Words of Advice:
"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne
“The Mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” -- The TOFF *
"Foreign Relations Boil Down to Two Things: Talking With People or Killing Them." -- Unknown
“Speed is a poor substitute for accuracy.” -- Real, no-shit, fortune from a fortune cookie
"Thou Shalt Get Sidetracked by Bullshit, Every Goddamned Time." -- The Ghoul
"If you believe that you are talking to G-d, you can justify anything.” — my Dad
"Colt .45s; putting bad guys in the ground since 1873." -- Unknown
"Stay Strapped or Get Clapped." -- probably not Mr. Rogers
"The Dildo of Karma rarely comes lubed." -- Unknown
"Eck!" -- George the Cat
* "TOFF" = Treasonous Orange Fat Fuck,
"FOFF" = Felonious Old Fat Fuck,
"COFF" = Convicted Old Felonious Fool,
A/K/A Commandante (or Cadet) Bone Spurs,
A/K/A El Caudillo de Mar-a-Lago, A/K/A the Asset,
A/K/A P01135809, A/K/A Dementia Donnie, A/K/A Felon^34,
A/K/A Dolt-45, A/K/A Don Snoreleone
6 comments:
Here's the problem I have: consistency.
It's a bit disingenuous (on both sides of the political spectrum) to go from "protest and dissent is patriotic" to "protests are unfair/treasonous," or "BUSHITLER/BUSH IS A FASCIST!" to Roesgen the CNN reporter telling protesters carrying "OBAMA IS A FASCIST" that they are being offensive and shouldn't be allowed to say that.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and they can shout it to the skies; news reporters aren't supposed to let their own bias about the message get in the way of reporting (or not reporting what they don;t agree with.) They are not supposed to interject themselves in to the story.
Jon Stewart and the "Daily Show" are in an awkward place, as they are not technically a news show, but they're not a comedy show anymore, either.
I think consistency is easy if one merely applies frequent and liberal does of the Constitution to the matter.
Dissent is protected speech. The tea-baggers have the right to protest just as much as the anti-war protesters do. Having said that, it is entirely within bounds to point out the grossly hypocritical position taken by the Right on the matter of protests (and other things, such as "government monitoring of extremist groups", or "deficit spending").
The tea-baggers, to my mind, fit the category of "sore losers," as I doubt if you could have filled a bush with people at the protest who voted for Obama. So yes, I reserve the right to poke fun at them. But they have the right to protest.
A private citizen poking fun is one thing. Established media -- which is supposed to remain impartial -- doing so is quite another.
For instance: if you or I want to call them "tea baggers" -- with all of the attendant sexual connotations (though I am very uncomfortable with it on some level because it edges on, "Oh, lookit them: they're sooooo gaaaaay!" style of poking fun, which I find aggravating) -- that's one thing. For the media to do so is a bit extreme.
(Though Anderson Cooper saying it was funny as Hell.)
I suspect that when one news organization throws any traces of journalistic integrity over the side and becomes an abashed supporter of one political party, it invites, by its conduct, others to pull in the opposite direction.
I also think that the idea of a neutral press is largely a recent (and fictional) development. Newspapers in this country were once unabashedly partisan and the "conservatives" have been leading the way back to those times.
It also seems to me that the Right has little cause to complain because they cannot pull off an Astroturf-style protest without looking like idiots.
Astounding ignorance.
The problem with Crankyprof's point is that the term teabagging was used by the protesters. There were signs around early in the planning days. As I told my students, if you plan a protest with free media, run your slogans by your kids first. One student replied, "and they wondered why they had so many 13-25 year old supporters."
Post a Comment