"I speak with authority here because I was openly gay before the 'Stonewall Rebellion,' when it cost you something to be so... And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech. In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as they have the right to support homosexuality — as I 100 percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right to religious freedom there … to express yourself in a magazine in an interview -– this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic Party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades. It's the whole legacy of the free speech 1960's that have been lost by my own party."Meanwhile, some liberals are making the predictable narrowly legalistic point that freedom of speech has only to do with rights held against the government. This is a point I've strongly objected to over the years, most obviously, in debating the liberal Bob Wright (see "When did the left turn against freedom of speech?" and "[W]hat free speech means in the context of saying Roger Ailes needs to kick Glenn Beck off Fox News"). Why is the left taking the narrow view of the concept of freedom? It's a general principle, not something you save for your friends. Like Paglia, I remember the broad 1960s era commitment to free speech. There was a special zeal to protect those who said outrageous things. Today, we're back to the kind of repression that in the 60s seemed to belong to the 1950s. What the hell happened?
December 20, 2013
Camille Paglia says the Duck Dynasty debate really is about freedom of speech.
She said:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
246 comments:
1 – 200 of 246 Newer› Newest»It's the whole legacy of the free speech 1960's that have been lost by my own party."
No, Ms Paglia. Back then free speech was used to defend lefties. With said lefties now in positions of power, free speech is now not a useful concept to the movement.
Same thing that happened to "Question Authority."
"Why is the left taking the narrow view of the concept of freedom?"
That's one of them there "rhetorical" questions, right?
Same thing that happened to "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
Why are lefties turning against free speech? Because they have the power now, and letting people say whatever they like is no longer in their political interests. After all, when they are ascendent, then anyone who disagrees with them is by definition a bad person whose views are not fit for decent company (or legal protections).
What the hell happened?
To misquote the Turkish prime minister, Freedom of speech is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off.
I'm all for free speech for conservatives. AFTER they're in the camps!
"what the 'ell happened..." is that the `liberals' gained power.
the `liberals' decided, after they became the establishment in the news media, universities, foundations and much else during the 1980s, is that they didn't like speech-liberty after all.
it is not unexpected
One Man, One Vote, One Time
- The Left Rule
What happened is that the ever-narcissistic Baby Boomers transitioned from anti-establishment to becoming the establishment, and since they never had any principles other than "me me me", their perspective shifted accordingly.
YoungHegelian wrote: Back then free speech was used to defend lefties.
I don't think that's exactly true. When I read about campus speech codes today and compare them to my experience in art school in the 1980s I do think something real is lost. There really was "a special zeal to protect those who said outrageous things" as Althouse puts it. It was taken as a given.
This perhaps was the trailing edge of a movement that soon found it more expedient to protect its own, but there is a huge difference between the assertion of a general principle and the assertion of a special privilege.
Asserting a principle protects everyone. The motives of the proponents don't matter.
"Meanwhile, some liberals are making the predictable narrowly legalistic point that freedom of speech has only to do with rights held against the government. This is a point I've strongly objected to over the years ...."
And rightly so! Freedom of speech, like, "It's a free country," is a time-honored tradition in the US independent of the Constitution. And, like so many other time-honored traditions, is being destroyed by the Democrats in their pursuit of a one-party system.
Come to think of it, you don't hear, "It's a free country," much any more. I wonder why.
Its not about freedom of speech, its about power. If you and your side controls the repercusions of what you say, then they control what you say. As was also said first by the feminists, the personal is political. Thus any statement even private or non-actionable (I don't like x, but I don't advocate punishing x) can be actionable in the realm of not only public opinion but also in people's careers. This is why I post anonymously, so that if I say something politically contentious it can't be used against me.
What the hell happened?
I'm not really sure that there ever was a solid ideological foundation for free speech in the 60's left. The free-wheeling Yippies anarchism quickly lost out to the "repressive tolerance" of Herbert Marcuse & his acolytes at the organizational level.
Once the left turned from revisionist Marxism to multiculturalism, it all became about the "marginalized others" (gays, blacks, women,etc) whose experiences could not be gainsaid. Their tender consciences became the court against which there was no appeal. Why these people should have this judgmental power rarely gets explained, but clearly they do.
Free speech in the classical liberal sense certainly isn't a welcome guest in their ideology.
Boomers got older, and freedom of speech stopped serving their own interests.
What in the hell happened?
You happened, Althouse.
You are the oppressor with your faggotization and pussification program for men.
This is the outcome. It's your doing.
You are the the cause of it. You and your sisters at the re-education camp that is the University of Wisconsin.
Yeesh, ST, what do you get out of commenting like that?
@Tim
Same thing that happened to "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
Under the current regime, dissent is the highest form of RACISM.
I don't recall the 50s as repressive.
You might always be in trouble but that was normal.
garage wrote: "I'm all for free speech for conservatives. AFTER they're in the camps!"
You probably think somebody thinks you're kidding.
@Henry,
There really was "a special zeal to protect those who said outrageous things" as Althouse puts it. It was taken as a given.
There is some truth to what you say (e.g. the ACLU defending the Nazis marching in Skokie, IL), but on balance, most of those "outrageous things" were on issues such as sexual liberation, freedom from religion, that the cultural left was sympathetic to. I can't really believe that your art school thought it would be a good idea to invite a Klansman for convocation because it would have been "edgy".
Also, there was a side of the cultural left there were the 'constitutional absolutists", who were really hard-core classical liberals. I don't think there was ever much thought given to how that was ideologically possibly, but they were there. I think over time, to use the Hegelian phrase, those dialectical contradictions have resolved themselves, and the constitutional absolutists are now on the Right.
"Today, we're back to the kind of repression that in the 60s seemed to belong to the 1950s. What the hell happened?"
The left happened.
Same thing that happened to the most transparent administration ever, and to condemnation of Guantanamo, and to arguments against nuking the filibuster, etc.
Where you stand depends on where you sit.
While it is tragic that we've come to this point, it is helpful that it has caused some organizations to remove their mask. A prime example of this is the ACLU. Yesteryear they were suing to protect strippers' free expression rights. Now, they file amicus briefs arguing the state can force cake decorators and photographers to express the state's favored message. In the ACLU's world, strippers would have greater free speech rights than would cake decorators and photographers. It's not that the ACLU is favor of free speech; it prefers one message over the other.
Similarly, GLAAD isn't interested in equal rights for gays, et al. GLAAD wants to force those who disagree with it to change their minds. GLAAD wants to force conformity with its world view.
At least, now, we know the real agenda.
"What the hell happened...?"
That's an easy one. In the 1960's, "the man" was conservative, so rebelling and proselytizing for full unrestricted freedom of speech was the default position for the radical Left.
Now that they are "the man" they are all for restricting speech they disagree with.
Turn, turn, turn...
Yeesh, ST, what do you get out of commenting like that?
A big throbbing erection!
This country really needs someone -- a comic, or a publisher -- who attacks everyone in power, not just those in one party. Maybe they exist, and I just don't know about them (because it's not like I live in the center of the Universe, like New York, or anything), but surely there's a market for something like that. It's tedious to see it happen when Republicans are in power, and then all of it withers away when Democrats take the stage.
Or is Camille Paglia that something, and I just don't know about it?
A&E fired Robertson for saying dumb stuff, that means the left hates free speech. Because Paglia. Discuss!
Is this broad, non-legalistic "freedom of speech" so broad that people who object to the content of someone else's speech may not take any act in opposition to the speaker? They may not seek any non-legal censure or perform any political act in response? It seems that under this conception of the freedom of speech, the only the only non-objectionable response to speech is counter-speech. Is that correct? Is that desirable?
Remember when art used to aspire to be transgressive against the dominant culture? Do you see that anywhere? No, it still transgresses against the same people it always did, and when it does address the dominant culture, it tends toward a kind of unironic hagiography which hasn't been seen since the art of the Soviet era in the USSR.
All revolutions eat their children?
It is hard to comprehend, isn't it?
All revolutions eat their children?
It is hard to comprehend, isn't it?
My view is that free speech does not mean there is no consequence. He has the "right" to make vile remarks and to proclaim his love for them... *and* he gets to be responsible for them. Freedom without responsibility is what lead to the 2008 financial debacle and the recent shut down of the government lead by Ted Cruz.
Freedom without responsibility is not something to advocate for, imo.
The right to do a thing is not at all the same as being right in doing it.
There is the legal right to free speech which is enforcable by law, and the culture of free speech which is not. The two are not the same. The former is what makes the latter possible.
A&E has the right to fire/suspend/hiatus Mr. Robertson because Mr. Robertson's right to free speech is only enforcible on the .gov. Additionally, A&E also has the right of free association to have nothing to do with him that, similarly, the .gov cannot violate. (Unless, it seems, you are a baker or photographer who doesn't want to participate in a client's activity.)
Meanwhile, I have the right to say that A&E doing so does not uphold the culture of free speech and exersize my own right of freedom of association.
Which, admittedly, has about the same effect as threatening to rip the sleeves off their vest as I've never even whatched their channel and was extremely unlikely to do so in the future in any case.
YH wrote: I can't really believe that your art school thought it would be a good idea to invite a Klansman for convocation because it would have been "edgy".
Why should they?
I don't remember any mainstream conservatives being shouted down.
But what I'm really getting at is that the harassment industry hadn't really gotten started yet. Frank speech was not just tolerated, but expected.
So, it is amazing to watch you guys spin on a dime from the Koch Bros. to Ted Cruz.
In the two minute hates in 1984, wasn't it always Goldstein?
The American press is supposed to be the defender of free speech. But other than to defend their own speech rights, nearly all of the mainstream press gave up on that long ago. They are deeply complicit in attack on uncomfortable opinion that is now the mainstay of "progressive" interest groups, academics and politicians.
The right has now become the defender of personal freedom and dissent in this country. The left is perfectly content to stifle dissent and marginalize improper opinions as long as they can get away with it.
I am not saying that the right is immune from these tendencies, but the left is in the lead now on repression and personal attack. Think John Podesta, if you want a recent example.
Shame on you American press.
Ultimately its not about freedom of speech, but Robertson's employment contract with A&E. No one said he doesn't have the right to say anything he wants about anything that pops into his bewhiskered head. But what he doesn't have is a right to appear on a television channel. What rights A&E retained for firing him and what rights he had pertaining to his public persona and its effect on the A&E brand are all laid out that employment contract. And as any first year contract student will tell you, under certain circumstances, people can sign away civil and even constitutional rights.
A&E did not necessarily have to put Robertson on "hiatus," that was their choice to invoke whatever appropriate clause exists in the contract, but they chose to do that and that is their right. A right by the way that Phil agreed to in signing the employment contract.
What will be the end result for A&E remains to be seen. At this moment they are siding with the LGBT community against what was said. That is their choice. Just as it every Evangelicals choice to believe verbatim in the words of the Bible.
@Henry,
But what I'm really getting at is that the harassment industry hadn't really gotten started yet. Frank speech was not just tolerated, but expected.
I agree. The harassment machine hadn't kicked into production mode yet.
I don't remember any mainstream conservatives being shouted down.
That I'm not sure about. I wonder if, in retrospect, the 68 Chicago Democratic Convention riots was not the official beginning of the "shouting down" of conservatives. While now the Left is cozy with the Dems, back then, the counter-cultural left hated the Democratic Party of the Dixiecrats, "Viet Nam War" President Johnson, & Mayor Daly with a purple passion, and saw them as every bit as reactionary as the Republicans.
IMO the sixties saw the elites in America give up their positions and open social rules to include commoners.
After WWII the returning soldiers's (black and white) demand to be respected swamped the elites power. They tried drugs on us, but that was not enough to stop the Boomers.
Today with help from the old European Roman Empire thought, the elites are back in power. too bad Duck Commander, you are a commoner in a Roman Empire restoration of rule by elites.
Yeah, yeah Camille Pagilia! What does Lena Dunham think?
"Narrowly legalistic point"? Isn't that the whole point of lawyerin?
Would Professor Althouse have fired ICE official Ayo Kimathi? Is he or is he not protected by the "bigger value" we call free speech? Should Ayo Kimathi sue ICE? Should ICE argue with their employee to defeat his bat-shit crazy ideas?
"What the hell happened?"
Answer: The risk and tendency of all religion is to become pharisaic.
By pharisaic, I mean elevation of the "gospel" law over people.
It is a ridged and, in extreme cases, a vicious enforcement of the "gospel" law regardless of what that enforcement does to people for whom, ostensibly, the law was created.
Western secular leftism is nothing more and nothing less than a religion with their own pharisees and inquisitions.
What the hell happened?
Liberals became illiberal.
tim in vermont,
Remember when art used to aspire to be transgressive against the dominant culture? Do you see that anywhere? No, it still transgresses against the same people it always did [...]
Just so. When artists get transgressive in any but the approved directions, being transgressive isn't cool any more.
Somewhere in Nat Hentoff's Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee (I don't have the book to hand, so this is from rather old memory) there is the tale of an art student who painted a picture of a family: IIRC man, woman, and a sort of dotted outline of a baby over the woman's belly. Within the outline was a door. Within the compartment you found if you opened the door was an intact late-term fetus in a jar. I think the artist had borrowed it (with permission) from a lab on campus.
Well, well. Not the sort of thing you can submit to an exhibition of student art and expect to get away with, is it? IIRC (again), the piece got removed from the exhibition on the grounds that its display violated state law regarding the disposition of "human remains." Which would sort of make the artist's point all by itself, yes?
For what it's worth, she got the idea from reliquaries, works of art meant to encase the treasured physical remains of a saint.
What happened?
I wonder if liberals in the sixties weren't kind of like the Bush administration going into Iraq. Remove Saddam and his government, remove the restrictions on free speech, and things will fix themselves.
But they didn't. The lesson learned is that you can't take a hands off approach. You have to force people to do the right things. Which, as regards America, means thinking the right things and saying the right things.
Anyone who believes in the socialist ideal--a society run in the public interest--pretty much has to believe in controlling speech eventually. Else bad people with bad thoughts will ensure that injustice and oppression never die.
This is a simple case of actions having consequences. A big-shot TV reality star shot off his mouth, pissed off a whole mess of folks who shot off their mouths, then his employer took action.
Sounds like free speech and free markets are working just fine.
Freedom of speech does not mean that there are no repercussions for a public figure spewing vulgar, explicit and generally backward opinions based on a perverted interpretation of a ancient middle eastern cult in a national magazine.
Time to put on big boy pants and take it like a man.
The right has now become the defender of personal freedom and dissent in this country.
Just ask the Dixie Chicks.
I don't remember any mainstream conservatives being shouted down.
You either have a poor memory or have not been paying attention. Many conservatives have been shouted down on college campuses. Invited speakers (usually sponsored by a conservative student club) have had their lectures canceled because the university said holding the lecture would be unsafe (due to all the liberals who had threatened to disrupt the lecture) or because the university said it would charge the sponsor of the lecture for the extra security costs. Other conservatives have had their lectures interrupted by protests (often led by professors). Some conservative speakers have had pies shoved in their faces. The goal of the liberals was to prevent the conservative from speaking. Too often, the goal was met.
Frequently, liberals in the media cheered on the suppression of a conservative's lecture on the grounds that those who disagreed with the conservative were merely engaging in their own free speech. What this argument fails to address is that there is a material difference between speech that seeks to engage an idea and speech that seeks to prevent an idea from being heard. Liberals, on college campuses, and elsewhere want a heckler's veto. They want to suppress speech they disagree with through means fair and foul.
Yes, as a private enterprise A&E has the right to decided what they air and to terminate the contracts of those they deal with withing the limits of those contracts.
HOWEVER, A&E largely exists due to the freedom of speech and it is hypocritical for them to act as they did due to someone exercising their freedom of speech (on a different forum no less!)
Moreover, the audience of Duck Dynasty largely agrees what was said with an obvious result being an increase in ratings.
I'll wager that A&E's president, Nancy Dubuc, got criticized by her gay friends and didn't have the courage to tell them to fuck off. (Wouldn't be surprised if she was already embarrassed by Duck Dynasty and wanted an excuse to get rid of it. A&E is a bottom feeder network anyway--bikini Rodeo Girls anyone?--which makes the whole thing even more peculiar.)
Big Mike said...
What the hell happened?
Liberals became illiberal.
The vast majority were never liberal in any meaningful way. They didn't change at all. They went from using a tool one way to using it another.
Wow, DKWalser, understand past tense any?
Professor, I firmly believe that the Left fought "for free speech" when they supported Communism openly and it was a possible threat.
Once Communism basically died out amongst the rational, their need to "fight for free speech" ended...since the speech they cared about most was moot anyway.
Look at the college rules they fought against in the 1960's. They proceed to create rules that are markedly more restrictive on everything except homosexual sex (date rape rules make heterosexual sex a risk that might not be worth it).
The Left has a long history of stifling dissent. Communists didn't much care for differing voices, after all.
garage mahal said...
A&E fired Robertson for saying dumb stuff . . .
Of course. Dumb stuff. And the progressive-repressive gay alliance gets to decide what is dumb.
Actually, Robertson was talking about sin, which is a dumb topic according to the progressive-repressive gay alliance, because some very reasonable and not hateful people consider sodomy a sin.
Hate the sin, not the sinner? Not for the left, Garage. Robertson, who has not evidenced that he hates anyone, is now the object of hate and derision. A&E, having been intimidated by the repression machine, gets a pass.
It's really amazing to me that you can defend this conduct in such a blithe and superficial way. It's a lot more important than that.
Just ask the Dixie Chicks
Remind me again what tv show the Dixie Chicks were kicked off? Which record company kicked them off the label?
The only thing that happened to the Dixie Chicks is that people stopped buying their cds and going to thier concerts.
I was a huge Dixie Chicks fan at first. I bought their first two cds. I really tried to continue to listen to their music, but I didn't enjoy them anymore.
What happened was that lefties decided certain people have a Right To Not Be Offended.
Phil is a genius. Now can we do this to the racebaiters next?
Remind me again what tv show the Dixie Chicks were kicked off? Which record company kicked them off the label?
As the story goes, Clear Channel dropped the Dixie Chicks from their playlists! Clear Channel was founded by a couple of good old boys from Texas, Lowry Mays(Aggie) and Red McCombs(Longhorn), who were pals and supporters of W. Programming decision!
"Why is the left taking the narrow view of the concept of freedom?"
I figure it's just more "civility bullshit."
As they've gained political power and influence, they've naturally become corrupted by it. Ideals like freedom of speech and religion become considered in terms of their utility in achieving political ends, rather than as the foundation of this nation.
But it's not just the left.
If principles were easy to keep, they wouldn't be principles.
Just ask the Dixie Chicks
By the way, i missed the concert where the Dixie Chicks attacked President Obama for his war fighting........
@garage
Just ask the Dixie Chicks.
Those in power always try to quash the free speech of those who are not. Hypocrisy is rampant on both sides.
It's just so illuminating that the original defenders of free speech/dissent (Liberals) were so damn quick to abandon that position in service to political expediency.
As the story goes, Clear Channel dropped the Dixie Chicks from their playlists!
Which of course had nothing to do with the fact that people stopped listening to them. For the most part country music fans are quite patriotic, and were seriously offended by the Dixie Chicks.
With Duck Dynasty, it is the opposite, 14 million people watch the show because of their Christian beliefs.
Paglia
And I personally feel as a libertarian ...
Oy vey, whatever else she is, she's not a libertarian.
This is the problem with self-identifying libertarians; usually, they are not.
OT ? Sorry. On the other hand, look at that nifty semicolon.
The reaction to the Dixie Chicks had more to do with them insulting their own fan base. I guess they wanted to get on the good side of people who would never listen to their music. My very liberal sister in law did buy their next album, then gave it to my daughter because she didn't actually like it. The next album just continued the unapologetic attack on their fan base.
Say what you will about Phil, he hasn't attacked his own fans.
And now for Piers Morgan, pretty much summarizing liberalism: "Just as the 2nd Amendment shouldn't protect assault rifle devotees, so the 1st Amendment shouldn't protect vile bigots..."
Sorry, Piers, that's exactly who the first amendment should be protecting, including you.
And, for the record, unless she acts fast, I predict Nancy Dubuc loses her job and Phil gets his back. Forget political correctness, she committed the cardinal sin in business of pissing off her customer base. NBC (owners of A&E) are incompetent, but not that incompetent.
In all of this brouhaha somewhere the irony of A & E being the arts and entertainment network seems to have been lost.
If A & E wants to cancel the show let them do so. It's their right although I wouldn't want to explain to the shareholders why the company's most profitable show was canceled. If Robertson wants to expose his views he has the right to do so. Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of said speech. So let A & E do its thing and lets see if it really costs them and as for Robertson good luck to him.
Tens of millions people in this country that could be working aren't due in large part to the policies of the government and this is what gets people's attention? Bread and circuses.
On the other hand, look at that nifty semicolon.
A colon would have been better there.
Contemporary American culture must seem so strange to outsiders. Duck Dynasty is all about the strangeness -- perhaps remoteness would be a better word -- of the cultural bayou in which the Robertson family lives. Returning the favor, they (and their core audience) must view the PC world in which A&E executives live as at least as strange and remote. The only place where the two worlds come together is in the mutual desire to make a killing from the cultural contrast.
If the whole thing hadn't been handled so stupidly -- A&E's actions had all the finesse of the edu-crats often front-paged on Instapundit who think it's smart to suspend a six year old from school because, in a game of cops and robbers, he pretended to have a gun -- you would think it was just a publicity stunt. Unfortunately, it really was just stupid.
Any bets on how long it will take A&E to nominate a scapegoat to fire for bungling the whole thing?
What happened? The norms swung in favor of liberals. In the 1950s, the only acceptable opinions to express in public were fairly conservative. Now PC dominates and you're a pariah if you say anything controversial.
Understandably, the liberals are now happy with their control over scope of acceptable public discourse and want to keep it that way.
"unless she acts fast, I predict Nancy Dubuc loses her job"
...and that would be strong evidence to this agnostic that there is indeed a God in heaven.
(Because in my understanding Dubuc is the one person primarily responsible for the utter and complete dumbing-down of most of my ex-favorite cable channels.)
What the hell happened?
well here's one theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cV_q-mVAAA
Interestingly enough, the Duck Dynasty Christmas Album is still on sale at Whole Foods.
And of course you can buy Esquire, where the actual anti-gay words are printed, anywhere.
The compartmentalization of outrage is interesting. Or, I could say, the mascotization of outrage. A&E has a mascot problem. Everyone else carries on as they want. In a way, this sloppiness is reassuring. Omnimedia wins out.
'A&E, having been intimidated by the repression machine, gets a pass.'
Not really. The system worked. A&E thought they didn't need Phil so they fired him to curry favor with people who don't even watch the show. The Robertson family then decided that didn't need A&E and fired them because they neither need nor are particularly invested in the show.
@PW,
...for the utter and complete dumbing-down of most of my ex-favorite cable channels.)
Good Lord in Heaven, you've called that right!
The original mission of A&E was to present high-end artsy stuff. While I have nothing against "Duck Dynasty", that's not quite its niche.
Don't even get me started on what a shithole History Channel has become.
I'm old to remember right wingers holding anti-Dixie Chicks rallies where they smashed and burned their cd's. Some defenders of free speech.
Hey Gahrie,
Relax already.
They weren't kicked off a tv show, they were kicked off the radio. As I'm sure you know, radio exposure is the life blood of musical artist. THEY believed that their fans stopped listening because Clear Channel stopped playing their music!
The MSM tried to rescue them! BaBa Wawa did a long sympathetic interview with Natalie Maynes as I recall! The interview was all about censorship and how badly they had been treated! Their first album, after the controversy was a huge hit!
Wikipedia:
"Taking the Long Way debuted at number one on both the U.S. pop albums chart and the U.S. country albums chart, selling 526,000 copies in the first week (the year's second-best such total for any country act) and making it a gold record within its first week, despite having little or no airplay in areas that had once embraced them. The Chicks became the first female band in chart history to have three albums debut at No. 1."
"under certain circumstances, people can sign away civil and even constitutional rights."
This is patently false as to Constitutional Rights.
Your meaning as to "civil rights" is so unclear that I know not how to point out your wrongness.
Ancien regime was overthrown for a new regime.
The issue that the right sees is that an elite is coming between the show and its audience.
Garage, if your goal is to honestly understand the emotions on the right, you must understand that the right sees itself as representing the great unwashed in flyover country, Duck Dynasty also represents that unwashed hoard in flyover country. A&E are the coastal elites telling them what they can and can't watch.
The Dixie Chicks sucked up to those same coastal elites and insulted their flyover country audience.
You can say that the right does not really represent these people, (What's the Matter with Kansas), but you cannot say that the right doesn't identify with these people.
I'm gratified to see ThinkProgress defending the Hollywood Blacklist. Truly a sign of moral progress!
They are planning a book on their departure from A&E:
The Quack Up.
I'm old to remember right wingers holding anti-Dixie Chicks rallies where they smashed and burned their cd's. Some defenders of free speech.
When Duck Dynasty fans hold rallies where they smash their DVDs of the program you may have a point of comparison. The key being fans (or suddenly ex-fans) expressing their disagreement with the artist. Since the Duck Dynasty show's fans are doing exactly the opposite you come off as an idiot pushing this talking point.
garage mahal said...
I'm old to remember right wingers holding anti-Dixie Chicks rallies where they smashed and burned their cd's. Some defenders of free speech.
More sloppy thinking from Garage.
Burning a CD (or a flag or a t-shirt) is a form of speech, recognized as such by the Supreme Count.
Firing someone for their point of view, or trying to get them fired, in order to silence them is quite a different thing.
Liberals demand the freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Keirkegaard
OF COURSE it was different for the Dixie Chicks. Of course.
I think the Duck guys should invite Pajama Boy to be on the show. They could try to make nice with each other with disastrous consequences. It could be quite funny.
rage mahal said...
A&E fired Robertson for saying dumb stuff, that means the left hates free speech. Because Paglia. Discuss!
You're the last person who should be commenting on saying dumb stuff.
Rhetoric, speech that sounds like logic, but isn't. Relies heavily on omission of salient facts to create its own logic.
Garage understands this intuitively, to the point where you almost think he is actually unaware of the facts he leaves out.
Ace of Spades made a similar comment the other day. . .and I still more or less disagree with it. As an informal libertarian, I only think of 'freedom of speech' in the Constitutional sense: the government can not restrict speech.
Freedom of speech isn't free: You still have to fight to say what you want. If conservatives want the Robertson's to have a show where they can express their views the way they want, get control of a network and air the show! Don't just sit there bitching about it.
Similarly, don't just sit 'n bitch about biased news: buy newspapers, TV stations, and get like-minded people into positions of power.
Like Instapundit likes to say, start buying women's magazines if you don't like what all of them say.
"under certain circumstances, people can sign away civil and even constitutional rights."
But not inalienable rights.....unless of course we've changed the meaning of inalienable....
Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion (i.e. moral philosophy). Truth in science. There are many causes, and this overreach by the homosexual lobby will draw additional scrutiny. However, it will not stop with them, but will reach its heterosexual patrons, and its Democratic patrons, in order to discern their ulterior motives. People are learning that tolerance has consequences. They have learned that tolerance is not the goal. They should understand that it does not begin and end with the so-called "social issues". Hopefully, the Left will voluntarily moderate their ambitions.
What the hell happened?
Liberals, Democrats and Progressives opened the door to Satan and he took them over.
Now they are evil and Satan pwns them.
garage mahal said...
OF COURSE it was different for the Dixie Chicks. Of course.
Put the shovel down.
It's all about sex. A faction believes in f*ck, suck and run amok. They are currently in the ascendancy.
Madison Man: This country really needs someone -- a comic, or a publisher -- who attacks everyone in power, not just those in one party.
Tragically, Richard Jeni committed suicide.
The non-constitutional tradition of free speech doesn't contemplate no consequences for expressing a controversial point of view. Ideally, any debate stimulated thereby ought to be civil and not intended to squelch the tradition itself.
The hyperbolic response by GLAAD does not qualify as a civil response. A&E's firing of Phil, while continuing to run their DD Marathon featuring Phil, suggests that they are more interested in discouraging expression of his point of view than protecting their "interests."
Interesting possibilities for litigation, especially since A&E has five episodes in the can. Oh, but I digress .... (Damned lawyers.)
It's not just the political that's personal today it's everything even business.
Joe up above nailed it. The boss couldn't allow her friends to believe she would stand by and let the cavemen express themselves in anything but grunts. So wham! mischaracterize what was said because obviously these neanderthals are the ones incapable of nuance and it don't matter any-who because it's hate man hate she hatefully says.
Epic irony epic. NBC making a boatload of green on the hayseeds whom they think they are mocking, only the entire audience are hayseeds too!
The Robertsons don't give a shit if they're fired. And neither do I. A & E should be able to fire anybody they want. Because it's always good when the enemy comes out of hiding. You know so you can take careful aim.
"What the hell happened?"
R.B. Glennie got it right. What happened is that the left got into power. The commitment to free speech and other rights were just a means to attain power. Now that they have power, such rights are counter-productive.
On the other hand, look at that nifty semicolon.
Nice job on the semi-colon.
I don't often use them myself; correctly.
Archie:
The modern or generation liberal is more libertine motivated by sex, money, and ego, than libertarian motivated by principle.
The homosexual men and women can have their sex and unions, too. They cannot have normalization, which would realize a conflict of interest with humanity. The heterosexual men and women can have their sex, too. They cannot have elective abortion, which is a violation of our unalienable right to life. These two conspiratorial parties need to make their motives plain and invite a genuine public review of their respective behaviors.
Furthermore, it must be understood that these minority distractions are evasions, and designed to not only preserve certain "social" behaviors, but also to obfuscate political and fiscal ambitions. The Left is one big dysfunctional convergence.
Where does Think Progress get what Phil Robertson said is racist?
Lord have mercy the people at Think Progress are horrible. Politics, politics, politics.
The left never had any interest in free speech. Their interest was always in nothing but power. Occupation of campus buildings and disruption of campus life was "free speech". Giving an honest answer to a question is only free speech if the answer is what the self-anointed arbiters of political correctness want to hear. They label the traditional view of morality as hate, even when it is expressed with no malice. It's not enough to live and let live, everybody has to conform to the official view of "diversity".
What happened was reactive movements were incorporated for political, economic, and social profit. The majority of Democrats have not looked back since. I think the expression is jumped the shark or perhaps ass.
garage mahal said...OF COURSE it was different for the Dixie Chicks. Of course.
Yes, it was. There was no point of comparison that could be extracted from your comments and you came off as an idiot for claiming there was. Instead of clarifying, modifying, or even dropping your poisition you now double down on stupid.
Good show.
There was no point of comparison that could be extracted from your comments and you came off as an idiot for claiming there was.
A&E firing Robertson is somehow the left's fault, which is the subject of this post. Commenters agreed! Yes, the left hates free speech. Because something.
I pointed out right wingers lost their collective shit when one of the Dixie Chicks expressed her opinion. Death threats, getting their songs banned from country radio, rallies, smashing/burning their cd's.
Sorry, it is a valid comparison.
garage: "I'm old to remember right wingers holding anti-Dixie Chicks rallies where they smashed and burned their cd's. Some defenders of free speech."
Shorter garage: you should not be allowed to smash or burn any of your legally purchased/owned possessions.
Thanks garage!
What happened to the left?
Nothing.
The left never believed in "free speech".
The left believes only in speech that is in accordance with their values.
This is shown in every single nation where the left assumes power.
In our country we have only to look at the orwellian "hate speech" laws on campus and elsewhere to see the natural and inevitable result of lefists in power: thought control.
garage is simply a wannabe simple-minded STASI "watcher".
Well, the Dixie Chicks weren't suspended from their record label.
garage the hopeless: "A&E firing Robertson is somehow the left's fault, which is the subject of this post."
garage doesn't believe that leftists run A&E! Adorable.
garage: "Commenters agreed! Yes, the left hates free speech. Because something."
That something might be the historical fact that the left is continually attempting to foist thought-crime and hate speech legislation in this country and the obvious lefty examples around the world.
You know, those sorts of "somethings".
garage: "I pointed out right wingers lost their collective shit when one of the Dixie Chicks expressed her opinion."
Define "lost their shit"
garage: "Death threats, getting their songs banned from country radio,..."
The playlists on country music stations primarily reflect SALES.
But that's all about marketability and capitalism, thus garage finds himself in unfamiliar waters!
garage continues: "..rallies, smashing/burning their cd's."
Wherein garage doubles down on not liking very much what people do with their own property.
But then lefties are real big on private property, are they?
From reading all the comments here, I think some people do not understand what an inalienable right is.
The government does not exist to grant us our inalienable rights. We have them whether the government recognizes them or not.
We've dumbed down the conversation in this country to, "Has the government infringed upon our rights?" if the answer is no, then people conclude you don't have that right. If the government hasn't punished Phil Robertson, then clearly his right to freedom of speech hasn't been infringed.
At least, that seems to be the position of some here.
I think this is wrong headed.
Let's just take the difference between the Dixie Chicks and Duck Dynasty.
The Dixie Chicks said something objectionable to their fan base. Their fan base gave them the middle finger and said, "See ya." in a very loud and boisterous fashion. Their fan base, along with the Dixie Chicks, express their views openly and with freedom, and consequences were paid by the Dixie Chicks.
The patriarch of Duck Dynasty was asked a question that he answered honestly. It appears by the evidence, this answer didn't upset his fan base at all. Instead, it upset some group in the United States whose job it is to get upset about such things. They complained to his employer, who then fired him, which made his fan base angry.
I do not believe in either case ones freedom to speak was violated. However, A&E and GLAAD are clearly in the wrong here in their attempts to silence Phil Robertsons speech. They want him to be silenced, that's clear.
But will he be? Not from the reaction of his fan base, if they have any say in that. Glenn Beck from The Blaze has already offered them the job there.
Yet, what if A&E owns the rights (There's that word again!) to the name and show Duck Dynasty?
Now we have to involve the government, and contract law, don't we?
And what if A&E says, "Nope, sorry, we are going to keep the name and the show but silence the Robertsons for their vile and hateful rhetoric."
Now, do we have a free speech issue?
Yes. Yes, I believe we do.
I pointed out right wingers lost their collective shit when one of the Dixie Chicks expressed her opinion. Death threats, getting their songs banned from country radio, rallies, smashing/burning their cd's.
I know they CLAIMED death threats, but did anybody actually VERIFY they received any?
The word of a Leftie just isn't good enough.
Their songs weren't banned from radio. Clear channel took them out of rotation. Other channels were more than free to play their music...that attacked the audience of those channels.
Shockingly, few took up the offer to bite their noses off to spite their faces.
As far as rallies and burning/smashing CD's --- if the person owns the CD, so be it. Hardly a concern of mine.
The Dixie Chicks problem was that they alienated the only fan base that would listen to them more than once.
As far as A & E owning the show, fine. They don't own the Robertsons or the name of their company. It's not hard to make a new show.
It could be worse:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/27/supreme-court-upholds-canadas-hate-speech-laws-in-case-involving-anti-gay-crusader/
Yeah, I know. Yeah, I know. It is TERRIBLE that Phil was FIRED from his job for daring to speak his mind. It is TERRIBLE that all those ignorant people were so hateful that they called up the network Phil's show was on and demanded that he be fired, and so he was (and then made sure he was so blacklisted that nobody else would hire him.)
Oh, wait. I think you're talking about a different Phil.
PHIL DONAHUE: fired by MSNBC in 2003, during our period of national hysteria, for speaking out against the impending invasion of Iraq and predicting we'd suffer thousands of casualties and would be at war for years.
Yup, that really happened. And all the pressure to fire him came from the rabid right, the stampeded middle, and the gutless left who were so afraid of the pressure that was being exerted to get behind the program that they let the few who stood up like Donahue and the Dixie Chicks have their voices squelched in the heat of the moment.
Okay, so it's not supposed to be a 1st amendment issue. It's private, he said something that went against corporate values, and free association means they can show him the door. Right.
And yet a Christian photographer has to take pictures of a gay wedding? A Christian baker has to bake a cake for a gay wedding?
Thugs, bullies, and petty tyrants, the lot of them.
GM. It is a valid comparison and it illustrates the success of the long march. The right has adopted the tactics of the left and will continue to do so. It is a shame.although no one fired the Dixie Chicks, they simply stopped buying their music and they made a show of destroying their records. But they were not fired. Criticized, yes. Fired, no.
Paglia is correct in that the sole defenders of free speech in the 60s were liberals. Liberals no longer are willing to defend speech they dont like. Period, as the president would say. Righties more so.
GM. It is a valid comparison and it illustrates the success of the long march. The right has adopted the tactics of the left and will continue to do so. It is a shame.although no one fired the Dixie Chicks, they simply stopped buying their music and they made a show of destroying their records. But they were not fired. Criticized, yes. Fired, no.
Paglia is correct in that the sole defenders of free speech in the 60s were liberals. Liberals no longer are willing to defend speech they dont like. Period, as the president would say. Righties more so.
Also: Ann is wrong in suggesting that somehow this is an infringement on freedom of speech even though the state isn't involved.
It's not. Freedom of speech is the right to speak. It says nothing about protecting you from the CONSEQUENCES of what you may say.
In other words, if I were to buy a billboard and plaster it with a photo of, say, the crucifix in urine (Mapplethorpe exhibit) then I could not claim 'freedom of speech' should protect me from the blowback I'd receive (including probably being fired since my employer would not want to be associated with it.)
That's also why there are civil cases involving slander and libel. You can't be criminally prosecuted for slandering somebody, but they can sue the hell out of you.
So for how long must A&E be required to broadcast "Duck Dynasty" in order that freedom be preserved? One more year; two more years, until Camille Paglia says they can cancel it, indefinitely?
Why is the left taking the narrow view of the concept of freedom?...What the hell happened?
I share your astonishment. Who could possibly have anticipated this? In every other country where the left has attained power, they have been a model of openness and tolerance for dissent.
is duck dynasty a syndicated show? the answer could be meaningful to a&e's profitability. other outlets are waiting in line to bid on a show with these superior ratings.
I pointed out right wingers lost their collective shit when one of the Dixie Chicks expressed her opinion. Death threats, getting their songs banned from country radio, rallies, smashing/burning their cd's.
Sorry, it is a valid comparison.
No, it is not. Now you are tripling down on stupid. You have not gotten this twice, but I will try again.
Right wingers implies a political group brought down the Dixie Chicks. Right wingers DID NOT bring down the Dixie Chicks. Their fan base did (market forces) because the Dixie Chicks articulated a position, as was their right, that their fan base did not agree with, as was their right.
Liberals, a political group or at least a subgroup, are trying to silence Phil Robertson. A group not included in their fan base by all indications. In other words an outside force similar by comparison to that you claim without basis brought down the Dixie Chicks. Phil Robertson's actual fan base disagrees.
You are trying to create an equivalence that does not exist unless you ignore the defining differences in the forces in play. Which you have refused to address in your nonsense. This may suffice in promoting your position in your mind, but it will not fly to people who recognize that it is a defining difference. Further, your holding to your position while refusing to address the defining difference immediately obvious to any informed reader makes you appear at best uninformed and out of your depth and at worst just plain stupid and out of your depth.
Again, good show.
Jack:
" In every other country where the left has attained power, they have been a model of openness and tolerance for dissent."
Dissent is fine. But those who expect no consequences for insulting people are fools, no matter where they live.
Good case in point: The leftist party is in power in Norway. One reason Anders Breivik thought he had to murder so many people is that his views on racial purity were widely subject to ridicule. Doesn't mean he didn't have the right to put them forward (he absolutely did.) But they were forcefully rebutted every time.
B:
It was right wingers (NOT people who listen to MSNBC, I assure you) who flooded MSNBC's switchboards with phone calls to fire Donahue.
Maybe you don't remember the mass hysteria of the 'either with us or against us' variety in which anyone who spoke out against George Bush's war of choice in Iraq were branded as traitors, but those of us who were on the wrong side of it sure remember. A good friend of mine put a 'Peace is Patriotic' bumper sticker on his car and was rewarded with a brick through his rear window.
Further, your holding to your position while refusing to address the defining difference immediately obvious to any informed reader makes you appear at best uninformed and out of your depth and at worst just plain stupid and out of your depth.
BTW: This is the common theme one sees when anyone, or any group, is trying to promote a false equivalence. Ignoring the defining differences always makes them appear to be idiots. Unfortunately, there are plenty of marching morons out there who will promote or agree with any equivalence with inspecting it for validity as long as it buttresses their worldview. To agree without reservation makes one appear stupid. To promote it when faced with contrary and valid data that is never addressed makes one a liar.
Which is why I consider garage to be an inveterate liar.
Libs today are also easy collaborators with European elites' Jew hatred like Vichy France did when shipping millions of French Jews to Auschwitz.
That is a bigger 180 turn than the Libs supporting elites in Big Lie propaganda and throwing out free speech. They have indeed morphed into a viral mental illness.
"[Chris] Matthews was a big proponent of the Iraq invasion and he cultivated a good relationship with MSNBC's management before Donahue came to the network. He played a crucial role in procuring the firing of Donahue and "saw himself as MSNBC's biggest star, and he was upset that the network was pumping significant resources into Donahue's show.""
That evil right-winger Chris Matthews....! When he wasn't getting Donahue fired, I'll bet he was out keying cars with peace signs on them.
Maybe you don't remember the mass hysteria of the 'either with us or against us' variety in which anyone who spoke out against George Bush's war of choice in Iraq were branded as traitors, but those of us who were on the wrong side of it sure remember
They remember, but they will never, ever admit it.
I remember.
""Burn the b****," screamed one angry ex-fan as he threw a triple-platinum Dixie Chicks CD into what he later explained as "their earthly hellfire" in a Dallas, TX protest. 1300 people attended the event and brought all of their Dixie Chicks paraphernalia to add to the fire. Shouts of disgust echoed off nearby buildings as "Let 'Er Rip" played symbolically in the background, before they burned that CD too." Link.
Walking by, you might have wondered if you were observing a Taliban rally or a Conservative Christian rally.
I write only because 100+ comments into this thread no one has cited it directly.
(clears throat)
Fen's Law
Remember when liberals were staunchly opposed to being blacklisted by entertainment executives for their beliefs?
Good times, good times.
the difference is that if the people who managed to get Phil hiatused, or whatever it is tried to do that, they wouldn't actually own any Duck Dynasty paraphenalia to burn. Dixie Chicks betrayed their own fans in a foreign country.
...those who expect no consequences for insulting people are fools...
Then we are in agreement that whoever made the call to drop Phil at A&E is a fool.
Maybe you don't remember the mass hysteria of the 'either with us or against us' variety in which anyone who spoke out against George Bush's war of choice in Iraq were branded as traitors...
No, I don't. There was no mass hysteria. Well, yeah, there was, but not on the side you claim. And those who spoke out against that war of choice as you put it went immediately silent when the occupant on the White House changed. So very likely those that said that it was never about conscience or consideration for the troops but simple political calculation had the right in questioning their patriotism.
A good friend of mine put a 'Peace is Patriotic' bumper sticker on his car and was rewarded with a brick through his rear window.
The poor guy.
A good friend of mine, my son's classmate and best friend as a matter of fact, took a different approach. He was killed in Iraq.
The poor guy.
OK, fair enough-- thank you for pointing out that Matthews had something to do with it. However, even if Matthews had something to do with it, the pressure came from all the phone calls. Sans the phone calls, they would have kept Donahue, who had had a very successful career to that point on talk TV.
"Sans the phone calls, they would have kept Donahue, who had had a very successful career to that point on talk TV."
Ok, could be. But to be clear, you're opposed to public efforts to pressure networks to fire talent.
B: WRONG!! Plenty of us have been quite critical of the Obama administration's war policies.
I'd like to some blog posts I wrote but unfortunately Ann doesn't allow links on her comments.
However, if you click on my name and it will take you to my dashboard. I have a blog named Deep Thought you can get to from there, and for example, look under archives for Sept. 11, 2009 (about eight months into Obama's tenure as President) for a good example.
I am glad he got us out of Iraq (finally, and it took too long) but he's made up for that by expanding the Afghan war.
In the 60's Liberal meant being for limited government, limited political intrusion into our lives and individual freedom and liberties.
My main problem is that there is no fair speech if it is illegal to fire those who say something that suggests they believe homosexuality, sodomy, etc., are fine, but if it is legal to fire people if they say something that suggests they think homosexuality, sodomy, etc., are not fine. When there are laws against sexual orientation discrimination, I would think it would be hard for an employee to fire an admitted homosexual, etc., if he says something suggestive of his believing homosexuality is fine, although if this is not allowed, one sort of speech is being legally privileged over another sort of speech. This will be a big problem if the Employment Nondiscrimination Act passes the House as it has passed the Senate--it's grossly unfair to free speech that there is nothing in there about it being illegal to fire people for saying they think sodomy is bad, etc. (And no, there is no equivalence given by protection given to heterosexuals because it would be a rare absurdity to think sex immoral unless one wants humanity to become extinct.) Actually, though, I think the whole bill should be scrapped completely.
I do think racial discrimination in employment should be illegal, but that is really a special case since people can have especially strong dangerous selfish reasons to favor their own race, and without it the 14th amendment could effectively amount to little since governments, police, etc., desiring to discriminate based on race could just favor those businesses that discriminate; though I suppose the bigots of each race have their speech curtailed somewhat (compared to the speech of non bigots) by workplace racial discrimination law, it's each race's speech curtailed the same, and it's a worthy special case--the very case the 14th amendment was most meant to apply to. Similarly for color, sex and national origin, also given Title VII rights in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (according to Wikipedia). I don't know about religion, the other group mentioned in Title VII, since religion involves beliefs, though religious discrimination often is an excuse for national-origin discrimination since religions tend to be associated with different national origins. Why should religious beliefs be privileged over non-religious beliefs?
And garage quadruples down on being against individuals destroying their legally purchased and owned possessions.
Strange.
garage is against individuals destroying their own lawful possessions, but has no problem with his pals on the left destroying others property.
It's almost as if he and his lefty pals have no principles at all.......
Eli: " Plenty of us have been quite critical of the Obama administration's war policies"
LOL
Right.
"plenty"
Jason said...
Remember when liberals were staunchly opposed to being blacklisted by entertainment executives for their beliefs?
They're still against being blacklisted for their beliefs.
Eli: "OK, fair enough-- thank you for pointing out that Matthews had something to do with it. However, even if Matthews had something to do with it, the pressure came from all the phone calls"
Uh, no.
Your comments are self-refuting.
But do continue.
I'd love to hear more examples of the "mass hysteria" as well.
There must have been thousands killed/wounded on the streets of America with such "mass hysteria".
I mean, it WAS "mass hysteria", wasn't it?
This mental illness that afflicts the liberal left is nothing new. I'm surprised you didn't notice this a couple decades ago, A-house. Sheesh, pull your head out, will ya?
And just so ya know, your token dyke does not speak for the gay community. Those people are no friends of freedom. They are responsible for some of the most asinine hate laws up here in Canada.
As for myself, my hatred of queers is based both on their politics and their lifestyle. A&E can go copulate with a duck.
Eli Blake:
You meant Serrano and typed Mapplethorpe.
Is it likely you are too young to remember those actual events? Yes, it is very likely.
Ann, where do you stand on red-lining? It's directly related to the lack of freedom we see today. Most Northeners supported it.
This mental illness that afflicts the liberal left is nothing new. I'm surprised you didn't notice this a couple decades ago, A-house. Sheesh, pull your head out, will ya?
And just so ya know, your token dyke does not speak for the gay community. Those people are no friends of freedom. They are responsible for some of the most asinine hate laws up here in Canada.
As for myself, my hatred of queers is based both on their politics and their lifestyle. A&E can go copulate with a duck.
Stalinists favor individual rights when they are a tiny powerless minority. once they take power, as they have in our media and universities, they can show their real views--crushing any opposition with relentless intensity. as Lenin put it, the only question in politics is "Kto, kogo" who, whom? now that the lefties are running things, no room for dissent.
Maybe you don't remember the mass hysteria of the 'either with us or against us' variety in which anyone who spoke out against George Bush's war of choice in Iraq were branded as traitors, but those of us who were on the wrong side of it sure remember.
I don't remember your fervent imagination, no.
I do remember, however, Democrats calling critics traitors, terrorists, etc here.
Not even that long ago.
""Burn the b****," screamed one angry ex-fan as he threw a triple-platinum Dixie Chicks CD into what he later explained as "their earthly hellfire" in a Dallas, TX protest. 1300 people attended the event and brought all of their Dixie Chicks paraphernalia to add to the fire. Shouts of disgust echoed off nearby buildings as "Let 'Er Rip" played symbolically in the background, before they burned that CD too."
Garage, want to guess who was more civil in their disagreements? Do you want to play a fun game of cherry pick a quote? Because, rest assured, it will not go well.
I am glad he got us out of Iraq (finally, and it took too long) but he's made up for that by expanding the Afghan war.
I guess if you call "following the agreement Bush drew up with Iraq", then yes, he got us out of Iraq.
I bet it's real peaceful there with us gone. Real peaceful.
Ann, where do you stand on red-lining? It's directly related to the lack of freedom we see today. Most Northeners supported it.
Once again, this kerfuffle shows there are two Americas, and one is better than the other.
We should hire some junior statistician, maybe a sophomore in college, to compare the comments-per-hour rate to the stays-as-the-top-blog-item rate on this blog. It looks pretty high lately.
Somefeller. Again, he did not compare. He named sins. If I say that tomatoes and grapes are both fruits I am not comparing grapes and tomatoes. Surely you get that. You do get that dont you even if the author of the link does not?
somefeller: "Once again, this kerfuffle shows there are two Americas, and one is better than the other"
Shorter somefeller: why can't we all be Detroit?
Michael said...
Somefeller. Again, he did not compare.
Michael, you're wasting your time.
It's clear there was no comparison being made.
But the left "needs" for there to have been a comparison, therefore they just pretend there was.
The left is very very good at "helping" conservatives with their "quotes".
All Marxist totalitarian regimes act this way.
This passage from the article I linked is instructive:
There's one America where it's OK to say this about black people in the Jim Crow-era South: "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues." There's another America where that statement is considered to reflect ignorance and insensitivity. In one America, it's OK to attribute the Pearl Harbor attacks to Shinto Buddhists' failure to accept Jesus. In the other America, that is not OK. There are two Americas, one of which is better than the other. And it's instructive who's sticking up for the worse America.
Two Americas, indeed. Just not the way John Edwards suggested. I'm glad I live in the better one.
Why does somefeller always need an American Emmanuel Goldstein for his Two Minute Hate?
Compare somefeller's idea of free speech to this guy's speech:
In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want -- which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear -- which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor-- anywhere in the world.
That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.
To that new order we oppose the greater conception -- the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.
Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change -- in a perpetual peaceful revolution -- a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions -- without the concentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.
This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.
To that high concept there can be no end save victory.
FDR in 1941.
When did the Democrats become INGSOC?
While it is tragic that we've come to this point, it is helpful that it has caused some organizations to remove their mask. A prime example of this is the ACLU.
ACLU founder Roger Baldwin's vision:
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
Ta-Nehisi Coates also has a good article about this up at The Atlantic. But of course, he should be ignored because Detroit.
A&E Grapples With Death Threats And Clan Ultimatum On ‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Suspension
Violently conservative!
Thanks for quoting FDR's Four Freedoms, JSF. FDR's vision of social democracy is always stirring to read. Too bad the reactionaries of his era opposed it and their descendants do to this day.
For leftists, especially Obama/Hillary/Reid types, God is like a sled. You ride it until you get to the bottom of the hill. (It's snowy where I am right now.)
Lefties want power, and they will abandon principle to get it. Both righties and lefties call the GOP "the stupid party". That's because one side abandons principle much more readily than the other, in pursuit of power.
Paglia's denunciation, however, sounds like a goose honking to gain attention.
Somefeller,
Too bad his descendents have devolved into Orwell's version of what a political party should not become.
You hate the Right;
You need an Emmanuel Goldstein of the Right every comment;
And unlike FDR you do not respect anyone's faith.
And opposition to war was only a political ploy, not a statement of belief.
For once, I'm kind of with GM here. A&E ain't the government and can kill it's golden duck if it so sees fit. (I rather doubt GM would feel the same if A&E said they were going to stand by their man no matter what; my feeling is he'd be going on about revoking licenses, etc.)
What gets me is all this fuss over an old coot saying something politically incorrect when 9 tenths of the appeal of the old coot it he'll say whatever the hell he's thinking.
And if you don't like it, there're the "change channel" buttons.
Funny how when the state of the Nation gets really bad for the Libs, suddenly everybody needs to defend somebody. Even if it's only from an old man who thinks not all holes are interchangeable.
Fascists to the right of me, Fascists to the left of me. In Hitler's Germany you could get strung up with a music wire noose--or hung on a meat hook if you expressed the wrong opinion. In Stalin's Russia, you were treated to the "9 gram solution" injected, using a pistol, into the back of your head in the basement of the Lubyanka. That is, if you were lucky; or sent to the Gulag if you weren't.
Much of the 60's arguments about free speech and such involved revulsion at the actions of Senator "Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy". He was finally destroyed by Joseph Welch's "Have you at last no decency Sir" comment when he was trying to bring up a young man's alleged homosexuality.
Fast forward 65 years or so--and now we are faced with the Tail Gunners at GLAAD who in fact have no decency. If you say something that offends them--and they are quick to take offense---well they have a list of sycophants who will find a way to punish you.
A pox on them--and their principles.
Since I provided a quote from Josh Barro's piece, I should also do so for Coates. This passage seems particularly worth quoting, in light of the last two of the Four Freedoms:
The black people who Phil Robertson knew were warred upon. If they valued their lives, and the lives of their families, the last thing they would have done was voiced a complaint about "white people" to a man like Robertson. Ignorance is no great sin and one can forgive the good-natured white person for not knowing how all that cannibal sausage was truly made. But having been presented with a set of facts, Robertson's response is to cite "welfare" and "entitlement" as the true culprits. The belief that black people were at their best when they were being hunted down like dogs for the sin of insisting on citizenship is a persistent strain of thought in this country. This belief reflects the inability to cope with an America that is, at least rhetorically, committed to equality.
An "inability to cope with an America that is, at least rhetorically, committed to equality". A fine choice of words.
somefeller,
Another thing Democrats stopped doing after LBJ, they refused to work with the common man.
You mock those who don't think like you.
Books such as "What's the matter with Kansas?" appear when you don't win their vote after you spend time between election cycles mocking common folk.
And I await the day my former party stops needing Emmanuel Goldstein's to prove their point. And campaigns truthfully for what they believe in.
Ah, those conservatives, such scamps and imps! They don't really mean any harm with those death threats, do they? No, they're just engaging in their God given freedom of speech.
Death threats like this?
http://twitchy.com/2012/08/29/war-on-women-i-want-to-murder-ann-romney-left-hurls-misogynist-hate-death-threats-at-multiple-gop-women/
What gets me is all this fuss over an old coot saying something politically incorrect when 9 tenths of the appeal of the old coot it he'll say whatever the hell he's thinking
What gets me is reality shows aren't even real. Duck Dynasty isn't real. Moonshiners isn't real. The Robertsons didn't grow up rednecks. See here here and here
Grow a long beard, act like a redneck, make millions of dollars. Thanks, suckers!
An activist judge in Utah just said ok to gay marriage and they are all getting marriage licenses now.
Utah, for fuck sake!
So now there are exactly two Americas, and I get to pick between the one where a guy gives a sermon saying gays are "full of murder, envy, strife, hatred"-- and the one where a guy gives a sermon saying "God damn America"?
Pinch me.
… the recent shut down of the government lead by Ted Cruz.
Was the government shut down? Oh yeah – now I remember. Cruz filibustered(sort of) in order to fulfill a campaign promise to do everything possible to defeat Obamacare. But hey, he didn't succeed so we still have Obamacare. Isn't that wonderful?
At least he tried. Most of the rest of the GOP sat around whining about Obamacare – all the while billy-clubbing Cruz. It's OK to whine and do nothing – that's mainly what the GOP does. I expect that. It's not OK to condemn a conservative for being true to his constituents.
The GOP thinks it has it all in hand: Obamacare will "collapse of it's own weight." Get it? They don't have to DO anything. Just as they have not done anything all along. With the exception of the actual vote on the bill. The GOP's one shining moment is the fact that not one GOP politician in Congress voted for Obamacare.
But they do not seem to realize that getting rid of Obamacare will require more than sitting around hoping for the best.
garage mahal now thinks he can define what a redneck is?!?
That's perhaps the richest, most delicious slice of ignorance cake ever baked on the interwebs.
GM is a comical genius.
Inga said...
Ah, those conservatives, such scamps and imps! They don't really mean any harm with those death threats, do they? No, they're just engaging in their God given freedom of speech
You know who makes real death threats and then carries them out?
Islamists.
You know one religion the lefties refuse to criticize?
Islam.
"principles"
somefeller: "Too bad the reactionaries of his era opposed it and their descendants do to this day."
Shorter somefeller: Hooray for court packing!
Hooray for Internment camps!!
Hooray for FDR!
You know, somefeller is right.
We have much to learn from his hero FDR.
Much.
Hey, did anyone catch that murder-porn flick the conservatives made showing obambi assassinated?
Oh, that's right, that doesn't exist.
It was some lefties who made a murder-porn flick showing Bush getting assassinated....to liberal applause.
Those liberal scamps!!
I wonder in which America that film was made?
Here is the appropriate 60s response: Who cares? Fuck him. He's an old man.
Trying to get the corporation to fire him is pathetic. Why are you even watching TV?
It was some lefties who made a murder-porn flick showing Bush getting assassinated....to liberal applause.
Names? Who are the liberals that made the film? Where was it shot? What liberals applauded?
I would bet real money you don't have an answer to any of those questions. Because Drago.
Somefeller. You certainly live in a smugger America
Gabriel Range wrote the play, garage mahal.
Google is your friend.
GM. when will you send your "real money" to Birkel?
Or a simple apology? Or a simple assertion that you were wrong?
YOU MEAN THIS MOVIE?
Or a simple apology? Or a simple assertion that you were wrong?
I was wrong about what?
Free speech? Maybe... but it isn't a black-and-white issue. Rather, it's a matter of degree. When you talk about government restrictions on speech, considering the unlimited coercive power and societal role of that institution, you are at the top of the scale. A&E is a cable network, the Robertsons are reality TV stars, and those who complain are still complaining about a cultural issue. It's really at the bottom of the scale. Not that important, with no long-lasting consequences whatsoever.
GM's Invincible Stupidity Shield swings into action!
GM's Invincible Stupidity Shield swings into action!
Sooo where was I wrong Champ?
garage mahal said...
I'm all for free speech for conservatives. AFTER they're in the camps!
There he is ladies & gents for all the see! A left-wing fascist shows his true colors.
Inga - did Phil Robertson make a death threat? Sure's a bigoted douche-bag, but why lie about him?
Inga - now you are being facetious. There is nothing in the GQ interview that was a death threat to gay people.
I don't know Alex. Did he? You are the first to report it. Exclusive!
Inga - stop being obtuse you silly goose.
Nah, not worth the effort. Merry Christmas Alex.
Drago?
Ah, those conservatives, such scamps and imps! They don't really mean any harm with those death threats, do they?
Can we assume then that liberals who issue death threats really, truly do mean it?
Post a Comment