Dems are howling over Arh-nuld’s calling them “Girlie Men,” saying it’s insulting to gays and women.
Aw, c’mon. I don’t recall anyone bìŧçhìņg about it when Hans and Franz coined the term in a recurring SNL sketch that was clearly lampooning Arnold. Instead of whining about being regularly made fun of, Arnold embraced the gag, even showing up during one sketch and lambasting them, saying they’d let themselves go and had become girlie men themselves (as they hung their heads in shame.)
If the Dems feel he was off-base in accusing them of pandering to special interest (which is where their ire should really be directed) then the response should be something along the lines of, “The Governor has been so busy pumping (clap) himself up that he’s full of hot air.” Not this namby-pamby, “Oh, he’s calling us names, he’s being mean to us” crap. Dem spokesmen are reacting like–well–girlie men.
PAD
• 
In the 2000 elections most of the “dumb supporters” were senior citizens confused by the butterfly ballots. Of course there were also the people who were listed as felons and barred from voting, a disproportionate number of whom were black, even though they didn’t have criminal records. Florida officials have come forward saying that, not only did Jeb Bush order his staff to use the broadest strokes possible to create the lists of prohibited voters in 2000, but that he has done it again this year.
Phinn
Wow. Did I really spell semantic with a ‘y’? I need a nap. Been using too many Norton products 😉
re: Linda Ronstadt
Don’t have a problem with the Aladdin not inviting her back.
Have a problem with them throwing her out; it’s a breach of contract, as basically they’re saying, “We didn’t tell you this before, but we don’t want anyone whose politics disagrees with ours.” If that sort of thing is important, put it up front…don’t do it after the fact.
Have a BIGGER problem with the patrons’ behavior. Wotta bunch of wusses. Leave if you want, but throwing stuff? Feh.
In the 2000 elections most of the “dumb supporters” were senior citizens confused by the butterfly ballots.
I’ve used butterfly ballots for as long as I could vote (well, till 02 elections, anyway), as has every senior citizen where I live. I’ve found them easy to understand and use, and I’ve never heard anyone voice any complaints. I just always thought that was a pretty shaky premise. Now, the disenfranchisement issue you point out: I agree. That’s a big, meaty abuse of power, and JB should be justly rapped for it.
RE: Ronstadt –
Two things. One, as people was mentioned, she wasn’t fired. She was only booked for one show, which she did. They just escorted her off the premises.
Two – There is this quote from before the show from her –
“In an interview with the Las Vegas Review-Journal before the show, Ronstadt said, “I keep hoping that if I’m annoying enough to them, they won’t hire me back.” ”
It sounds to me like there is some more to the store than what we are seeing. It looks like Ronstadt was already feuding with management there, and this near riot just gave them the excuse. Not only that, but I wonder if they were planning on ejecting her anyway, and this just is a reason they are using?
Regardless, I imagine if I was a casino owner, and a musical guest pìššëd of my guests to the point of them throwing drinks and pulling down posters, I would eject them too. Anyone claiming otherwise is welcome to run their business as a charity. I’d try to keep my guests happy and make a profit. I also think if this was a comedian ejected because the audience booed him off of stage, this would be a non story. I’d bet stuff like this has happened before. Only cause Moore is involved is this an issue.
“Have a problem with them throwing her out; it’s a breach of contract, as basically they’re saying, “We didn’t tell you this before, but we don’t want anyone whose politics disagrees with ours.” If that sort of thing is important, put it up front…don’t do it after the fact.”
Excepts that’s not what happened. I imagine if the audience hadn’t gotten upset, AND if she hadn’t bragged ahead of time about how she was planning to pìšš øff the casino, I don’t think this would have happened. Those two things combined would have done it for me, no matter what my political viewpoints.
Excepts that’s not what happened.
Actually, I think it is.
For one thing, it’s generally part of the contract for the hotel to provide housing for their talent; taking it away is a breach, no matter if it’s a political statement or a comedian bombing on stage.
I imagine if the audience hadn’t gotten upset, AND if she hadn’t bragged ahead of time about how she was planning to pìšš øff the casino, I don’t think this would have happened. Those two things combined would have done it for me, no matter what my political viewpoints.
And I think you’re reaching here. For one, you don’t know the context of her earlier statement (though from what I’ve read, it’s a joking statement that is EXACTLY the same that a lot of entertainers have made). Second, a dedication of a song, even to an unpopular figure, merits proportionate response; what happened was FAR, FAR out of proportion to that.
“Furthermore, it’s illegal to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and one could with a bit of effort (considering the near-riot the ensued) state that her actions almost equated with doing this; inciting a riot is a criminal offense.”
Dammit, could we pleae, PLEASE stomp this recurring inaccurate misquote into the oblivion it so richly deserves?
You can indeed shout “Fire” in a crowded fire…provided there is a fire. The actual quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes was “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” Key world: Falsely.
Furthermore, Holmes’ observation was actually attached to one of the most horrific dashing of First Amendment freedoms in American history. The case was “Schenck vs. United States” (1919). It involved a man, Charles Schenck, who circulated a flier that opined the US Draft was illegal because it was in contradiction of the 13th Amendment against slavery, and suggested that Americans lobby its lawmakers for repealing the draft.
That was it. That was all he did. He did not incite people to riot. He committed no crime. He caused no panic. Whether you agree with his proposition or not, you have to admit that he had a right to say it in a reasonable, thoughtful way.
Except the US government decided to squash free speech, prosecuted him under the “Espionage Act of 1917,” and sentenced him to fifteen years in jail. And the Supreme Court upheld the decision, supporting it with the above quote that was really wholly irrelevant to the case at hand.
Hundreds of people were prosuected and jailed under the Espionage Act…which is, by the way, still on the books. Nixon tried to use it to squash the Pentagon Papers.
Holmes’ oft-misquoted axiom is attached to a heinous miscarriage of justice that should appall all modern Americans. Unless, of course, you feel that if America reinstates the draft and I state I think it’s a terrible idea, that the government should be able to throw me in jail for fifteen years and fine me $10,000, as the Act calls for. Then by all means, embrace it.
As for Ronstadt, the audience acted disgracefully, and frankly, I’d have a lot of respect for the owners of the Aladdin if they’d issued statements chewing the áššëš of everyone who acted in a destructive manner instead of acting as if Ronstadt had done anything wrong.
PAD
Sounds to me like the management made a business decision. A large number of paying audience members were unhappy with the quality of the show and the political slant thrown in. Management decided it wanted to hire a performer, not an activist.
A business decision, maybe, but it sounds like both the audience and the management were being girlie-men. It’s never a First Amendment or Constitutional problem when private citizens are feuding with other private citizens, but good Lord what a bunch of jerks. I agree with PAD on that point.
I don’t (entirely) agree with PAD about Schenck v. United States. If the circular said what PAD says it said (try diagramming this sentence) then it would have been as bad as he claims. However, the circular actually advocated draft-dodging. As a prosecutor I can’t imagine bringing the force of my office down on someone for that specific offense (particularly since it only obliquely advocated draft dodging– read it for yourself at http://faculty-web.at.nwu.edu/commstud/freespeech/cont/cases/schenck/pamphlet.html ), but I think the outrage at this case is misplaced. Solicitation to commit a felony is always speech, and when the felony is politically motivated someone’s always going to claim it’s free speech. It’s not, and I don’t think the reasoning behind the opinion is weakened by the complication that, under those specific facts, the case probably shouldn’t have been prosecuted by the US Attorney. If we’re going to belittle Holmes there are so many better reasons to do it.
I be no fan of Arnold post-governorship, nor the Republican party post-Nixon, but neither am I a fan of kneejerk reactions. As Al Franken said today, “it was just a joke” and for anyone to say or think otherwise needs to settle the hëll down. I mean, who doesn’t know where he got the line from and this isn’t as offensive as his “groping.”
Obviously, this is just fingerpointing in retaliation for what happened to Whoopie Goldberg, which by the way was uncalled for, too. As the country become so small-minded that we supposedly can’t differentiate between a person’s professional life (Slim-Fast spokesperson) and a person’s personal life (appearing at a Kerry rally and making “comments” about the president’s name).
By the way, I’m surprised there haven’t been such jokes made (openly) before. Once upon a time, Wisconsin was a very liberal state; it has changes since 1987. I live in a semt-rural area and, if I choose, I can pass a field where a farmer/crazy person has posted a few signs. One of the signs reads, lovingly, “God made hëll for liberal democrats,” and another reads “Thank God for Bush.” Do I need to tell you how often I have passed that sign and thought, “Those are the exact sentiments of every heterosexual teenage boy the night he loses his virginity everywhere.”
“If the circular said what PAD says it said (try diagramming this sentence) then it would have been as bad as he claims. However, the circular actually advocated draft-dodging.”
The circular actually did not, and I am stunned that you claim that it did. You posted a link to it, which was interesting because I’d never actually read the circular, merely read descriptions of it. So now I read it. And nowhere at any point does the circular urge potential draftees to dodge the draft, to refuse to report, to riot in the streets, or to break the law in any way.
It urges them to assert their rights and reminds them that the lawmakers are supposed to be representatives of the American people. That’s as strident as it gets, and it is considerably less strident than a lot of what’s said on the internet in general and here in specific.
The case against Schenck remains a travesty, the Holmes-(mis)quoted decision remains a travesty. Schenck’s document did not, in any way, shape or form represent a clear and present danger (another phrase that was coined in that case). It urged draftees to do one thing and one thing only: Think. And the government wanted to prevent that, and the Supreme Court backed them up, and hundreds of people went to jail over the course of several years for expressing opinions in opposition to the government. (To the best of my knowledge, not a single recipient of Schenck’s flier refused to report for induction: So much for a clear and present danger.)
How any thinking individual can even CONTEMPLATE supporting that decision is beyond me.
PAD
And by the way, nearly a century before we became mired in Iraq, trying to implement a Democracy upon people who keep blowing up those trying to implement it, Schenck wrote in that very pamphlet:
“Democracy can not be shot into a nation. It must come spontaneously and purely from within.”
Maybe, just maybe, he knew some stuff. And he was jailed for it. God bless the Supreme Court.
PAD
Me, I’m still trying to figure out why Ronstadt thinks “Desperado” is an appropriate song to dedicate to someone she admires, advocates and agrees with, especially politically. The lyrics:
“Desperado, why don’t you come to your senses?
You been out ridin’ fences for so long now
Oh, you’re a hard one
I know that you got your reasons
These things that are pleasin’ you
Can hurt you somehow
Don’t you draw the queen of diamonds, boy
She’ll beat you if she’s able
You know the queen of hearts is always your best bet
Now it seems to me, some fine things
Have been laid upon your table
But you only want the ones that you can’t get
Desperado, oh, you ain’t gettin’ no younger
Your pain and your hunger, they’re drivin’ you home
And freedom, oh freedom well, that’s just some people talkin’
Your prison is walking through this world all alone
Don’t your feet get cold in the winter time?
The sky won’t snow and the sun won’t shine
It’s hard to tell the night time from the day
You’re loosin’ all your highs and lows
Ain’t it funny how the feeling goes away?
Desperado, why don’t you come to your senses?
Come down from your fences, open the gate
It may be rainin’, but there’s a rainbow above you
You better let somebody love you, before it’s too late”
All that said, the reports I heard said the audience wasn’t just upset about the Michael Moore dedication, simply that it was the last straw. The report I heard had Ronstadt as belligerant toward both the audience and the hotel, on mic from the stage and in an interview immediately preceeding the show. If that report is true, it’s no wonder she was no longer welcome — she seemed to do everything in her power to make herself UNwelcome.
Alas, I can’t back this up with links as I literally heard the report on a radio show yesterday. So I could be wrong, but that’s what they were saying yesterday — it seemed to have little to do with Moore, and the host was frankly on her side in that regard.
Aha! A link on the Ronstadt story. This basically says what they were saying about this on the radio yesterday — I’d be surprised if the host (Jim Phillips on 104.1 in Orlando) wasn’t working from this report when discussing the story:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Jul-19-Mon-2004/news/24339959.html
It does seem, though, that the Moore situation was a big part of the problem. Just mentioning his name, anymore, sets right wingers to seeing red — I’ve already gotten into an ugly scene about him at work and have thus agreed not to mention him in front of a coworker, and that’s to say nothing on my in-laws…
A supposed eyewitness account at National Review Online, of all places, saying that there wasn’t anything like the near-riot the Aladdin people describe:
Linky link
As if being James Tichy isn’t enough to be embarrassed about already…
PAD
Uh Oh, who have you been talking to?
Phinn Posted (about Rush): ‘He also said that Abu Gharib was no worse than “a fraternity prank” and that soldiers were justified because they were “just letting off some steam.”‘
If you listened that day, you would know this quote is completely taken out of context. Rush’s “style” is to be deliberately absurd and mocking of those he disagrees with. After clearly (and for 2 hours) stating that what happened was wrong, he then made a joke about it being what happened with the Skull and Bones group that both Kerry and Bush belonged to in college. It is interesting how this gross distortion of what happened continues to be circulated.
Jim in Iowa
I said: “Furthermore, it’s illegal to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and one could with a bit of effort (considering the near-riot the ensued) state that her actions almost equated with doing this; inciting a riot is a criminal offense.”
PAD said: “Dammit, could we pleae, PLEASE stomp this recurring inaccurate misquote into the oblivion it so richly deserves?”
Sigh. This is the second time someone has used that quote from my post as a jumping-off point to get upset. I immediatley followed that paragraph with a comment that I didn’t believe that she was actually inciting a riot, nor did I express an opinion one way or the other about the appropriateness or context of shouting “Fire!”, though I think it is implied that I meant “falsely”; who would arrest someone for shouting “fire!” when there actually was one?
So please, please, please stop quoting me out of context, or at least pay attention to the rest of my commentary.
“After clearly (and for 2 hours) stating that what happened was wrong, he then made a joke about it being what happened with the Skull and Bones group that both Kerry and Bush belonged to in college.”
That’s funny, because I read the transcript for that show, and I agree with the annotated version presented by the guys at Media Matters (as presented on Al Franken’s show on Air America) and, contrary to his claims, he did not spend anywhere near the amount (98%) of time that he claims to decrying the behavior.
In fact, in later shows (his transcripts are available online; read them) he defended his comments, and when on to say that the first photos released (including the human pyramid) didn’t seem that bad to him, and that’s why he made light of it.
Rush himself admits that he made the comments purposely, and that he still believes the actions depicted in those first few photos are the equivalent to a harmless college prank.
But you keep being a nice ditto-head and defend him, even though he’s not defending himself.
Phinn
Me: “If the circular said what PAD says it said (try diagramming this sentence) then it would have been as bad as he claims. However, the circular actually advocated draft-dodging.”
PAD: The circular actually did not, and I am stunned that you claim that it did. You posted a link to it, which was interesting because I’d never actually read the circular, merely read descriptions of it. So now I read it. And nowhere at any point does the circular urge potential draftees to dodge the draft, to refuse to report, to riot in the streets, or to break the law in any way.
Well, I did say “obliquely,” and I did say that under these facts, had I been the AUSA I wouldn’t have charged the defendant. I think the argument has to be that the only possible design of the pamphlet was to encourage the draftees to desert. Reread the facts of the case. The Feds executed a seach warrant on the Socialist Party office, and prosecuted Scheck, who had ex officio (Holmes rather snidely calls him “Comrade Schenck”) printed and distributed 15-16,000 of these leaflets to recent draftees. What possible intention could he have with presenting draftees with an exhortation to “assert your opposition to the draft”, an argument that “If you do not assert and support your rights you are helping to “deny or disparage rights” which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain,” or a rhetorical flourish to the effect that “In lending tacit or silent consent to the conscription law, in neglecting to assert your rights, you are (whether knowingly or not) helping to condone and support a most infamous and insidious conspiracy to abridge and destroy the sacred and cherished rights of a free people.”
I said in my prior post (go on, look) that it shouldn’t have been prosecuted on these facts. I’m not defending the prosecution of Schenck; that case should never have gone to trial. I’m defending the statement of the law in the case. If you’re willing to agree that an incitement that did present a clear and present danger would have been legitimately prosecutable, then we agree on all important issues, because I willingly concede that Schenck was unjustly imprisoned. However, I understood your point to be that words should never be prosecuted, which is the point I think we actually disagree on. Schenck was prosecuted with soliciting a felony (i.e. desertion). I agree that the evidence against him was paltry, but I insist that the offense is valid.
It occurs to me that it made a tremendous difference in this case that the pamphlet was a targeted mailing to draftees instead of one of those flyers that always seem to decorate NYC lamp-posts. I said “I think the argument has to be that the only possible design of the pamphlet was to encourage the draftees to desert.” Having gone back to reread the opinion, in fact, that IS what the Government’s argument was. Holmes wrote, “Of course, the document would not have been sent unless it had been intended to have some effect, and we do not see what effect it could be expected to have upon persons subject to the draft except to influence them to obstruct the carrying of it out.” It is always the prerogative of the jury to determine the intent of the defendant, and Holmes notes in the next sentence, “The defendants do not deny that the jury might find against them on this point.” The pamphlet wasn’t as inflammatory as PAD evidently expected, or as inflammatory as I imagined when I read Holmes’s opinion in law school, but the Supreme Court held that it was enough to be submitted to the jury, and on appeal “the jury was wrong” is almost never a valid argument. (It might be factually or morally true, but it’s not a legal basis for overturning a verdict.)
If there was any question but that Schenck’s conviction was the result of some form of “red scare,” although the subsequent appellate decision was not, compare Holmes’s opinion in Schenck to his dissenting opinion in Gitlow v. New York http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=268&invol=652#666 . The majority opinion in Gitlow is the one you should really be upset about.