Friday Links and Open Thread

86 thoughts on “Friday Links and Open Thread”

  1. Money quote from Dana Perino – “…liberals are ‘doctrinaire and rely on sanctimony while ignoring facts. I find that very unattractive.’ ”

    How many times have we dealt with that arrogance here, at other sites and especially cable TV. Oftimes they smugly ramble on, with nothing but garbage coming out. Manufacturing “facts” out of whole cloth, then being offended that you aren’t gullible enough to believe them.

    • Yes, with analyses like this, Dan Perino has long been a national treasure:

      “I was panicked a bit because I really don’t know about . . . the Cuban
      Missile Crisis,” said Perino, who at 35 was born about a decade after
      the 1962 U.S.-Soviet nuclear showdown. “It had to do with Cuba and
      missiles, I’m pretty sure.” So she consulted her best source. “I came
      home and I asked my [British] husband,” she recalled. “I said, ‘Wasn’t that like
      the Bay of Pigs thing?’ And he said, ‘Oh, Dana.’ ”

      “We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term.”

      “Tomorrow, President Obama is going to do interviews with meteorologists all across the country about a new climate change report …. I hope they ask him about Benghazi.”

      • I don’t think Perino’s opinion about liberals is “analysis”. I agree with you that it’s little more than the stuff of partisan over-the-fence chatting with neighbors.

        That said, you offer up far more hyperbolic and strident commentary on your contrarians. Everything from accusing them of being prone to perversion, to loving the murder of children.

        Yes, Perino is a professional, but incendiary and divisive commentary is deplorable no matter who says it and you should not expect some dispensation of responsibility because you aren’t being paid for such remarks…

        • And, Cecelia, his remarks proved the point I was making in my second paragraph. He’s much like that Vonnegut quote.

        • I just saw this conversation and can’t believe people are still recycling that Dana Perino Benghazi joke a year after she patiently explained it to all the people who didn’t see her say it in context but just read a headline from a smear site and ran with it. We know there are people who comment on stuff they haven’t seen but isn’t a year enough time for them to do the research? Even if you are determined not to accept her explanation of what she meant by her own words, it’s a bit misleading to cite such a quote without noting that it has been challenged by the quotee.

          • You have to consider the source when it is someone who frequents and quotes from smear sites.

          • You might well have a point if it weren’t for the fact that the source is Ms. Perino herself. I fail to understand the difficulty in understanding that. I can only assume you find the quotes as ridiculous as I do, but you have some reflexive need to rush to the defense of Ms. Perino because she is a FOX personality.

          • They were heavily edited, and in some cases, fabricated “quotes” from smear sites. Johnny more than adequately dealt with it in his post above.

          • Perhaps, you should suggest to Johnny that a new rule be adopted that under no circumstances shall the quotes of any conservative ever be put forth. Cite only what the speaker wishes he or she might have said. I doubt Johnny would go for that, but I don’t want to speak for him. Anyway, enough of this. It’s tiresome and I have an election victory party to attend in one of the northern suburbs. A kegger with homemade tamales.

          • Perhaps you should keep with Johnny’s wishes and deal with complaints to him via e-mail.

  2. Wemple took a rather simplistic approach here. None of the pundits and media personalities quoted argued for suppression. Instead they argue for responsible conduct, discernment, discretion. I understand some affinity Kelley might have for Geller. Their shtick is always outrage. Without unbridled and oft and loudly expressed outrage, they really bring nothing to the table. I suppose I applaud Kelley for supporting her soulmate.

    • I don’t know how Charlie Hebdo showed more “discernment” in their mocking than did Geller.

      The fact that they are equal opportunity anti-theists, mocking all religions in ways deemed sacrilegious by those faiths is a specious distinction.

      Now Charlie Hebdo claims to have been less provocative because they only drew illustrations of the Prophet when Islam was in the news….as though THAT requires a drawing and wasn’t a gleeful and highly championed flouting of Islamic dictates.

      If Geller is biased against Islam as strictly practiced in the Middle East and in onclaves in the West, she has good reason to go after them and to call attention to its horrors. Honor killings, gential mutilation, the jailing and executions of homosexuals, the suppression of women, the ethos of violent usurpation of other faiths, come to mind.

      It’s Geller’s other stands that our chattering class despises and it is such a shocking indictment of them that they are unable to see past their disdain of her politics to the point where they chide her for provoking killers!

      I can’t think of any scenario involving murderous Christian fundamentalism as practiced by militant pro-life advocates, militia members, white supremists, etc, where there would be a comparable response from the “intelligentsia” to a provocateur of ANY political or religious persuasion.

      It’s madness.

      • The commonality of the two episodes is the radical response. There is no commonality between the sources of the provocation. In one case, we have Hebdo, which would clearly present a First Amendment right were it in the U.S. and is even protected expression in a country in which expression is not as generally protected. In the other case, there is no First Amendment protection because there is no government enfringement in speech or even a chilling of speech but merely a vehicle by a woman who has long expressed her unconditional hatred of a woman for Muslims and used this Garland event for the same purpose. I’m sure that if the object of Ms. Geller’s hatred was African-Americans, Jews, Asian-Americans or Southern Baptists here right to be hateful would be held much less sancrosanct than it is when that hatred is directed at Muslims. Are we saying it is fine to hate Muslims and go about freely sharing that hatred?

        • No, we’re saying something far more on point.

          We’re saying that any concern we have about Geller’s distaste for and fear of the teligion of Islam, should slide into the background when it is proved sound by Muslim men (following the written dictates of their teachers) show up with guns in order to blow blasphemers away.

  3. Bill O’Reilly was criticized by Rush Limbaugh and a caller today on Rush’s radio show for his Draw Mohammed viewpoint. He’s also getting panned by premium members.

    • Howard Kurtz certainly has a ton of material for Media Buzz

      I cannot recall a time when those on the right were so sharply divided.

      Not waterboarding. Not the use of drones. Not ground troops to fight ISIS. Not Rand Paul’s candidacy. Not same-sex marriage. Not the NSA. Not immigration reform. And not marijuana legalization.

      The myth that Fox News is nothing more than mostly a monolithic collection of like-minded conservatives has certainly been seriously undermined this past week.

      I’m outta popcorn. What do I do now?

      • My pithy joke reply wasn’t enough. I have more to say.

        A pair of Richards, one of whom goes by Ric, will board the debate bandwagon on MediaBuzz. We’ve heard the rest, now it’s Grenell and Fowler’s turns.

          • As you know, Howard showed clips from Pamela Geller being interviewed by Alisyn Camerota and Martha MacCallum — neither of whom is likely to vote democratic IMO — then Ric Grenell somehow decides to pivot to an attack on a “liberal narrative” and the “liberal media” and the “Obama administration.” I thought that was a little odd given that the Geller critics span both parties.

            There certainly doesn’t seem to be any room for common ground in this debate. I think Obama and Netanyahu may have more common ground that the two sides debating Geller.

            I’ve discovered that many debaters on TV and Twitter and blogs talk past each other. Rather than rebut their opponent’s argument, they argue a different debate point.

  4. RE: “Wemple: Cable news failed free speech, but Megyn Kelly didn’t.”

    It’s rather unfortunate that Megyn spent all that time discussing the First Amendment when no one — and I mean no one — is disputing that Pamela Geller had a constitutionally protected right to hold the event.

    I’m with Team O’Reilly, Team Ingraham and Team MacCallum on this one.

    Many of the same people who are defending Ms. Geller were some of the loudest critics of Larry David.

    “Larry David Blasted for ‘Curb’ Episode Where He Urinates on Jesus Painting.”
    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/10/28/catholic-league-blasts-larry-david-curb-episode-urinates-jesus/

    AND

    ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm’: Larry David Urinates on Picture of Jesus”
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/10/28/curb-your-enthusiasm-larry-david-urinates-picture-jesus

    So my point is:
    We ought to be able to question the appropriateness of an ill-advised offensive depiction(s) without it being conflated into an attack on free speech.

        • Oh, my goodness! Are you saying she is a screeching woman so we should discount what she has to say? She has handled herself in an exemplary manner and we should all be applauding her stand.

        • Yeah, how threatening is it to face someone with a willingness to shoot first and count bodies later if theyre mitigated by a good cop?…

        • For goodness sake, that officer was from Texas where many people have lived with guns from a very young age. I bet that guy was shooting tins cans off of fence posts as a young kid! Smaller than a head!

        • Wait… are we now going to debate this situation through the prism of how “effective” a terrorist is before they’re stopped? Yeesh.

          • If we did, it would be a one-person debate — YOU.

            Your comment makes no sense based on the comment you are replying to.

        • Practice at the range paid off.

          While being sprayed with bullets, Wild Bill HIckock was known for keeping his cool, taking time to aim, and killing his target. Unfortunately that once included his own deputy.

    • I call BS on that “no one, I mean no one is disputing that……” All of their (cable news weenies!) pontificating but equivocating about the issue are in essence saying “provoking Muslims” is bad, bad, bad! BS!

      • I was referring to Pamela Geller’s constitutionally protected right to hold the event. No one is disputing this other than (perhaps) CNN’s Chris Cuomo who ultimately admitted he was wrong (or at least misleading).

        Cheers.

    • Donahue of the Catholic League certainly isn’t defending Geller. I saw him on some show earlier this week criticizing her for insulting religion. In fact Donahue has even ripped Charlie Hebdo and said they shouldn’t have printed the cartoons. So whether you’re with him or not at least he’s consistent.

    • Aside from the two sources you cite, there was no sustained debate about the appropriateness of Larry David’s skit, insult , provocation or whatever you want to call what he did. Geller has caused such an uproar in all areas of the media. Mr. David never had to consider the repercussions of what he did because he knew there would be few, if any.

      • I’m sure there were people of all faiths and political bents who disapproved of the skit, but the article only mentions two Catholic spokesmen.

        • I never knew anything about the Larry David stunt. I guess I’m not up on all the tit-for tats. And if I were to know about it, who was I supposed to complain to? And would anyone care?

          • The’d care if you or the Catholic spokesmen showed up with guns, but they wouldn’t be chiding David for provoking you.

          • If I shot Larry David they’d haul my butt off to jail. I’d have to wear a bulletproof vest as they perp-walked me before the cameras and Larry David would be hailed as a warrior for free speech and given a state funeral.

          • And rightfully so.

            Not a pleasant scenario to contemplate, but let me add that there would also be the push to paint all religious conservatives with your brand, just as there continues to be with Timothy McVey and big government critics.

          • Evil inspired by a government decision that led to children being burnt to a crisp. Somebody did say she took full responsibility. The first instance of the now common praiseworthy spin that means absolutely nothing.

          • Notwithstanding old burn ’em and gas ’em Janet Reno, I don’t believe what McVey did was justified. My opinion only. It was brought up in a previous comment and I probably should have let it go. Don’t want to get off track.

          • It’s interesting that the media didn’t mind provocation in this case.

            The govt thoughe that Koresh was molesting children ( testimony that fell apart under further investigation) and otherwise endangering them and other followers by stock piling weapons and encouraging a mentality of violence against any intrusion.

            They could have picked up Koresh on a downtown street when he went out routinely, but chose a show of force at the compound filled with kids.

      • Given Larry David’s ‘likability’ factor, I should have known I would not be able to find as many examples of criticism as I had thought.

        My bad.

        A better example would have been the highly controversial “P i s s Christ” display where I would be stunned if many Pamela Geller supporters were not as accepting when it was their own religion being mocked and denigrated.

        • It’s not a matter of offended people of faith decrying what they see as a sacrilege. Supporting freedom of speech is not tantamount to saying that any push back against critics is a squelching of them.

          Charlie Hebdo and Geller took on the dictate against illustrations of Muhammad because they carry a death sentence. There is no discussion in that scenario. There is no attempt to win defenders and to plead a cause there.

          It is the ultimate dictatorial suppression that makes zero appeal to anything other than itself.

        • You are spot on regarding the likability factor. It does depend on who is the mocker vs the mockee. And therein lies the hypocrisy of this whole debate. Or the volume of the debate.

          • The shocking thing is that these things would actually over shadow the natural sense of horror and outrage that should result over men showing up with guns to commit mass murder.

          • The funny thing with me anyway is that I know little about Pam Geller and don’t have any burning desire to learn about her. All this hair on fire and gagging over this incident sure makes one sit up and take notice. She sure hit a nerve.

          • That’s the absolute point, isn’t it? She is pointing out to our country (as it appears, as a whole, we need reminding) that FREEDOM OF SPEECH is really, really important in our country and that no one, even crazy Muslims, should shut it down with threats of violence.

  5. Today’s most popular links:
    5 Dana Perino
    4 Screening questions
    3 CNN to push
    2 first amendment canary
    And the most popular link in today’s links…
    1 Cable news failed free speech, but Megyn Kelly didn’t.

Comments are closed.