for the excesses of hosts such as Randi Rhodes.

In the past she has pushed all kinds of nonsense such as her conspiracy theories about 911.

I was hopeful that the involvement of Mark Green with Air America would make some dramatic changes...Not so far..

The worst thing about Air America is that many of its hosts attract a growing right-wing audience of callers, attracted to the incessant Hillary Clinton attacks.

This is unfortunate since there are so few outlets for liberal talk compared to conservative talk.

Air America has turned out to be as offensive as coservative talk..

Remember, free speech is a right which carries with it, responsibilities.

Off to Hillsboro..hope I get in to see Hillary.

Craig

I actually agree with Douglas with one proviso and that is the injured innocent. If your words or deeds injure or offend someone unable to defend themselves (i.e. children, handicapped etc.) then the acts should be open to a ban, censure or prosecution depending on the degree of injury.

Here is another video for the brainwashed Obama supporters - you probably will be afraid to watch it - you don't want to destroy the fantasy world you are living in:

Devolution of America (Obama)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1mq5Nn6LfA

Sure you can yell fire in a crowded theater; if it’s on fire. In practice in our overly litigious world, you may even be subject to legal sanction for withholding that speech. Ironic is it not?

Freedoms are not absolute nor should they be carelessly exercised without situational awareness.

Gordo

Insulting someone, and telling them they are afraid to do, see, or know something is hardly the way to win them to your cause.:-)

Off to play delegate at the second tier caucus. Will let you know what happens.

Jamie------------------

They are afraid - I don't know what it will take to wake up these Obama groupies. They are victims of sophisticated PSYOPS.

"If your words or deeds injure or offend someone unable to defend themselves (i.e. children, handicapped etc.) then the acts should be open to a ban, censure or prosecution depending on the degree of injury. -- Posted by: Jamie"

I certainly agree that physically injurious "deeds" deserve punishment, but NOT words. Words do not physically harm anyone. I am not a fan of hate crime statutes for this reason. A physical assault of any sort deserves punishment. Adding more punishment for the words spoken during that assault is very troublesome to me.

I agree with you Craig as I said last night.

Free Speech in public is a bit different than on a blog where comments might be regulated to prevent the informed and civil debate of ideas, People like Wright and Meeks are free to say what they want but voters are free to voice displeasure. Politics have always been rough. I would rather people say what they think than hide their sentiment and fool voters. Travis Smiley is free to suggest LBJ had MLK murdered. Maybe now his listeners will have a different opinion of him.

As Mad said, free speech is not absolute. Shouting fire or spewing libel is not protected. National security information is also not a free topic. What is obsene however is Media protected speech, that is, when Media twists the words of one candidate and spins the words of another to look good. Yes, they can do it, but it is highly corrosive to society. When the free speech of Media is used to advocate, then our informed debate becomes corrupt and the decisions we the people make, become unfairly guided into the wrong direction. Even Franklinn found this out the hard way. He attacked vaccines for political reasons, but when his son died from a lack of innoculation, he realized the dangers of politics mixing with objective reporting of the facts. Free speech is never a license for news reporting to filter or twist the facts so as to unduly influence the poltics of the people. It is not a a crime, but it can hurt just as much.

" I don't know what it will take to wake up these Obama groupies. "

Gordo....then stop trying. They aren't going to change candidates any more than am I.

I'm not advocating that people never post pros and cons about the campaign...far from it. But G-man, puh-leeze don't be silly enough to think you are going to change anybody's mind.

Free Speech in public is a bit different than on a blog where comments might be regulated to prevent the informed and civil debate of ideas,

Poorly said,...LOL

Free Speech in public is a bit different than on a blog where comments might be regulated to prevent the DISRUPTION of informed and civil debate of ideas,

my bad...

Free Speech is essential in order to form ones own , ideas and beliefs about those that they converse with. Free speech is like a window into a persons personality, that you can not see any other way (especially in this forum).

When I hear anyone speaking hatred, cruelty, and just plain meanness, I find it to be a direct reflection of the owner of the words.

Sure comments can be hurtful, but in reality, one should not take it personally. What others do and say is a reflection of their own reality, their own dream.

Now if their are on your payroll, you have every right to fire anyone, if they break company policies with their speech while on the job. (imo)

Sometimes it does amaze me how much anger people have. Everyone has some anger, they just display it different ways for different reasons.

* they are * correction

It never ceases to amaze me the double standard and hypocrisy the media and organizations with idiosyncratic interests choose to apply in a certain situation, especially in this debacle concerning Randi Rhodes.

My opinion is rooted in simple common sense and also rooted in recent precedents, such as; Ted Koppel asked him why, at the time, there had been few black managers and no black general managers in Major League Baseball. Campanis' reply was that blacks "may not have some of the necessities to be, let's say, a field manager, or, perhaps, a general manager" for these positions. As a result he was fired from his job.

There is also the case of Jimmy “The Greek” Snyder in an interview after commenting to WRC-TV reporter Ed Hotaling in a Washington, D.C. restaurant that African Americans were naturally superior athletes at least in part because they had been bred to produce stronger offspring during slavery:
“The black is a better athlete to begin with because he's been bred to be that way -- because of his high thighs and big thighs that goes up into his back, and they can jump higher and run faster because of their bigger thighs. This goes back all the way to the Civil War when during the slave trading, the owner -- the slave owner would breed his big black to his big woman so that he could have a big black kid.”

Most importantly there is the case that sort of mirrors the Randi Rhoades situation in that Michael Richards of Seinfeld fame was doing stand up comedy at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood yelled at a heckler in the crowd shouting “shut up” followed by “he’s a [the “N” word] to the audience.

Randi Rhoades committed a similar act, granted that there is a slight difference in that Randi was doing it premeditated as part of a comedy schtick routine and Richards’ was based in anger toward a heckler, however both have their genesis out of hatred.

The common thread from the above examples is that they all were terminated from their jobs and in my humble opinion justifiably so. Now having stated that there is precedent for her to be permanently terminated from employer Air America.

What I found extremely frustrating is that sexism is not taken seriously in this country and as such the media and talking heads tend to trivialize what Randi Rhodes did. It definitely was excessively rude, actually both rude and pornographic. I believe she had this planned, it was well though out and it was no coincidence that she did this in San Francisco, obviously she was well aware that this sick act of hers would not fly in “Middle America” so she takes her act in the only place in America it my fly, in the land of Haight & Ashbury the home of extreme left wing radical activism.

It is tragic that Ms Rhodes had to resort to a low vituperative comedy act rather that having the courage to go on air at Air America and admit she supported and endorses Obama for president, explain the reasons why she supported Obama and why she felt he would make a better president rather than Hillary in a polite insightful, intelligent manner, instead, she chose to act like an idiotic immature child rebelling against the establishment.

The optimist in me will hope that she will benefit from this horrible experience inasmuch as she will never repeat the same mistake.
--Heather

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/04/stop-the-word-police.html#comment-63372

"Shouting fire or spewing libel is not protected. -- posted by Maxtrue"

Truth is the absolute defense in both cases, or at least it used to be that way. Trouble is that even this standard is under assault. Courts are developing what is called a "false light" exception to the truth defense, meaning that even if the speech is factually correct, a libel/defamation case can be made if it puts someone in a "false light" -- a dangerously vague concept likely to become a significant chilling effect on free speech. For more on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light

So many well-intended speech restrictions take us down that slippery slope to criminalizing legitimate speech. And before you know it, we're like China putting people in jail for opposing the Olympics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-lJu5ibAM8&feature=related

"shut up and sing"

"While I agree that Sen. Obama should not be blamed for the remarks of Randi Rhodes, an apology from him to Sen. Clinton would not be out of order considering where the offense occurred."

Jamie you've missed your calling, you would have done a grand job in the 13th century, working as an Inquisitor.

" And before you know it, we're like China putting people in jail for opposing the Olympics." Craig Crawford

In San Francisco we are already there.

Not too mention Shrub had people jailed for wearing Tshirts.

http://postcards.ucomics.com/get/?MsgID=3df2eca7df0a69b9505ddd2860bae72d&site_ref=ucomics

.....Or how about when that college student was trying to ask John Kerry a question......remember "don't taz me bro" ???

In San Fran, aren't they designating "free speech zones" ?

In San Fran, aren't they designating "free speech zones" ?

Posted by: unlikely_burrito | April 5, 2008 10:48 AM

Yup for the torch run. But there have been a series of arrests as well. Remember the free speech zones at the last political coventions. Far enough away so no impact at all.

Speaking of China:

China Allows Access to English Wikipedia
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,144187-pg,1/article.html

speaking of freedom of the press'' we have a media that is owned by four of the largest corporations in the
world''
we get a single-minded bias that president putin
would be proud of

mqw - That's why the internet is so cool, they do not , and can not control it.

mqw - That's why the internet is so cool, they do not , and can not control it.

Posted by: unlikely_burrito | April 5, 2008 10:52 AM

Not for a lack of trying
http://www.savetheinternet.com/

I have this uncontrollable urge to say something just because I have that freedom.....lol....like : F you President BUSH

I feel better now. : ) and I didn't get arrested....or tasered....might be on the "watch list" .. though.

Remember these wise words: (not actual quote) --
if you can say yes with a nod it's good, but if you can use a wink it's better. - former Gov Spitzer
_____
Very true KGC

A point well taken Craig. Perhaps you can guest post at Stubborn Facts where there are some bright legal minds who would love to debate your take on free speech. Coming from someone like you, it would be sure to produce some excellent commentary between moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans. They would vigorously defend free speech and can certainly study that slippery slope. With courage, there is always Althouse...LOL.

Another issue is of course the preferential treatment of "professional" free speech protection. I don't think Libertarians take kindly to that idea given Madison's formulation in the Constitution.

We do live in an age where internet allows anybody to say anything. On one hand we ought not to let libel go unchecked spreading false accusations and on the other, "false light" our way into criminalizing legitimate speech. It is a tough divide. So far, the effect of electronic speech has not really been the advance of truth, but rather the dillution of it through the cornacopia of citizen punditry. This is often matched by the shoddy professionalism of mainstream journalism. I am not sure Franklin would have been happy with this turn, though his stated mission was to give expression to the many opinions of the people. As we all know, opinion is rarely fact.

Can I be the voice of reasoning and clarity for a moment?

Can any understand and relate to common sense, that being rude cursing swearing and engaging in slander of another person's good name is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind.

"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."

Is there anything there that includes the "F" word or calling one a "whore" as part of freedom of speech?

If I were a lawyer and Hillary were my client and she sued for slander, my client would have valid a legal argument .

This is not a freedom of speech issue!

--Heather

Yesterday, DC Judge Henry Kennedy granted Larry Sinclair's motion for discovery and signed an order for subpoenas.

This is a link to a 38 minute Sinclair interview from last night. He discusses the lawsuit.

http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/special/rense_L_Sinclair040408.mp3

Honestly, the thing that bothers me about the Randi R. thing is her anger. The woman has issues. Calling two accomplished women whores is just not something women should do to one another. It's very Ann Coulter-ish.

I seriously doubt the founding fathers gave a damn about being crude or cursing.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/04/stop-the-word-police.html#comment-63391

"Is there anything there [First Amendment] that includes the "F" word or calling one a "whore" as part of freedom of speech? -- posted by Heather"

That's one reason it is there, Heather. The Founders were partly reacting to British prosecutions for bad mouthing the crown. Using dirty words against politicians was something they absolutely meant to protect.

Ally -- I totally agree. She has issues and women shouldn't do this to each other. However, I wonder how many women got up and left ?

- - - - -
"free speech" is about the "right" not about claiming what is or isn't right.

Practice, drafted by Thomas Jefferson and adopted by the House of Representatives to govern the proceedings in that body, prohibits the use of "impertinent" speech during debate, and likewise provides that "[n]o person is to use indecent language against the proceedings of the House." Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice §§ 359, 360, reprinted in Manual and Rules of House of Representatives, H.R. Doc. No. 97-271, pp. 158-159 (1982); see id. at 111, n. a (Jefferson's Manual governs the House in all cases to which it applies). The Rules of Debate applicable in the Senate likewise provide that a Senator may be called to order for imputing improper motives to another Senator or for referring offensively to any state. See Senate Procedure, S. Doc. No. 97-2, Rule XIX, pp. 568-569, 588-591 (1981). Senators have been censured for abusive language directed at other Senators. See Senate Election, Expulsion and Censure Cases from 1793 to 1972, S.Doc. No. 92-7, pp. 95-98 (1972) (Sens. McLaurin and Tillman); id. at 152-153 (Sen. McCarthy). Can it be that what is proscribed in the halls of Congress is beyond the reach of school officials to regulate?

I look at it this way. We have freedom of speech here in America. That means a person can say whatever they want to say. But , that doesn't mean I can't think that he or she is a jerk if I consider what they said to be offensive or just plain rude.

Heather,
If we limited free speech in the manner you suggest, Comedy Channel would go off the air. It seems we guard against hate speech aimed at race, religion and ethnicity, but not generally obsene comments directed at individuals. Randi's lawyers would claim she meant "whore" in a general sense and the F-word, simply artistic embellishment. In such cases, like with Imus, the people can pressure her employers with retribution, but I doubt there is a libel case. After all, Bush is not Hitler and Cheney is not the Dark Lord who bites the heads off birds and sucks out the content of their insides.

Again, our Founding Fathers were constantly abused by an active Press. Libel is making claims about "facts" that are not true and spread with the intention to do harm. There is only half the equation there with Randi. I think the US v Wright would fair better in court and that would also go down in flames. This stuff may offend your sensibiities, but this is the price we pay for liberty. Now let's see if Obama goes after Sinclair. There is a much better legal match-up, but fear of making this matter newsworthy will keep Obama's best tact --silence.

And Craig, it is a stretch to put all those people in one bag. Ferraro like Randi or Wright?

Craig re the founding fathers and the first amendment: "Using dirty words against politicians was something they absolutely meant to protect."

And good for that.

There are a lot of people who have probably forgotten that George Bush's middle name is actually "Walker."

No initial F.

Your faith is great, but when your faith is offensive, you need to leave it in the car"

– Officials at Poway (CA) High School in justifying a ban on a student’s wearing to school a T-shirt that read "Homosexuality Is Shameful"
http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-archive-2005/

Free Speech at work

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2008/04/03/thursfri-open-thread-6/

ht Stubborn Facts

lol..... are we going here...... again.....

Craig...... I really like your take on the slippery slope of free speech...... and I have the utmost of respect for you..... that's one reason why I'm still here.....

as for the blog stuff...... Craig gave a very good suggestion the last time this topic came up...... use your "ignore" button.... if you can't or won't use it.... that's not Craig's fault.....

Sheila..... you wrote last night that you bet most of us have emailed Craig about someone on this blog upsetting us....... if I'd taken that bet.... you'd lose...... I have NEVER emailed Craig over something like that (I've actually only had a short email exchange about trailspotting..... I assume he's like me.... successful at his chosen profession and therefore has limited time to blog..... I don't bother him in email)......

and what would I say in such an email......... "Daddy Craig..... some big meany on the blog has hurt my feelings..... please, Daddy Craig, will you make them stop"........

and for the record...... I don't mind the changing names at all...... I find most of them funny and consider them to be just part of the dialogue.....
I don't do it myself..... hell.... I could never hide myself...... but if someone else choose to do so.... that's fine by me.....

once again..... just my 2 cents...... enjoy your Saturday..... I know I'm going to..... :0)

Equating Randi Rhodes and Imus is a strecth.

Rhodes criticized a political candidate for being corrupt. This was protected free speech.

Imus made racist and sexist comments about a group of athletes. This was entertainment. (Imus got canned because his sponsors threatened to withdraw their ads.)

"Two pigs at the trough."

This is what all those people in PA who are worried about paying their mortgages and/or losing their jobs will be thinking when they hear the stories about the Clinton's income.

Exactly Nash, Imus was silenced by the market place, the holy of holies to the repugs, ironic aint it!

Heads up for the Clintonista, you won't like Tim Russerts saturday show today.

Does anybody usually like Russert's show?

" She has issues and women shouldn't do this to each other. However, I wonder how many women got up and left ? "

Given the tone of most of the O-supporters, I'd be very surprised if any left the Ms. Rhodes "show." Somehow that campaign has brought out this very sort of thing. All you have to do to see it is read the so-called progressive message boards where the young supporters congregate. There's a very ugly trend surfacing.

"Given the tone of most of the O-supporters" As opposed to the shrill lemming like followers that you are the poster child for Patsi? How you haven't drowned in your hypocrisy is quite a wonder.

Russert's Saturday show is one of the best things on MSNBC.

Awhile ago , I went to Detroit Lions game in Chicago at Soldier Field. A woman who was in our group stood up and cheered for the Lions. A man who was a Bears fan said to her , "Shut the f-ck up and sit down!" I couldn't believe that a man would say that to a woman. A little while later , a man who was Lions fan stood up and cheered for Detroit. A woman who was a Bears fan basically told him to "Sit down and shut the hell up!" So , I guess it doesn't matter what gender you are at a Bears game. Root for the other team and they'll put you in your place.

The young Marine of my acquaintance has written his mother to tell her he will be going to Iraq or Afghanistan right after the November election. The Bush administration is planning another surge. The tours are all being realigned to keep as many soldiers/marines with combat experience available for the November surge.

Wonder how this will fit with the presentation of General Betrayous next week. I'll bet if Moveon ran the ad again, they would get an award..(speaking of free speech ) instead of censure. Never mind, it's still the same spineless Congress.

That's saying a lot , Brian! LOL! I mean , considering how a lot of people here feel about MSNBC.

"Randi Rhodes can talk like an idiot if she wants to...." Since Air America left Dallas, I haven't been able to listen to her. What did she say? For a long time she was, gratefully, the equivalent of the relentless, blathering conservative talking heads like The Comedian (Limbaugh), et. al.. Now KO can be added, gladly, to the list. There aren't enough liberals who are as incessant, ceaseless and unrelenting in their continual, never ending mean speak about the Conservatives.

FYI:

http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/

tt

Corey if I were you I wouldn't use this blog as a barometer of the general cable news watching public.

But , I wouldn't equate a network saying something good about my candidate or saying bad about the other candidate as good news coverage either.

Network Total Viewers A25-54
FNC 1,038,000 286,000
CNN 677,000 235,000
CNBC 401,000 118,000
HLN 350,000 151,000
MSNBC 334,000 143,000

What I am trying to say is that I'm guessing there are a lot of people whose opinion many people will not agree with , but if that person suddenly supports your candidate or says something to degrade your candidate's opponet , then they are saying something great.

"Cheney is not the Dark Lord who bites the heads off birds and sucks out the content of their insides."

He's not????

"Equating Randi Rhodes and Imus is a strecth.
Rhodes criticized a political candidate for being corrupt."

So Nash, you think calling women whores if you disagree with their politics is peachy keen? Un-frigging-believable.

KC if ratings matter so much to you why aren't you supporting Obama?

Is that why a lot of news and sports discussion shows always have that disclaimer about what is being said is not neccessarily the opinion of the network?

Gee Brian this is the comment to which I was responding. I thought I was just help out and add some facts. Why are you changing the subject?
Nevermind.,

Corey if I were you I wouldn't use this blog as a barometer of the general cable news watching public.

Posted by: Brian Hussein In NYC | April 5, 2008 12:36 PM

"Russert's Saturday show is one of the best things on MSNBC."

It's usually interesting but Sullivan V. Hitchens is too much of a freak show for me.

Patsi: WRT to your 12:15 comment, it is genuinely puzzling. Why do you think it's the young who are saying such ugly things?

What do you have against the young?

Got an email from a friend/C List lurker who was saddened by your comment:

"Why is she so fearful of the young? These are the people who will take care of things when we all reach geezerhood. I'm guessing she was young once. Maybe it was traumatic for her. Or maybe getting old is traumatic for her.

I love talking to my friend's kids. Their belief that they can achieve their dreams is where good things come from."

========

They're dying in our wars, Patsi. We let them down. Not the other way around.

Dear Cory:

"I look at it this way. We have freedom of speech here in America. That means a person can say whatever they want to say"

Freedom of speech is not the right to say anything to anyone. There are caveats. These include inciting violence (Sir Iqbal Sacranie, head of the Muslim Council of Britain is perfectly entitled to his opinion that homosexuality is ‘not acceptable’ but he would not be entitled to incite physical attacks on gays - not that he does, of course). Defamation, slander and libel are illiberal (I cannot accuse someone of being a drug dealer without firm evidence) and inciting a riot (Fo example I cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre) is also a no-no. Free speech is also subordinate to private property rights. For instance, commenters here who shout ‘you’re a f***ing idiot’ or Ms. Rhodes reference to Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro to being F***ing whores will see their comments deleted. My point is that there are mitigating circumstances, free speech is not an absolute.

We have gone to far in latitude in what "freedom of speech" allows in recent years. It has a consequence in that as a result our humanity and civility erodes a little more in what we are willing to tolerate by stretching what constitutes as freedom of stretch.

--Heather

“The Bush administration is planning another surge.”
-KGC

There may be something even bigger afoot. Have you been reading any of the foreign reporting that there are some interesting military movements and that Iran may still be subject to some form of strike? How would that shake-up our election landscape?

Adm. William J. Fallon, CENTCOM commander resigns over WH disagreements about Iran policy…

Naval forces in the Gulf have increased to levels not seen since before Operation: Iraqi Freedom…

Cheney recently toured ME countries…

That's true , Heather. And by the way , I hate the Yankees!!! Just kidding. LOL!

Well,

It is Yankees Baseball Time :-))
Seems like I have a choice between my favorite ball club or my favorite program NCIS which I love and how can any woman not love Mark Harmon lol

Later,
--Heather

Dog -- I just love the idea of you and harbor or Sheila emailing idiotic statements like the ones above. First, the progressive bloggers very often identify their generation. Second, are you really cheesy enough to now accuse me of not supporting the troops (which you are actually doing with your last comment)? How very right wing of you. Do you have an America -- Love it or Leave It bumper sticker? These snotty bloggers are NOT in the military. On the contrary. They feel it's up to minorities and poor whites to fight our wars.

Plus, the young people I know don't regularly call women whores or snicker about Hillary Clinton's looks or -- as harbor swooped in from another generation and did -- her daughter's looks. The young people I know had decent upbringing.

"There may be something even bigger afoot. Have you been reading any of the foreign reporting that there are some interesting military movements and that Iran may still be subject to some form of strike? "

I have not, but I will now. I believe Bush is capable of the worst kind of thoughtless competent behavior. %What is frightening to me is there are still people who support him and think he is doing a good job. Not very many but 19 or 20% Who are they?

And completely off subject but I heard that creep Kudlow say the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis.
If this is how people use free speech. I say censorship.

competent behavior....incompetent behavior

"Now let's see if Obama goes after Sinclair. There is a much better legal match-up, but fear of making this matter newsworthy will keep Obama's best tact --silence."

Max,

You complain about RR sliming people. I'm not sure in what category you put Larry S. There is no legal issue here with LS and BO. He is suing some other idiot commentators on other blogs. You and Gordo insinuate otherwise and then call RR out. It's protected though.

Mustard: I know. I fear we are going to get a national security election. Cheney did not just go over there to build troop morale. Made trip the same week John McCain was there saying "Iran" every chance he got. (I wondered if the two of them met up or talked at some point during their respective travels.)

The Esquire article on Fallon may have provided protective cover.

Randi Rhodes was pretty important to Air America Radio. When I was at their studio 2 years ago , I noticed that she had 2 offices. I mean , there were 2 offices that had her name on the door.

Free Speech Iraq

By Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Thursday, April 3, 2008 email | print tool nameclose
tool goes here
BAGHDAD — Firebrand Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al Sadr on Thursday called for a massive demonstration against the "occupation" of Iraq on April 9, which would coincide with the fifth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad and come just after U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker are to testify to Congress about progress in Iraq.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/32641.html

MM
I don't suppose this is what you meant by troop movements.

I agree dog, we may get a rude September surprise, but this time, from an outgoing administration with little to lose. And if I read my burning-Bush accurately, he will not go quietly into that good night.

Cheney is frightening and he is his mentor.

Oh Patsi you're being too modest, our back channel list has grown, you're held in scorn by a great many more than you sight.

Gordo wouldn't your time be better spent investigating Mark Penn, lot more red meat there, I'm sure his dealing with the Colombians is just the tip of the iceberg.

Rezdog------------------------

Did you listen to the interview link at my 11:13AM post? There is good reason to believe the individuals being sued have some sort of connection to Obama. They had info that could have come from nowhere else. This is about discovery - ask Bill Clinton how much trouble that can create.

Heather said:

"Can I be the voice of reasoning and clarity for a moment?"

Frankly dear, no.

Patsi...

You cherry-picked my comments about Hillary and Chelsea as skillfully as Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann or any of the other pundits you decry. I believe you did so because I had the temerity to disagree with you. I think I'll step away from any involvement in discussion with you, and simply allow your own comments to reveal exactly who and what you are.

"Latin American government majorly annoyed that top Clinton adviser described meeting with their ambassador over trade agreement as an “error in judgment.”

The Colombian government considers this a lack of respect to Colombians, and finds this response unacceptable.”

So: contract with Penn’s Burson-Marsteller PR/communications firm terminated."

http://thepage.time.com/

Rez,
I meant that what Sinclair is saying IS libel if untrue. That is all. This would be an actionable case by Obama because I think it constitutes slander. I don't know if what Sinclair is saying is true. My remark was about libel v the usual bullshit.

Pats, Lil Bush is statire. In reality, Cheney doesn't suck the raw insides of a bird out through its neck. Sorry to break that to you. I find it funny that Liberals can laugh at obvious garbage thrown on republicans but get quite upset when the table is reversed. Imagine a Lil Obambi Show where he and Wright laugh about sermons unrecorded, or smoke crack together while getting lap dances from white whores, Hillary and Ferraro.

Yes, I give this distastful crap wide lattitude like RR says and will never cry to Daddy Craig. I think consumers should make the employer pay if they don't like the product. Hate speech, sedition, treason etc. have always been caps on Free Speech. For all the rest, the best we can do is advocate what ought to be aceptable. That is a decision best left to the people, yes?

It is glorious outside. I rarely spend so much time on the computer, but not knowing all of you made me think these last two weeks, it might be sound to establish some familiarity. At this point I think I'm a known quantity so I'll try to back off a bit and return to my local reality.

K, Iran is now assembling centrifuges en masse. They have the lowest favorability on the planet and China has just given the UN info on Iran's programs. Russia has been barking for weeks for Iran to stop enriching. France and Germany have given public support to Israel and have blasted Iran. Iran has been offered everything including the kitchen sink. Sunnis what WMD to counter Iran. Kerry, Obama, Clinton, Biden have all promised Americans in the past they will never let Iran get the bomb. While I doubt there is a strike coming soon, at what point do we realize Iran is not going to listen? Back in 2002, this was not a split between conservatives and liberals. Thank God Israel capped Saddam's program back in 1980. Given that we don't know where Iran made their advanced centrifuges, the claims by the NIE seem less certain than they assert. I am not advocating another incompetent mission, but I would hardly defend a do-nothing approach until Iran reveals the progress they have made a few years from now. Quds is in South America and enriched uranium is being sought by FARC. The question for centrists is whether actng now is better than watching Obama do nothing for four years and Iran get the bomb, or that the US fails to back up an Israeli strike. I'm sure I'll get bombed on this observation, but as I have said, just four years ago, Obama was talking about the same thing to Iran using our nukes on their production facilities. So was Biden and Kerry. Please don't tell me that principle is so shallow it can change to the opposite in such a short time. Now go ahead and bomb me, but I have to enjoy the day. Isn't free speech a wonderful thing?

See ya later......

"There is good reason to believe the individuals being sued have some sort of connection to Obama."

G-man...

You and Max love and live on these kind of intenable associations. "reason to believe"..."some sort of connection".
Good thing you guys aren't prosecutors in my county..I'd probably be in Cuba by now.

Lying again!

Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.

The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.

“We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05woman.html?_r=1&ei=5090&en=7824b4f8ea3b363d&ex=1365134400&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1207418856-+nU36pQGOdAfOGSafGed8A

Rezdog----------------------

Are you afraid to listen to the interview? They had info that could have come from nowhere else but the Obama camp.

Rez

According to the article Clinton never memtions the hospital or the woman by name so how do they assume she is talking about them. Sounds like a guilty conscience.

MSM does not report Obama's lies.

Brain:
you had your bottle you burped no go to your playpen and take your mid afternoon nap as you seem cranky deary

Brain:
You had your bottle, you burped now go to your playpen and take your mid afternoon nap as you seem cranky deary

Oh Patsi you're being too modest, our back channel list has grown, you're held in scorn by a great many more than you sight.

Posted by: Brian Hussein In NYC | April 5, 2008 1:39 PM

Don't stand by the NW corner of the playground it's only for Obama voters. We hate anonymous bloggers but we talk about you behind your back and quote anonymous former bloggers.

CNN just did a piece on hospital story. How she lies and lies and lies.

Last week's New Yorker had a really thought provoking article about the press (old, new and emerging) and how blogs fit-in with the print press and how we will benefit and lose during the transition to internet-based information dissemination. (It's really much more interesting than my pathetic description. I think it's an important article--something of the caliber of what I typically see in the Wilson Quarterly.)

Here's a link to it. Grab it while you can; I don't think it will be online for too long:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/31/080331fa_fact_alterman

If someone else has read it, please give a shot at providing a better review than mine.

"a great many more than you sight. "

I think you mean "cite."

Tim Russert, who likes him? He reminds me of a fat cartoon cat. Look at his eyes.

I am fine with freedom of speech. Let the idiots keep talking it just reflects on the candidate they support and there are some vicious people supporting Obama.

When the words against Hillary get too nasty I just send her another contribution. Makes me feel better.

I want to say I really enjoy many of the posts here. I skip some. Heather I enjoy your posts. I also use this blog to keep up with what is going on out there since I gave up listening to the news. I feel so much better since I gave up the news. My life even took a turn for the better. It's weird just how much better it is.

ct

I think you may have come up with a new disease--Pernicious News Syndrome.

Just watched a clip from Hillary's speech in Memphis yesterday, god damn she's mastered the art of crocodile tears!

Harbor: "You cherry-picked my comments about Hillary and Chelsea"

Hardly.

Harbor: "Both Hillary and Chelsea have benefited greatly, in the looks department, from Bill's presidency. Whether of necessity or serendipity, both have learned to make the most of their looks. Both can look quite attractive at times, though both can also look quite homely at times."

HW, Patsi

I think they both have the attractiveness that comes from self confidence and sense of purpose.

G-man. . . Not sure if you believe in our justice system but all this LS crap will play out there We'll see the outcome. A few weeks back you were posting once an hour about his lie detector tests. Now this. Ever hear of ,"The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?

Flatus: great recommendation from The New Yorker. (It's an Eric Alterman article, "Out of Print", appears to deal with old line newpapers and the challenge from Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post and online based reporting.)

Printed it out; am off to spend some quality time with a neighborhood dog I've promised to feed and look in on. She is the charming Lara, a bilingual teenaged Rottweiler-Lab mix. I have been taught how to call her back in both English and Greek.

See you soon. Will let you know if Lara has any thoughts on news media decline.

PS: "Pernicious News Syndrome"

Somewhere dnd is enjoying that term.

"I think consumers should make the employer pay if they don't like the product."

I have to agree with Max here...I'd say boycott Air America's sponsors...but really...from what I can tell they are only selling gold and "go to my meeting" at this point...so...why bother when there is not much to boycott.

;-)

In the end. Randi can say what she wants and support Obama however she wants. I think that kind of support for "Mr High Road" is only good for Hillary anyway.

I stopped listening, for the most part, to AA a while ago...too hostile most of the time. I still tune into Rachel from time to time because she is still reasonable and I believe makes a valiant attempt to be balanced...even though her Obama bias does show a lot of the time (LOL).

I choose to listen to POTUS08 on XM now far more interesting topics discussed very wide ranging - you get your pro-Obama days...even weeks...but a lot of interesting analysis. I know not everyone has that option. Air America has probably lost me for good at this point.

KC there is a current theory making the rounds that you are the name changing poster. Any comment?

My post, unedited and with no cherry-picking, Patsi. As I stated, it's my opinion. Please explain to me why you think you have the right to tell me what I should or shouldn't have an opinion about.

On second thought, let's avoid the spindrool.

"This is not a political statement...it is merely my opinion. Both Hillary and Chelsea have benefited greatly, in the looks department, from Bill's presidency. Whether of necessity or serendipity, both have learned to make the most of their looks. Both can look quite attractive at times, though both can also look quite homely at times. And not one word of that is important in the slightest!"

A few posts later, one of your pals responded with the following...
"HW
It is amazing how money improves anyone's appearance. :-)"

Now...that is exactly the point I was making...or part of it. Money...and access to fabulous personal care...have done wonderful things for the Clinton women. I'd love to have access to the luxuries they have access to, in that department. I assume I'd be more attractive if I did.

Final point...Please look around. There are many comments here about the appearance of others. Can we expect you - mommy, smartest, and most in charge member of this blog - to correct each of us who steps over your imaginary lines?

"I think they both have the attractiveness that comes from self confidence and sense of purpose."

Good assessment, Flatus.

A little crunching of the numbers over at Truth-O-Meter shows that Hillary actually tells the truth more than Obama...

to make it simple lie/truth get half a point each for half truths.

Obama lies 39% of the time tells the truth 60% of the time

Hillary lies only 37% of the time and tells the truth 62% of the time.

So Obama, is in fact, a bigger liar.

The good news is that both of them tell the truth a majority of the time.

"I'd love to have access to the luxuries they have access to, in that department. I assume I'd be more attractive if I did."

Chelsea's been the butt of comments about her looks since she was the age of Obama's little girls. As was Jimmy Carter's daughter, by the way. It wasn't good then or now.

I didn't like it when people were piling on the Bush twins for just acting like college kids.

should actually be:

O - 39.5% to 60.5%

H - 37.5% to 62.5%

KC there is a current theory making the rounds that you are the name changing poster. Any comment?

Posted by: Brian Hussein In NYC

Did Muffy tell Buffy who told Chip who told Brian.

Tell the drumming circle there is more than one. person who uses a "gnome de plume" from time to time.

I know irony is dead inlight of today's post and your and your "lists" relentless attempts to impose moderation rules on the comments section on a blog not your own.

The Truth-O-Meter. . .ROFL

Was that the same machine Chuck Barrett used on the Gong show?..or maybe that was Groucho

Rezdog---------------------

Will not go into all the details, but it appears that the polygraph test was a set-up designed to discredit Sinclair. The Obama camp has been accused of paying for the rigged polygraph.

dhd "It's an Eric Alterman article, "Out of Print", appears to deal with old line newpapers and the challenge from Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post and online based reporting."

Much better than mine, thanks!

Maxtrue:

“The question for centrists is whether acting now is better than watching Obama do nothing for four years and Iran get the bomb, or that the US fails to back up an Israeli strike.”

This seems at odds with your comment, “I am not advocating another incompetent mission…” Taken out of context; nevertheless, what do you base a renewed confidence, in the competence of this lame-duck administration?

The administration is more concerned with salvaging a favorable legacy from their foreign policy debacles than formulating a long-term national security strategy. If that requires shaking up a chaotic chessboard, they will do so to save face for their blunders. Countless foreign policy experts, of both political camps, agree on our current failures.

With our democratic process at stake, the American people had better have a referendum before another precipitous action imperils our long-term national interests.

We provide Israel with all of the tools they need to protect themselves, I assure you. They are responsible for their own judicious use of power.

"Tell the drumming circle there is more than one. person who uses a "gnome de plume" from time to time."

It's 'nym de plume'

Wow - Rez - dogin' on the PolitiFact.org because they dare to call Obama a liar?

Not a very nice way to treat one of our host's (CQ Politics) sites.

Oh well...today is all about free speech...so as Doris says, Que Sera Sera...truth hurts or should I say...the amount of lies Obama tells obviously hurts.

;-)

Just read what Randi said.

Randi = Imus.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v103/tiptoe221/shrug.gif

tt

BTW the folks at PolitiFact.org do a lot of research on the claims or attacks these candidates are making to determine what is true. I would say it might be nice to give those that actually research the claims they make the benefit of the doubt.

They also take an unbiased approach. This Clinton article is a good example:

"Clinton: More than sightseer diplomacy

By Angie Drobnic Holan, Robert Farley
Published on Friday, April 4th, 2008 at 06:30 p.m.

SUMMARY: Clinton has bragged about her foreign policy experience and her critics have dismissed her White House travels as so much first lady puffery. The truth is her international travel was a bit of both."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/apr/04/more-than-sightseer-diplomacy/

So were you "lying" the first time Wendy?.....LOL

I would argue that Obama's "lies" are qualitatively worse than Hillary''s lies, especially given his holier than thou spin on Campaigning. The front page of today's NYT features the CLlnton's wealth and not how much more they gave to charity nor the positive role Bill's charity group has accomplished. Another fine example of balanced reporting.

Holy crap. I didn't get bombed on Iran. Well, actually my approach and maybe Flatus agrees would be to increase sanctions and repair our military. In the event of hostilities I point to the fact Saddam nearly took out our HQ on day one of combat with a cruise missile. Does anyone including hawks feel confident Bush has the smarts to anticipate Iranian reaction? Most experts think strikes would conflate immediately and the US would be forced to destroy all Iranian conventional forces within 72 hours. So no, I don't think we are ready or have the leadership that can handle even obvious contingencies. On the other hand, I was advocating that doing nothing will lead to a proliferation of technology and materials that will eventually harm us and our allies as Democrats argued back in 2002.

And imagine if Obama was President and those terrorist the Brits just caught had acted out. It would be ugly. I think Hillary has far more credibility to focus the expected US reaction to such events. As we heard Obama say, he would call the responders first. If you think the primary has been brutal, just wait for the general. And Democrats are forgetting something. Imagine attacks during the general. Obama has been quite lucky so far. Bad news outside of Iraq favors Hillary and McCain because Obama is seen as the weakest candidate on national security. His team doesn't help that perception nor those associations with anti-American rhetoric no matter how distanced.

Excellent point here today, Craig.

From "Words" by Missing Persons:

My lips are moving and the sound's coming out
The words are audible but I have my doubts
That you realize what has been said
You look at me as if you're in a daze
It's like the feeling at the end of the page
when you realize you don't know what you just read

What are words for when no one listens anymore?

(Who'd have thought in the early 80s that Dale Bozzio would be such a voice of reason today? *giggles*)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=P6CunFiE0Cs

"So were you "lying" the first time Wendy?"

Max...ummm...no...ummm...I...ummm...misspoke

;-)

Mad,
I suggest this adminsitration will try to set up a McCain adminsitration. They may feel that in the fall sufficient Intel indicates select action is required. Whether that is a good thing for McCain remains to be seen. While I don't advocate referendums on what is clearly the President's right (and the Congress to fund), I expect the pressure and concensus in the world is emerging sufficiently to justify damaging Iran's ability to enrich after several years of sanctions. I think a warning strike is possible. I also think it a big mistake to rely on Israel to thwart Iran. It would require an attack group of more than 300 air craft refueling in flight to nail the known targets. That is a huge strike force which would likely need Arab air space. A comprehensive strike is just not available to Israel. While certainly Israel is threatened by Iranian designs, the US and allies a