Wednesday Links and Open Thread

105 thoughts on “Wednesday Links and Open Thread”

  1. It’s taken way too long but finally Fox News grew a pair…. stood up and gave the middle finger to Lindsay Lohan on behalf of FNC & Michelle Fields. All I can say is its about time! Michelle should have never been put on leave from #CashinIn for 8 weeks or so and she should have never had to sweat this out.

    I had even asked Harvey Levin (right after the suit was filed) and he said it was b.s. About the ONLY one that said she had a case was Alan Dershowitz (oh the great Harvard Law LOL)

    http://www.tmz.com/2015/05/31/lindsay-lohan-fox-news-channel-fnc-cocaine-lawsuit/

    • 1. You’re right to question Dershowitz’s analysis. He’s become something of a sad clown figure, and his image might be best served if he retreated from his constant round of angry and flippant. Garbo and Dietrich knew when it was time to close up shop and start needle-pointing. Dershowitz needs to learn something from them.

      2. It’s always been a trash suit. Under UK law, in which the truth of a statement is not an absolute defense and the case turns on malicious intent, then it might work. Not here.

      3. I rather wonder about the notion that a network is given complete absolution for what is broadcast simply because the speaker was a guest and not an employee. A very good argument can be made that when a network hires an incendiary host to provide a forum to incendiary guests there is, at a minimum, a high degree of reckless indifference to the truth. We got a got sampling of this with Hannity and the Bundy crew. I’m not so sure reckless indifference is a legal standard yet, but given the general trashing down of the American media, I have to wonder if a good lawyer given a good case couldn’t set a startling new precedent here. Certainly, the Murdoch Meltdown in the UK shows that those who once had no accountability might well face a bit.

      • It’s a bit riduculous to continue on with the Bundy stuff after the media fomented so much unrest in Ferguson.

        Bundy had a federal paramilitary unit show up at his house over an unpaid debt. Ferguson had police with military gear show up after folks there burnt down buildings, and it was rightfully hailed as being over the top.

        The media made a bad situation far worse in Baltimore and Missouri and you’re still harping on Hannity.

        • During most of the Baltimore episode, I was in Prague and Berlin. That meant my coverage tended to be CNN International and local coverage. Even then, I do not speak or understand Czech. I was actually taken back by how circumspect Lemon was during that coverage. I heard him on numerous occasions say that the curfew was the law, and that the law breakers needed to face the consequences.

          The only thing I can say about is FOX coverage is about the errant report of a shooting and Geraldo making something of a fool of himself. Of course, the latter could have been any time, any place. Don’t know why I still sometimes like the guy.

          Ferguson was problematic, to be sure.

          I don’t dismiss Bundy as readily, however. He became a regular on Hannity in an almost nightly Rite of Adoration. It was a very, very dangerous situation with grave implication for the rule of law. Hannity should have been canned for care and comfort he gave Bundy and that sorry crew.

          • A dangerous situation that somehow… wasn’t.

            As compared to a nightly on camera railing against police in studios and chasing burners and looters on the ground.

  2. One wonders if Liberuls would turn a blind eye to the leaked juvenile sealed records of all juvenile sex offenders or just conservative ones? Maybe just Duggars?

    • In this particular case, we have an admission, so I’m not sure how important any of that is.

      However, I seldom attribute a political ideology to a juvenile. At some point, they adopt the ideology of their parents, at some time they rebel against the ideology of their parents. If they go to college, they likely experiment. Remember the Conservative Wunderkind Jonathan Krohn, once worshiped by conservatives and now scorned by them?

      Why do you insist on calling him a conservative sex offender?

      The likes of Vitter, Sandusky and Hastert notwithstanding, I am more than willing to give the right a break on this. I’m not sure that I even consider the Duggars conservative. They certainly have a host of conservative politicians pandering to them, but I doubt if the Duggars truly have much of an ideology. They’re just grifters targeting conservatives in my view.

      • Why are you lumping Vitter in with Sandusky and Hassert? We aren’t entirely sure about Hassert, but we know Vitter’s failing was a fondness for bordellos. A cottage industry in his home state.

        I don’t remember any conservative stance supporting Sandusky. Just the usual love and emotional denial for Paterno that came from all over the spectrum, until it was impossible.

        I don’t know how you came to this conclusion about the Duggars. I admit that I had never heard of them before this scandal, (libruls seem to have followed them assiduously) but their crime seems to be that they believe Bible scriptures about homosexual sex and that they did not publicly out their son as having committed a grave sin and crime as an adolescent.

        • As for Vitter, it’s the entire dirty diaper thing. The ick is so thick I can’t seem to shake the image.

          As for Sandusky, we’ve had some discussion by Nixon about libruls being deviants. Sandusky was a notable Republican.

          And, if you note, Larry was playing the victim card for the Duggars. I actually gave them a pass, or gave conservatives a pass by noting that I didn’t find the Duggars conservative, just grifters.

          ADDENDUM: Vitter underscores the utter stupidity of prostitution laws. If it weren’t illegal, we would have never known the story. What a blessing that would have been. Control it. Tax it. In Louisiana it might even be possible for some future governor to wipe out Jindal’s massive debt. Over four or five decades.

          • He wasn’t backed by Republicans after exposure of his crimes, as you imply.

            A game of who is registered to what party is going to carry more heft at Mediaite than here.

            The story of the Vitter diaper thing (which I was timing you in mentioning) came from a hooker who was paid for the story.

            That sort of expedient credulity goes well with your replying that Sandusky is a Republican to a challenge to your implication that he was a conservative cause after people came forth with charges against him.

          • I am all for decriminalizing prostitution and drugs.

            The fact that you are too should make you a bit circumspect about how seriously the folks in La. took Vitter’s crime.

          • Not at all.

            I am for decriminalizing marijuana, but I don’t approve of its use and don’t use it personally.

          • Me either…but you just shown that your mention of the legalization of prostitution as being nothing more germane to your point other than an endless suggestion of hypocrisy from conservative fuddy duddies (of which you must now include yourself).

          • I posted a movie quote. A joke. You may be able to buy a sense of humor at Walmart. You know, the same place you buy your fine wine.

    • Leaked is the key word. Juvenile records were sealed- meaning NEVER to be made public. But meh…..

        • Well, you either think such rules concerning how we treat crimes committed as juveniles are rightful and proper or you don’t.

          • You have it backwards. Someone in a court house thwarting rules about the treatment of juvenile law breakers matters whether or not the person involved has confessed or not.

            Is it as bad as molesting someone…no. Is it a delirilection of trust and a disregard for how our society properly distinguishes juveniles from adults.

            Yes. And it matters.

          • Then sue the individual and the jurisdiction. File charges against the individual. I would. The Duggars mentioned that they would at some point. It doesn’t appear they have done anything. It might get them a renewal of their series or an entire new series.

          • Let’s hope too that the court goes after whoever broke a rule based upon very civilized distinctions in how we treat juveniles vs adults…despite your trying to say it makes no difference with anything.

          • Actually, the presumptive age for adult culpability in Arkansas is 16, but courts may set it as low as 14 and in some instances even lower. Huckabee signed that law.

          • Are you saying that whoever leaked Duggar’s file had the right to do this based upon an assumption rather than a court ruling.

            No, you’re not. Despite earlier pretend vapors from you, you’re merely doing what you do at Mediaite and making the issue about tweeting conservatives.

          • What an absurd question. Of course there is no right to do so. You’re just clinging tenaciously to whatever thread you can find to make all of this about anything other than Josh Duggar. And, I don’t think you have any fondness for him, nor do I think you believe that if none of this had come out Josh’s victims would be better off. You’re far too smart for that. Victims don’t get closure by not dealing with the facts. It’s axiomatic. I think you’re just being cantankerous, and it’s a bit alluring.

          • Which is why he should be read only if he amuses you. Otherwise he’ll get his jollies from upsetting you.

          • the abuse is fine? trolling is fine? lies by trolls fine? being set up and used fine? fine.

          • Chill. He’s nothing. Ignore him. Don’t make a big deal out of him. Meditate.
            HHHuuuuum. Trollllll pooooooop. HHHHHHuuuuuuuuummmmmmm.

          • Hey- it’s not over. Come back at 10:00 or early tomorrow morning after Megyn Kelly’s interview. Fun times.

        • No spilled tears? Really? You think the VICTIMS of Dugger are NOT SPILLING TEARS because their story is all over the news? Just because you want to crucify Dugger you are also bringing up, what I would safely guess, is a very painful episode in some young girls past. But, I get it, as long as you can crucify Dugger, eff the other juveniles who had something tragic happen to them.

          • Sorry, but the only hope for any sort of closure would have been in vigorous prosecution. Can you imagine how painful it is each time his victims see him in the television series or his own sisters see him at family functions. No closure has ever come from sweeping such matters under the rug. But, I suppose as long as you can exonerate Josh or keep him from being accountable ….

          • I don’t know what punishment you want from Duggar that he hasn’t faced already. The law has already deemed him unaccountable in a legal sense.

            I don’t think there’s a possibility of good coming from putting this man in the hot seat publicly.

            There may be much good that could come from a rational and sensitive discussion, but I don’t see that happening any time soon.

          • Punishing him is of no consequence. This is a stereotypically recidivist crime. If he had been sent to prison, he would have just done it all again. I’d be happy if it just ended reality television and cured cable news of some of its tawdriness. But, I think the information does more. It warns others that this is a guy you don’t want around your children, a guy you don’t want in your house or your place of business. There is some good which has come out of all of this, as evidenced by the conduct of his older sisters.

          • I NEVER Said that I want to exonerate Josh. You are a lying POS. DO NOT PRESUME TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. And, who are you to say how best, for someone you don’t know, how best to move on from this. Rather than an emperor, are you now GOD?

      • On wonders what hurt the victims most, the original offenses that had been dealt with years ago or the bright limelight of public scorn today by royal turds.

        • The pain and humiliation of the public exposure reopens the wounds of the original offense. Maybe royalty sheds no tears for the victims but I’m sure the victims shed tears. Heartless.

          • Yes, and likely over you diminishing what happened to them by a hideous human being. I can’t believe you even raise this faux issue.

          • Please don’t bother responding anymore because I will not do so. I want nothing to do with anyone who is more interested in comforting a hideous criminal than showing empathy for his poor victims. Good bye to you, Madam, I say “Good bye.”

          • Actually, I think she’s questioning the genuineness of your empathy for the victims in light of all the political summations you have made using their plight.

          • Correct. My sympathies lie with the victims. Not with Josh. He deserves all the scorn and punishment due him. It was the VICTIMS who didn’t want it made public. This whole notion that it’s tough luck for the victims – it’s out there- deal with it is just wrong. I have never diminished what happened to the girls involved. His misreading/misunderstanding what I said is his problem. Faux issues, indeed. The outers need to face stiff penalties as they broke the law. Another day at J$. Situation normal.

          • It’s certainly a bit ironic that he can act like the Duggsr fan base watches the show on orders from Rove and use the plight of these girls to make points about religious conservatives in general and Republicans in particular, but say others are being political for wondering how the girls feel about the exposure.

          • That’s the attitude that’s heartless. Not anything Larry or I said.
            I have never watched the show. I know nothing about them. Don’t care anything about them. He plays a troll’s game. It’s sick.

          • I have the excuse of paying little attention, but I’m sure it boils down to screws needing tightened.

          • My comment was DISMISSED as diminishing something I never said.
            I reacted to the fauxness of the comment. He was wrong.
            Who’s going to tighten the screws?

          • I hurt his feelings. Just speaking truth to power. I don’t like phonies. And I won’t be bullied.

          • Just like you promised never to post again? Your word is worthless, Clucker.

          • I reserve judgment on whether a 15 year old is a “hideous human being” or an extremely troubled and therefore dangerous one.

            I’d bet that would be your summation of Duggars whether he had this terrible blight on his conscience or not.

            I’m far more comfortable with condemning his parents for not having done enough to protect their other children and a young Duggars from himself.

          • Firstly let me say that my first concerns are with the victims, and protection from any further exposure.
            That said..I would like this family and Josh Duggar held accountable for Josh Duggars actions PLUS the failure of the Duggar parents to protect their daughters.
            Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar and Josh Duggar are Hypocrits and bigots.
            I cannot ,nor will I, assume that the same can be said for the rest of the family.They are innocent in all this.
            If you wonder what to think of Josh Duggar as the 15 year old…Please bear in mind that he is now 28 years old,and was until recently employed in DC as a Family rights person…who lobbied against gays ,citing gays as the most likley people to sexually abuse children…and Doing that ,knowing what he ,Himself had done .
            Josh Duggar,by those very actions ,showed himself as a hypocrite and Bigot…with clearly NO conscience about what he himself had done to his 4 sisters and one other as a 15 year old.
            If the Duggars take part in this interview ,in Josh Duggars absence…that is their choice. BUT..in doing so, they are assuming responsibility for him ,and should be held accountable for him, in his absence.
            I hope these issues are all covered equally in Megyn Kellys interview tonight.
            This unfortunate story hits a nerve with me of the horrors of finding out as a young adult ,along with my ‘soon to be’husband ,that we were members of a group of people, where incest was happening. It really is hard to look straight into the face of a child sex abuser,and to be objective about the Duggars.

          • I believe you to be sincere, earnest, not politically motivated.

            I think the whole thing is a tragedy. think it’s a matter of public interest due to Duggar’s religious convictions specifically and the family’s in general.

            I don’t think the elder Duggars must assume responsibility in young Duggar’s absence. I think they bear a huge portion of it anyway, as parents do when they fail to adequately protect their children.

            When I consider hypocrisy, I ask myself what could this person have been thinking. What is their attitude toward self and what is their attitude in the situation toward others.

            I think you will find that Duggar thinks incest to be entirely a part of fallen nature for both straight and gay people, but that it is more of a temptation to the homosexual because of what he sees as the perverse sexuality that defines them

            It’s there that he is wrong in his reasoning and his teaching. So in asking myself what Duggar was thinking, I can imagine that he looked in horror at his own actions (remember he confessed them to his parents three times) and then looked in more horror at a sexuality he thinks even more predisposed to that action.

            If there’s anything good to come out of this, it won’t be from putting Josh Duggar on trial on TV.
            It won’t be from the satisfaction of him being labeled a hypocrite and in illogically labeling by extension other Christians who have never committed such an act.

            It will come from the Christian community facing up to a more accurate sense of there being no hierarchy in fallen nature. No devil who isn’t their devil as well.

            That is if we truly want these things, rather than political conquest.

          • You are right…I am not politically motivated at all .Y
            ou are also right when you say ,it’s a matter of public interest due to Duggar’s religious convictions.
            It was the same religious types who affected my life many years ago. They present as paragons of virtue to all outside the their little circle.
            Please don’t think that I paint all people of any or all religions with the same brush. That said…my past experiences faith based crimes has had a profound effect on my husband and I over the years. The details are not of importance to anyone ,but us. One example I will give you is….. I cannot call myself a Christian. I always refer to myself as a believer, if I am asked. That is a small thing maybe…but it separates me from the people and monsters I have in my head.
            Its not a slight to Christians ,its a feeling of not being worthy.
            It’s complicated….and maybe even ridiculous to many.
            A hypocrite to me..is some-one who preaches virtue, and condemns others, for things that he himself has done.
            I am angry , and cannot be objective here.I can admit that.

          • A judge has to be objective. A jury does. A journalist does. You don’t.

            I think what you’re doing here today is very important. You’re not seeking to be consoled, but you’re seeking to console those who have endured what you have. That is not only worthy, but it is blessed. You have not only been given grace, but you have imparted, you have shared that grace. That makes you notably Christ-like.

            You have my prayers, and you have my thanks and admiration for being the person you are.

          • You don’t have to be objective. It’s not a math problem. It’s as fraught and as hideous as it can be.

            Especially if you’ve been hurt by someone who said they deserved your trust.

            If that’s the case Im so sorry.

          • It doesn’t diminish what they suffered to wonder how they feel about this exposure now, any more than being concerned about the loss of privacy and control for publicly exposed rape victims.

            It’s why we have laws that shield them.

          • No one, and I mean NO ONE, is diminishing what happened them by any comments made here. Reading comprehension is important in these circumstances. Pointing out how the law is supposed to work DOES NOT mean you condone the Dugger behavior.

          • I don’t entirely agree with your point of view, but you have stated it ably and well. I understand your perspective.

          • Well said. I was accused of “comforting a hideous criminal” and showing no empathy for his victims.

        • Please don’t do that to the victims of a hideous crime that they well relive the rest of their lives. It’s a horrible, horrible think to do.

          • “On /sic/ wonders what hurt the victims most ….”

            That is exactly what he did. Although in his case, I am sure it was simply inadvertent. I don’t believe him to be a malicious person.

          • What exactly did he do to these victims in wondering how they viwpew such public scrutiny and politicialization of their abuse years after it was over.

            You’d do well to ask yourself that.

  3. All members of the press should watch the Bret Bair interview with Obama again as he presses into the Obama filibuster and forces statements on ObamaCare that now are records for the history books of a Liar-in-Chief. Most reporters did not do their job, but were enablers, not journalists.

    “Won’t cost the country a single dime.”
    ………. “Will lower premiums.”
    ……………….”Will lower health care costs.”
    ………………………..”If you want your doctor, you can keep him.”

    Most of the media barely questioned these snake oil salesmen assertions.

  4. I never heard of Ellen Ratner, but it’s good to see Pinkerton around again. I agreed with him often, disagreed with him often, but always found him interesting and thought-provoking. Good for him!

  5. Today’s most popular links:
    5 previews her interview
    4 Ellen Ratner & James Pinkerton
    3 Legal implications
    2 actually big losses
    And the most popular link in today’s links…
    1 How cable news covered the year’s most monumental story.

  6. I remember Chris Schenkel accidentally calling him that in an interview. Kareem acted like nothing happened.

  7. This Monday, June 8th at 10pm ET/7pm PT, Al Jazeera America will air “Guantanamo’s Child – Omar Khadr,” an original documentary about Toronto-born Omar Khadr, who was captured as a 15-year old in Afghanistan and eventually pled guilty to war crimes, including the murder of an American soldier. Liberals feel a fifteen year old Duggar deserved such a fate, not a misguided lad from the Great White North.

  8. That’s the only part worth reading. And then you have to avoid the comments.

  9. Does Rachael Maddow still have a show? Is she dead? There was a day when she was buzz worthy.

    • When last seen, she was being taken away in a straitjacket, muttering something about a bridge.

Comments are closed.