The conservative way
Why debate when you can swear at someone then run away? Cheney did it, why shouldn't Novak? God help them if they had to debate the issues or answer a tough question.
"Carville and Novak were both trying to speak while they were handicapping the GOP candidacy of Katherine Harris. Novak said the opposition of the Republican establishment in Florida might not be fatal for her.
Let me just finish, James, please, Novak continued. I know you hate to hear me, but you have to.
Carville, addressing the camera, said: He’s got to show these right wingers that he’s got a backbone, you know. It’s why the Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you. Show ’em that you’re tough.
Well, I think that’s bullshit and I hate that, Novak replied. Just let it go."
"Carville and Novak were both trying to speak while they were handicapping the GOP candidacy of Katherine Harris. Novak said the opposition of the Republican establishment in Florida might not be fatal for her.
Let me just finish, James, please, Novak continued. I know you hate to hear me, but you have to.
Carville, addressing the camera, said: He’s got to show these right wingers that he’s got a backbone, you know. It’s why the Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you. Show ’em that you’re tough.
Well, I think that’s bullshit and I hate that, Novak replied. Just let it go."
posted by mochi at 7:19 AM
8 Comments:
Do you think the FCC is going to fine CNN and/or Novak under their guidelines? When was the segment broadcast? If it wasn't after 10 pm, then it might fall under the "indecency" statutes.
The Commission has defined broadcast indecency as language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities. In applying the "community standards for the broadcast medium" criterion, the Commission has stated, "The determination as to whether certain programming is patently offensive is not a local one and does not encompass any particular geographic area. Rather, the standard is that of an average broadcast viewer or listener and not the sensibilities of any individual complainant." Indecent programming contains sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. As such, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.
or perhaps it falls under the "profanity" clauses ...
The FCC has defined profanity as “including language that denot[es] certain of those personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance
To me, this is representative of the problem many "conservatives" have, which is two-fold. One, they're not really conservatives. I remember in the 80's, when Frank Zappa was getting some press for his political views, he would consistently refer to himself as a conservative. This was despite the fact that he opposed both Nixon and Reagan. He was the type of conservative many people who consider themselves "centrists" probably are - more in the Libertarian camp, except less intense. Government's social responsibilities are valid, but its constant meddling and taxation to fund such meddling is bad.
The second reason today's "conservatives" (read: the current Republican party) betray real conservatism is because they are mostly a bunch of extreme right wing whack jobs with bad tempers who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag so they get pissed all the time and storm off - Cheney, Bush, Novack, the list goes on. They're arrogant simpletons and they've been masquerading as real conservatives for decades, gradually gaining enough strength to take over the entire federal government. I guess petulance, belligerence and arrogance can get you to the top.
Smorg,
Pretty astute!
You're right about this, but I do just differ on one point. You mention "right wing" and although I hear this term a lot, I don't know if it is an accurate one (although I do understand it may be a relative reference). If you have a chance, pop over to News Snipet 'Blog: MORE TO COME and check out the graph. Let me know your thoughts.
I maintain that in this nation we only have left and right of left. As you move left or right either way from the center you end up politically at fascism. That's what most people on either side fail to understand. Although there are some politicians out there that advocate issues that fall on the right side of the spectrum, overall the politics of the United States moves increasingly leftward with the occasional hiccup. (The way to analyze this is to look at it over an extended period of time.)
Barry Goldwater--now there was a real conservative.
Have a good weekend!
-Jack
I've seen similar models in the past. I think they're a pretty good way to add color to a complex issue that many people wrongly regard as black and white. There's always a lot of name calling in politics and names are just labels, and labels never capture the entire story.
I was using the term "right wing" very loosely. It's interesting that Mochi wrote a post about Bush's opposing Darwinism - that's the kind of mentality I'm trying to portray when I say "right wing", people who operate on faith and dogma alone without regard to facts and/or science, and who rarely, if ever, change their minds. That's one of the many reasons I despise Bush so.
Smorg, Bush is not proposing teaching intelligent design exclusively, but as another theory. You are right that a hallmark of the "right wing" is the suppression of information, and it sounds more like the "left" is more guilty in this circumstance. Science is VERY young in terms of the universe, and constantly changing. Theories are disproven and proven every day, and there is still millenia of information and study as yet undiscovered.
Darwin's theory has been challenged on so many levels and in many aspects been disproven. Why not put other theories out there and let them stand up to the challenge?
We only fear that which we least understand...
-Jack
To be honest, I really didn't investigate Mochi's claim before I started my rant and I really don't know squat about intelligent design. I do know from experience, however, that Bush is a big advocate of doing bonehead things in the name of his religion (e.g. enshrine bigotry in the Constitution with the gay marriage thing).
You appear to know more than I do about this particular topic, Jack, and I yield to your expertise. But it is nice to know that we both (and I think Mochi and other writers on this site included) feel the same way about true conservative ideals being soiled by these people currently in power - like 'em or not.
Cheers. Have a good weekend yourself.
About "right wing": I use that phrase a lot, because I don't believe the Neocons are conservative. Barry Goldwater was a good example of a conservative, and perhaps Dwight Eisenhower, too.
As for the "intelligent design" thing, I was taught that Darwin's work is not a good reference for contemporary biology, just as the Wright Brothers' plane does not adequately represent contemporary aeronautical engineering or Bell's early telephone does not represent modern communications technology. They all laid groundwork, but things have moved on. Most importantly, Darwin's theory of natural selection has been proven true through observation.
On the other hand, religion is not science; it is religion. It is faith: a belief in forces which must be defined as supernatural because the accompanying texts describe incidents which are impossible through natural means, and must therefore be accomplished by divine means instead.
Having said that, I don't know why the anti-evolution crowd has arrived at the conclusion that science and religion are at odds, except for the literalists who believe their religious texts are absolute verbatim. Evolutionary science does not even address the origins of the universe, so religiods should not feel so threatened by it... unless they realize that their dogma does not hold up under scrutiny, because it is merely faith-based, and is not supported by science.
Now, dig this, religious ones: I am frequently accused of "wearing a tin foil hat" in blogs because of my political opinions. Well, in my opinion, anyone who believes the religious myths are true is wearing one of the biggest tin foil hats of all.
Okay. I've done it now, haven't I?
Jack, I still say "intelligent design" is just new-speak for "God" (or "Gods"). I mean, sure, one can have fun with the language and dance the semantic tango, but we all know what they mean when they say "intelligent design." Especially when they keep portraying it falsely by implying schools teach kids that God does not exist. That is being not taught in American schools (except in some marxist communes, maybe).
They need to get real and quit trying to market their ideology. They want to replace scientific discoveries with the literal interpretation of Genesis, and I refuse to allow them to drag civilization back to the dark ages.
Post a Comment
<< Home