U.S. Press Plays Pravda
September 25, 2012
Elizabeth Scalia
Almost exactly one year ago in this space, I offered anecdotal evidence of a previously unthinkable development: the growing distrust among senior citizens for a mainstream press whose credibility was, until very recently, so sterling that arguments among their set were definitively settled with the declaration, “It has to be true! It’s in the paper!”
The seniors are not alone in their disillusionment with the mainstream media; a recent Gallup study suggests that the press’ credibility is on the wane, with fully 60 percent of the country saying they have “little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly.”
Given the events of the last two weeks, we may expect an acceleration of media-skepticism. Let us consider just how egregiously the press has abandoned its responsibilities to the public trust in the past few weeks:
On September 11, on the eleventh anniversary of the worst attack yet endured on our shores, U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three aides were murdered, and their headquarters in Benghazi sacked. The U.S. Press unquestioningly accepted a White House explanation calling the event a “spontaneous demonstration” inspired by a poorly made anti-Islam film short that had been languishing online, all-but-ignored, for months.
Despite reports that the attackers had been chanting “Obama, we are all Osama,” (in reference to Osama bin Laden, whose America-effected demise was celebrated over 20 times during the recently concluded Democratic convention) the press duly reported the White House line, and they saw no First Amendment issues when the Obama administration asked Google (owners of YouTube) to remove the offending video. (Google refused.)
This is the same press, all the same bylines and faces, by the way, who fretted about the “chill wind” threatening free speech when then-White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer merely suggested that post-9/11 people might need to be cautious in their speech.
The press did not blink when the film’s creator was publicly identified, handcuffed, and brought into police custody for questioning about “a possible parole violation” in the middle of the night. In fact, some journalists—utterly incurious about the possible constitutional repercussions of establishing such a precedent—began helpfully arguing that sometimes free speech ought to be limited, darn it! The work of cultural darling Andres Serrano—whose overpraised “Piss Christ” showcases a photograph of a crucifix submerged in a bucket of Serrano’s own urine—was free speech and “art” deserving protection, while an execrably produced anti-Muslim short, made by a cultural nobody, was not.
The press appeared not to notice that while embassies were under threat in multiple countries, the president traveled to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser. They did manage, however, to declare his opponent Mitt Romney’s campaign almost depraved in its critique of the administration’s handing of the crisis.
When the State Department threatened to go into a bureaucratic swoon of Judy-Garlandesque proportions if forced to answer questions about the attack, the press offered a thoughtful cold compress to soothe its frazzled brow, and then closed the door softly, as it made its way out.
After the administration finally admitted to Congress that the September 11th violence was, in fact, a terror attack—quite possibly planned by Al Qaeda and released former detainees of Guantanamo Bay—the press corps heard White House Spokesman Jay Carney affirm that the attacks were “self-evidently” terrorist in nature. The press expressed no surprise at the change in story; they simply, dutifully, repeated what they had been told, while also declaring Mitt Romney’s campaign “lost”, thanks to a tape from May of 2012, wherein Romney made an elitist, possibly racist, suggestion that 47 percent of the country, realistically, would never vote for him.
It took a Spanish-language interview with Univision for President Obama to be asked direct and pointed questions about Libya and other issues, and the president’s answers were largely meandering and unfocused, like the defensive moves of a boxer who has taken a surprise hit and is trying to run out the clock for the safety of his corner. The President quickly moved to the David Letterman Show—where the host allowed him to say he wasn’t sure what the national debt actually was, without reaction—thence to a forty-thousand-dollar-a-head fundraiser hosted by rapper-entrepreneur Jay-Z and his wife, Beyonce.
The press, meanwhile, focused on the “rolling calamity” of Romney’s release of two decades worth of tax-return-related information.
Last Sunday, a subdued-looking Obama endured an interview by the formerly-serious 60 Minutes, wherein Steve Croft wondered how he felt about things, and if he didn’t feel pressure having to be president while also campaigning, because darn it, campaigns are important. And hard. Obama’s admission, during the interview, that some of the ads his campaign has approved contain “mistakes” or were “over-the-top” were omitted from the broadcast and relegated to the less-seen out-takes at CBS online.
Meanwhile, Obama gave a speech at a 5,000 seat arena, and the press described it as given before 18,000. CBS News Director John Dickerson admitted that Mitt Romney needs to ask pointed, difficult questions of Obama in the upcoming debates, because, “the press isn’t necessarily going [to do it] for him.”
The media are willfully transforming into Pravda on behalf of a president who looks, increasingly, like a man who wishes it would all go away.
I’ve taken to wondering if perhaps Obama does not really want to be re-elected, and the press is thwarting him at every turn; perhaps an Obama victory is merely incidental to the press, as long as their narrative is sustained.
But we no longer need wonder why the mainstream media seems unconcerned about possible attacks on our first amendment rights to freedom of religion and the exercise thereof. They have already cheerfully, willfully surrendered the freedom of the press to the altar of the preferred narrative. People willing to dissolve their own freedoms so cheaply have no interest in anyone else’s freedom, either.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
RESOURCES
Don't Count on the Seniors
Media Distrust at 60%
“We are all Osama”
Democrats Spike Ball on Osama at Convention
Obama to Vegas as Questions Mount Over Libya Intel Failures
Ari Fleischer's Rein of Terror
Obama Failure Becomes Romney Scandal
When Free Speech should be limited
Carney: Terror attack “self-evident”
Tough Questions from Univision
Romney Lost the Election Today
“Rolling Calamity”
60 Minutes Omits Admissions
18,000? No, 5,000!
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
9.25.2012 | 3:08am
John Lamont says:
This discussion, while interesting, does not go far enough. One might think that the phenomena it reports are just the result of the prejudices of individual journalists. Such prejudices exist and are important, but we should also be asking who owns the media enterprises for which these journalists work, and what the economic interests of these owners are. It would be surprising if the answers to these questions had nothing to do with the biases one can observe in the media.
9.25.2012 | 8:09am
bill bannon says:
I think the comments on the msm are good but I don't see the developing of consciousness on what really happened at the embassy as a gotcha moment for Obama. I think he and Panetta have done excellently in deteriorating Al Qaeda and no Catholic will say it because we want him out for other reasons involving whether our institutions downsize to thoroughly Catholic personnel around the insurance issue. In my opinion, Obama and particularly his daughters for the rest of their lives are in danger from Al Qaeda for his decision on Bin Laden, the burial at sea, and for the drone successes in general. I believe Al Qaeda with their ability to wait will eventually bring death to the Obama family...maybe through the daughters who will have less security eventually. Therefore I think Catholics should attack Obama on our issues rather than calling him weak in terrorist matters or pretending as John Boehner did that Obama is suddenly responsible for the entire deficit while Boehner had convenient amnesia on Bush's tax cuts, increase in medicare prescription benefits, and 4 trillion dollar war to find WMD in Iraq. We cannot become in this election the religion that will demonize you here, here and here if you offend us
really over here, here and here really.
really over here, here and here really.
9.25.2012 | 8:34am
New Catholic says:
The first mention of any anti-Mohammed video that I am aware of, came from the embassy in Egypt, was picked up and repeatedly claimed by the administration and media who proclaimed the video to be the sole cause of the unrest in Egypt and Libya. It appears that all the other violent protests in approximately 20 countries were the result of the poor judgment of the administration to tout and advertise the existence of the video. Our administration holds full blame for inciting much of the violence that occurred.
9.25.2012 | 8:57am
Pr. Dan Biles says:
An anecdote from Soviet times in Russia said, "We have two newspapers: The Truth (Pravda) and The News (Izvestiya). The problem is, in The Truth there is no news, and in The News there is no truth."
We have more newspapers (and other types of media), but less of news or truth.
We have more newspapers (and other types of media), but less of news or truth.
9.25.2012 | 9:33am
Joseph Marshall says:
As far as I can see, only God can be "impartial" since only God can see all ends. The notion of an impartial Media is, and always has been, a chimera. The stuffed shirted pretence taken by those who work in the news business about all this is the byproduct of a chronic American adolescence about news reporting. We are like a teenager who secretly wants the authority they rebel against to be truly authoritative. Growing up means finally acknowledging that no one can be truly authoritative, especially you.
That people distrust media is just great as far as I can see. They should have been doing this from the first. The great thing about our time is that you can choose whatever flavor of bias suits your taste and you can have it well nigh on demand with virtually no work. Of course, this can lead you into a complete fantasy universe where everybody is either fer us or agin' us, and no one has to take into account the common and unyielding facts we all must face sooner or later and never need be forced by them into a refreshing, if temporary, realism about results.
For example: Either Romney or Obama will win the Presidency on November 6, either Republicans or Democrats will have a majority in the Senate and House, respectively. No amount of "bias" among the members of the press will alter this. We can spin out our individual or our partisan narratives about this as much as we like, claim that this or that body of voters have been hoodwinked by what they read and see, and if they really knew the Truth, they'd have made the opposite decision. But it doesn't alter the facts or the math about the facts: there are two flavors offered and a majority of people will prefer one over the other.
The individuals who are both the most refreshing and the most important are the ones who can face the facts and do the math before both things slam them in the face. The one that comes to my mind immediately is Karl Rove. They are the people worth listening to, whatever your private bias. There are only a handful of them, and none of them are working journalists, radio talk show hosts, or television talking heads. The best you can find there are a few people who are trying to establish the relevant facts before expressing an opinion about them.
And that's just fine. As long as the relevant facts haven't yet slammed us in the face, we are free to make up whatever fantasy about them suits us and filter both the facts and the news to suit ourselves accordingly. Those who understand this and accept this as the natural human condition are adults, and those who continue to chase after an illusionary and impartial authority are not.
That people distrust media is just great as far as I can see. They should have been doing this from the first. The great thing about our time is that you can choose whatever flavor of bias suits your taste and you can have it well nigh on demand with virtually no work. Of course, this can lead you into a complete fantasy universe where everybody is either fer us or agin' us, and no one has to take into account the common and unyielding facts we all must face sooner or later and never need be forced by them into a refreshing, if temporary, realism about results.
For example: Either Romney or Obama will win the Presidency on November 6, either Republicans or Democrats will have a majority in the Senate and House, respectively. No amount of "bias" among the members of the press will alter this. We can spin out our individual or our partisan narratives about this as much as we like, claim that this or that body of voters have been hoodwinked by what they read and see, and if they really knew the Truth, they'd have made the opposite decision. But it doesn't alter the facts or the math about the facts: there are two flavors offered and a majority of people will prefer one over the other.
The individuals who are both the most refreshing and the most important are the ones who can face the facts and do the math before both things slam them in the face. The one that comes to my mind immediately is Karl Rove. They are the people worth listening to, whatever your private bias. There are only a handful of them, and none of them are working journalists, radio talk show hosts, or television talking heads. The best you can find there are a few people who are trying to establish the relevant facts before expressing an opinion about them.
And that's just fine. As long as the relevant facts haven't yet slammed us in the face, we are free to make up whatever fantasy about them suits us and filter both the facts and the news to suit ourselves accordingly. Those who understand this and accept this as the natural human condition are adults, and those who continue to chase after an illusionary and impartial authority are not.
9.25.2012 | 10:18am
David Nickol says:
I am really intrigued by the right's schizophrenia on the matter of freedom of speech. They are adamantly in favor of unbridled free speech for a Coptic Christian American working in concert with Coptic Christians in Egypt to create and distribute a video which has now resulted in a number of deaths. But they are still steaming about "Piss Christ." Even this week we have Bill Donohue of the Catholic League castigating the US Government for not speaking out against the photo (which is going on display at a private gallery). Apparently the feeling is that it is an abridgment of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula's freedom of speech to have the US government disavow his film, but if the United States is going to abridge Nakoula's free speech, then it is only fair that they abridge Andres Serrano's, too, by condemning "Piss Christ." Or something like that.
9.25.2012 | 10:29am
Roy M. Postel says:
Spot on observations all the way through and a chilling close. The campaign of disinformation also has yielded an electorate easily distracted and unconcerned about the erosion of Constitutional freedoms. My daily prayer is for the conversion of hearts, especially my own.
9.25.2012 | 10:44am
Elizabeth Scalia says:
Not me, David Nickol. I don't want the government to condemn "Piss Christ." I just want folks in the press and in power to be consistent about the whole idea of "sensitivity", "tolerance" and the freedom to blaspheme, if that's what one wants to do. Let's not pretend double standards do not abound. This is about how the press reacts to things. The LA Times was ready to argue that some freedom of speech against religion might be reasonably suppressed. Do you think for a moment they'd make that argument if a Republican president had hauled even the worst tinpot filmmaker in "for questioning" in the middle of the night?
Bill Bannon: It's very possible that any president would have killed bin Laden had he the opportunity, and it's also possible that upon re-election, his party would have decided to spike the football about it, nearly two dozen times. But frankly, it would be vulgar of either president, but again, it's about the double standard. Recall how appalled the press was when Bush said "I don't know if bin Laden is dead or alive but he's not leading any parades." Now imagine their reactions had his administration "gotten" bin Laden. Imagine the cries for trials over assassination. Now imagine Bush and the GOP spiking the ball over and over during the convention. What would the press say? How appalled would they be? They'd be apoplectic. This piece is not really about Obama. It's about the press.
Bill Bannon: It's very possible that any president would have killed bin Laden had he the opportunity, and it's also possible that upon re-election, his party would have decided to spike the football about it, nearly two dozen times. But frankly, it would be vulgar of either president, but again, it's about the double standard. Recall how appalled the press was when Bush said "I don't know if bin Laden is dead or alive but he's not leading any parades." Now imagine their reactions had his administration "gotten" bin Laden. Imagine the cries for trials over assassination. Now imagine Bush and the GOP spiking the ball over and over during the convention. What would the press say? How appalled would they be? They'd be apoplectic. This piece is not really about Obama. It's about the press.
9.25.2012 | 10:55am
David Nickol says:
New Catholic,
You have your facts wrong. See the following:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/15/168613/anti-us-outrage-over-video-began.html
Reports of the anti-Muslim video appeared in the Egyptian press, and a clip was shown on Egyptian television, before the protest at the Cairo embassy. The embassy knew what the upcoming protest was about and issued general statement in advance of the protest that did not make any explicit references to the video.
You say: "It appears that all the other violent protests in approximately 20 countries were the result of the poor judgment of the administration to tout and advertise the existence of the video. Our administration holds full blame for inciting much of the violence that occurred."
This is absolutely false. It is interesting that many blame the Muslim protestors and ONLY the Muslim protestors (and absolve the filmmakers from responsibility—they were only exercising their right to free speech, after all) for the violence, and yet YOU blame the United States!
You have your facts wrong. See the following:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/15/168613/anti-us-outrage-over-video-began.html
Reports of the anti-Muslim video appeared in the Egyptian press, and a clip was shown on Egyptian television, before the protest at the Cairo embassy. The embassy knew what the upcoming protest was about and issued general statement in advance of the protest that did not make any explicit references to the video.
You say: "It appears that all the other violent protests in approximately 20 countries were the result of the poor judgment of the administration to tout and advertise the existence of the video. Our administration holds full blame for inciting much of the violence that occurred."
This is absolutely false. It is interesting that many blame the Muslim protestors and ONLY the Muslim protestors (and absolve the filmmakers from responsibility—they were only exercising their right to free speech, after all) for the violence, and yet YOU blame the United States!
9.25.2012 | 11:07am
A. Campbell says:
I wish this piece had links imbedded to most of its assertions.
9.25.2012 | 11:20am
JDD says:
"I think the comments on the msm are good but I don't see the developing of consciousness on what really happened at the embassy as a gotcha moment for Obama."
The article wasn't about a 'gotcha' moment for Obama. It was specifically about the MSM. But hasn't the same MSM surely influenced - through picking and choosing what to report and not to report and even when to report - on how you've perceived the cascade of issues you've proceeded to list?
The article wasn't about a 'gotcha' moment for Obama. It was specifically about the MSM. But hasn't the same MSM surely influenced - through picking and choosing what to report and not to report and even when to report - on how you've perceived the cascade of issues you've proceeded to list?
9.25.2012 | 11:24am
Terryc says:
Pretending that the bias in the MSM doesn't matter is totally foolish. We live in a republic where the poorly informed have the same vote as the politically and historically knowledgeable. That means that while everyone should be suspicious of the bias in the media and take political advertising with a very big grain of salt there are vast numbers of people for who the MSM is the primary source of news and for whom political advertisements are the primary forming factor of candidate choice. Failure of the MSM to quell their biases is dangerous to the republic.
It is completely impossible for individuals to be unbiased, and some level of bias will always effect news gathering and reporting. The simple selection of what news to cover is a reflection of bias. However an attempt at unbiased reporting requires health skepticism and honesty on the part of editors and producers, as well as the effort to at least attempt to be be unbiased.
In 2008 Charles Krauthammer said that if MaCain won that 2008 would be the last year that the MSM was relevant. If Obama won 2012 would be the last year. If Romney wins it will appear that he was right. I unfortunately have a more cynical view of the American electorate, and believe that the MSM will usher in a another 4 years for their messiah.
It is completely impossible for individuals to be unbiased, and some level of bias will always effect news gathering and reporting. The simple selection of what news to cover is a reflection of bias. However an attempt at unbiased reporting requires health skepticism and honesty on the part of editors and producers, as well as the effort to at least attempt to be be unbiased.
In 2008 Charles Krauthammer said that if MaCain won that 2008 would be the last year that the MSM was relevant. If Obama won 2012 would be the last year. If Romney wins it will appear that he was right. I unfortunately have a more cynical view of the American electorate, and believe that the MSM will usher in a another 4 years for their messiah.
9.25.2012 | 11:28am
Rhinestone Suderman says:
Oh, yes, the terrible "Piss Christ" riots! I remember them well! Angry Christians rampaged through American cities, shouting "Behead those who insult Christ!" "Blood for Pope Benedict!" "We are all Richard the Lionheart now!"
I remember how they burned movie theaters, called for an immediate invasion of non-Christian countries, demanded Andreas Serrano be tried according to the laws of the Holy Inquisition, and demanded the government make it a crime to mocke Christ in any way. And, I remember how sympathetic the UN, the State Department and the White House were, to these demands, and stated that, really,we must be more especially sensitive to Christians, and. . .
Oh, waitasec---that never happened! Especially the last part.
In the case of something like "Piss Christ", or any other mocking of Christianity, or Judaism, Christians and Jews have been told to simply lighten up, take one for the First Amendment and stop being such puritanical hatey-hate-haters. When Islam is offended---or it claims it's been offended---it's all, "Oh, oh, oh, why do they hate us? How can we make amends? How could we be so insensitive? Why can't we reign in freedom of speech when it offends Islam?" And our government seems all to eager to go along with this---in an attempt to get around the First Amendment altogether?
I don't support Bill Donohue (I'm not Catholic, for one thing) but you really can't blame Christians, Jews, and everybody else for beginning to notice that there is a certain---heh!---double-standard, in the way our society now views certain religions. Some can be insulted with impunity (and, that's okay---freedom of speech.) Some can be insulted---and some want to make that a crime.
I think the real issue here is the attempt to replace the First Amendment with Sharia Law.
I remember how they burned movie theaters, called for an immediate invasion of non-Christian countries, demanded Andreas Serrano be tried according to the laws of the Holy Inquisition, and demanded the government make it a crime to mocke Christ in any way. And, I remember how sympathetic the UN, the State Department and the White House were, to these demands, and stated that, really,we must be more especially sensitive to Christians, and. . .
Oh, waitasec---that never happened! Especially the last part.
In the case of something like "Piss Christ", or any other mocking of Christianity, or Judaism, Christians and Jews have been told to simply lighten up, take one for the First Amendment and stop being such puritanical hatey-hate-haters. When Islam is offended---or it claims it's been offended---it's all, "Oh, oh, oh, why do they hate us? How can we make amends? How could we be so insensitive? Why can't we reign in freedom of speech when it offends Islam?" And our government seems all to eager to go along with this---in an attempt to get around the First Amendment altogether?
I don't support Bill Donohue (I'm not Catholic, for one thing) but you really can't blame Christians, Jews, and everybody else for beginning to notice that there is a certain---heh!---double-standard, in the way our society now views certain religions. Some can be insulted with impunity (and, that's okay---freedom of speech.) Some can be insulted---and some want to make that a crime.
I think the real issue here is the attempt to replace the First Amendment with Sharia Law.
9.25.2012 | 11:33am
Rhinestone Suderman says:
Or, putting it another way, some of us are fascinated by the Left's schizophrenia on the matter of free speech. Free speech is wonderful, great, swell, let's have more of it---except when it concerns Islam, when it suddenly becomes shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, "Offending religious sensibilities!" "Islamophobic!" etc., etc., etc. If "Family Guy" makes a cartoon about Jesus, that's hilarious! If French cartoonist, Charlie Hebdo, makes cartoons about Mohammed, he's very dangerous, and should be stopped! If Moslems make cartoons about Jews, featuring horrific, anti-semetic imagery---that' their culture, how dare you criticize it?
(And does anybody remember what happened to cartoonist Mollie Norris? She vanished from sight, with nary a peep from the Left.)
(And does anybody remember what happened to cartoonist Mollie Norris? She vanished from sight, with nary a peep from the Left.)
9.25.2012 | 11:36am
Lisa Santerre says:
What annoyed conservatives wasn't that an "artist" photographed a crucifix in his urine, but that our tax dollars PAID him to do that, via a "grant" in support of the "arts." No one (or at least hardly anyone) is questioning his right to create bad art, but lots of people ask why all of us who pay taxes should be forced to financially support insulting art. I haven't read Bill Donohue's statement, but I suspect it was a request for even-handed outrage -- i.e., if the government is going to condemn art insulting to Islam, then it should also condemn art insulting to Christianity, or just get out of the art critic business entirely. That's hardly "schizophrenia."
Great column by E.S., as usual.
Great column by E.S., as usual.
9.25.2012 | 11:45am
Steve Billingsley says:
David Nickol,
"They are adamantly in favor of unbridled free speech for a Coptic Christian American working in concert with Coptic Christians in Egypt to create and distribute a video which has now resulted in a number of deaths. But they are still steaming about "Piss Christ."
Way to miss the point. As a Christian, I found (and find) "Piss Christ" highly offensive. But the point Donohue is making (and I have never been a big fan of his) is the double standard in place. Most (not all, but the large, large majority) of Christians in America who were offended at Serrano's work were not arguing that he didn't have the right to produce the work he produced. They argued that taxpayers shouldn't have to fund it. Big difference. Also, the offended protests of Christians didn't result in deaths, riots, etc. Andres Serrano has every right to produce the "art" he produced - such as it is. He doesn't have the right to taxpayer funding to produce it (really what did the funding go for, a purchase at a Catholic bookstore, a jar at Wal-Mart and a six-pack of beer for the, well you know?). Christians (or anyone else for that matter) have the right to be offended by it, love it, lionize it - think about it however they want.
Nevermind the actual point of the post - the ridiculous Obama cheerleading of much of the so-called mainstream media and the obvious double-standard, myopia and outright journalistic incompetence that it engenders. Do you care to address that at all?
"They are adamantly in favor of unbridled free speech for a Coptic Christian American working in concert with Coptic Christians in Egypt to create and distribute a video which has now resulted in a number of deaths. But they are still steaming about "Piss Christ."
Way to miss the point. As a Christian, I found (and find) "Piss Christ" highly offensive. But the point Donohue is making (and I have never been a big fan of his) is the double standard in place. Most (not all, but the large, large majority) of Christians in America who were offended at Serrano's work were not arguing that he didn't have the right to produce the work he produced. They argued that taxpayers shouldn't have to fund it. Big difference. Also, the offended protests of Christians didn't result in deaths, riots, etc. Andres Serrano has every right to produce the "art" he produced - such as it is. He doesn't have the right to taxpayer funding to produce it (really what did the funding go for, a purchase at a Catholic bookstore, a jar at Wal-Mart and a six-pack of beer for the, well you know?). Christians (or anyone else for that matter) have the right to be offended by it, love it, lionize it - think about it however they want.
Nevermind the actual point of the post - the ridiculous Obama cheerleading of much of the so-called mainstream media and the obvious double-standard, myopia and outright journalistic incompetence that it engenders. Do you care to address that at all?
9.25.2012 | 11:54am
Sam Rocha says:
“It is difficult to get the news from poems, yet men die miserably every day for lack of what is found there.”
William Carlos William, from "Of Asphodel, that Greeny Flower."
William Carlos William, from "Of Asphodel, that Greeny Flower."
9.25.2012 | 11:55am
JDD says:
[David Nickol] "I am really intrigued by the right's schizophrenia on the matter of freedom of speech. They are adamantly in favor of unbridled free speech for a Coptic Christian American working in concert with Coptic Christians in Egypt to create and distribute a video which has now resulted in a number of deaths."
You've unduly caricatured 'the right' and lumped everyone you disagree with together, and through uncharacteristically sloppy prose hinted that the deaths don't bother anyone on 'the right' as long as free speech is upheld.
But here's a hint for you: Free speech in a moral vacuum is untethered and quickly shredded. The free speech clause of the Constitution hinges on the acknowledgement of a moral law and the good will of the people.
Mr. Serrano is not a well man, and the open advocacy from various cultural quarters that his 'productions' receive are more the subject of criticism that the 'works' themselves. The schizophrenia is surely the virtual monopoly of the MSM. No one can keep up with that pace.
'The right' 's larger critique has to do with this Administration's quickness to want to shut down speech it doesn't agree with, rather than acknowledge a larger problem that that speech shed light on. Mrs. Scalia's article noted the MSM's complicit pattern.
You've unduly caricatured 'the right' and lumped everyone you disagree with together, and through uncharacteristically sloppy prose hinted that the deaths don't bother anyone on 'the right' as long as free speech is upheld.
But here's a hint for you: Free speech in a moral vacuum is untethered and quickly shredded. The free speech clause of the Constitution hinges on the acknowledgement of a moral law and the good will of the people.
Mr. Serrano is not a well man, and the open advocacy from various cultural quarters that his 'productions' receive are more the subject of criticism that the 'works' themselves. The schizophrenia is surely the virtual monopoly of the MSM. No one can keep up with that pace.
'The right' 's larger critique has to do with this Administration's quickness to want to shut down speech it doesn't agree with, rather than acknowledge a larger problem that that speech shed light on. Mrs. Scalia's article noted the MSM's complicit pattern.
9.25.2012 | 12:13pm
publius says:
David,
You left out a key piece of information in your condemnation of the "right's schizophrenia" -- Serrano's "Piss Christ" was funded in part by a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts. It was the use of taxpayer's money to support this work of "art" that upset many on the right.
You left out a key piece of information in your condemnation of the "right's schizophrenia" -- Serrano's "Piss Christ" was funded in part by a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts. It was the use of taxpayer's money to support this work of "art" that upset many on the right.
9.25.2012 | 12:27pm
sds says:
Nickol: This article is about media bias, not the "right's schizophrenia." I'm really intrigued by the left's always changing the subject and always denying reality. Lets try these two facts. One, the film did not instigate the riots, they were coordinated terrorist attacks, even the white house now admits it (though Obama does not). Second, I have yet to see Christians out rioting and killing other Christians over "piss c"
9.25.2012 | 1:04pm
Katie says:
David Nickol,
With all due respect, I don't believe it's "the right" (whatever that means) which is schizophrenic on the issue. I think that, instead, the "the right" is simply identifying the schizophrenic enforcement of First Amendment freedoms.
If "piss Christ" is legal (and really, it surely is - the Constitution guarantees no one the Right to Not Be Offended), then so should the Coptic "video" be. If the Coptic video constitutes unnecessary/illegal provocation of chaos/violence because it is a direct shot at the strongly-held religious beliefs of others, then so should "piss Christ" be.
They really are the same sort of art, in principle. If we wish to defend the right to speak/create art/etc that may offend some individuals, then who the individuals are that are offended really shouldn't matter. Equal opportunity offense, yes?
The obvious difference is that when "piss Christ" first was displayed, Christians took to airwaves, blogs, editorial pages, etc to denounce it. They did not burn down buildings, kill or threaten to kill *completely uninvolved* individuals, or in general cause any sort of international incident.
And that's really what this is about - the government has apparently determined that it is acceptable to offend or provoke people who aren't likely to kill anyone when offended or provoked, and it is not acceptable to offend or provoke those who will. That's schizophrenic policy, not schizophrenic Christians.
With all due respect, I don't believe it's "the right" (whatever that means) which is schizophrenic on the issue. I think that, instead, the "the right" is simply identifying the schizophrenic enforcement of First Amendment freedoms.
If "piss Christ" is legal (and really, it surely is - the Constitution guarantees no one the Right to Not Be Offended), then so should the Coptic "video" be. If the Coptic video constitutes unnecessary/illegal provocation of chaos/violence because it is a direct shot at the strongly-held religious beliefs of others, then so should "piss Christ" be.
They really are the same sort of art, in principle. If we wish to defend the right to speak/create art/etc that may offend some individuals, then who the individuals are that are offended really shouldn't matter. Equal opportunity offense, yes?
The obvious difference is that when "piss Christ" first was displayed, Christians took to airwaves, blogs, editorial pages, etc to denounce it. They did not burn down buildings, kill or threaten to kill *completely uninvolved* individuals, or in general cause any sort of international incident.
And that's really what this is about - the government has apparently determined that it is acceptable to offend or provoke people who aren't likely to kill anyone when offended or provoked, and it is not acceptable to offend or provoke those who will. That's schizophrenic policy, not schizophrenic Christians.
9.25.2012 | 1:27pm
Mike Melendez says:
@bill bannon: Apparently, you missed something back in September, 2001. The fourth airliner, the one that crashed in Pennsylvania, is believed to have been heading for the White House. The occupant had barely gotten started in his first term. So all your talk about how in danger Obama is from making hard decisions completely misses the point. President Obama willingly took on that risk when he assumed the office. Decades of evidence indicates that we American citizens are all at risk from those with an Islamist agenda. Just ask Dan Pearl about it. Take the blinders off, you'll see more clearly.
9.25.2012 | 2:13pm
Caroline Walker says:
Add to this shameful roster the fawning portrait of Obama in the current Vanity Fair, in which the line of questioning most doggedly pursued is: "Why doesn't he show more emotion?"
"Where do you put what you actually feel," Lewis writes, "when there is no place in your job to feel it?"
Seriously???
"Where do you put what you actually feel," Lewis writes, "when there is no place in your job to feel it?"
Seriously???
9.25.2012 | 2:21pm
Ye Olde Statistician says:
@David Nickol
Maybe Donohue will gin up a riot and assassinate an official of whichever state it was made in. Really, you cannot tell the difference?? What part of "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it?" is unclear?
It is not a matter of whether people objected to it. Objectors also have the right to speak freely. It is a matter of attempted official suppression and/or mob violence. The Christians have also objected to the anti-Islamic video, even though its artistic virtues are at least as good as taking a snap-shot of a crucifix in a jar of your own urine. The real objections should come from the artists!
Maybe Donohue will gin up a riot and assassinate an official of whichever state it was made in. Really, you cannot tell the difference?? What part of "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it?" is unclear?
It is not a matter of whether people objected to it. Objectors also have the right to speak freely. It is a matter of attempted official suppression and/or mob violence. The Christians have also objected to the anti-Islamic video, even though its artistic virtues are at least as good as taking a snap-shot of a crucifix in a jar of your own urine. The real objections should come from the artists!
9.25.2012 | 2:29pm
Elizabeth Scalia says:
A. Campbell wrote: "I wish this piece had links imbedded to most of its assertions."
There are a number of links beneath the piece, under RESOURCES. I prefer them embedded, myself, but I did try to provide links.
There are a number of links beneath the piece, under RESOURCES. I prefer them embedded, myself, but I did try to provide links.
9.25.2012 | 3:25pm
arty says:
As it often does, "The Onion" gets it right, with an article entitled "No One Murdered Because Of This Image."
The link is here, but be warned that the picture is in fact incredibly offensive.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/?ref=auto
The link is here, but be warned that the picture is in fact incredibly offensive.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/?ref=auto
9.25.2012 | 3:25pm
David Nickol says:
Elizabeth Scalia:
You say: "The LA Times was ready to argue that some freedom of speech against religion might be reasonably suppressed. Do you think for a moment they'd make that argument if a Republican president had hauled even the worst tinpot filmmaker in "for questioning" in the middle of the night?"
The LA Times printed an Op-Ed piece by one person, Sarah Chayes, who made the case not that standards for free speech in the United States should be changed, but that UNDER EXISTING LAW the making and distribution of the anti-Muslim film was not free speech protected by the First Amendment. She quotes Anthony Lewis to support her opinion, which is basically that the film was intended to provoke violence and there was an "immanent threat." The main point of disagreement with other First Amendment interpreters was that the time lag involved ruled out immanence. Chayes and Lewis both disagree. I have seen no move to prosecute anyone involved with making the film. I hope you would agree that the opinion of Sarah Chayes, writing an opinion piece in the LA Times, is not to be taken as the opinion of the LA Times itself, nor is any Op-Ed page piece in any newspaper to be taken to be expressing the opinion of the newspaper. This is the nature of Op-Ed pieces.
You say: "Do you think for a moment they'd make that argument if a Republican president had hauled even the worst tinpot filmmaker in "for questioning" in the middle of the night?"
The "tinpot filmmaker" had formerly been convicted and imprisoned for attempting to make methamphetamine. Subsequent to that, in June 2010, to quote Wikipedia, "He was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison, five years probation, and ordered to pay $794,701 in restitution. He was sent to prison, then to a halfway house, and was released from custody in June 2011. A few weeks later, he began working on Innocence of Muslims. Conditions of Nakoula's probation include not using aliases and not using the Internet without prior approval from his probation officer."
Now, by the time Nakoula's name become known, even those of us following the story in the news knew that he had used aliases and had made a video that was being distributed on the Internet. It is really not surprising under the circumstances that Nakoula would be taken in for questioning. If you are on probation, and your name comes up as someone at the center of an international incident, you are going to be taken in for questioning. That is what probation is all about.
If he violated the terms of his probation, are you really going to argue that the authorities should have just ignored him because that might have a chilling effect on free speech?
You say: "The LA Times was ready to argue that some freedom of speech against religion might be reasonably suppressed. Do you think for a moment they'd make that argument if a Republican president had hauled even the worst tinpot filmmaker in "for questioning" in the middle of the night?"
The LA Times printed an Op-Ed piece by one person, Sarah Chayes, who made the case not that standards for free speech in the United States should be changed, but that UNDER EXISTING LAW the making and distribution of the anti-Muslim film was not free speech protected by the First Amendment. She quotes Anthony Lewis to support her opinion, which is basically that the film was intended to provoke violence and there was an "immanent threat." The main point of disagreement with other First Amendment interpreters was that the time lag involved ruled out immanence. Chayes and Lewis both disagree. I have seen no move to prosecute anyone involved with making the film. I hope you would agree that the opinion of Sarah Chayes, writing an opinion piece in the LA Times, is not to be taken as the opinion of the LA Times itself, nor is any Op-Ed page piece in any newspaper to be taken to be expressing the opinion of the newspaper. This is the nature of Op-Ed pieces.
You say: "Do you think for a moment they'd make that argument if a Republican president had hauled even the worst tinpot filmmaker in "for questioning" in the middle of the night?"
The "tinpot filmmaker" had formerly been convicted and imprisoned for attempting to make methamphetamine. Subsequent to that, in June 2010, to quote Wikipedia, "He was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison, five years probation, and ordered to pay $794,701 in restitution. He was sent to prison, then to a halfway house, and was released from custody in June 2011. A few weeks later, he began working on Innocence of Muslims. Conditions of Nakoula's probation include not using aliases and not using the Internet without prior approval from his probation officer."
Now, by the time Nakoula's name become known, even those of us following the story in the news knew that he had used aliases and had made a video that was being distributed on the Internet. It is really not surprising under the circumstances that Nakoula would be taken in for questioning. If you are on probation, and your name comes up as someone at the center of an international incident, you are going to be taken in for questioning. That is what probation is all about.
If he violated the terms of his probation, are you really going to argue that the authorities should have just ignored him because that might have a chilling effect on free speech?
9.25.2012 | 4:12pm
Adam_Baum says:
I think he and Panetta have done excellently in deteriorating Al Qaeda
By what measures?
By what measures?
9.25.2012 | 4:14pm
David Nickol says:
I am still not getting the First Amendment issue. No legal action has been taken to punish the filmmaker or suppress the film. Yes, this is true: "White House officials had asked Google earlier on Friday to reconsider whether the video had violated YouTube's terms of service. . . . Google said on Wednesday that the video was within its guidelines." I fail to see how the White House trampled on the First Amendment here. It was a request, and Google said no. Every statement that has been made by the government has contained a reference to the US commitment to freedom of speech.
For those who are saying that there was a different standard for "Piss Christ," please recall that it was denounced by a number of politicians at the national level, most notably Alphonse D'Amato of New York and Jesse Helms of South Carolina. The following senators wrote to the National Endowment to express their "outrage": Alphonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Warren B. Rudman, Rudy Boschwitz, Dennis DeConcini, Pete Wilson, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, James A. McClure, John Heinz, Wendell Ford, Howell Heflin, Harry Reid, Richard Shelby, John W. Warner, Larry Pressler, Conrad Burns, Tom Harkin, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, John McCain, Arlen Specter, Steve Symms. Nobody writing here would ever have heard of "Piss Christ" if there had not been a massive protest to bring it to everyone's attention!
"Piss Christ" was not funded or paid for by the National Endowment. "For many years, the Southeast Center for Contemporary Art (SECCA) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, has hosted Awards in the Visual Arts, a national competition for individual artists. In 1988, Andres Serrano was one of seven winners. His prize was $15,000 plus a place in the group show exhibiting the work of the winners. The fund that provided the money for the cash prizes came from the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, private donors, corporate donors and the NEA." When the NEA gives grants such as the one to SECCA, the government is forbidden to have any say in the outcome.
Other information from Wikipedia:
During a retrospective of Serrano's work at the National Gallery of Victoria in 1997, the then Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell, sought an injunction from the Supreme Court of Victoria to restrain the National Gallery of Victoria from publicly displaying Piss Christ, which was not granted. Some days later, one patron attempted to remove the work from the gallery wall, and two teenagers later attacked it with a hammer. The director of the NGV cancelled the show, allegedly out of concern for a Rembrandt exhibition that was also on display at the time.
On April 17, 2011, a print [one of ten in existence] of Piss Christ was vandalized "beyond repair" by Christian protesters while on display during the Je crois aux miracles (I believe in miracles) exhibition at the Collection Lambert, a contemporary art museum in Avignon, France. Serrano's photo The Church was similarly vandalized in the attack.
For those who are saying that there was a different standard for "Piss Christ," please recall that it was denounced by a number of politicians at the national level, most notably Alphonse D'Amato of New York and Jesse Helms of South Carolina. The following senators wrote to the National Endowment to express their "outrage": Alphonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Warren B. Rudman, Rudy Boschwitz, Dennis DeConcini, Pete Wilson, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, James A. McClure, John Heinz, Wendell Ford, Howell Heflin, Harry Reid, Richard Shelby, John W. Warner, Larry Pressler, Conrad Burns, Tom Harkin, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, John McCain, Arlen Specter, Steve Symms. Nobody writing here would ever have heard of "Piss Christ" if there had not been a massive protest to bring it to everyone's attention!
"Piss Christ" was not funded or paid for by the National Endowment. "For many years, the Southeast Center for Contemporary Art (SECCA) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, has hosted Awards in the Visual Arts, a national competition for individual artists. In 1988, Andres Serrano was one of seven winners. His prize was $15,000 plus a place in the group show exhibiting the work of the winners. The fund that provided the money for the cash prizes came from the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, private donors, corporate donors and the NEA." When the NEA gives grants such as the one to SECCA, the government is forbidden to have any say in the outcome.
Other information from Wikipedia:
During a retrospective of Serrano's work at the National Gallery of Victoria in 1997, the then Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell, sought an injunction from the Supreme Court of Victoria to restrain the National Gallery of Victoria from publicly displaying Piss Christ, which was not granted. Some days later, one patron attempted to remove the work from the gallery wall, and two teenagers later attacked it with a hammer. The director of the NGV cancelled the show, allegedly out of concern for a Rembrandt exhibition that was also on display at the time.
On April 17, 2011, a print [one of ten in existence] of Piss Christ was vandalized "beyond repair" by Christian protesters while on display during the Je crois aux miracles (I believe in miracles) exhibition at the Collection Lambert, a contemporary art museum in Avignon, France. Serrano's photo The Church was similarly vandalized in the attack.
9.25.2012 | 4:17pm
Peg says:
Our UN ambassador, Susan Rice, said the problem with the video is that it 'hurt the feelings' of Moslems. I thought that was a pretty low threshold, plus it makes Moslems out to be on the emotional level of second graders. Someone in the MSM should have had her on the carpet for condescension at least.
9.25.2012 | 4:36pm
bobster says:
David, no one is asking for the suppression of other pieces of "art". The double standard is the issue. Do you really think that fear of barbarians is the appropriate yardstick to judge free speech?
9.25.2012 | 4:41pm
David Nickol says:
Ye Olde Statistician:
You say: "Maybe Donohue will gin up a riot and assassinate an official of whichever state it was made in. Really, you cannot tell the difference?? What part of "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it?" is unclear?"
The issue here, as I understand it, is government and the First Amendment right to insult people's religions. There have been people who have made the case that the Cairo embassy had no right to condemn the anti-Muslim film (although what it did was issue a general statement about anti-Muslim propaganda without naming the film). I disagree with those people, but in any case, there have been arguments that the government must remain mum about the content of a citizen's speech to adhere to the First Amendment. Now, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is inviting the Obama administration to condemn "Piss Christ."
**********
“I would like to find out what my government is going to say about this,” said Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League. “We have the United States government making apologies and some very critical statements about the abuse of freedom of speech because it might offend Muslims.”
Donohue said the Obama administration seems to have a double standard when it comes to incidents that might offend the Christian community.
“It seems like we have a protected class for Muslims as well as some other segments of our population,” he told Fox News. “But when it comes to Christians, it’s an all-out war.”
**********
So here is the schizophrenia I was referring to. Some people are saying the government must remain silent on the content of protected speech. Others are demanding that the government must speak out against protected speech when it is anti-Christian (not just anti-Muslim).
Which is it? I don't think it can be reasonably argued that the Obama administration should NOT have spoken against the anti-Muslim film, but that it SHOULD speak out against "Piss Christ."
No doubt it would make anyone who was thinking of speaking (or writing, or making a movie, or drawing a cartoon) in a way that might offend Christians if he or she knew that it might mean riots around the world or perhaps a threat to his or her own life. IS THAT WHAT CHRISTIANS WANT? Many seem to be envious of the fear Islamic extremists evoke. It is as if some Christians were saying, "If only people were that afraid of us!" But is that really the kind of "respect" Christians want?
You say: "Maybe Donohue will gin up a riot and assassinate an official of whichever state it was made in. Really, you cannot tell the difference?? What part of "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it?" is unclear?"
The issue here, as I understand it, is government and the First Amendment right to insult people's religions. There have been people who have made the case that the Cairo embassy had no right to condemn the anti-Muslim film (although what it did was issue a general statement about anti-Muslim propaganda without naming the film). I disagree with those people, but in any case, there have been arguments that the government must remain mum about the content of a citizen's speech to adhere to the First Amendment. Now, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is inviting the Obama administration to condemn "Piss Christ."
**********
“I would like to find out what my government is going to say about this,” said Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League. “We have the United States government making apologies and some very critical statements about the abuse of freedom of speech because it might offend Muslims.”
Donohue said the Obama administration seems to have a double standard when it comes to incidents that might offend the Christian community.
“It seems like we have a protected class for Muslims as well as some other segments of our population,” he told Fox News. “But when it comes to Christians, it’s an all-out war.”
**********
So here is the schizophrenia I was referring to. Some people are saying the government must remain silent on the content of protected speech. Others are demanding that the government must speak out against protected speech when it is anti-Christian (not just anti-Muslim).
Which is it? I don't think it can be reasonably argued that the Obama administration should NOT have spoken against the anti-Muslim film, but that it SHOULD speak out against "Piss Christ."
No doubt it would make anyone who was thinking of speaking (or writing, or making a movie, or drawing a cartoon) in a way that might offend Christians if he or she knew that it might mean riots around the world or perhaps a threat to his or her own life. IS THAT WHAT CHRISTIANS WANT? Many seem to be envious of the fear Islamic extremists evoke. It is as if some Christians were saying, "If only people were that afraid of us!" But is that really the kind of "respect" Christians want?
9.25.2012 | 4:58pm
David Nickol says:
sds,
You say: "One, the film did not instigate the riots, they were coordinated terrorist attacks, even the white house now admits it (though Obama does not)."
My understanding is that the protest (which became violent) at the Cairo embassy was against the film. The murder of the ambassador and others in Benghazi was a terrorist attack and was not a reaction to the film. The demonstrations, many violent, in about twenty other cities were against the film.
You say: "One, the film did not instigate the riots, they were coordinated terrorist attacks, even the white house now admits it (though Obama does not)."
My understanding is that the protest (which became violent) at the Cairo embassy was against the film. The murder of the ambassador and others in Benghazi was a terrorist attack and was not a reaction to the film. The demonstrations, many violent, in about twenty other cities were against the film.
9.25.2012 | 5:15pm
David Nickol says:
Peg,
You say: "Our UN ambassador, Susan Rice, said the problem with the video is that it 'hurt the feelings' of Moslems."
Can you document that? I can't find any instance of Ambassador Rice using similar words. The statement issued by the Cairo embassy before the demonstration used the phrases "hurt the religious feelings," and "hurt the religious beliefs." I believe you are incorrectly attributing those words to Susan Rice.
You say: "Our UN ambassador, Susan Rice, said the problem with the video is that it 'hurt the feelings' of Moslems."
Can you document that? I can't find any instance of Ambassador Rice using similar words. The statement issued by the Cairo embassy before the demonstration used the phrases "hurt the religious feelings," and "hurt the religious beliefs." I believe you are incorrectly attributing those words to Susan Rice.
9.25.2012 | 6:09pm
David Nickol says:
bobster,
You say: "The double standard is the issue. Do you really think that fear of barbarians is the appropriate yardstick to judge free speech?"
I don't understand who is being blamed for the double standard. The government? I guarantee you that if an anti-Christian film made in the US was causing anti-American riots in the Christian nations of the world, the United States would a affirm Americans' right to free speech but say it finds the content of the film offensive. The American government is not in the business of rating films. Do people want them to be? Apparently Bill Donohue does. The reason the government is commenting on *this* film is not because the Obama administration likes Muslims and dislikes Christians. It is because this film is the focus of an ongoing international incident.
If Christians really *want* people who offend Christian sensibilities to fear for their lives, then they should start issuing the Christian equivalent of fatwas, start rioting, and make sure some prominent offenders are murdered. Then the so-called double-standard will disappear. But that won't make people *respect* Christianity more. It will just make them more afraid than they currently are.
Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see that there is any issue of free speech here. That is, the United States government is not abridging the free speech rights of anti-Muslims or anti-Christians. The government did ask Google to reconsider whether the video in question here was within its guidelines. The ACLU expressed concern, but it said it did not know the details of what went on between the government and Google. In any case, Google said it was leaving the video on Youtube. No one's right to free speech has been abridged.
You say: "The double standard is the issue. Do you really think that fear of barbarians is the appropriate yardstick to judge free speech?"
I don't understand who is being blamed for the double standard. The government? I guarantee you that if an anti-Christian film made in the US was causing anti-American riots in the Christian nations of the world, the United States would a affirm Americans' right to free speech but say it finds the content of the film offensive. The American government is not in the business of rating films. Do people want them to be? Apparently Bill Donohue does. The reason the government is commenting on *this* film is not because the Obama administration likes Muslims and dislikes Christians. It is because this film is the focus of an ongoing international incident.
If Christians really *want* people who offend Christian sensibilities to fear for their lives, then they should start issuing the Christian equivalent of fatwas, start rioting, and make sure some prominent offenders are murdered. Then the so-called double-standard will disappear. But that won't make people *respect* Christianity more. It will just make them more afraid than they currently are.
Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see that there is any issue of free speech here. That is, the United States government is not abridging the free speech rights of anti-Muslims or anti-Christians. The government did ask Google to reconsider whether the video in question here was within its guidelines. The ACLU expressed concern, but it said it did not know the details of what went on between the government and Google. In any case, Google said it was leaving the video on Youtube. No one's right to free speech has been abridged.
9.25.2012 | 7:56pm
Peg says:
"I believe you are incorrectly attributing those words to Susan Rice"
Sorry, my mistake. It was Rice's State Department colleagues in Cairo who said the video hurt the feelings of Moslems. We can't have such unheard-of cruelty inflicted on people of special and exquisite feelings.
Sorry, my mistake. It was Rice's State Department colleagues in Cairo who said the video hurt the feelings of Moslems. We can't have such unheard-of cruelty inflicted on people of special and exquisite feelings.
9.25.2012 | 9:43pm
Rhinestone Suderman says:
David, have you been following the news, since 9/11?
There have been reports that the attacks are actually an attempt to get the infamous Blind Shiek freed. Furthermore, there is speculation that the attacks in Libya, Egypt, etc., were in commemoration of 9/11 (you did check the calendar, yes?) Again, reports of the attackers chanting "We are all Osama, now!" would support this.
And, even if the attacks in Egypt, Yemen and other places actually were inspired by the video---so what? Should we abrogate the First Amendment, because golly-gee-whillikers, they might get mad and riot?
Seriously. Check out Google. Or Bing.
I think what Christians are getting tired of is the on-going double-standard, where Islam is considered above-criticism, or suspicion. How many Mormons have rioted over "Book of Mormon?" How many Catholics went out and burned down buildings, or murdered people, because of "Da Vinci Code?" No, we don't want either Andreas Serrano, or the Israeli/Egyptian/Coptic/Christian/whatever guy who made "Innocence of Moslems" bundled into cop cars at midnight, and hauled off for questioning. We don't want Obama to speak out on "Piss Christ" or "Innocence of Moslems." What we'd like him to do, is his job---you know, attend intelligence briefings, defend Americans in other countries and support the First Amendment. What we don't want him to do is institute Sharia Law here, which is what banning criticism of Islam, or any book, movie, artwork, etc. that might possibly offend any Moslem, anywhere, would result in.
(And, no we don't want a Christian Inquisition here, either. But, let's be honest---a lot more people are afraid of the Islamic Street, and what it's capable of, than they are of Bill Donohue, or the Pope. Or their Christian neighbors. Be honest---I suspect you are, too! Being a liberal, you're more comfortable with a Christians-Jews-First world=Bad Guys /Moslems-Third-world=Good Guys narrative; when the narrative doesn't go the way you think it should, you look around until you find something that kinda, sorta, almost fits the narrative you like, and triumphantly cry, "Look at that bad Christian Bill Donohue!")
There have been reports that the attacks are actually an attempt to get the infamous Blind Shiek freed. Furthermore, there is speculation that the attacks in Libya, Egypt, etc., were in commemoration of 9/11 (you did check the calendar, yes?) Again, reports of the attackers chanting "We are all Osama, now!" would support this.
And, even if the attacks in Egypt, Yemen and other places actually were inspired by the video---so what? Should we abrogate the First Amendment, because golly-gee-whillikers, they might get mad and riot?
Seriously. Check out Google. Or Bing.
I think what Christians are getting tired of is the on-going double-standard, where Islam is considered above-criticism, or suspicion. How many Mormons have rioted over "Book of Mormon?" How many Catholics went out and burned down buildings, or murdered people, because of "Da Vinci Code?" No, we don't want either Andreas Serrano, or the Israeli/Egyptian/Coptic/Christian/whatever guy who made "Innocence of Moslems" bundled into cop cars at midnight, and hauled off for questioning. We don't want Obama to speak out on "Piss Christ" or "Innocence of Moslems." What we'd like him to do, is his job---you know, attend intelligence briefings, defend Americans in other countries and support the First Amendment. What we don't want him to do is institute Sharia Law here, which is what banning criticism of Islam, or any book, movie, artwork, etc. that might possibly offend any Moslem, anywhere, would result in.
(And, no we don't want a Christian Inquisition here, either. But, let's be honest---a lot more people are afraid of the Islamic Street, and what it's capable of, than they are of Bill Donohue, or the Pope. Or their Christian neighbors. Be honest---I suspect you are, too! Being a liberal, you're more comfortable with a Christians-Jews-First world=Bad Guys /Moslems-Third-world=Good Guys narrative; when the narrative doesn't go the way you think it should, you look around until you find something that kinda, sorta, almost fits the narrative you like, and triumphantly cry, "Look at that bad Christian Bill Donohue!")
9.25.2012 | 9:54pm
Rhinestone Suderman says:
And, David, once again I have to say---it's not just the right displaying schizophrenia, here!
The Left has a very good time mocking Christianity and, ever since 9/11, is getting more and more rancid in its criticism of Israel, and the Jews---but let the Islamic world become upset over a book---or a movie---or a magazine---or some stupid cartoon---and it's "How can we appease them? How can we show them we respect the prophet? Oh dear, how can we convince them we respect the prophet? Oh, oh, oh! Shouldn't there be some limits on freedom of speech?"
If any Christian gets cranky about the latest bit of "Edgy" artwork, or fiction, or whatever, it's "Oh, you puritanical Christians! You're acting just like the Taliban! You want to end freedom of speech, don't you?" Apparently, Christians can only use their freedom of speech to smile meekly, and say, "Thank you, sir! May we please have another?" If Jews are ever offended by, say, anti-semetic signs, such as the ones carried by OWS protestors, or Moslems, they can only use their freedom of speech to. . . (see instructions for Christians, above.)
Moslem sensitivities are being privileged, above all others. And, yes, there's something very schizophrenic about this.
The Left has a very good time mocking Christianity and, ever since 9/11, is getting more and more rancid in its criticism of Israel, and the Jews---but let the Islamic world become upset over a book---or a movie---or a magazine---or some stupid cartoon---and it's "How can we appease them? How can we show them we respect the prophet? Oh dear, how can we convince them we respect the prophet? Oh, oh, oh! Shouldn't there be some limits on freedom of speech?"
If any Christian gets cranky about the latest bit of "Edgy" artwork, or fiction, or whatever, it's "Oh, you puritanical Christians! You're acting just like the Taliban! You want to end freedom of speech, don't you?" Apparently, Christians can only use their freedom of speech to smile meekly, and say, "Thank you, sir! May we please have another?" If Jews are ever offended by, say, anti-semetic signs, such as the ones carried by OWS protestors, or Moslems, they can only use their freedom of speech to. . . (see instructions for Christians, above.)
Moslem sensitivities are being privileged, above all others. And, yes, there's something very schizophrenic about this.
9.26.2012 | 1:25am
Rick says:
Of course, the real issue of Elizabeth's interesting piece is the credibility of the media and their adoration of the occupant of the White House, not the attack in Libya or "Piss Christ."
I thought it was strange that she indicated that scepticism towards the media is a very recent development--something that might possibly be attributed to Obama's mysterious cult powers. But any seniors who were saying two, or ten years ago, that “It has to be true! It’s in the paper!” should probably have been screened for alzheimer's.
Actually, the propaganda powers of presidents and their influence over the media has declined since its probable high point under President Roosevelt. When Will Rogers was criticized for his admiration of Mussolini (Il Duce was still in the phase of "making the trains run on time" at this point), Rogers remarked that many dictators could only dream of the power that Roosevelt wielded. And he was right. The press was so obedient and respectful that most Americans didn't even know that Roosevelt was crippled from polio. And nary a word was breathed about his affair with his secretary, with whom he was having a tryst in Warm Springs when he suddenly died of a stroke. Clinton should have been so lucky!
The element of truth in this piece, though, is that the press has been unduly easy and unchallenging with Obama, given the current culture of no-holds-barred, intrusive investigative reporting. There have been recent exceptions, however. Maureen Dowd, of all people, mercilessly lampooned Obama for his acceptance speech in which he put the monkey on our backs by saying that we were "the change" he had been talking about back in 2008. Therefore, all the mistakes and failures were really ours. "We never should have let the congressional Democrats run wild with their stimulus spending on pork..." she lamented.
So, everything imaginable is out there in the way of information, if you bother to look for it. A little liberal opinion here, some conservative denunciations there, and an occasional exploration of the radical doesn't hurt, so that we can do what we should: really think for ourselves and come to informed opinions.
I thought it was strange that she indicated that scepticism towards the media is a very recent development--something that might possibly be attributed to Obama's mysterious cult powers. But any seniors who were saying two, or ten years ago, that “It has to be true! It’s in the paper!” should probably have been screened for alzheimer's.
Actually, the propaganda powers of presidents and their influence over the media has declined since its probable high point under President Roosevelt. When Will Rogers was criticized for his admiration of Mussolini (Il Duce was still in the phase of "making the trains run on time" at this point), Rogers remarked that many dictators could only dream of the power that Roosevelt wielded. And he was right. The press was so obedient and respectful that most Americans didn't even know that Roosevelt was crippled from polio. And nary a word was breathed about his affair with his secretary, with whom he was having a tryst in Warm Springs when he suddenly died of a stroke. Clinton should have been so lucky!
The element of truth in this piece, though, is that the press has been unduly easy and unchallenging with Obama, given the current culture of no-holds-barred, intrusive investigative reporting. There have been recent exceptions, however. Maureen Dowd, of all people, mercilessly lampooned Obama for his acceptance speech in which he put the monkey on our backs by saying that we were "the change" he had been talking about back in 2008. Therefore, all the mistakes and failures were really ours. "We never should have let the congressional Democrats run wild with their stimulus spending on pork..." she lamented.
So, everything imaginable is out there in the way of information, if you bother to look for it. A little liberal opinion here, some conservative denunciations there, and an occasional exploration of the radical doesn't hurt, so that we can do what we should: really think for ourselves and come to informed opinions.
9.26.2012 | 8:31am
New Catholic says:
David Nickol says: It is interesting that many blame the Muslim protestors and ONLY the Muslim protestors (and absolve the filmmakers from responsibility—they were only exercising their right to free speech, after all) for the violence, and yet YOU blame the United States!
Thanks for the clarification on the sequence of events. However, I do not blame the U.S. for the violence, I blame the administration for the persistent incitement and its lies regarding the cause of the violence in Libya. If the video could be the cause then the publicizing of the video is like yelling fire in crouded room.
Thanks for the clarification on the sequence of events. However, I do not blame the U.S. for the violence, I blame the administration for the persistent incitement and its lies regarding the cause of the violence in Libya. If the video could be the cause then the publicizing of the video is like yelling fire in crouded room.
9.26.2012 | 9:27am
Rhinestone Suderman says:
David, if you can't see the free speech issue here, it's because you don't want to.
I suspect you do. But it doesn't fit the progressive "America-First World-Judeo-Christian=bad", "Islam-Third-World=good" paradigm; so you can't accept it.
(And I certainly hope you're not really suggesting that Christians riot, and issue fatwas?)
Peg, yes, no indeed, no indeed, no indeedy, we can't inflict such horrid cruelty on such sensitive, and deeply religious people! (LOL, sarc.)
Apparently, our entire society now is supposedt to be geared towards the goal of not offending Islamic sensibilities. Maybe if we send them more foreign aid they'll forgive our transgressions against their feelings? (Sarc. again.)
I suspect you do. But it doesn't fit the progressive "America-First World-Judeo-Christian=bad", "Islam-Third-World=good" paradigm; so you can't accept it.
(And I certainly hope you're not really suggesting that Christians riot, and issue fatwas?)
Peg, yes, no indeed, no indeed, no indeedy, we can't inflict such horrid cruelty on such sensitive, and deeply religious people! (LOL, sarc.)
Apparently, our entire society now is supposedt to be geared towards the goal of not offending Islamic sensibilities. Maybe if we send them more foreign aid they'll forgive our transgressions against their feelings? (Sarc. again.)
9.26.2012 | 10:19am
David Nickol says:
Rhinestone Suderman,
You say: "David, if you can't see the free speech issue here, it's because you don't want to."
Perhaps I am not getting what people are saying, so please explain to me where the free speech issue lies. I am talking about the First Amendment right to free speech. It is a legal right to be free from government interference. Please explain to me how the government has interfered with anyone's right to free speech in this case. Exhortations from the government for everyone to respect all religions and refrain from deliberately offending them violates no one's First Amendment rights.
It is *not* a matter of First Amendment freedoms if people feel intimidated by the possibility or threat of Muslim violence to be very careful what they say about Islam but to feel free to insult Christianity. I can see why people feel it is "unfair" that anti-Christian provocations get scant attention and anti-Muslim provocations can result in violence and get a worldwide response. But that has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Muslim extremists cannot violate anyone's First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. Only the US government can do that, and I don't see any evidence that it has done so.
You say: "David, if you can't see the free speech issue here, it's because you don't want to."
Perhaps I am not getting what people are saying, so please explain to me where the free speech issue lies. I am talking about the First Amendment right to free speech. It is a legal right to be free from government interference. Please explain to me how the government has interfered with anyone's right to free speech in this case. Exhortations from the government for everyone to respect all religions and refrain from deliberately offending them violates no one's First Amendment rights.
It is *not* a matter of First Amendment freedoms if people feel intimidated by the possibility or threat of Muslim violence to be very careful what they say about Islam but to feel free to insult Christianity. I can see why people feel it is "unfair" that anti-Christian provocations get scant attention and anti-Muslim provocations can result in violence and get a worldwide response. But that has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Muslim extremists cannot violate anyone's First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. Only the US government can do that, and I don't see any evidence that it has done so.
9.26.2012 | 11:08am
Joseph Quixote says:
Once again we see from a certain few an equivalency that is proposed as soon as there is a column critical of the leftist press or our "progressive" president Barack Obama. Stones are flung at Christians essentially arguing that Christians are just as intolerant as Muslims when it comes to actions taken in regards to a perceived insult. The fact remains that even the worst Christian actions in the last twenty years such as smashing the offending piece of "art" are a far cry from sliting someone's throat. (See Theo Van Gogh) How many people have lost there life in this latest expression of displeasure?
Christian generally have expressed anger and displeasure in a civil manner with some exceptions, while it seems that every cartoon, film, or comment can cause death threats, riots and beatings if muslim sensibilities are offended.
The message from this equivalency is that Christians need to shut their mouths and that when we dont we ultimately are the cause of the violence of people thosands of miles away. Elizabeth Scalia's column is right on the mark, despite the attempt to change the discussion and it's point into an equivalency. But in arguing against her we see that it fits the progressive mantra, there is no truth, there is no ranking of what is truly good from what is truly evil. Everyone is simply living in there own little viewpoint without objective truth to separate the chaff from the wheat.
Christian generally have expressed anger and displeasure in a civil manner with some exceptions, while it seems that every cartoon, film, or comment can cause death threats, riots and beatings if muslim sensibilities are offended.
The message from this equivalency is that Christians need to shut their mouths and that when we dont we ultimately are the cause of the violence of people thosands of miles away. Elizabeth Scalia's column is right on the mark, despite the attempt to change the discussion and it's point into an equivalency. But in arguing against her we see that it fits the progressive mantra, there is no truth, there is no ranking of what is truly good from what is truly evil. Everyone is simply living in there own little viewpoint without objective truth to separate the chaff from the wheat.
9.26.2012 | 2:34pm
Rhinestone Suderman says:
Joseph Quixote, exactly! You got it!
Yes, the message is that Christians need to shut up, whereas if we say anything remotely critical about Islam---or even allow a shady character to make a really bad video about Islam, which is his right under the First Amendment---it's our fault if Moslems riot, because we've offended their delicate sensibilities; therefore, we must constantly walk on eggs, apologize, and work to make sure that we never, ever, say anything, write a book, a movie, a play or create a piece of art that might offend them.
The equivalency message seems to be that everybody in the West must shut their mouths, lest they be responsible for Islamic violence.
Yes, the message is that Christians need to shut up, whereas if we say anything remotely critical about Islam---or even allow a shady character to make a really bad video about Islam, which is his right under the First Amendment---it's our fault if Moslems riot, because we've offended their delicate sensibilities; therefore, we must constantly walk on eggs, apologize, and work to make sure that we never, ever, say anything, write a book, a movie, a play or create a piece of art that might offend them.
The equivalency message seems to be that everybody in the West must shut their mouths, lest they be responsible for Islamic violence.
9.26.2012 | 4:01pm
Joseph Marshall says:
@Rhinestone. It is an article of conservative faith that if you just proactively attack terrorists this will somehow scare them and others into ceasing to be terrorists. This is buncombe. Over the past 40 years there has been no evidence whatever that ANYTHING scares terrorists into ceasing to be terrorists. The best you can do is kill the leadership.
The current administration has done that fairly well, to the point that some are beginning to get very queasy about the government using Predator drones to make individual "hits" no matter who they are of. For all their public bellicosity and posturing, and for all their indiscriminate use of a huge amount of very expensive ordinance, the previous administration had almost no success at killing terrorist leaders at all. Besides gaining an international reputation as an American bull in a china shop.
If you have anything to suggest for Obama to do more of or do better, I, at least, am all ears.
The current administration has done that fairly well, to the point that some are beginning to get very queasy about the government using Predator drones to make individual "hits" no matter who they are of. For all their public bellicosity and posturing, and for all their indiscriminate use of a huge amount of very expensive ordinance, the previous administration had almost no success at killing terrorist leaders at all. Besides gaining an international reputation as an American bull in a china shop.
If you have anything to suggest for Obama to do more of or do better, I, at least, am all ears.
9.26.2012 | 4:54pm
Jamie Hunt says:
Elizabeth Scalia wrote: "... I’ve taken to wondering if perhaps Obama does not really want to be re-elected, and the press is thwarting him at every turn; perhaps an Obama victory is merely incidental to the press, as long as their narrative is sustained. ..."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Absolutely. President Obama is Seinfeld's George Costanza doing everything he can to get fired from the Yankees. The mainstream media is (the now deceased) Yankee's owner George Steinbrenner interpreting George's bad judgment as pure genius.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Absolutely. President Obama is Seinfeld's George Costanza doing everything he can to get fired from the Yankees. The mainstream media is (the now deceased) Yankee's owner George Steinbrenner interpreting George's bad judgment as pure genius.
9.26.2012 | 4:54pm
jetty says:
Q: What's the difference between the Russian media and the American media?
A: One has to cover for their president, the other wants to.
A: One has to cover for their president, the other wants to.
9.26.2012 | 4:57pm
clarice Feldman says:
Great minds think alike:http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/free_barack_elect_romney.html
9.26.2012 | 4:58pm
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:
In 2012 I trust pravda.ru or rt.com over American mainstream media, at least when it comes to covering corruption in the US political and economic systems.
9.26.2012 | 5:28pm
Rob Crawford says:
" Muslim extremists cannot violate anyone's First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. Only the US government can do that, and I don't see any evidence that it has done so."
You mean other than the DOJ naming him to the press (and jihadis) and sending federal officers to a his home in the middle of the night to perp-walk him away to "voluntary questioning"?
Oh, yes, yes, "it was questioning about a parole violation". Except that his conviction was for a non-violent offense, the supposed violation was a non-violent offense, and he apparently wasn't a flight risk. There are violent offenders on parole who receive more courtesy and respect for accusations of parole violations.
As for the voluntary nature -- again, the number of federal officers sent far exceeded the number needed, and the pictures look about as voluntary as a beating. Surrounded by officers, hands pinned (cuffed?) behind him, hustled out of his home in the midst of a mob of press and who knows who else? The picture reminded me of the photos of French women being shorn and beaten for the "offense" of sleeping with German soldiers during WWII -- perhaps not as extreme, but certainly an exercise in calculated humiliation.
You mean other than the DOJ naming him to the press (and jihadis) and sending federal officers to a his home in the middle of the night to perp-walk him away to "voluntary questioning"?
Oh, yes, yes, "it was questioning about a parole violation". Except that his conviction was for a non-violent offense, the supposed violation was a non-violent offense, and he apparently wasn't a flight risk. There are violent offenders on parole who receive more courtesy and respect for accusations of parole violations.
As for the voluntary nature -- again, the number of federal officers sent far exceeded the number needed, and the pictures look about as voluntary as a beating. Surrounded by officers, hands pinned (cuffed?) behind him, hustled out of his home in the midst of a mob of press and who knows who else? The picture reminded me of the photos of French women being shorn and beaten for the "offense" of sleeping with German soldiers during WWII -- perhaps not as extreme, but certainly an exercise in calculated humiliation.
9.26.2012 | 5:36pm
Eric R. says:
To compare the modern American media to Pravda is a horrible insult - to Pravda.
Even in the Soviet era, Pravda openly and proudly admitted to being a party organ, whereas the Marxist hacks in our media today still blindly proclaim to be impartial and deny their open shilling for the radical left.
Even in the Soviet era, Pravda openly and proudly admitted to being a party organ, whereas the Marxist hacks in our media today still blindly proclaim to be impartial and deny their open shilling for the radical left.
9.26.2012 | 6:28pm
Rhinestone Suderman says:
Joseph Marshall, what on earth are you talking about?
Where, in my posts here, do I demand we "Terrorize terrorists?" Where do I demand we use predator drones indiscriminately, on one and all? Where do I attempt to give any advice to President Obama?
In my posts here, I've been talking about the contrast between how Christians, and Moslems, react to those mocking their respective faiths, the Left's double-standards about mocking Christ and Christianity, as opposed to mocking Mohammed and Islam and what seems to me to be a very bad idea pushed by the media, and too many in government---i.e., that Islamic violence is, somehow, all our fault, because we've somehow injured their feelings, and therefore must censor ourselves.
Where do predator drones, the previous administration, the best way to fight the War on Terror, giving Obama advice, killing terrorist leaders, etc., etc., etc. have to do with anything? I'm talking about us, and our media. I'm not sending out war plans, from the Pentagon.
Or are you taking the position now that any criticsim of our media, any dicussion of its reactions to Islam and Christianity and any criticism of its coverage of the president is tantamount to calling for all out war, "Send in the Drones!" "Kill the terrorists!" Are you saying that wanting to keep our First Amendment, and our freedom to say what we like about Islam, or any other religion, and not be dictated to by any foreign power---are you saying that this is, somehow, tantamount to killing people, and waging war?
That's a real reasonable position to take (not.)
Also, a good way to set up a straw man, and try to silence debate.
Where, in my posts here, do I demand we "Terrorize terrorists?" Where do I demand we use predator drones indiscriminately, on one and all? Where do I attempt to give any advice to President Obama?
In my posts here, I've been talking about the contrast between how Christians, and Moslems, react to those mocking their respective faiths, the Left's double-standards about mocking Christ and Christianity, as opposed to mocking Mohammed and Islam and what seems to me to be a very bad idea pushed by the media, and too many in government---i.e., that Islamic violence is, somehow, all our fault, because we've somehow injured their feelings, and therefore must censor ourselves.
Where do predator drones, the previous administration, the best way to fight the War on Terror, giving Obama advice, killing terrorist leaders, etc., etc., etc. have to do with anything? I'm talking about us, and our media. I'm not sending out war plans, from the Pentagon.
Or are you taking the position now that any criticsim of our media, any dicussion of its reactions to Islam and Christianity and any criticism of its coverage of the president is tantamount to calling for all out war, "Send in the Drones!" "Kill the terrorists!" Are you saying that wanting to keep our First Amendment, and our freedom to say what we like about Islam, or any other religion, and not be dictated to by any foreign power---are you saying that this is, somehow, tantamount to killing people, and waging war?
That's a real reasonable position to take (not.)
Also, a good way to set up a straw man, and try to silence debate.
9.26.2012 | 9:58pm
abpierce says:
I have wondered for a while if President Obama has been deliberately mis-stepping to see how far he can go, and have wondered if he wants to move on. I analyzed his work record - he has averaged about 2 1/2 years per job. He's restless.
Inside, I think he wants to retire in Hawaii, play golf. I wondered why he did not present a plan for his second term at the convention. Perhaps, actually, he has none...
Inside, I think he wants to retire in Hawaii, play golf. I wondered why he did not present a plan for his second term at the convention. Perhaps, actually, he has none...
9.26.2012 | 10:25pm
Peg says:
I find foreign media more informative than US media as well. Most American media have given up any pretense of objectivity and are obviously in the tank for Obama. They are unprofessional and their dishonesty is damaging to our nation.
9.26.2012 | 11:48pm
Joseph Marshall says:
Actually, Rhinestone, looking back at it, I do seem to have crossed my wires and brought up issues that are irrelevant. My apologies. I certainly have no reason to "shut you up", but even if my comments are crosseyed the mere fact that I disagreed with you is not an attempt to censor your views.
9.27.2012 | 10:06am
Rhinestone Suderman says:
Joseph, I see now that you weren't trying to censor me.
But, I'm not a mind reader---how was I to know just what you were getting at? When wires get crossed, misunderstanding is inevitable.
But your apology is accepted.
But, I'm not a mind reader---how was I to know just what you were getting at? When wires get crossed, misunderstanding is inevitable.
But your apology is accepted.
