« UK designers engage in blatant Jew-hatred | Main | ''The moving finger writes, and, having writ, moves on ...'' »

September 10, 2006

Democrats: The Censorship Party

Durbin, Reid, Stabenow, Schumer and Dorgan

Technorati: , ,,

Posted by Darleen at September 10, 2006 02:41 AM

Comments

Path to 9/11 isn't the only inaccurate and misleading docudrama about 9/11. The movie United 93 is described as "meticulously researched" and "based on fact", but there is not any indication that the German passenger Christian Adams was indeed a coward and appeaser and tried to stop the American heroes from storming the cockpit as the movie shows. The Guardian's film critic writes: "The film United 93 finds old Europe literally standing in the way of US derring-do. The only trouble is, it didn't happen that way."
Perhaps you are interested in my take on this in the Atlantic Review: German 9/11 Victim Defamed in "United 93" Movie. Thanks.

Posted by: A friend from Europe at September 10, 2006 06:04 AM

I LOVE your poster!!!!

Posted by: beth at September 10, 2006 11:05 AM

Yeah, thuggery sucks. Like when those yahoos smashed Dixie Chicks CDs, or stuff like this:

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/28/miami/

I'm sure you were outraged.

Posted by: Josh at September 11, 2006 08:21 AM

Josh,

People smashing purchased copies of Dixie Chicks CD's to demonstrate unhappiness with their statements about Bush? Shocking! Would it have made you feel better if they had had giant street Puppets do the smashing?

And I must have missed the part where outraged Republican Congressmen demanded that Sony pull Dixie Chicks CD's from store shelves and threatened to take away Sony's ability to distribute ANY music.

If people don't like this movie and want to protest against it or try to pressure ABC (via boycotts, letter writing campaigns, emails, etc) into changing it, I say "Go for it". It's a free country, so speak your piece. It's when they resort to Mafia tactics and threaten ABC's broadcast license that they show their true idiology: "Free speech for me, but not for thee".

And before you trot out the tired "But Republicans got CBS to shelve the Reagan movie", please show us where any GOP lawmaker ever threatened CBS' broadcast license over it.

You're also forgetting that Democrats have an even prouder tradition of election time thuggery:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=386498

"All five defendants (Kerry-Edwards campaign workers) had been charged with damaging 40 tires on 25 rented vans parked outside Republican Party offices on W. Capitol Drive, hours before they were to be deployed for electioneering."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002059735_webbushoffice11.html

"Offices that house President Bush's re-election campaign in Spokane were broken into and vandalized last night, the latest in a string of crimes at Republican offices across the country"

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2004/October/26/local/stories/03local.htm

"Scotts Valley police say they have no suspects in a case of campaign vandalism at the county’s Republican headquarters"

Posted by: VRWC drone at September 11, 2006 09:50 AM

People smashing purchased copies of Dixie Chicks CD's to demonstrate unhappiness with their statements about Bush? Shocking!

Not shocking, really. Everyone knows the Right is cool with book-burning.

And I must have missed the part where outraged Republican Congressmen demanded that Sony pull Dixie Chicks CD's from store shelves and threatened to take away Sony's ability to distribute ANY music.

And I missed the part where Democratic Congressmen demanded anything. There was no threat or ultimatum issued to ABC, just an expression of concern. Perhaps you should gain at least a passing acquaintance with the facts before you embarrass yourself further.

Finally, if you think a few slashed tires and broken windows are in any way comparable to an organized riot to stop a legal recount, then you're just an idiot.

Posted by: Josh at September 11, 2006 10:54 AM

Not shocking, really. Everyone knows the Right is cool with book-burning.

Just like everyone knows the Left is cool with flag burning and censorship.

And I missed the part where Democratic Congressmen demanded anything. There was no threat or ultimatum issued to ABC, just an expression of concern. Perhaps you should gain at least a passing acquaintance with the facts before you embarrass yourself further.

I guess you should have read the letter more carefully. After reminding ABC that they are holder of "a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves", they go on to "urge" ABC to "cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program" by reminding them of their "responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves".

So these Democrat lawmakers (who are, in fact, in a position to do something about it) remind ABC (twice) about their responsibilities as holders of a free broadcast license and then "urge" them to cancel the program. Nope, no threat (implied or otherwise) there. Sounds like a little more than "just an expression of concern".

I thought the Dems were supposed to be the Champions of Free Speech? Apparently, only when it supports the message they want broadcast. Otherwise, not so much.

Finally, if you think a few slashed tires and broken windows are in any way comparable to an organized riot to stop a legal recount, then you're just an idiot.

The fact that you can't see the equivalency between the acts on either side makes it clear just what a dishonest partisan shill you are. If Democrats are doing it, it's no big deal, right? Slashing a few tires (preventing GOP campaign workers from transporting Republican voters to the polls) or trashing a few offices (hampering re-election efforts) are obviously way different from an organized protest (trying to stop a recount that might theoretically alter an election outcome) that turned destructive. Sure, in your mind.

Unlike you, I deplore acts like this on both sides of the aisle. I'll leave the "My Party, Right or Wrong" mentality to you.

By the way, from the article you linked: "The board has maintained that the state Supreme Court deadline, not GOP pressure, drove the canvassing board's decision to abandon the count". So I guess the GOP "rioters" wasted their efforts, didn't they?

Posted by: VRWC drone at September 11, 2006 01:33 PM

Speaking of the Florida recount, you may want to check out the following non-partisan study if you haven't already seen it:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm

Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows.

Under the strictest standard, where only a cleanly punched ballot with a fully removed chad was counted, Gore won by three votes. Under all other standards, Bush won, with Bush's margin increasing as looser standards were used. However, the study also remarked that because of the possibility of mistakes, it is difficult to conclude that Gore was surely the winner even under the strict standard.

So the screaming and yelling that was done on BOTH sides of the issue was all for naught.

Posted by: VRWC drone at September 11, 2006 01:49 PM

Just like everyone knows the Left is cool with flag burning and censorship.

Are you a parody?

So these Democrat lawmakers (who are, in fact, in a position to do something about it)

Dems control the FCC?

remind ABC (twice) about their responsibilities as holders of a free broadcast license and then "urge" them to cancel the program. Nope, no threat (implied or otherwise) there. Sounds like a little more than "just an expression of concern".

If you're a paranoid with a persecution complex, I suppose. ABC is granted a license to use a scarce public resource for its own profit. Is it too much to ask that that license not be used to mislead?

The fact that you can't see the equivalency between the acts on either side makes it clear just what a dishonest partisan shill you are. If Democrats are doing it, it's no big deal, right? Slashing a few tires (preventing GOP campaign workers from transporting Republican voters to the polls) or trashing a few offices (hampering re-election efforts) are obviously way different from an organized protest (trying to stop a recount that might theoretically alter an election outcome) that turned destructive. Sure, in your mind.

Yep, the isolated criminal acts of a few individuals with only an attenuated effect on the election, if any, are precisely the same as an organized and coordinated effort to intimidate public officials from performing their legal duties in a place that was likely to be outcome-determinative. That you think the two are equivalent (and your minimizing of the riot via scare quotes) indicates who the partisan shill is here. Both sides have their thugs. The GOP just has more of them and is better at getting them out.

So I guess the GOP "rioters" wasted their efforts, didn't they?

Putting aside the fact that you take the self-serving statements of public officials at face value, who cares? Is it not thuggery if the thug doesn't accomplish his aims?

Posted by: Josh at September 11, 2006 02:26 PM

Speaking of the Florida recount, you may want to check out the following non-partisan study if you haven't already seen it

I already have. Interestingly, you left out that other standards would have resulted in a Gore victory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_recount

But Gore's legal strategy was flawed, and since the election was decided by lawyers rather than voters, he deserved to lose on those terms. I can acknowledge that because I'm not a partisan shill.

Posted by: Josh at September 11, 2006 02:33 PM

Are you a parody?

I just responded to your ridiculous, fact-free statement with one of my own.

Dems control the FCC?

No, at this time Dems don't control anything. But Congressmen (even in the minority) are in a position to put pressure on the FCC to take action. Especially if by chance they end up being the majority again.

If you're a paranoid with a persecution complex, I suppose. ABC is granted a license to use a scarce public resource for its own profit. Is it too much to ask that that license not be used to mislead?

Mislead? It's a dramatization, not a documentary. Urging ABC to cancel the program because the Dems don't like the content sounds like a blatant attempt to stifle dissent. I assume you were equally outraged at CBS over Dan Rather's attempt to influence the 2004 election with fake TANG documents. Remember? That was a NEWS show, as opposed to a dramatization.

Yep, the isolated criminal acts of a few individuals with only an attenuated effect on the election, if any, are precisely the same as an organized and coordinated effort to intimidate public officials from performing their legal duties in a place that was likely to be outcome-determinative. That you think the two are equivalent (and your minimizing of the riot via scare quotes) indicates who the partisan shill is here.

I see. Crimes against the GOP are the work of a few unsanctioned loose cannons, while ANY effort against Dems is clearly a coordinated GOP plan. And where did I say the acts were "precisely the same"? I said they were equivalent, as in "like in signification or import". They're all crimes or at the very least bad actions taken on behalf of a party. Nice of you to minimize the actions taken against Republicans.

That Salon article was obviously an unbiased and objective account of what happened in Miami. I especially liked the quote from Democratic County Chairman Joe Geller who stated that "It was outsiders, Hitler youth, sent in by the Republicans to intimidate the election officials". Hitler youth?

Regarding that "riot" you accuse me of minimizing, the Wall Street Journal had a different take on events from a reporter who was also there.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pgigot/?id=65000673

And what, no criticism for the Democrats' own coordinated effort to fly an army of lawyers to Florida to attempt to decide the election in the courts rather than the voting booth?

Both sides have their thugs. The GOP just has more of them and is better at getting them out.

Agree that both sides have thugs. The rest is your opinion.

Posted by: VRWC drone at September 12, 2006 07:12 AM

I already have. Interestingly, you left out that other standards would have resulted in a Gore victory:

And you missed the following statement on the wiki entry you referenced:

"The recount also showed that the only way that Al Gore could have tallied more votes was by using counting methods that were never requested, and which included "overvotes" — spoiled ballots containing more than one vote for an office."

So the other standards you refer to required the use of overvotes (i.e. spoiled ballots). I'm underwhelmed.

But Gore's legal strategy was flawed, and since the election was decided by lawyers rather than voters, he deserved to lose on those terms. I can acknowledge that because I'm not a partisan shill.

How noble of you. Of course, if Gore's legal efforts to try to decide the election in the courts rather than the voting booths had been successful then you'd be behind him 100%, yes?

Posted by: VRWC drone at September 12, 2006 07:20 AM

I just responded to your ridiculous, fact-free statement with one of my own.

So smashing CDs because of the statements of one of the artists isn't akin to book-burning?

But Congressmen (even in the minority) are in a position to put pressure on the FCC to take action.

How? Did they in fact put any pressure?

Mislead? It's a dramatization, not a documentary.

Purportedly based on historical events.

I assume you were equally outraged at CBS over Dan Rather's attempt to influence the 2004 election with fake TANG documents.

This is a red herring, but I'll address it anyway. Your partisanship shows through once again. Attempt to influence implies intent. What evidence do you have that Rather intended to influence the election as opposed to making a stupid mistake? Did Rather know the documents were fake? I was, in fact, outraged that CBS did such a shoddy job in pursuit of a gotcha story. Because I'm not a partisan shill, I condemn such things no matter who is doing them. You only condemn such things when Democrats do them.

Crimes against the GOP are the work of a few unsanctioned loose cannons, while ANY effort against Dems is clearly a coordinated GOP plan.

Not any effort. Just that one. Try to read more carefully. There are acts of GOP thuggery that are not coordinated (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004/11/thug-watch-election-2004.html). That just wasn't one of them. Note that link documents thuggery by both sides. Unlike you, I am honest enough to include evidence that paints Dems in a bad light.

Nice of you to minimize the actions taken against Republicans.

Nice of you to completely miss the point. Both parties have had instances of violence against the other. Only one party has flown in staffers to riot and stop an ongoing recount that, from the ex ante perspective, could have changed the result. That's why they are not the same in significance or import. Understand the difference yet?

Regarding that "riot" you accuse me of minimizing, the Wall Street Journal had a different take on events from a reporter who was also there.

Of course it does. Paul Gigot is a partisan shill and thus, like you, approves of what was done, though he doesn't quite have the courage to come out and say it directly, a trait you also share. At least Gigot is willing to admit that it was, in fact, a riot.

And what, no criticism for the Democrats' own coordinated effort to fly an army of lawyers to Florida to attempt to decide the election in the courts rather than the voting booth?

What a dumb question. Both sides did that and were right to do so. It was a legal battle, and both Bush and Gore were well within their rights to do whatever they thought would win in court.

So the other standards you refer to required the use of overvotes (i.e. spoiled ballots). I'm underwhelmed.

Probably because you again fail to see the point. Someone with intellectual honesty would have included all the relevant information rather than present only that which helps their side. You did not.

Of course, if Gore's legal efforts to try to decide the election in the courts rather than the voting booths had been successful then you'd be behind him 100%, yes?

Do you mean would I acknowledge him as the lawfully elected President? Of course, just as I acknowledge that Bush was lawfully elected. Why do you ask such silly questions?

Posted by: Josh at September 12, 2006 10:21 AM

Josh

Good fuckin lord... I take some time off and you go off the deep end.

If I want to go burn a book or cd...and I bought it first then its mine to do with as I please...symbolic or not.

The Nazi book burning was GOVERNMENT organized and was carried out by raiding libraries and bookstores of books.

Totally and completely different than the symbolic gesture of breaking a few CD's of DixieDips that were purchased.

You missed it on the TANG (Rather to THIS DAY tries to maintain they are "real" memos...good evidence of intent I'd say) and on the 5 mafiosas I photoshopped ("hey nice biz you got here...SHAME if anything were to happen to it. What? Me, threaten? Oh! You wound me!")

You are just being totally disengenuous. And do stop yammering about FL. Good god the self-serving MYTHS that are served up so Al Bore can indulge in a little "I wuz robbed" pathos while he pens another delusional screed.

I hear that man rant and I feel the country dodged a bullet when he lost the election!

Posted by: Darleen at September 12, 2006 11:24 PM