Isn't it funny how the GOP trotted out this drivel back in 1994, then with more than a decade in power did nothing to live up to it (and this is the lowest of the low-hanging fruit). They could have put Bill Clinton on the spot, had they not been so caught up in getting their jollies by worrying about his sex life, by sending him a term-limits bill. Then they had six years of President Shrub presiding over a rubber-stamp Congress, and nothing about term limits.
On top of that, the budget surplus from the Clinton years turned into a debt that only now, with "that one" in the White House (and their apparent objection so someone who's, you know, not white being in said house), is a cause for alarm.
It's the same old same old, wrapped up in the even more laughable costume of the teabagger party. What's pathetic, though, isn't that Runyan and his ilk resort to tired cliches, it's that there are people dumb enough to fall for it.
According to this report, one of the MOVE thugs is now, a quarter century later, seeking murder charges against people involved in trying to deal with their criminal behavior?
Though I wish I could believe a judge would throw "her" back in jail on contempt-of-court charges, it's probably, and sadly, more likely that the case will actually be heard. That, despite the fact that this is same group of criminals (oh, where to start on the laundry list...child abuse and endangerment, animal cruelty, terroristic threats, just about every possible zoning violation known to man, too many weapons violations to count, and the little matter of murdering a Philadelphia police officer) who so loudly and proudly shunned our society, who mocked the very justice system they now want to abuse by trying to get murder charges brought (and we all know the next step after that....cough, ka-ching, cough)?
Outrageous. Pathetic. Pick your label.
Funny how time and a desire for a payday suddenly makes a MOVE-ie change her tune. MOVE is responsible for setting the events of 25 years ago in motion, and for perpetuating them at every turn. They had every opportunity to respond to citations to stop their harassment of neighbors, and didn't. They had the opportunity to surrender at any point during the day of the standoff, and didn't. They could have surrendered after the initial explosion, but instead chose to fire on police and firefighters. They, and they alone, are responsible for what happened, though for some reason our society seems more intent than ever on blaming law enforcement for the actions of criminals.
The American public shrugs off Presidential debates (regardless of the faults in the system, which few would deny), yet plan viewing parties for the funeral of a pop singer with a checkered history (to be generous)?
Newsmagazines struggle for readers, but any two-bit tabloid with a pathetic narcissist like “Jon and/or Kate” on the cover flies off the shelves.
People devote their entire lives to serving humanity—be they teachers, police and firefighters, military members, scientists looking to unlock the mysteries of our most horrid diseases, relief and mission workers, those who help the poor and destitute or so many others—and yet the media chooses to devote the better part of two solid weeks to alleged ‘reporting’ about someone’s will and custody arrangements?
Our Congress is debating what could be the most significant change to the American lifestyle in generations, and the network that once defined “all news” sends a reporter to find a chimpanzee?
Children are starving, lack healthcare and are sent to unsafe schools with inadequate supplies, and we focus on whether Britney Spears will have visitation or custody of her kids?
People won’t watch the President (regardless of party) deliver policy addresses in significant numbers, but millions upon millions will tune in to watch celebrities pat each other on the back and consider that somehow meaningful and significant?
I’m completely in favor of diversions from the serious issues of the day, but we’ve become far too obsessed with the celebrity culture to the point that we pay no attention to what really does impact our lives. Forget Nero fiddling while Rome burns, it’s the Romans themselves who are too busy listening to the fiddles and swooning over the fiddlers to notice they’re ablaze themselves.
Entertainment Tonight and E! have their place, but when the network news operations become indistinguishable from them, we’ve lost something important and may never get it back. Shows like The Daily Show or The Colbert Report are wonderfully insightful, but when the public begins to substitute them for actual news, the viewers are missing the point entirely. It’s not just about taking jabs at public figures’ gaffes, it’s about understanding the underlying issues. (And despite what an alarming number of people seem to believe, what happens overseas does matter, and does have an impact on our lives beyond the thankfully rare tragedy like 9/11.)
Don’t think our priorities are out of sync? ABC has devoted more than twice as much airtime in just one day to the Michael Jackson nonsense than they did to their conversations on healthcare a couple of weeks ago. That’s beyond pathetic, and is a shameful, shameful commentary on the media and on the public for rewarding their irresponsible behavior.
It wasn’t just Farrah Fawcett that died on the same day Michael Jackson finally lost the game of Russian Roulette he’d been playing with drug abuse. No, there was a third famous death that day, only the corpse and public has failed to realize it. Any sense of perspective, moderation and responsibility in television journalism is now officially deceased.
The study in excess that has greeted the inevitable end of a perverted human freak show like Jackson has been appalling even had he been someone who didn’t do inappropriate things with children. I’m now expecting that when O.J. finally, and far too late, leaves this earth, that the coverage will be all about his considerable football skills with some passing references to those pesky allegations about what happened to his ex wife and her companion. Both took full advantage of prosecutorial ineptitude and a star-struck jury system, and such is the way it goes. That said, people don’t make payouts that end in “illions” to people who just felt like leveling false accusations for sport. But this is someone who had a childrens’ bedroom in his house only accessible by passing through his own room. Please explain to me how that’s the least bit appropriate. Or why a grown man kept dozens upon dozens of pictures of little boys on his wall. This is not some “misunderstood free spirit,” it’s a walking poster for pedophilia. Apparently, none of that matters, though. He recorded some hit songs. That must absolve him of behavior that would land just about anyone else on a sex offender registry.
Let’s pretend, though, that none of those things were real. The death of a singer does not warrant the kind of absurd attention it has received. By one analysis I read, 93% of cable-TV news coverage for 36 hours after he died was about Jackson. Leaving seven percent to focus on such trivial matters as wars, the economic crisis, the healthcare-reform debate, cap and trade legislation and anything else going on in the world.
A week and half later, the so-called news segments of the national morning shows continue to push aside actual news in favor of nothing more than innuendo—as there has been no conclusion in the actual investigation—and meaningless, tangential topics like home movies. Home movies? Are you kidding me? His movies weren’t news two weeks ago, they’re not news now. That, sadly, isn’t even the low point of the depths to which journalists have sunk. That ignominious honor goes to CNN’s Anderson Cooper, whose show (over which he exercises a degree of editorial control) somehow found it relevant to waste time on locating Jackson’s former pet chimp. You’re already wasting 55 minutes of every hour (based on the 93% analysis) on Jackson, and yet someone thought it was a good idea to devote yet more time to telling us where a particular chimp was spending its days.
A close runner up in the worthless coverage sweepstakes is ABC, which inexplicably gave Al Sharpton air time to vent his meaningless bile this morning. The same racist Al Sharpton that perpetuated the Tawana Brawley hoax, rendering anything he has to say irrelevant. Had Robin Roberts even asked why the public should take his comments seriously when he’s a proven liar would have been a worthwhile exercise, but, no, as usual, the liar was allowed to speak unchallenged.
Jackson’s death was news, to be sure. Even a top story on the day it happened. And meaningful developments could rightly have been included towards the end of subsequent newscasts along with other entertainment news. But anchoring Nightline from a place where he hasn’t lived in years, spending five minutes explaining to people nowhere near L.A. what will be closed off for the funeral service (side note: will the Jacksons pay for this public extravaganza with all the revenue from the renewed interest in his music? It would be the right things to do for a cash-strapped city and state.), showing home movies and talking about routine custody and estate issues that thousands of families tragically experience on a regular basis…no, that is abdicating any sense of journalistic responsibility.
John Stossel at ABC is my new hero, for showing even in the sea of stupidity that has swallowed up the decision makers, there are some voices that recognize other issues are actually important. He publicly bit the hand that feeds him and took them to task for bumping his report on the health care proposals working through Congress in favor of Jackson coverage. I may not always agree with his expressed opinions when he editorializes (which probably means he’s doing his job very well), but I stand up and cheer for him being willing to say the emperor has no clothes.
Michael Jackson was a singer; a wildly popular performer one in his day, to be sure, and an internationally known celebrity to this day; but a singer nonetheless. He was not a head of state, nor a worldwide religious leader, nor someone who contributed something great to the medical or scientific world. Good for him for making a lasting impression on his chosen field, and of course it is sad for a fan when someone they enjoy dies. Perspective, though, has taken a backseat to over-the-top hype in what ensued from his death.
So goodbye, journalistic standards and integrity, it was nice knowing you while you existed. You were sorely strained in recent years with nonsense like Brittney Spears and Jon & Kate being placed in newscasts where they had no business, but the weight of keeping a self-mutilating freak’s death in perspective finally pushed you over the edge. Perhaps the simpler thing to do now is replace CNN et al with a simulcast of E!, and put Katie, Brian and Charlie out to pasture in place of additional airings of Entertainment Tonight. Apparently the shows are one in the same now.
Edit: though not common that I agree with a GOP lawmaker, this guy has it right, if a bit blunt for someone in public office:
How I “love” the hypocrisy of politicians. A few weeks ago, Scooter Libby is convicted of perjury. That’s a pretty nasty black eye on an administration that allegedly prided itself on upstanding moral behavior. So what’s the response of the right-wing (wing-nut) attack dogs on talk radio? Turn it into a referendum on Bill Clinton and his “I did not have sex with that woman” lies. The convoluted logic was that since “nothing” happened to Bubba, chargin/trying/convicting/punishing the Scoot man is unfair.
OK, for starters, Clinton was impeached, the equivalent of an indictment. So he did stand trial. Granted, in the end, his “jury,” as the system is set up, did not convict him—so be it. But to say that failure to convict means Libby gets a pass for lying about the outing of a CIA agent is absurd. It’s a bit like saying that because O.J. walked, everyone gets a free pass to murder someone. What’s more, at least the special prosecutor investigating the Plame incident was sticking to the issues relevant to the case. No, Libby didn’t out her himself, but he lied about how it happened. Contrast that to Kenn Star, who, having failed to bring down Clinton over Whitewater, moved on to, pardon the pun, nail Clinton on the one thing everyone knew you could get him for: sex.
I don’t condone Bill’s actions. He’s a scumbag for what he did, but lying about getting a little oral lovin’ from an intern pales in comparison to covering up the way a CIA agent’s identity was revealed.
Now we flash forward a few more weeks, and we have the strange case of the Attorney General who wasn’t aware, but kind of was, well, on second thought, maybe he really was, no, it seems people briefed him but he doesn’t remember the details…or whatever the story is today about how eight U.S. attorneys were kicked to the curb. Remember back to the Clinton years, and how the morally superior pundits regularly blasted the administration for so-called shady operations, even if there wasn’t anything technically illegal about [insert choice of non-issues here]?
Welcome to shoe-on-the-other-foot time. U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, and firing eight of them should have been a non-issue. But the administration did exactly what they accused the Clintonites of doing time and again—not being upfront about it and creating an aura of suspicion. Why lie about what Gonzales knew and his role in it all? And why refuse to let Rove and company testify under oath and on the record? After all, if you have nothing to hide, there shouldn’t be a reason to be afraid of a little grilling by Congress. Instead, the White House continues to invent new explanations about who knew what, making it clear that Alberto Gonzales is a liar. Not exactly an admirable quality in the Attorney General.
The Republicans and Democrats in Washington are both a bunch of rotten apples. The same people who vilified Clinton (including the astoundingly, astonishingly hypocritical Newt Gingrich, who managed to criticize Bill’s infidelities while banging one of his aides behind his wife’s back) are defending the lies of the Bush camp.
Meanwhile, the left side of the aisle is grandstanding for the cameras by inserting egregious, outlandish pork-barrel spending items into a bill that was ostensibly to provide needed funds for our troops overseas. Agree or disagree with the war, adding bribes to a military funding bill to buy votes simply to poke the President with a stick over an artificial pull-out date—that everyone knows will be vetoed—is indefensible and immoral in more ways than I can count. And this nonsense comes from the party that campaigned last year on bringing change to Washington. If this is what they mean by change, I don’t want it. Give me a clean slate of Libertarians any day of the week over the sorry bunch of jackasses we have down there now.
I am unbelievably sick and tired or criminal behavior being downplayed and law enforcement having to defend split-second, life-and-death decisions brought on by said criminal conduct.
An off-duty Philadelphia police officer was rear-ended by another driver.The officer identified himself as a cop, and the second driver—who appeared to be under the influence of some type of substance—sped off.The officer followed, keeping in touch with 911 dispatchers the entire time, trying to help them find this guy to get him off the road…before he could be involved in a more serious accident and possibly injure or kill an innocent motorist.Had the officer not followed the suspect, it would have been all but impossible for anyone to find him.
For whatever reason, the driver pulled into a train station parking lot.The officer told him to stay put, but what did the suspect do?He charged the officer and threatened in no uncertain terms to kill him.Gun drawn, the officer again ordered him to stop, but he continued charging, and reached for his waistband in a motion that, having just threatened someone’s life, could easily be construed as reaching for a weapon.
So the officer fired.The first three shots missed; ultimately, the suspect was killed.
Unfortunate?Yes.But at countless steps along the way, this outcome was brought on by the dead man’s own actions.He chose to flee the scene of the original accident.He chose to not stay in his car.He chose to make a death threat against the officer.He chose, repeatedly, to charge a known law enforcement officer with his gun drawn despite repeated orders to stop.Anywhere along the line, he could have changed the outcome, but he didn’t.So in the blink of an eye, the officer had to pull the trigger and try to bring down a moving target.The use of deadly force is sad, but justified.
Look, I understand that someone grieves at the loss of their child.But if I were a judge and a case like this came to my courtroom, I’d hold the plaintiff in contempt if I could.
Perhaps he did have dreams of getting his life together, but when, exactly, was he planning to face the felony charges from which he was a fugitive?Or doesn’t it count if you managed to flee the state in which you’re wanted?Maybe all is forgiven then and you don’t have to be a man and “do the time.”
"'My son was not the kind of kid who had conflict with the police,' Shields said. 'He does not put up a fight.'"Again, I’m sorry, but telling the officer he was a dead man and charging him qualifies as having conflict.Perhaps it was out of character, but no matter the cause, he was responsible for his actions.
“Family members said they did not think that Shields even had a weapon that morning.”No, ultimately he didn’t have a weapon.But when someone reaches into their waistband after saying they’re going to kill you, it’s a natural assumption that they just might.And in that situation you have a blink of an eye to make a decision, not the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
Would it have been better that one of the shots only wounded the suspect enough to render him immobile?Naturally.But sometimes a moving target isn’t quite so easy to deal with.He’s in motion as the bullet leaves the gun, and what’s intended may not be what happens.That, however, isn’t brutality or excessive force.The suspect was not subdued and was not in custody—he was in a one-on-one fight and made his intentions clear.The reaction was appropriate, and I hope the D.A. stands by his initial decision not to file charges.
I feel sympathy for the family, make no mistake.But this officer has to live with what happened for the rest of his life, too, and I hope he knows he has people in his corner. God willing, he’ll never be faced with a similar situation.
If we keep putting the screws to law enforcement for actions that result from the actions of the criminals, the criminals win.Let’s stand up for the good guys.
I felt a great sense of irony this week, staying at the Showboat casino/hotel in Atlantic City—a hotel entirely themed around Mardi Gras and New Orleans—as the stories of the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina unfolded in front of our eyes.The trip had been planned long before, of course, and in the end, it wouldn’t make a difference where we were staying, but it reminded me of my one short visit to New Orleans in 2004 for a business trip.Where I had shopped for souvenirs at River Walk and attended a conference at the beautiful convention center, I saw images of people living, and sadly dying, in conditions most of us will likely never fathom.
As my heart broke for the victims of nature’s fury, those too poor or frail to leave the city when the warnings were issued, I also felt rising anger towards the opportunistic politicians who are trying to insinuate race into the tragedy, to further their own agendas.To imply there was a deliberate delay in trying to get relief supplies to Katrina’s survivors because they are predominantly African American is ludicrous and despicable.
Whether FEMA and other agencies were adequately prepared to respond as quickly as needed is a fair question that we should ask when the worst of the crisis has subsided.We can’t learn if we don’t ask hard questions, and if there are ways to do a better job the next time something of this magnitude happens, then by all means, we have an obligation to try.None of that, however, shows one bit of racism in the way the response to Katrina has been handled.
We’ve witnessed a disaster that dwarfed the drills and scenarios emergency management agencies go through.By all accounts, this is the epitome of everything that can go wrong going wrong, right down to the response of some survivors who took it upon themselves to endanger the lives of those who were trying to help them.
By their very nature, large, centralized entities react proportionally more slowly—and there’s no bigger, more bureaucratic entity than the Federal Government, especially when you need to coordinate so many different entities.Vehicles, supplies and personnel needed to be coordinated.There needed to be at least rudimentary plans for who goes where and does what, and some of those contingencies depended on assessing the situation.
To say the response would have been faster if predominantly white people had been victims is one of those un-provable theories that sound great in sound bites to fire up your audience.After all, who can disprove you?It plays to the tiresome stereotypes that fail to move our country forward.
I initially thought the leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus couldn’t be topped for their media-whore shenanigans on this issue, but lo and behold, along comes a new poster child for ignorance, Kanye West, who tries to hijack NBC’s fundraising concert to babbly incoherently about racism and troops being sent in to shoot people.Um, Mr. West…no one will be shot if they don’t threaten the law enforcement officials on site, who have an obligation to protect the law-abiding victims of this disaster, even if it means using force against those trying to turn this horror to their own profit.
No rational person I’ve heard has criticized those who are resorting to drastic measures to obtain the necessities to sustain life, but when you have news accounts of people raiding stores shouting “TV!TV!” it does tend to undercut the sympathy factor for those specific individuals.Last time I checked, TVs and other luxury items aren’t essential to survival, and those few bad apples, and the gangs roaming the streets robbing people and threatening police, deserve to be dealt with accordingly.
The fact that nearly an entire major city has been wiped out, and faces years of work to be restored to what it was, should be bringing us together as a country to help those in legitimate need, not providing an opportunity for those with an agenda of their own to advance.It doesn’t matter the skin color of anyone impacted by Katrina—it matters that they’re people, and that’s how we should be looking at this unprecedented challenge.
I love the hypocrisy of our country—from both the left and the right sides of the spectrum.I’ll be the first to say my own beliefs sometimes seem to be contradictory, and sometimes I evaluate a position and decide my stance should change.
It still baffles me that the right side of the political spectrum is pushing the “values” and “decency” argument when it comes to the media, saying people need protection from smut run amok, yet have the reprehensible nerve to say Americans—particularly senior citizens—shouldn’t have the right to buy the EXACT SAME DRUGS offered in this country from Canadian pharmacies instead of paying the unconscionable markups that leave too many people forgoing the medicines they need.
Let’s think about this for a moment.We need to be protected from bare nipples and juvenile sex jokes, but don’t need life-saving medicines at affordable prices.That’s the message coming from the White House and Congress.
OK, I know, I know—the drug makers, when they aren’t splurging on the stomach-churning ads justifying their outrageous prices, have lined the pockets of the right people to make sure the transportation of those identical drugs over the border is a thing of the past.But it’s just unbelievably frustrating that we (as a country) voted these two-faced sleazeballs into office, with so many voters claiming their decisions were based on “moral” issues.
It’s “moral” to make choose between going broke and taking medicine?How on Earth is worrying about bare nipples and juvenile sex jokes a bigger moral priority than helping people get the drugs they need without choosing whether today is a pill day or a food day?
It’s a sad, sad commentary on our society that we barely pay attention to important issues like fixing the costs of medicine in our country yet flood the FCC with letters if someone says an off-color word on TV.
And now Mr. Morality-in-Chief (who smoked those same special cigarettes as Bill Clinton, much to everyone’s shock I’m sure) wants to dismantle Social Security for workers under 55, which will eventually put even more people into the “food or drugs” quandary down the road.
Gee, you don’t think big business stands to gain anything from George’s plan, do you?
Nah.Can’t be.He’s only doing what’s right for the people of America, just like the drug companies are by putting the squeeze on Canadian pharmacies that dared sell identical pills to Americans for the better Canadian price.
Interesting, isn’t it, that the Administration sees companies transferring labor to countries where it’s cheaper to be progress and good for Americans, yet those same Americans can’t be trusted to pick and choose where THEY can find the best price for something?
I’m sure those policies are unrelated, of course.And not the least bit contradictory.
So, more and more people will be giving up the drugs they need.But, hey, at least as they suffer, they can rest with the knowledge that the Moral Cops Squad has pushed through higher fines for indecent broadcasts like Nipplegate 2004.And in the end, isn’t THAT what we want from our lawmakers?The ability to focus on the bigger priorities?
