Decency After All? Ironic that something called "Free" Republic practices censorship ... anyway, Will L. writes in this email:
Great site. A real breath of fresh air amid the stench that is Fox News, et
al. Just a quick note to let you know that the FreeRepublic message thread
about the NY Times suicide has been "pulled", as of 11:24pm PT. All the
moderator notes say is that it's been "pulled". Maybe the Freepers have a
conscience after all. Shrudder...
I got a lot of emails regarding the Freeper's comments. In the interest of presenting the other side's response, here's one comment:
On your article about FReeper
comments about the suicide of
Allen Myerson. You did have the
fairness to note that Free Republic
is self-regulating, that other FReepers
criticized the over the top comments
of other FReepers.
As a FReeper I think I can
explain where some of those comments
come from. The New York Times hates
conservatives and smears conservatives
on practically a daily basis. The Times
appears to hate America and hate
freedom for ordinary people. You can
quibble about this impression, but when
you're on the receiving end of it, you
take it personally. .
It's karma. What goes around
comes around. The Times is going to
get some of that hatred smacked back
in its face. Most FReepers are Christian
and obviously are failing to reach that
level of behavior. Other FReepers reach
out to get people back on track. .
You're really missing it, if you
think one thread is all that Free Republic
is about. Why don't you check in more
often for the intelligent and informed
discussion of the issues? Don't be
prejudiced. .
Regards,
Kermit
I believe, for the most part, the New York Times is a fair publication. It is true that a lot of the stories they publish are done with a liberal slant and their editorial board consists of mostly liberals. Still, I don't believe it's fair to resort to ad hominem attacks against a person who committed suicide just because of the way his publication presents stories. Doing that neglects real debate. Anyway, that's one Freeper's view and I thought I'd post it.
Fox Presents Global Warming. It doesn't matter how many policy papers you write, or how many times you appear on NPR, chances are only a small percent of the country will ever hear your opinions. Indeed, when it comes to global warming, scientists have been issuing warnings to deaf ears. Enter Hollywood. Producer Roland Emmerich, who brought you Independence Day and Godzilla, is making a $100-125 million movie about ... global warming. In the movie, Dennis Quaid plays a climatologist who tries to figure out a way to save the world from abrupt global warming. Expect it out in the summer of 2003. Will it be a cheesy or a serious look at this big problem? Well, judging from Emmerich's previous works, probably cheesy. Anyway, here's hope that it'll prompt more serious discussions about the environment. Oh yes, and it's from Rupert Murdoch's Fox Films. Kudos to the Aussie.
OUCH! If Jason Cherkis receives a large amount of parking fines in the future, I think you know why. From alternative weekly Washington City Paper...
Don't let the hype fool you: It takes neither integrity, discipline, nor drive to work on the force ...
You're thinking: Being a cop seems hard. It's not. Trust us. Being a cop means making the city your living room. Being a cop means driving around in your cruiser with the windows rolled down and the AC cranked. Being a cop means never having to deal with angry citizens.
More important: Being a cop means knowing you will always get a raise no matter how little you do ... It's a well-known fact among cops: 10 percent of the force does all the work. These folks prowl the streets looking for perps, go hungry on stakeouts, do all the paperwork required to process arrests, and make it to court on time to net convictions.
That, of course, is too much to ask. Your aim is to place yourself squarely within the other 90 percent. As a member of this not-so-select group, you do the exact opposite of the 10-percenters: You prowl the streets looking for hot chicks, you interrupt stakeouts for steak-outs, and you avoid paperwork like dark alleys ...
Check out Eric Alterman on Fox News Watch this weekend. I hope Eric doesn't go easy on Fox News in his January 2003 book, "What Liberal Media?" I wish I could say the same for American University's Jane "I won't attack Fox because I have to send my kids to college" Hall.
-Eric. Link.
The only good liberal is a dead liberal!. You'd think Freepers would have the decency not to make fun of a NY Times reporter's death. Of course, then you'd buy the Brooklyn Bridge and then have money left over to help the ousted Prince of Congo retrieve his long lost fortune. The always great Atrios first pointed this out:
My guess: His ties to militant Arab groups was to be exposed.
5 posted on 8/22/02 10:16 AM Pacific by 1bigdictator
My guess: he was suffering from untreated mental illness, in all seriousness.
On a less serious note, would it be in bad taste to ask, "What do you call a NYTimes reporter jumping to his/her death?"?
No, unless you answer, "A good start."
9 posted on 8/22/02 10:18 AM Pacific by paulklenk
Maybe they found out he/she was a Republican.
11 posted on 8/22/02 10:18 AM Pacific by Don Munn
Women, Minorities and Gays Hardest Hit
12 posted on 8/22/02 10:19 AM Pacific by Loyalist
Must be depressing to be a Liberal these days
15 posted on 8/22/02 10:19 AM Pacific by MassExodus
My guess.....closet conservative who just couldn't take it anymore.
18 posted on 8/22/02 10:20 AM Pacific by bert
Weeping on floor with inappropriate laughter!!
36 posted on 8/22/02 10:23 AM Pacific by Yaelle
My guess... closet hetersexual who was about to be outted.
37 posted on 8/22/02 10:23 AM Pacific by Labyrinthos
The only good liberal is a dead liberal!
38 posted on 8/22/02 10:24 AM Pacific by claptrap
The Times, of course, will report that this death was caused, in part, by the Bush administration, US failure to abide by UN wishes, and underappreciation of the damage being done by society to minority, fairy and under-privledged folks. Or, he was going to be fired because he wasn't distorting information enough and former Soviet masters had complained. Or, as a Times employee, he was sure that he would be able to fly with only a left wing.
50 posted on 8/22/02 10:27 AM Pacific by Tacis
"My guess: he was suffering from untreated mental illness, in all seriousness."
Exactly, mimicing the symptoms of schizophrenia, his long bout of Liberalism finnaly did him in.
53 posted on 8/22/02 10:27 AM Pacific by 1bigdictator
It is George Bush's fault! Because he is the 43rd President and this guy jumped from a building on 43rd street I presume (Grin)
139 posted on 8/22/02 11:06 AM Pacific by Mixer
Sory I'll NEVER feel sympathy for a suicide (euthenasia doesn't count... most times). 160 posted on 8/22/02 11:16 AM Pacific by discostu
How could a New York Times liberal possibly die by jumping out the building? There is enough air in his head that he should float away.
237 posted on 8/22/02 12:27 PM Pacific by Frohickey
You're right. This is nothing to rejoice or laugh about...because it wasn't Frank Rich.
By now I'm sure someone has reminded you that Barbara Olsen was MURDERED, while this guy chose to end his life.
You should be rejoicing he was able to reach his goal.
292 posted on 8/22/02 8:05 PM Pacific by Deb
In fairness, some (but not even close to the majority) said the following:
Aren't we all being a bit mean spirited? It is what folks here accuse the libs/dems of being.
This guy was in pain, killed himself in a terrible way, and he will have family that will suffer for his selfish action. It is tragic. Let's move on.
43 posted on 8/22/02 10:25 AM Pacific by dogbyte12
Prayers for his wife and children ...... it is really tough dealing with a suicide in the family ...... a million questions and no answers! May God be with them and comfort them! 105 posted on 8/22/02 10:50 AM Pacific by kayak
You people are SICK...I am a Rep..conservative..and human being. The jokes on this thread are SICKENING. What is funny about his death? Sorry but I find no humor in the headline...whatsoever - obviously those making jokes have never lost someone they cared about to suicide. There is no laughter for his family and friends. 252 posted on 8/22/02 12:56 PM Pacific by Lucas1
I have heard about the FreeRepublic.com website before, never really visited it, but this takes the cake, regardless of FreeRepublic.com's ideology. If liberals joked about a death of a conservative, I would be as mad as hell too. But this is disgusting. I can't believe the lengths some people take their ideology, in this case rejoicing and "LMAO" over the death of a reporter for a liberal-leaning publication. And you know what, the posts I reposted here are only SOME of the 300 or so messages on FreeRepublic.com.
I never saw dozens and dozens of people cracking jokes at DemocraticUnderground.com when Pearle of the WSJ was killed. So who's unAmerican here? What's more unAmerican: questioning Bush's war on terrorism policies or laughing and cracking jokes about the death of another American?
And the problem here is that this behavior is not only isolated to these Internet idiots, it's also Rush Limbaugh. Rush apparently played, "It's Raining Men" as bumper music on his talk show.
Does Rush think it's funny that someone jumped out of a building? What was Rush's first reaction? "What song would be perfect as a playoff to this liberal NY Times reporter's death?"
This is sick, sick, behavior. And it is sad when some people are so partisan that they will rejoice and laugh at the death of a reporter for a publication they disagree with.
The Eminem Show. The logic of 'moral,' conservative Christians is beyond me. On talk shows and policy meetings, old white men are trying to figure out how to save today's youth from the evils of pop culture, from MTV to Marilyn Manson and Eminem. Here's the point: no one is asking you to listen to these types of music. No one is forcing you to watch MTV or listen to top 40 stations. No one is forcing you to go to Marilyn Manson's concerts. And neither are they forcing kids to watch or listen to these types of music. It's their choice. So stop trying to censor and pull music from stores just because you don't understand their lyrics or background.
It's outrageous that old, crotchety men who wouldn't even listen to rap if it were clean try to impose their "morals" on society. There are so many damn types of music out there that if people want to avoid a singer like Eminem they can. What drives these people nuts is that people are ACTUALLY BUYING these anti-God records! How horrible!
What Conservative Christians are rallying against is people who don't agree with them and their social slant. And that pisses them off. They want to save souls and bring people into their thinking, but every time someone views a booty-shaking, thong-wearing music video on MTV, an angel falls from heaven. This is one group trying to impose their values on another group of people.
In society there are different values and different tastes. What one person views as vulgar is not what another person views as vulgar. People like Marilyn Manson because they like his style and they don't view what he says as offensive. People who listen to Eminem do so because they like his lyrics. It's not offensive or vulgar to them. If it were, they wouldn't listen. And what crosses the line is when religious zealots force cancellations and censorship of music just because one person doesn't agree with another person's value. So stop trying to "save society" from the evil forces of freedom of speech because you're only leading America towards a path of single-minded values. And marching is step is not what America is about.
Suzanne Jones, Honolulu's recycling coordinator, says dealing with electronic waste, or e-waste, is a growing problem as technological advances make more computers, television and other equipment obsolete. Cathode ray tubes found in computer monitors have toxic materials like lead and mercury, and can pose a risk when dumped in landfills.
Murdoch Pushes a Kennedy. In what looks like a very flattering biopic, cable channel FX this weekend is airing, "RFK," the story of Robert F. Kennedy. FX is owned by Fox, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. While FNC pushes Murdoch's agenda, it should be noted that Murdoch's entertainment outlets don't push any political agenda (except for maybe Fox's "The Pulse"). Indeed, one of the most successful shows of all time, on Fox and television, is the liberal "Simpsons," which has had a huge impact on American thinking.
I think it's quite astonishing how quickly American support for an Iraqi invasion has dropped in polls. A CNN/USA Today "poll showed support for deploying troops to Iraq has dropped from 61 percent in June to 53 percent this week." So what does this mean? Even if Bush invaded Iraq, it might not be a 'wag the dog' effect. Instead, the opposite could happen: the economy would sink, soldiers would begin to feel fatigue and abandon support for Bush and the public would think the invasion is politically motivated. Interesting turn of public opinion ...
-Eric. Link.
If Bush does not make good on all his bellicosity about the "axis of evil" and "regime change," Perle is saying, he risks a defeat in the war on terror and possible regime change in Washington, D.C., in 2004.
Some of us have long argued that the president blundered terribly with all this war talk, fed him by his neoconservative speechwriters. It bought him nothing, but locked him into war before America or her allies were united and prepared for it, and before he had fully considered all of the consequences.
But Perle has a point. The president and America will suffer a major loss of credibility in the Islamic world if he backs away from war, and it is the president's own fault -- and that of his War Cabinet -- that he, and we, are now far out on this limb.
I could be wrong, but Pat Buchanan is anti-military intervention in almost every scenario. In fact, Buchanan is among many conservatives who are actually against an Iraqi war. Most notably in this chorus is the Cato Institute, who released their 'Top 10 Reasons Not to "Do" Iraq." It's an excellent, excellent position paper by Ivan Eland. If you need research on why not to invade Iraq, look at this one. All the arguments are there for you. Two links to Cato and Pat Buchanan today for The Hamster. The devil is building a fire; it's getting cold down there.
"I think I'm totally telegenic. But I've never figured out what gives me a fair advantage and what gives me an unfair disadvantage," she says. "Surely there is some advantage to being tall and blond to be on TV, but you can also be dismissed as a blond bimbo." The latter, she notes, is sexist, and "only liberals can get away with that" kind of attack.
And while we're on Ann Coulter, MWO and Atrios bring to our attention that Ann Coulter said the following, in addition to her previous statement that Manhattan is not part of America:
My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.
Oh! How did all this vomit appear on my keyboard!? The only person who hates New York more than plane-flying terrorists is Ann Coulter. She takes every chance she gets to get in a cheap shot about the city or its institutions.
Note that no one in the government intervenes in behalf of white males who suffer discrimination, not President Bush, no congressional committee chairman, certainly not the Justice Department or the EEOC.
Today in the United States white people have no political representation. Whites have to struggle in the courts against government opposition to claim any resemblance to equal rights. Explicit government policies have made whites second class citizens. Whites are a dispossessed majority in their own country.
Why did the white majority allow themselves to be stripped of the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Why do whites remain loyal to the political parties that took away their rights?
What is the future for whites in a political system where both political parties pander to third world immigrants and support racial privileges for minorities? Having lost equal protection of law, what will whites lose next?
I called Haley Joel Osmond from "The Sixth Sense" today. And he told me: "I see oppressed white people ... Walking around like regular people. They don't see each other being oppressed. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're oppressed."
Bye Bye Barr. Talk Left posts some strong comments on why no one should be sorry Bob Barr lost. Unfortunately, we hope TalkLeft, which is usually right, is wrong on this prediction: "We suspect he'll be a political analyst on Fox in no time, just like Newt, probably in time for the November elections." If only the revolving door didn't include Fox News.
Carville and Disney. James Carville in a Disney animated movie as a Hillbilly? Is there more perfect casting than that? You know, I'm surprised Carville doesn't have more acting credits under his belt. Carville's craziness is made for the big screen. Think a balder Billy Bob Thorton and one who will kick your ass if you bash Muslims.-Eric. Link.
The Catholic Church Strikes Again. Maybe the Catholic Church should be more concerned about its own sex scandals. The Catholic League and numerous other organizations are trying to permanently oust radio talk show hosts Anthony and Opie, of WNEW, for airing a description of a couple having sex in a church. While this act is awful (having sex in a church, not sex … of course), it begs the question of how much freedom we really have in this country.
The Federal government has the right to regulate the public airwaves because they own it. Radio broadcasters are tenants on the public air. But while the federal government has the right to do so, does that actually mean they should pursue "the strongest enforcement action possible against this station, up to and including revocation?" Absolutely not.
It is true that the show openly incited the two to have sex in a church. It is also true that children listen to their show and can be influenced to copy their antics. But all of these facts miss the point that the public airwaves are the public's, and America was founded on the acceptance of diversity and differing opinions.
Anthony and Opie represent one type of voice among many others. And while their voice is crude, lewd and sometimes criminally irresponsible, that does not warrant the government stepping in and telling them what we can and can't say in public. Stifling one opinion because some interest group finds it objectionable is wrong if the opinion does not cause harm to others (in this case, no one was hurt by their stunt). To do so neglects the very same message we cherished with our nation's founding: that we are an open nation, full of diverse opinions and people.
Carville on Crossfire. Apparently I missed an extremely interesting outburst by James Carville on CNN's "Crossfire." The transcript, of course, don't show what happened, but here's a partial transcript of the outburst:
RIOS: I would say that all over the world, one of the biggest problems we have, Jean, you know that, is radical Islam. It's happening in Sudan. It's happening in many countries. And, James, I don't know why that offends you so much. They just killed 3,000 of our people.
CARVILLE: That's the most -- you know what? I tell you what offends me. It offends me...
RIOS: That doesn't offend you?
CARVILLE: What offends me is that people expect me to hate Muslims because some assholes, some criminals, ran a building (UNINTELLIGIBLE). This is what Franklin Graham said, and you'd agree. He called Islam a very different God, a very evil...
RIOS: He did not say...
CARVILLE: Of course he did.
RIOS: He did not say hate Muslims, James. That's different. Critical thinking, remember?
CARVILLE: If I think people that go to mosques are practicing an evil and wicked religion of what you agreed with, then there's something wrong with them.
RIOS: To the point that they embrace holy jihad is evil and wicked...
CARVILLE: But he didn't say that. He didn't say that.
RIOS: No, but that's what Islam teaches.
CARVILLE: You know what? I'm not going to...
RIOS: They teach their kids to kill themselves.
... CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE, which might be my last one after that outburst.
Reader Ian writes in about my comments yesterday on Bush and the environment:
The way the Bush administration is helping the environment is through
the economic down turn. If I don't have a job, I don't have to drive to
that job which would put CO into the atmosphere
Timely. In a move that will likely make conservatives cringe, Time Magazine has devoted a special issue to the environment, entitled, "How to Save the World." Nearly every article in the issue is a must-read.
Nothing upsets me more than the lack of progress with simple environmental issues like CAFE standards and pollution rules. Granted, it's unrealistic for all people to change their lifestyles to accommodate the environment (like massive recycling or environmental friendly products), but it's disturbing that we can save millions, if not billions of barrels of oil every year by simply requiring higher fuel efficiency.
My view of government is a combination of libertarian and liberal philosophies. Government should not dictate social policies to Americans. Yet it has a responsibility to protect every American, economically, militarily and yes, environmentally. Under the Bush administration and the well-meaning Christine Todd Whitman, the government has abdicated its role in creating a strong, viable safety net for the environment. And who is going to lose out? It's your children. When you dream of goals and aspirations for your children, one of the things you desire is to leave your child better off than you were. When the government fails to make progress in environmental regulation, it damages that goal.
How can the conservative talking heads and MBA businessmen be so naïve as to think they know more than scientists and researchers about the environment? Wake up America and learn the lesson of the highly fictionalized yet profoundly right Godzilla: If you mess with Mother Nature, Mother Nature will mess with you. Kofi Annan said it best:
Imagine a future of relentless storms and floods; islands and heavily inhabited coastal regions inundated by rising sea levels; fertile soils rendered barren by drought and the desert's advance; mass migrations of environmental refugees; and armed conflicts over water and other precious natural resources.
Then, think again—for one might just as easily conjure a more hopeful picture: of green technologies; livable cities; energy-efficient homes, transport and industry; and rising standards of living for all the world's people, not just a fortunate minority.
The choice between these competing visions is ours to make.
Quotable Quote. Who said the following? "President Bush has crafted the strongest, smartest and most practical climate-change program the U.S. has ever had."
No, it's not Jay Leno. It's not Conan O'Brien. And it's definitely not Jon Stewart. That's right, it's Christine 'Worst Job in DC' Whitman, who proves to us that she still has a sense of humor. Haha. Funny one, Christine.
There was something hilarious about "This Week"'s George Stephanopoulos hyping his conversation with White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett as an "exclusive." How can you have an exclusive interview with somebody whose job is to give interviews?
Frankenfish? A fish that walks on land and breathes air? That's not a fish. That's an insect or a reptile (or something). Heck, but what do I know about biology? -Eric. Link.
Al Franken. I have been told that comedian Al Franken is set to write a new book about politics for possibly the 2004 elections. Franken, who is best known for his NY Times #1 bestseller, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot," can currently be seen in the movie, "Harvard Man" in limited release.
Less Rules = Less Problems? So says Robert Herz, the head of the Financial Accounting Standards Board in an interview with Business Week. Herz comments:
That entails a kind of vast simplification of accounting rules, or standards, as the FASB refers to them, where professionals would be asked to comply with broad goals and objectives -- not a lengthy list of rules and exceptions.
It certainly sounds like Herz is making a case for less regulation in accounting practices, just what we need in the wake of Enron. *Cough*
Email Change. If you email me, please note the email change (halona@gwu.edu). I will, however, continue to check my old email periodically, but would prefer to transfer correspondence to the new account. Thanks. -Eric. Link.
More Reasons to Vote Wellstone. He's been called a communist by Republicans. Gee, and you thought the Cold War was over? According to the Citizens Opposing Racism and Discrimination, at least. And yes, what a transparent name. Here's the transcript of the ad:
"Wellstone wants to socialize health care for all Americans. Socialist health care prevents access to physicians and other needed medical procedures. Imagine being forced into a communist-style health care plan. He also lied to us when he said he would run for only two terms. Would you vote for a millionaire who has lied to you? It's time for a change. Vote for Norm Coleman."
Gasp, a commie in America?! Call Uncle McCarthy!
Republicans in Hollywood. Two news of note about Republicans in Hollywood ... U.S. Senator Fred Thompson, who is retiring from the halls of Congress, will join the cast of "Law and Order" as Manhattan's new district attorney, replacing Dianne Wiest. Thompson also appeared in "Die Hard 2," "In the Line of Fire" and "The Hunt for Red October." Meanwhile former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein's show, "Win Ben Stein's Money," has been cancelled. It aired on Comedy Central for 6 years.
Nail in the Coffin. Louis Farrakhan showing up at Cynthia McKinney's Georgia rally is, unfortunately, the nail in the coffin for McKinney. Imagine the play her opponents and the media are going to get out of this. Louis Farrakhan is a racist, a bigot and an anti-Semitic. According to Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, Farrakhan "has accused Jewish bankers of financing the Holocaust, Jewish doctors of infecting Black babies with the AIDS virus, and has claimed that the Jewish community controlled the African slave trade." The Guardian has some of his quotes here. I don't understand how some on the left can dislike Pat Buchanan for anti-Semitic comments yet not give the same treatment to Mr. Farrakhan. The Left is not about hate. Louis Farrakhan represents hate speech against Jews and those who are not of his religion. Him stumping for McKinney only makes this race a Jewish vs. Arab debate. And that is despicable. Cynthia: you push some great issues. Why not distance yourself with this religious bigot? Note: This blog item was slightly edited about 12 hours after writing it. Previously, I used the word "invited" to describe McKinney's involvement with Louis Farrakhan. However, upon review, Farrakhan was not invited by the McKinney camp. He apparently planned a rally himself, which the Atlanta Journal Constitution says "McKinney's campaign manager, Bill Banks, said he knew little about the visit or why Farrakhan is coming" but "Jewish leaders have been upset that McKinney refused to distance herself from Farrakhan." Still, the point of the comments remains: that Farrakhan lending support to McKinney only damages her well-meaning campaign. I apologize for the mistake. -Eric. Link.
