Anyone who thinks they have all the Answers before they've even heard the Question - is Dangerously Deluded! Real Truth Requires Vigilance, Perseverance and Courage, regardless of Party and who wields Power. Left, Right, Center, Corporations, Government, Unions, Criminals or the Indifferent.
Following not far behind the fetid footsteps of Rush Limbaugh who called Media Matters "Stalinist" for actually daring to publish his statements and regularly pointing how how completely full of shit he is.
Other wingerettes have begun to join in the refain of "They're Coming to Get Us, hee hee..."
On the April 16 edition of his television show, Bill O'Reilly invited Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce to comment on the firing of Don Imus, which, according to O'Reilly, "has metastasized into an ideological witch-hunt by evil forces." Bruce asserted that "small groups of people" are engaged in an "effort" to "silence[]" and "destroy[]" "people who are not intimidated" and that these groups "have a list of individuals that are to be targeted."
Later, when O'Reilly asked how she would respond to those who questioned why liberals would "target Don Imus" since he "was essentially a liberal guy on the radio," Bruce claimed: "There is a civil war going on right now between the far-left individual extremists, as you have noted them to be, and the classical liberal basic Democrats." She added: "In order to be able to even go after Republicans eventually, or conservatives, these far-left forces need to purge our own House of Democrats like myself who speak the truth and will confront them on what they are. That's why Imus had to be eliminated and that's why they went after him first. And now they'll proceed down their list."
Democrats like "herself?" Tammy Bruce is No Democrat. She like Joe Lie-berman, uses that appelation to lend legitimacy to her regular and lengthy skreeds about Democrats such as when she stated that putting "Howard Dean in charge of the DNC is like putting OJ Simpson in charge of a woman's shelter". She's no more a Democrat than O'Reilly is an "Independant."
Further, if Liberals are making a "Hit-List" why is it the O'Reilly described "Far Left Liberal" Frank Rich has called Imus firing a lynching? Why has John Kerry - the alleged "biggest Liberal in the Congress" come out against the firing? From the ever-so-left-leaning New York Post:
April 18, 2007 -- Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry yesterday said he doesn't think Don Imus should have been fired for his racially charged comments - a sharp break with the current Democratic 2008 front-runners.
"You know, the punishment has to fit the crime, so to speak," Kerry, the Democrats' defeated 2004 White House hopeful, told NY1.
For the record, I happen to agree with Kerry and felt that this situation should have been handled the same way that FCC has handled other examples of profane and offensive speech on the public airwaves. (i.e. Let them speak - so we know just hot fucked-in-the-head they are - but make them pay for it in the pocket book to the tune of $1M or so if they go too far.)
In fact, I think that's exactly how they should handle O'Reilly, Bruce and of course - Michael Savage who jumped in during the chorus of this little self-pitty-ditty from his own radio program...
On the April 13 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage said of Media Matters for America: "They're people who attack me. It's run by a homosexual activist who hates anybody in the media who does not kowtow to the homosexual agenda." Referring to Media Matters' CEO and President David Brock, Savage added, "The man who runs it is, in my opinion, a straight-out maniac. He would belong much more happily in the ex-Soviet Union." Savage has previously referred to Media Matters as "a gay website that attacks me every day" and called Brock "a psychopath."
Echoing Limbaugh, Savage went on to claim that somehow the dreaded George Soros is at the bottom of it all...naturall.
Savage further claimed on his April 13 show that Media Matters is "funded by" progressive philanthropist George Soros. He stated: "They've held themselves up as somehow above the fray, only looking for fair-mindedness in the media. It turns out that they are, in fact, funded by one of the most vile anti-American creatures in the world, George Soros." Savage went on to call Soros "a totally dangerous individual" who "doesn't miss an opportunity to attack this country" and "should be stripped of his citizenship."
By the way Soros funds and supports Moveon.org not Media Matters.
And just to round out our trifecta of projection there's the comedy stylings raving lunacy of one Debbie Schlessel.
In an April 18 weblog entry, right-wing pundit Debbie Schlussel responded to a Media Matters for America item that highlighted her "speculat[ion]" in an April 16 post (since removed) that Cho Seung-Hui, identified as the Virginia Tech gunman, might have been a "Paki" Muslim and part of "a coordinated terrorist attack." As Media Matters pointed out, "Paki" is a disparaging term for a person of Pakistani descent. Schlussel attacked Media Matters, writing: "Media Matters bragged to the Wall Street Journal that it was responsible for taking down Don Imus. I suppose now that Don Imus is gone, they've assigned the vegan lesbian transsexual 'interspecies erotica' devotee they had monitoring the Imus show to monitor my site."
But wait she wasn't done...
Yesterday, Keith Olbermann--MSNBC resident uber-left crank and bizarro--picked me for the bronze for his daily "Worst Person in the World Award." Damn--Only bronze?
Yes, with all the terrorists, murderers, and assorted other malefactors in the world, I am the third worst person in the world. As usual, the nutty, angry Olby's got his priorities and sense of proportion straight. Well, at least, his puppet masters at the aprocryphally [sic] named, far-left "Media Matter for America" have their priorities straight. When they say jump, Olbermann asks "how low." (And FYI, in case you haven't heard, there are all kinds of rumors that Olbermann stalked then-WNBA player Rebecca Lobo, when she was no longer interested in him. Only a girlie-man would stalk a manly-girl.
Talk about low-blows, that one's scapping the bottom of the septic tank. And just think she actually managed to top this by then going on to claim that George Soros, who is jewish, was really a Nazi Simpathiser and Collaborater when he was a 14-year-old in occupied Hungary during WWII.
The many ironies of this situation are varied. How is what happened to Imus all that different from what happened to Dan Rather at the hands (keys) of Pajama's Media? The result of course was that Right-Wing attack poodle Katie Couric got a cushy spot on the CBS Evening News and a chance to sink her claws into Presidential Candidate John Edwards on 60 Minutes when she should be doing the weather in Skokie.
In this case it appears that MSNBC has decided to replace the politically vaccilating Imus with right-wing radio host Michael Smerconish, who in the past has stated:
The only alleged abuse at Abu Ghraib was the taking of "naked pyramid pictures."
That the alleged mistreatment of detainees at Guantanemo amounted to "play[ing] Christina Aguilera music a bit too loud."
That "maybe law enforcement ought to step in" at pro-immigration demonstrations and consider "gathering ... up" illegal immigrants. (Y'know, like they used to do in Germany I suppose?)
that political correctness has made the United States "a nation of sissies."
So if the great plan of the "Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy" of Brock, Soros and Olbermann - all of whom of course are being manipulated behind the scenes by the dastardly Hillary Rodham Clinton - was to take out Imus for not being left wing enough they've sure done a great job by having him replaced by the likes of Michael the Smear-con-artist.
We've all known the great melt-down was coming - and I think it's finally arrived. Rush Limbaugh has decided that since all those dirty faggot hippie Libruls are out to get him, he'll just attempt a devastating first strike.
Unfortunately his mouth, just like his poor little viagra powered pecker is firing blanks.
On the April 16 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called Media Matters for America "Stalinist" and part of the "Clinton machine agenda." He further falsely asserted that Media Matters receives funding from philanthropist George Soros and that he is "not demeaning people on this program in any way."
Doesn't demean anyone - what about his little Michael J. Fox Dance? What about when he said that seperating Survivor contestants into tribes based on race was unfair because "blacks can't swim"? Or when he said some women would "love to be hired as eye candy"?
No, that's not demeaning or anything..
The following comment is where he really jumped the shark, when he suggested that Imus' firing was all Hillary Clinton's fault.
Limbaugh asserted that syndicated radio host Don Imus was fired because he was "critical of [Sen.] Hillary [Clinton (D-NY)]," and added, "This is an election year. Clinton Inc., you get on their case, they're going to take you out."
And he wasn't done...
This is an election year. Clinton Inc., you get on their case, they're going to take you out. They're going to do what they can to marginalize you or do whatever. I've seen a couple stories I was reading over the weekend, that the Clinton team saw their opportunity. And when I say the Clinton team, I include Media Matters for America, this supposed tax-exempt media watchdog group. It's just an arm of the Democrat Party. They have an agenda. They are tax-exempt, and they're doing nothing but advancing a political agenda. And they are George Soros-funded. This is clearly part of the Democrat Party machine.
I find all of this just so highly ironic because Media Matters first of all doesn't receive any funding what so ever from Soros. Second, it is founded and run by David Brock - who used to be part of a right-wing Conservative attack operation funded by Richard Mellon-Scaife to Attack the Clinton's all during the 90's.
In his book, "Blinded By the Right", Brock describes faxing talking points TO LIMBAUGH for him to repeat about Anita Hill.
Brock also used to be close friends with Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter and on page 196 says...
Through my lawyer friend Ann Coulter, I saw a deeper level of partisan scheming and political manipulation in the Jones case, which Coulter herself later described as "a small, intricately knit right-wing consipiracy."
Brock gradually had a change of heart about being involved in that "intricately knit" group and their tactics. So much so that he eventually conveyed Coulters' words to Hillary Clinton as he was writing a biography on her. Brock who was actually part of the conspiracy is where Hillary got her "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" line.
Brock is intimately familiar with the smear tactics employed by the right and via Media Matters has dedicated himself to fighting against them. He isn't particular liberal, rather he's an anti-Conservative - who meticulously documents and points out all their lies and distortions one at a time.
He has nothing, what-so-ever, to do with the Clinton campaign.
. On the March 1, 2005, edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Limbaugh claimed that "[w]omen still live longer than men because their lives are easier."
. On June 14, 2004, Limbaugh shared with listeners his "pet name" for the National Organization for Women (NOW): "National Association of Gals" (his acronym: "NAG"). Limbaugh claimed that the "militant feminists" who make up the "NAGs" "aren't determining who wins elections. White men are."
. Responding to an Associated Press report that women had recently been appointed as chiefs of police in four major U.S. cities, Limbaugh on May 27, 2004, referenced the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib: "If we've got four new female police chiefs out there, then I guess we can watch out for some naked pyramids among prisoners in these new jailhouses that these women ran, because we had a woman running the prison in Abu Grab [sic]."
. According to a June 7, 2000, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) article, "As a young broadcaster in the 1970s, Limbaugh once told a black caller: 'Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.' "
Doesn't demean anyone. Yeah, right.
Still, his recent rants against Media Matters are truly an amazing thing to behold.
They got a trial run with this Imus thing, and they're feeling their oats. I'm certain and make no mistake, other people are in the crosshairs, and they're targets, and it's a Democrat Party machine operation that is getting this done. I look at this, and I say this is my country too. And I say I'm not going to let the Democrat Party or the left or some lackey watchdog group or a couple of race hustlers dictate my speech. Its just not -- I'm not going to let it happen. They don't get to use the power of government to silence conservatives, which is their real purpose.
Yeah, not like the way Michael Powell ran the FCC or anything...
These are totalitarian tactics that they are employing here. It's the liberal constituency that repeatedly and daily demeans people -- black, white, in between, I don't care. We don't play rap music on this show. (Ugh, Stop with Phoney the Rap Attack already! V.) We're not demeaning people on this program in any way. We don't air South Park, we don't air MTV or Comedy Central on this show, and the rest of talk radio doesn't either. Now look at [Rev. Al] Sharpton and [Rev. Jesse] Jackson. You've got two liberal Democrats who ran for president who are bowed to by the likes of Hillary and other Democrats despite their long history of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is a problem festering in the Democrat ranks, not in the Republican Party.
Understand that this is a Democrat Party, drive-by media, Clinton image machine -- or Clinton machine agenda. And it is to suppress and kill conservative information, which it labels "misinformation." The conservative information by definition, according to the template of the drive-by media and the Media Matters of the world, is "misinformation."
They're using our own words against us. Waahhh!! Boo Hooo. Project much do you, Lardball? Is that creeping paranoia in the wake of the Imus flambe finally pushing you over the edge?
In a February 16 article, The New York Times, noting that Scaife "spent more than $2 million investigating and publicizing accusations about the supposed involvement of Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton in corrupt land deals, sexual affairs, drug running and murder," reported: "But now, as Mrs. Clinton is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, Mr. Scaife's checkbook is staying in his pocket."
Although Scaife did not comment for the article, the Times reported that Scaife business partner Christopher Ruddy said of himself and Scaife, " 'Both of us have had a rethinking.' Ruddy added, 'Clinton wasn't such a bad president. ... In fact, he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways, and Dick [Richard Mellon Scaife] feels that way today.'"
Ever since Imus laid down the Hip-Hop Card as a defense for his silly-ass statements about the Rutger's Basketball team - I've been hoping that people would know better than to pick it up.
"Whose mouths are the words coming out of? So, Snoop Dogg doesn't bear any responsibility for spreading this filth? And Young Jeezy, and Crime Mob and all these people, they don't bear responsibility? It's all whitey's fault?"
Color me surprised and skeptical that Malkin even knows who Young Jeezy is. I'm even more skeptical that she could acually name specifric song or lyric by these artists that matches the comments made by Imus.
But here's the thing: We've already been down this road before and the artists always win.
Malkin was essentially using this arguement to bash Al Sharpton of course...
"When was the last time Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson looked at the top of the Billboard hot rap tracks charts? Just look at it this week. Every single one of the top six songs has the N-word, the H-word, the B-word. When was the last time that Al Sharpton said anything about it? Was it two or three or four years ago?"
And here I thought conservatives just got all weak in the knees over the magic of the marketplace - but as it turns out both Sharpton and Jackson have been arguing against vulgarity in popular music, particularly black music, quite recently. Sharpton brought it up as he eulogized James Brown and recounted their final conversation.
SHARPTON: It was the last conversation we had. He said to me, "Reverend," he said, "I've been watching you on the news. I want you to keep fighting for justice. But I want you to tell people to love one another. I want you to fight to lift the standards back." He said, "What happened to us that we are now celebrating from being down? What happened we went from saying I'm black and I'm proud to calling each other niggers and hos and bitches?" He said, "I sung people up and now they're singing people down, and we need to change the music."
So much for those "Why doesn't Sharpton try to clean up his own house" claims.
Oh and as a matter of fact, Billboard doesn't have a "Hot Rap Tracks" chart, it's actually called "Hot R&B/Hip-Hip" and the top six songs are as follows (link goes to lyrics):
Contrary to Malkin's claim none of these songs say anything about "Bytches" or "Ho's" - although besides being fairly trite and vapid most of them are sexual. Only two songs - "I'm a flirt" and "This is why I'm hot" - actually do say "Nigga" several times, but it's not used in a negative or derogatory context.
I'm not surprised that the actual filth content is so low, we all know that if it were the FCC would have put most Hip-Hop radio stations in the "Po House" or else their broadcasts would be one long Beeep!
Snoop Dogg and Young Jeezy aren't even in the top ten right now - but Crime Mob (featuring Lil Scrappy) with "Rock Your Hips" is at number 8 and in the interest of being "fair and balanced" here's a lyrical sample:
Lil' Jay, on the track,nigga, aye & you already know, its ya boi lil scrappy we finna have the whole M-F world, rockin'in dis bitch, look at shawty check her out. southern smokin
That's just in the intro but the point that is obvious, if you're paying attention, is that this isn't aimed at anyone specific - it's not even intended as an insult. "Bitch" is talking about the song itself, not a person.
I'll speak more about N-words, B-words and context later - but right now I want to note that unfortunately Malkin wasn't alone in her commnents. During ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous one of the roundtable panelists, Torie Clark, made the exact same claim - that Rap Artists are the source of this language.
Oi Vey!
And then George Will got into the act..
What are we not talking about when we talk about Imus? We're not talking about what everyone knows is the biggest problem in the African-American community - the high percentage of their children born to unmarried women
It's at this point where I have forcefully apply the emergency brake and pull this "bytch" over to the side of the road...
Unweb mother's are the biggest problem in the African-American community? Really now? Where do you think all those absent fathers might be - could it possibly be - JAIL
The prevalence of imprisonment in 2001 was higher for -- black males (16.6%) and Hispanic males (7.7%) than for white males (2.6%) -- black females (1.7%) and Hispanic females (0.7%) than white females (0.3%)
This is the source of the stat the black men are 8 times more likely to be involvement in the criminal justice system than white males. This stat drives forward the perception by law enforcement that greater scrutiny of these individuals is warranted, which in turn means that their rate of being stopped, questioned and searched without justification is also higher as studies by the ACLU have shown.
In one study involving New Jersey State Troopers the percentage of stops and searches for minorities was found to be significantly higher, but the rate of finding illegal contraband such as drugs was the same between White, Black and Hispanic drivers. In the end the fact that their pulling over and searching far more black drivers leads directly to more being incarcerated, couple that with the 100 to 1 disparity in sentencing on drugs that blacks frequently have (crack) vs those that whites might have (cocain, ectasy or crystal meth) and the chasm only widens from there.
Just like Malkin's mistaken and dangerous presumption that "Every single one of the top six songs has the N-word, the H-word, the B-word." the mistaken impression that Black Males have to be guilty of something continues to drive police, courts and even juries to convict them at rates far higher than others. How do you respect the law when the law clearly doesn't respect you?
• In 2004, half of African-American men in their 20s were without work. Among high school dropouts, it was 72 percent. The dropout classification is relevant, because in inner cities more than half of all black men do not finish high school.
• By their late 20s, more African-American male dropouts are behind bars than behind a desk or otherwise legally earning a paycheck. By their mid-30s, 6 in 10 black men who had quit high school had done time in prison - a record that compounds the challenge of finding work.
Programs such a "No Child Left Behind" rather than helping the most vulnerable to improve and be the best they can be instead coerce school administrators into shoving marginal children out the back door to keep their overall testing scores high and the federal money flowing.
Robert Kimball, an assistant principal at Sharpstown High School, sat smack in the middle of the "Texas miracle." His poor, mostly minority high school of 1,650 students had a freshman class of 1,000 that dwindled to fewer than 300 students by senior year. And yet — and this is the miracle — not one dropout to report!
Nor was zero an unusual dropout rate in this school district that both President Bush and Secretary of Education Rod Paige have held up as the national showcase for accountability and the model for the federal No Child Left Behind law. Westside High here had 2,308 students and no reported dropouts; Wheatley High 731 students, no dropouts. A dozen of the city's poorest schools reported dropout rates under one percent.
And this scenario as been repeated all over the country while at the same time we have these "Abstinence Only" requirements in place, which have been shown to be a complete and abject failure.
The latest federal report on abstinence-only programs shows that they have had "no impacts on rates of sexual abstinence."
Actually it's much worse than that, because these programs specifically teach disinformation on the effectiveness of condoms they've been shown to actually increase the risk of sexual disease as well as high-risk practices such as anal and oral sex.
But of course, the Real Problem in the Black Community is all that Nasty Rap Music!
Whatta crock of Shit!
Look, I find a lot of modern music uninspiring and banal, but it's not the source of our problems - it's a symptom. All of these issues, an unbalanced justice system, inadequate schools and joblessness all add to the lack of hope in these communities which in my view is the true source of all these problems.
Without Hope - you have nothing, literally.
Rapper and Air America Radio Host Chuck D of Public Enemy once said that "Rap Music was the Black CNN." He has long argued that they're simply reporting what it is that they see in the world around them - what the regularly CNN can't - or won't - report.
How many times in the last week and half have reporters on CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC and FOX repeated what Imus said?
It's become the age of the "Nappy-Headed HO", but everyone understands the context in which they using the word don't they? (Told you I'd get back to context...)
We accept that usage because we realize these people don't mean it literally, yet when a rapper does it we presume that it could only mean one thing? Well, that's just patently ridiculous. I understand those that feel offended anytime certain words are used - but I we can also recognize the fact that some people like to t alk trash harmlessly, others actually DO trash to people.
Context and intent matters.
<>There are those who argue that any and all uses of the N, H, and B-words are always wrong, except of course when they're complaining about someone using those words. But as I pointed out in my last Dkos diary, we shouldn't fear words - we need to fear actions that people take using the hate these words describe. The true haters do everything they can to hide it because real discrimination is against the law unless you catch them in an unguarded moment as Imus was caught last night on 60 minutes stating to a producer off camera that...
<> "McGuirk is there to provide the all nigger jokes".
Yikes!
Again, the word itself isn't the issue to me, the issue I feel is the sentiment and his actions. He could have said "darkie" and it would mean the same thing, he could have said "mud-duck" - in fact if he were in mixed company he just might have used a code word like Maccaca as Sen George Allen tried to do, but that doesn't change McGuirk mandate to stir the shit-pot.
Banning words doesn't change how someone feels, thinks or behaves.
And it's not like we haven't had these battles over language and lyrics before - when Tipper Gore and the PMRC went after the music industry in the 80's they faced direct opposition from Frank Zappa, Dee Snider and even Bob Denver.
Dee pointed out that they had mis-interpreted the Twisted Sister song "Under the Blade" to be some kind of advocacy of torture when in fact it was about undergoing surgery. Tipper had been set off on her crusade by the song "Darling Nikki" after she'd bought the Purple Rain soundtrack for her daughter. I always found this highly ironic since Purple Rain was an "R" Rated Movie - and that song was part of the plot. Like a musical, that movie used the music to tell the story including the Up's (The title track) and the Downs (Nikki).
She already had her warning sticker on the back of the album, but failed to pay attention - just like so many other self-appointed moral watchdogs who can't seem to do their own homework and try to foist it off on everyone else.
Fortunately the PMRC failed to implment a movie-like rating system for music and were forced to accept a deal from the record industry for simple "Parental Advisory" stickers.
Following that a Florida judge declared 2 Live Crew's "As Nasty as they wanna be" (WHICH WAS STICKERED) to be obscene and had it banned. This dispite the fact that they had already released an alternate version of the album - "As Clean as they Wanna be" (No Sticker Needed). The gropu was actually arrested for a music performance, as if they were in soviet russia or china. Respected artists such as Bruce Springsteen lept to their defense, and they were eventually aquited.
In 1991 we had the "Cop Killer" Controversy which gave Rap it's most serious black-eye yet - even though it wasn't even a rap song. It was the result of a Rock Band ("look a Black Guy with a Microphone - it's gotta be a Rap Band!" No, it doesn't!) side project by rapper Ice-T called Bodycount. The name of the group came from the "If it bleeds, it leads" doctrine of local news programs.
Ten people killed in drive by shooting - Now Sports!
It was a comment on how callously the lives of those living in poverty were (and are) treated. Gang violence in L.A. had raged thruout the 80's, but it didn't become "News" until a innocent asian UCLA student was accidentally shot in Westwood. That's when it became a problem, and that's when LAPD began to go on a serious warpath, and the backlash against their brutal and oppressive tactics began to grow. There were many unjustified shootings over the years such as Yula Love, and citizens who were mauled by police dogs or killed by the choke hold (Ron Settles). The was even an LAPD Home Invasion on Dalton Ave where the cops broke through the walls, smashed the bathroom fixtures, scrawled their own tags on the wall (LAPD Rules!), then tried to hide the evidence when they found out - it was the wrong house! LA is the home of the battering ram and the city that invented S.W.A.T., the use of paramilitary tactics and weapons against civilians. (Tactics which work oh-so-well against the S.L.A. that they were adopted by the H.R.T. - the FBI's version of S.W.A.T. - and produced the exact same results at Waco, not to mention Ruby Ridge)
Bodycount was simply documenting the growing resentment and essentially predicted the Rodney King Riots which broke out just one year later. People should have been listening to them not criticizing.
At the time though, every politician available jumped on the anti-Ice-T bandwagon including Vice President Dan Quayle and President G.H.W. Bush. Too bad they, like Malkin, got their facts completely wrong in the interest of political expediency as shown by this BBC documentary on the Cop-Killer Controversy
In the wake of the bruhah and death threats being issued against the employees at Time Warner, Ice (Tracey Morrow) T relented and pulled the track off his album. He and Time later parted company, but this hasn't shut him down - he and Bodycount are about to release their fourth album "Murder 4 Hire".
It may be fair to say that much of this music is exploitative, even if it is "reporting" the state of life in the ghetto accurately. But it's not like we haven't seen the news industry salivate at the prospect of milking every second out of a sensationalistic stories like say - Natalie Holloway, Terri Schiavo, Jennifer Wilbanks, Scott Peterson and The Astronaut in Diapers - while ignoring poverty, onging war crimes, torture and our crumbing national infrastructure.
It would be nice if more people strove to lift us up, and give us more hope as James Brown did almost 40 years ago when he single handedly ended the violent outbursts which erupted after the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr - but that was a long time ago.
Anti-Rap comments by him or Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and the late C. Deloris Tucker all have the about as much sting as the bitter old fogey on the corner screaming at the kids "Get Off My Lawn!!"
Sorry, but the kids aren't listening to Al or Jessie because for starters they've failed to recognize who the kids truly are - not to mention the tide of history. Long before 2 Live Crew and Ice T the kids have been making noise. Ever since Chuck Berry did the first duck-walk, Little Richard screamed "Tutti Fruity" with all his fey fabulousity, Elvis twitched his hips on Ed Sullivan and Jim Morrison played with his wango-tango popular music has pushed hard at the boundaries of what is "acceptable" and shocked the living daylights out of all the crusty old codgers.
Guess what - "The Kids Are Alright!" and given time they'll figure it all out.
There are already some artists - even in Rap - who actually are making positive statements. Artists such as Queen Latifah who long ago stated "I aint a bitch or Ho", Will Smith and Kanye West who won a grammy for his song "Jesus Walks".
These days though if your truly trying to say something that hasn't been Hanitized and Dizneyfied for your protection - you just might run into another solid stone wall as Pink has discovered when she wrote and released "Dear Mr President" a song which sharply criticizes the Bush Adminstration.
If this Rap-Lash begins to stick, although I doubt it will, how much chance will people who have say anything controversal via music? I don't think anyone wants to see the music world filled with nothing but American Idol wannabe's, but if we allow fear-mongers like Malkin to have their way - that's exactly where we're headed.
------
In the interest of full disclosure I am a long-time rock musician, I am black, I live and work in South Central L.A. and I happen to have my own Live365 Radio Station which focuses primary on protest music including uncensored songs by Bodycount and Suicidal Tendencies.
I have tracks by System of a Down (B.Y.O.B. and Boom!) As well as Disturbed's cover of Genesis's "Land of Confusion" (which can be heard during the promos for the new Sci-Fi channel show "Painkiller Jane") and a song they directed straight at Bush called "Deity".
The video for "Everybodies Fool" by Evanescence makes a great point about consumerism and dehumanization - which is pretty topical these days.
This certainly has been an interesting week for college sports scandals, where we've had the defrocking of radio legend Don Imus as well as the complete punking of DA Nifong.
But exactly what have we learned from all this?
Has a serious message been sent that callous attacks for the purposes of bad humor won't be tolerated on the public airwaves, and that a prosecutor should have a credible witness actual evidence before making defamatory pronouncements of a defendants guilt?
Quite a few interesting comments have been made on this subject , even on Real Time with Bill Maher last night.
Dana Carvey: What he said was ridiculous.
Scott McClennan: Where was the joke there? There was no joke.
Maher: Imus broke two major rules of comendy. It wasn't true and he picked on not the powerful, but the weak. Everything I got in trouble for was true
We have to remember that Maher has been directly in Imus' shoes after ABC pulled his show "Politically Incorrect" off the air in the weeks following Sept 11th.
"I do not relinquish - nor should any of you - the right to criticize, even as we support, our government," Maher said. "This is still a democracy and they're still politicians, so we need to let our government know that we can't afford a lot of things that we used to be able to afford. Like a missile shield that will never work for an enemy that doesn't exist. We can't afford to be fighting wrong and silly wars. The cold war. The drug war. The culture war."
What Maher said later in the show, however, is what made headlines. Panelist Dinesh D'Souza mentioned that he didn't think the terrorists were "cowards," as George Bush had described them. Maher replied: "We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly. You're right."
At that time both Limbaugh and O'Reily supported what Maher said, arguing that he wasn't insulting our troops, but was instead criticizing President Clinton.
Unfortunately the reality is that Clinton wasn't the one who was "cowardly", he had requested special forces be sent into Afghanistan after Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda and it was the joint chief's who had cold feet as has been documented by Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies - Clinton told then Joint Chief's Chairman Gen Shelton...
"Hugh, what i think would scare the shit outof these al Qaeda guys more than any cruise missle... would be the sight of U.S. commandos, Ninja guys in black suits, jumping out of helicopters into their camps, spraying machine guns. Even if we don't get the big guys, it will have a good effect."
But Shelton wasn't down with that.
Shelton looked pained. He explained that the camps were a long way away from anywhere we could launch a helicopter raid. Nonetheless, America's top military oficer agreed to "look into it".
And "look into it" is all they ever did - until after 9/11. Since that time D'Souza has come forward to make the ridiculous claim that The Left was responsible for 9/11 - but where is the backlash to that?
Maher paid a severe price for his comments at the time, one which he has bounced back from well - as Imus will most certainly bounce back.
Why? Because Imus isn't a racist - he's a dumbass.
First Unintended Conseqeunce: True Racist and Sexists will be driven even further underground than they already are.
As Pericles points out in his recommended Dkos diary today, there is a generational difference in how older people, those who predate the Civil Rights movement, view what racism is and how it is expressed.
60 Years ago most of the teams in the Major Baseball League theatened to go on strike if they had to play with and/or against Jackie Robinson. Even after the strike failed, many of those players would attempt to slide into him during plays and injur him with thier cleets. That's the kind of racism that my mother faced while my grandmother struggled to raise six children and purchase a home in Northern Lousiana on $40 a week.
Talk is talk - but Doing is DOING!
To this day, I actually think that those of us who struggled against discrimination had a clear and obvious advantage over some those who have followed them - because back then Racism Was Blatant. It was IN. YOUR. FACE.
You didn't have to wonder where you stood or why something odd was going on. It was clear that the schools, drinking fountains, hotels and restaurants were segregated. You didn't have to wonder if someone had any hidden animous towards you - they would put it up on the wall in a big bright sign plain for everyone to see. Those who managed to scale the hard stone wall of Jim Crow should always be admired, be it Jackie Robinson, Jesse Owens, or the Tuskegee Airmen - but the challenge that faces those that follow them through the hidden minefield that the remnents of racism have become should be commended as well.
After Brown V Board of Education, and the passage of the Civil Rights, Voting Rights, and Public Accomodations Act - public displays of that kind of racism essentially became a crime. We didn't see it anymore, not neccesarily because the sentiment of those baseball players for 1947 and those restaurant owners from 1957, and Bull Conner from 1963 had completely and utterly vanished as Dinesh D'souza would argue - although some of it had - some of it had simply gone underground.
President Reagan would pack the Civil Rights division with those who didn't believe in the mission it was performing, effectively making it a non-entity. He appointed Clarence Thomas to the Equal Oppurtunity Employment Commision - the organization responsible for implementing and managing remedial actions against employement discrimination - when Clarence didn't even believe that such discrimination even existed.
That's what I would call - taking discriminatory actions, not just using the "N-word."
Meanwhile others, somewhat like Imus, who may not have ever actually done anything negative towards any particular ethnic group have taken advantage of the creeping feeling of being stiffled by greater and greater ethnic and gender sensitivity - Like walking through a field of egg-shells with jack boots on.
The voices of incivility have grown sharp, even shrill - railing against "political correctness". These people have muddied the waters, they may or may not be bigots based on their actions - but their words make this problematic.
However, real racists know that openly revealing negative racial comments just might get them into serious trouble because it would betray the otherwise hidden bias of their actions. Trying to combat these people is much more difficult than Bull Conner because like the insurgents in Iraq, or the Al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan - Stealth is their primary tool.
This is why the importance of the Maccaca Moment by former Senator George Allen shouldn't be ignored.
He knew damn well that he was on camera.
He knew that the person filming him, was a member of the Jim Webb campaign and they'd use it against him.
He thought he was too cool for school by using an obscure racial slur from North Africa.
This is a guy who kept a noose and a confederate flag in his office and still managed to get away with it. He was sure he'd get away with this too- but he didn't.
Next time, he'll say something even more obscure - but he'll still feel the same way and mean the same damn thing.
We might not hear Ann Coulter railing at John Edwards for being a "Faggot" or the Jersey Girls for being "Harpies" on national TV again anytime soon. But I'm pretty sure they she and her flock a followers still feel the exact same way, and will continue to support policies based on their bigotted views.
Second Unintended Consequence: Those who try to increase efforts to catch these people in the act of bigotry are more likely to be attacked as "Race Baiters".
Hypersensitivity to this issue can cause innocent people to be accused of having attitudes they may not actually possess, or of perpetrating acts bigotry they didn't commit. Just as we've seen in the Duke Rape case, going off half-cocked when your accuser actually is a "Ho", with psychological problems no less, can actually add more fuel to people like Rush Limbaugh and MIchael Savage.
Duke has been like the Tawana Brawley case all over again.
(Be that as it may, I'm glad that DA Nifong did at least look at the allegations seriously although he jumped the gun and should have used a grand jury to investigate the issue in secret to allow all the possible defendants the best benefit of the doubt.)
Another example of this was shown by Lindsey Graham as he asked Sam Alito:
GRAHAM: ...Are you really a closet bigot?
ALITO: I'm not any kind of a bigot, I'm not.
...
GRAHAM: Let me tell you this: Guilt by association is going to drive good men and women away from wanting to sit where you're sitting.
You see, it's the fault of all those people who noticed that Alito was a card-carrying member of a racist and sexist organization at Princeton, it had not nothing do to with the fact that the organization openly attempted to continue the legacy of segregation against blacks and women right into the mid-80's.
They're going to blame Jessie Jackson, and Al Sharpton for all this. They're going to blame Media Matter's for correctly pointing out that It's Not Just Imus!
Exhibit A) Glenn Beck:
On the March 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, The Glenn Beck Program, Beck called Rosie O'Donnell, co-host of ABC's The View, a "fat witch," claimed that O'Donnell has "blubber ... just pouring out of her eyes," and asked, "Do you know how many oil lamps we could keep burning just on Rosie O'Donnell fat?" On the March 23 edition of his radio show, Beck said, "I'm a little ashamed" for calling O'Donnell "a fat witch" -- then added, "But she's so fat."
---
On the May 17, 2005, broadcast of The Glenn Beck Program, Beck said he was "thinking about killing [filmmaker] Michael Moore" and pondered whether "I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it," before concluding: "No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong?"
Exhibit B) Rush Limbaugh
On the February 1 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh responded to a Reuters report on a University of Chicago study that found that "a majority of young blacks feel alienated form today's government" by asserting: "Why would that be? The government's been taking care of them their whole lives."
Exhibit C) Bill O'Reilly
While discussing the rape and murder of 18-year-old Jennifer Moore during the August 2, 2006, edition of his radio show, O'Reilly appeared to suggest that the clothing she was wearing at the time helped incite her killer. O'Reilly discussed several factors that contributed to the "moronic" girl's rape and murder, including that she was drunk and wandering the streets of New York City alone late at night. But in addition to those factors, O'Reilly added: "She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at 2 in the morning."
Exhibit D) Michael Savage:
On the March 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, The Savage Nation, Michael Savage stated that he "agree[d] 100 percent" with a caller who said: "I'm very concerned that the Jews are now accepting gays as rabbis. And as a Catholic, I can tell you it almost destroyed our church when we accepted gays as priests." The caller added, "[T]hey were raping teenage boys, and if you allow them to come into your churches, I'm sorry, your synagogues, I have no reason to believe they're not going to do the same thing." Savage responded: "The idea of a gay rabbi is an oxymoron. Think about it: 'Rabbi' means teacher. You cannot have a homosexual teacher teaching boys how to be a Jew," adding, "I'm not going to mince words for fear of offending homosexuals. They're everywhere, anyway, trying to tell me what to say and what not to say and what to think. I know what's right and what's wrong. And that's all there is to it."
I for one wouldn't cry if the corporate backlash continued and eventually blew all four of these nitwits off the air, but you see - they aren't the real problem. The real problem IMO is all the other dimbulbs and closeted bigots who not only believe what these guys say and feel legitimized for their own bigoted beliefs when they hear them echoed this way - it's the fact that they're going to become deeply aggrieved if they lose their heroes, just like the cowards that sent death threats to the Rutger's ball players.
People have to remember that the real shock jock that started most of this prior to Imus or Stern or O'Reilly was Alan Berg in Colorado. A Liberal curmudgeon who sturred up so much dust he was eventually murdered in 1984 by neo-Nazi Skinheads from Idaho who called themselves "The Order", echoing some of the so-called heroes from the hyper right-wing novel "The Turner Diaries" - a book which also inspired Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
At a certain point empty words and rhetoric may turn into not so empty actions.
I'm not endorsing anything these guys have said, or excuse the action of murderous racists, in fact I recommended in my last Dkos diary that the FCC begin to fine these guys for profane and defamatory hate speech, but simply the fact that they have been caught on the record allows us to protect ourselves from them better than if we were still wondering where they stood or who they are.
One of the good things about this entire situation is that a frank and honest discussion of all these issues is being had - very few people seem to completely agree. The worst thing that can happen is for that discussion to be shutdown and taken out of the light, back into the darkness where it can fester.
First of all, this is not another Imus Diary - but I do want to point out something that seems to be completely missing in this entire Imus Kerfuffle.
It's not about race.
It's not about gender.
It's not about free speach.
It's not about political correctness.
No, the issue I want to raise that has been completely overlooked so far, is the issue of Defamation! and the indencency of what has been occuring on our airwaves for quite some time.
Why hasn't the FCC come down on Imus' (and others) for their profane and hurtful comments, because it can't possibly be argued that what he did to the Rutger's B-ball players was decent can it?
Ever since Justin Timberlake revealed Janet Jackson's tit during the Superbowl -- (yeah, that's right the guy whose hosting this years Kid Awards is the one who did the dirty deed, not Janet) -- the FCC has been running around fining people hog-wild for their on-air statements. In this particular case CBS was fined $550,000.
April 2004 - Howard Stern fined $495,000 and Clear Channel for an indencent comedy routine performed during his show. Clear Channel then proceeded to dump Stern based on his violation of their "zero-tolerance decency standards".
Oct 2004 - Fox TV was fined a record $1.2M for showing scenes of bachelor and bachelorette parties during it's reality show - "Married By America".
Just under a year ago even with these record fines already on the books, Congress voted to increase the fines by ten times.
November 2006 - Viacom settled a series of fines to the tune of $3.5 million.
Last month the FCC threatened to fine Amp'd mobile $100,000 for failing to protect their customers phone records. (Why they haven't gone after AT&T yet for sharing their phone records illegally with the NSA and FBI remains a mystery)
These changes have even created a chilling effect on PBS. "Masterpiece Theater" added at least a dozen bleeps to the broadcast of "Every Child Is a Poet: The Life & Work of Piri Thomas" - in order to Sanitize it for PBS's protection.
I find much of this rather odd.
It's odd that the FCC hasn't gone after CBS for Imus' comments in this case or in the previous occasions where he's been forced to apologize for comedy routines that have gone horribly off kilter.
March 16th - "the whole nation is talking about" reports of a "[b]that young colored fellah pretty much deckin' the old bag from New York[/b] and takin' away some of her money." [Imus Producer Bernard] McGuirk Who continued : "I'm speaking, of course, about [Sens.] Barack Obama [D-IL] and Hillary Clinton [D-NY]."
March 6th - McGuirk : "[Clinton] will have cornrows and gold teeth before this fight with [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] is over."
February 8th - Both Imus & McGuirk : "Besa mi culo ... Gordo" said to Governor Bill Richardson, who mother is mexican. Translation : "kiss my ass, fat one"
February 6th - Imus on why he supports Giuliani: "if we're gonna be fighting these terrorists through the lives of [8-year-old son] Wyatt Imus' children," then "it might be good to start with somebody who is willing to take three big ones and drop one on Mecca, one on Jeddah, and one on Saudi -- one on Riyadh,"
February 2nd - McGuirk : Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has "a Jew-hating name."
December 8th - McGuirk : "Even if you wear a beanie, how can you not love the Blind Boys?" Imus continued, "I said, 'They're handicapped, they're black, and they're blind. How do we lose here?' And then a light bulb just went off over [the jewish managers of CBS radio] scummy little heads."
Last night in response to their own internal integrity concerns, MSNBC has dropped the Imus simulcast and as I type this I can hear Nora O'Donnel report that when Imus comes back from vacation some CBS stations will not be continuing his broadcast.
I also see as I watch that Al Sharpton has begun to make arguments in the same direction as this post - (ie "Where's the FCC in all this?")
My basic point however probably isn't what you might expect. I don't neccesarily appload the actions taken against Imus. I don't think he should be black-listed or banned from the air. However, MSNBC has a right to decide what they want to broadcast and what they don't.
I feel that MSNBC made their decision on the best basis possible, they as an organization simply didn't want to be associated with those kinds of sentiments. There's little evidence they did it in response to advertiser or public pressure - but they may have. There is even less evidence that they implemented "self-censorship" pre-emptively to avoid the kinds of fines that I note above - because the likelyhood that they would have been on the receiving end of such fines are non-existent.
Imus may ultimately have to follow Stern into alternative radio, and I'm ok with that - but in his case, it certainly won't be because the FCC forced him to. Not hardly.
We haven't seen the FCC stand up against Ann Coulter when she called the Jersey Girl's "Harpies" on national TV did we?
We didn't see any action taken against Rush Limbaugh for accusing Michael J. Fox of exaggerating his disease in order to gain more sympathy for the stem-cell cause.
We didn't see anything done to Dennis Prager for saying that Rep. Keith Ellison was "imperiling America" because he choose to do a photo-op with the Quran after being sworn in to the Congress, or Rep. Virgil Goode who stated ..."If American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran" and also that opposing the surge would "aid and assist the Islamic jihadists who want the crescent and star to wave over the Capitol of the United States and over the White House of this country.”
The common issue here is that all of these cases are acts of defamation.
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.
Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another; 2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement); 3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and 4. Damage to the plaintiff.
Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:
* Attacks on a person's professional character or standing; * Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste; * Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease; * Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;
We have to realize that ALL OF THIS IS HATE SPEECH!
The way things are today, the individual(s) who has been defamed as the result of such hateful comments have the responsibility to take legal action themselves. We do not currently have a Criminal Libel Law as some countries do.
But what happens when an entire group of people are defamed? Who should stand-up when women are debased? Blacks? Jews? Or how about the most defamed group in America right now - Liberals?
The next time Bill O'Reilly says something about "Far-Left Bomb-Thrower Smear-Sites" should we at Kos go to the FCC Complaint Page and explain in detail just how offensive, profane and defamatory his comments are to us?
Would they even listen? Well first we need to see what is "Obscene, what is Indecent and what is Profane" at least according to FCC guidelines.
Indecent Broadcast Restrictions
The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.
So basically we're talking here about the Seven Deadly Words: Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cock-sucker, Mother-Fucker and Tits! Apparently "Bitch, Crap and Ho" aren't currently on the No-No list even though the difference between Crap and Shit or Bitch and Cunt are pretty much negligible.
But again, these are "contemporary community" standards - so if you're community argues that calling a woman a "Whore" is offensive, you just might have an argument. But then again, it doesn't have to be sexual or about excrement to be "profane."
Profane Broadcast Restrictions
The FCC has defined profanity as “including language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.”
Obscenity as defined, is not protected by the First Amendment and is banned from FCC regulated air at all times. However Indecent and Profane speech has been restricted to the hours between 10pm and 6am by the FCC. This wouldn't require that someone who wishes to push the envelope like Imus would be taken off the air, rather they would simply be moved to night shift, rather than spewing all this stuff during the morning or the middle of the day.
In Ann Coulter's case she may not be obscene or indecent, but she's certainly profane because I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one that considers her a right bloody nuisance. Particularly since many of her comments are blatantly defamatory. An FCC crack-down on profane hate speech wouldn't cause her to be banned, she could still say whatever she wanted to on TV, it just couldn't be with Matt Lauer at 7am or CBS would feel the heat where it counts - in the pocket book.
Even after-hours, under the law, John Edwards has every right to sue Ann Coulter for her "faggot" comments.
Except that he won't.
There is the issue that those who fight back this way are sometimes characterized as "cry-babies", just like when Fred Barnes argued that the Rutger's Girls "acted like victims" and should "Flicked Imus off their shoulder like a moskito".
[Middle English hore, from Old English hōre; see kā- in Indo-European roots.]
Whore: Derivatives of Indo-European roots have often acquired starkly contrasting meanings. A prime example is the case of the root kā-, "to like, desire." From it was derived a stem kāro-, from which came the prehistoric Common Germanic word hōraz with the underlying meaning "one who desires" and the effective meaning "adulterer." The feminine of this, hōrōn-, became hōre in Old English, the ancestor of Modern English whore.
[Origin: 1400–50; late ME (Middle English) noppe, OE -hnoppa (as in wullknoppa, mistake for *wullhnoppa tuft of wool), c. MD, MLG noppe; akin to OE hnoppian to pluck]
Unfortunately Niger Innis and other promenent Black spokesmen (I'm black and they Don't speak for me) have been echoing this ridiculous Imus defense by claiming that it's somehow the fault of Black Rappers that this type of terminology is being used while ignoring the long history these English based verbal slurs being used against black people in America through-out their history.
Why is being "nappy-headed" even an issue? Because it's NOT LIKE WHITE HAIR! And who would've thought to take a word from the 1400's and make it an insult in the first place, hmm? Trust me, it wasn't black people.
Snoop Dogg has responded saying that the "Ho's" their talking about aren't young women like these college students. They're actually real life Whores! They do exist, y'know. Rapper's don't use the words to describe everyone they meet, just certain one who actually fit the description.
Sometimes you really do have to "call a spade - a spade." Or a "Ho" (groan), as the case may be. Defamation? Not exactly.
Also I want to point out that the FCC restrictions I'm talking about here already apply to these rappers. Their records are already stickered and restricted. Instead of addressing the issue of why some women are whores, and why some young men are assholes - and whether or not the characterization is, at times, accurate we are instead seeing people use this situation to put forth their own politically correct agenda to restrict discussion of some serious issues.
Dragging them into this is nothing more than a red-herring, a ruse by those who wish to continue spewing baseless attacks against large swaths of the public whom they dislike and disagree with.
Countering this by arguing that it is Profane Speech and forcing the FCC to get involved is a two-edge sword. Just as statements against minorites could induce fines, so could statements against "white-haired fat-cats on wall street".
I might suggest that we push for a Criminal Libel Law so that the victim of such slurs doesn't have to shoulder the burden of repairing their reputation alone (where you get all the Justice you can Pay For!), but I'm not entirely that's a wise path considering how Federal Prosecutors can be politicized leaving open the door for selective and malicious prosecution of such charges.
The best we could hope for is that our public discourse over gender, racial, ethnic and political issues begins to regain some of it's civility and rationality.
What we don't want is for no one to be able to speak freely and honestly.
Ok, people this is a disgrace. Just check this from CNN.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry canceled plans to campaign for fellow Democrats after the GOP began hammering him over his comments to college students about getting "stuck in Iraq."
President Bush's 2004 presidential rival -- who explained Tuesday that his comments were a "botched joke" targeting Bush -- will not appear with Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Bob Casey on Wednesday night in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a Democratic official said.
"I would be surprised if you see him welcomed out there anywhere," the official said, "and certainly not in a race that is meaningful."
Strategists at both the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees told their candidates the flap is a distraction they don't need right now.
What's disgraceful isn't what Kerry said, it's the fact that Democrats haven't learned what he learned two years ago -- The Best Defense is a Strong Offense.
The Republican National Committee took advantage of the Kerry gaffe with an ad featuring the text of quotes from Maj. Gen. Thomas Bostick, Sen. John McCain and Bush, supporting U.S. troops.
A video clip of Kerry's Monday remarks follows, then the caption, "John Kerry should apologize. Our soldiers are waiting." (Time.com: John Kerry, still one step behind)
The Democratic official said the issue doesn't appear to change the impact of any races, but it may attract more GOP supporters in close Senate contests in Missouri and Tennessee.
...
Kerry's office said two House campaign appearances by the senator also have been canceled -- by mutual decision -- so as not to "allow the Republican hate machine to use Democratic candidates as their proxies in their distorted spin war in which once again they're willing to exploit brave American troops."
These include Minnesota Democrat Tim Walz, who is trying to unseat U.S. Rep. Gil Gutknecht, R-Minnesota. Congressional candidate Bruce Braley of Iowa also announced that Kerry would not be appearing with him.
So this unnamed "Democratic Official" thinks this might bring out the GOP vote in Missouri (Talent v McCaskill) and Tennesee (Corker v Ford)?
Both those races are a dead-heat BTW. Maybe, but only if Democrats allow these lies to stand.
Clearly the RNC agrees, they're using this issue to try an d raise last minute funds (From my mailbox)
Listen closely this election season and you'll hear the truth about what Democrats represent.
Monday, failed Presidential candidate John Kerry brazenly insulted the brave American men and women serving in our military. At a campaign stop for Democrats in California, Kerry told students that "you know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't you get stuck in Iraq."
In Kerry's cocoon of privilege, those who serve in our military are failures who never did their homework or "made an effort to be smart."
Ridiculous, right? Bashing Kerry for being an effete liberal elitist is the straw that the GOP is hanging all thier hopes on. But that's doesn't mean that Kerry's entirely done. Not yet.
Appearing on radio host Don Imus' program, "Imus in the Morning," Kerry said Wednesday, "I'm going back to Washington. I'm going back to tackle this, you bet."
Kerry said the controversy was "swift boat stuff all over again," referring to the 2004 campaign issue about his service in Vietnam. "They shouldn't be allowed to do that," the Massachusetts lawmaker said.
He added, "I'm telling you, I'm not going to let these guys lie and smear, and they put their whole machine out to do it, and they ought to apologize."
He may not be campaigning per se - but he will be fighting directly and explicitly over this issue.
What is sad is how other Democrats have failed to back Kerry up... with the clear exception of Max Cleland:
"I think people will remember John Kerry's press conference today as the moment we Democrats stopped once and forever accepting the disgraceful smears of Republicans. John Kerry showed our Party how to fight back with the truth.
"John Kerry is a patriot who has fought tooth and nail for veterans ever since he came home from Vietnam. He has stood with his brothers in arms unlike this Administration which exploits our troops to make a political point and divide America.
Unfortunately neither Kerry or Cleland are currently running for anything. It's really a sad commentary when the only Democrats with the backbone to stand up to the blatant and incessant LIES of the RNC and Bush Administration - are the ones who have nothing to lose by doing so.
Democrats should be rallying around Kerry's words blasting the Bush Administration - not running from him. Iraq remains the biggest issue in this election. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran give Kerry a "B" rating while his uber-patriot detractors such as McCain and Frist can only rate a "D". On the issue of substantially supporting the troops with more than just words - Democrats are head and shoulders ahead of Republicans. We should commit his words to memory and have them emblazoned in our hearts, in our minds and on the tip of our lips - at all times!
"If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.
I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.
The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor.
Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they're afraid to debate real men. And this time it won't work because we're going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq."
In this midst of the Kerry-flap - some things are being ignored, such as this exchange between Tony Snow and Helen Thomas which took place immediately after his attack on Kerry:
SNOW:Helen.
Q Does the President owe the Democrats an apology for saying that the terrorists -- that they will appease the terrorists?
MR. SNOW: No. Let's take -- you know what's interesting, Helen, and I've said this before --
Q How bellicose was he?
MR. SNOW: I don't think it's bellicose. Look, let's listen to what the Democrats -- or let's think about what Democrats are doing in this election campaign. When it comes to winning the war on terror, what is their plan? They've not said. They have talked about withdrawal --
Q -- 101 in Iraq --
MR. SNOW: -- they've talked about a whole series of things, in terms of complaining -- looking back over their shoulders and complaining about past decisions. But when it comes to the key issue, how do you achieve victory -- they say they want to achieve it, but they won't tell you how. [V: Neither does the President] They will tell you what they oppose what the President is doing. They oppose the Patriot Act; they have opposed the Terrorist Surveillance Program; they oppose the program by which we detain, question and bring to justice the worst of the terrorists. So they have opposed all of those things, so we know what they oppose, but we don't know what they're going to do.
Q How does the President propose to win? How does the President -- 101 in October dying --
MR. SNOW: The President understands that it is difficult. This is a man who signs each and every condolence note. He is absolutely aware of the human cost. And he grieves for every family and every person that we've lost. But on the other hand, he also knows two things. First, as General Casey said last week, there is not a single military engagement that we have not won, and we don't give our soldiers credit for that.
As a matter of fact Democrats do have a plan - it's right here.
This is not something Democrats should apologize for - Republicans should. They should apologize for ignoring the evidence from the State Dept and the Energy Department discounting the aluminum tubes as tools for uranium enrichment. They should apologize to Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame-Wilson. They should apologize for lying to us about the fact the weapons inspectors were on the ground right up until "Shock and Awe", that Saddam "had not fully disclosed" (when he had), for utilizing torture in our name to generate bad information, for causing the deaths of nearly 3,000 American soldiers and possibly as many as 500,000 Iraqis all for a series of lies.
But they won't apologize until they're made to feel the same sense of loss that has affected thousands of the families across the U.S. as a result of their policies - they won't apologize until their asses are out on the street and out of office crying in shame like little David Safavian did when he was sentenced to 18 months in prison for accepting bribes from Jack Abramoff while working in the White House.
Vote these bums out! That's how we'll make them cry too.
In a recent report Media Matters again does an excellent job of deconstructing right-wing spin on the anti-Bush Protest songs released by Neil Young and Pink.
Summary: John Gibson alleged that Neil Young, whose latest album is critical of President Bush and the war in Iraq, is "forgetful" and has "amnesia," and that the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks are "a distant memory" for him. Gibson suggested Young go see the new movie, United 93. But far from "forget[ing]" about Flight 93, Young wrote a song in 2001, "[i]nspired by a Newsweek story recounting the fatal flight."
Let me just be blunt, John Gibson is a Fucking Lunatic! Far more than the average Faux-ite, this guy is over the right field wall and far away. Bully O'Leily gets a lot of press via Olbermann, and by being lampooned by Stephen Colbert - but Gibson's is a truly genocidal asshole.
As America defends its security in the ongoing war on terror, Gibson argues, we must be prepared to face this growing tide of resentment abroad, which will only result in serious consequences for the haters themselves. For the anti-Americans, he argues, would "like us to forget that those who hate us may eventually try to kill us -- because they now know that we will never allow that to happen without exacting a price on those who would attempt it."
Leaving aside Iran for the moment, it appears that Gibson currently has that aging neo-terrorist Neil Young in his sights.
On the April 28 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, host John Gibson alleged that singer/songwriter Neil Young's latest album, Living With War (Reprise, May 2006), which is critical of President Bush and the war in Iraq, indicates that Young is "forgetful" and has "amnesia," and that the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks are "a distant memory" for him. Gibson suggested Young go see the newly released movie, United 93 (Universal, April 2006), a fictionalized account of events aboard United Airlines Flight 93, one of the planes hijacked on September 11, which crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Gibson even questioned whether Young "would accept free tickets from me" to see the movie. But far from "forget[ing]" about Flight 93, Young wrote a song in 2001 titled "Let's Roll," "[i]nspired by a Newsweek story recounting the fatal flight," as The Washington Post noted at the time.
On Pink Gibson said.
Gibson also criticized singer Pink for her song, "Dear Mr. President." Referring to recent video and audio tapes released by Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Gibson said: "I wonder if they listen to Neil Young and Pink. I doubt it. Do you think they would spare Neil Young and Pink while they killed the rest of us because, after all, Neil Young and Pink are against the war, and they want peace?" Gibson then added: "If Zarqawi and bin Laden are against Bush, they must be against war, right? You might think so if ... all you listen to was Neil Young and Pink."
You mean would they spare them like released hostage and journalist Jill Carrol, that traitorous bitch who "was carrying Zarqawi's Baby", according to guests on Imus?
This is classic Right-wingnuttery, just as Glenn Greenwald has documented.
I recently documented how this self-justifying, fantasyland mindset is constant and applicable to every issue. Insurgency in Iraq? Can't be; it just doesn't exist. Reports of civil war? Not true - the media is just biased and dishonest. Poll after poll showing the President is reaching historic levels of unpopularity? The polls are just biased and corrupt because the President is really beloved. Secret torture gulags in Eastern Europe? They don't exist either - that was all just a masterful set-up to find the CIA leakers (a fantasy in which Strata indulges for the Plame disclosure, too: "I think this was a canary trap"). The CIA agent outed by the administration was working on Iran's nuclear program? False - the reporter is an idiot, her husband is a liar, it's just one CIA agent, and the President is too good and smart to do that, no matter what facts emerge.
The denial is so steadfast, immediate and shrill because the notion that perhaps it's true never occurs to them. They begin with the premise that any fact that reflects poorly on the Leader is false, and then set out in search for rationale to prove that.
This is the way the game has to be played for them. Constant denial, convenient re-arrangment of reality to suit the latest administration position and argument.
1994 - "We're the party of fiscal restraint". 2004 - "Well, ok - maybe were' not".
1994 - "We're the party of accountability". 2004 - "Er, Not so much anymore".
Any arguement can be used, any rationale suggested and summarily dismissed as soon it becomes expedient for those who don't care about factiness.
Reality is indeed a Liberal Bias, Liberals live in real world, the Neo-con Cabal that currently runs the Executive, Congress, most of the Courts and Media don't live in that world. They live in a world of Devout Faith and Fealty to Greed, mixed with a generous dose of Xenobia and a more than a dash of Self-delusion.
In their world, dissent is a crime. Stephen Colbert embarrising the President by throwing his own bullshit back in his face was a 'disgrace'. How dare he - he - get so truthy on us?
But of course, although we all know this already - it's still a fascinating phenomon to observe, much like watcing some species of animals devour their young.
Fascinating and frightening. Very frightening.
Vyan
Now Listening to "Fortunate Son" by Creedance Clearwater Rival on Truth 2 Power Radio
To this day, I actually think that those of us who struggled against discrimination had a clear and obvious advantage over some those who have followed them - because back then Racism Was Blatant. It was IN. YOUR. FACE.
After Brown V Board of Education, and the passage of the Civil Rights, Voting Rights, and Public Accomodations Act - public displays of that kind of racism essentially became a crime. We didn't see it anymore, not neccesarily because the sentiment of those baseball players for 1947 and those restaurant owners from 1957, and Bull Conner from 1963 had completely and utterly vanished as Dinesh D'souza would argue - although some of it had - some of it had simply gone underground.