Proving yet again that there is no ideological tether at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Trump administration has announced that it's going to go after left-wing organizations it contends are promoting violence.
I know that Harris would have been a disaster as President and I feared the same with Trump and so that's why I wrote in your name this last election. However, are you starting to wonder if Trump isn't going to be as big of a disaster only in a different way?
Not a chance. The Right is not happy about Trump's censorious ways, which is a vast difference from the Left cheering it on and covering for it when Biden did it.
I predicted a mixed bag from Trump, and we are getting it. But, a mixed bag is better than a bag comprised entirely of rotten fruit. On energy policy alone, Harris would have perpetuated the Biden disaster, and while Trump has sucked on spending, a Harris admin would have brought us another wave of spending that would have restoked the inflation beast. I could go on.
That's not to excuse this behavior, of course. But, you and I know that Harris's crew would be doing the same shit.
With exceptions like you, I am seeing a lot of people on the right thrilled with Trump's heavy handed attempts at censorship and cheering for it. I appreciate your commitment to principle. Harris would have been BAD but I have to think that a Congress controlled by the GOP could have frustrated some of her worst ideas but I don't see the Congress doing that today with Trump.
"payback." Washington warned of this in his farewell address when he addressed the idea of political parties. Here is but a short, but quite relevant, excerpt:
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."
Playing tit for tat is a losing strategy, we will lose the moral high ground. We have seen this way too many times, republicans grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.
Kimmel was answerable to his employer. He told his boss he planned to double down on his next show. That's when Iger said no. The FCC has not gone beyond the scope of 1A and has no need to. Bondi's wording was unfortunate but it has given the left another reason to over react and what's more fun than watching the left lose its collective mind over the possibility of the right trying to do something the left are so guilty of doing! Exposing their hypocrisy is always entertaining.
I think the real pressure was on the antitrust side. Give a dirty look at the merger of the ABC affiliates. They were the first domino in the Kimmel chain.
But, CEOs are cowardly. Sinister overtones are usually enough.
Tangled webs. Disney as spent years exploiting their positions and turning off their base. When you lose the 18-49 year olds you're in big trouble. I've enjoyed watching them get tangled in their own web! They are the architects of their own demise. What would Walt say?
I am unsure what to make of this mixed bag. "Going after" a self-identifying terrorist network (Antifa) which seeks to violate civil rights, instigate violence and property destruction and willfully evade law-enforcement as a political (terror) tactic, is hardly an abridgement of the First Amendment right to speech and association. Trump has *said* he *will* do it (future tense), though he hasn't yet declared *how*, other than to say it (Antifa and their financiers) will be "investigated in accordance with the highest legal standards and practice." And I'm confident courts everywhere will be "helpful" to him in maintaining the highest legal standards possible. So this much is a nothing-burger. Trump declared Antifa a terrorist organization in June 2020 as well amid cities burning post-George Floyd. The Republic didn't crumble then either.
The doxxing (canceling, really) of people guilty of awful language is a completely different and unrelated subject. Citizens in this country have every right to say awful things - but they have no right to avoid the consequences of the awful things they say. If your kid's teacher says some awful things, you have every reason to confront the school board about that - and zero responsibility to confront the teacher directly (even though you may do so). Just as if the salesman at the Chevy dealer spouts some awful antisemitic rant publicly, you have zero responsibility to confront that salesman, but you can let the dealership know you find this kind of bigotry objectionable, and it paints that business in a bad light. Confronting awful speech *with your own speech* is absolutely your right, and how one chooses to do that is their own business, not anyone else's. Because if awful speech is left consequence-free, then what purpose is there to confronting awful speech? This is the whole idea behind the Left's "punch, no punch-backs" ideology - where they get to say whatever awful things they want with zero consequences, but drop nukes from space on their "enemies".
I get your point about attempting to convince others. In civil debate among open-minded folks, this happens all the time. I'm even doing it now! But there is a keen difference between what we're doing here and those who incite (or condone) violence as a political tactic - are we really supposed to attempt to reason with people who publicly celebrate an assassination?
Further, how do I "confront" Jimmy Kimmel's disgusting remarks? Do I find him online and post a retort? Or do I just stop watching ABC programming? Probably the latter. Or do I contact my local affiliate and tell them I'm blocking ABC programming in my home, so long as that lunatic has a platform among their enterprise? I can do that too. The point being, I'm not denying Kimmel his speech right by refusing to watch the network that carries his poisonous bilge, nor by encouraging others to do the same. I'm imposing *consequences* on speech. As is my right.
As for the FCC, they do a LOT of very good things that don't involve policing public speech - among other things, they deconflict and license device designs including satellite, RF, IR and cable, oversee spectrum allocations, bandwidth and signal strength etc., so your garage door doesn't open every time your neighbor changes the TV channel, or a commercial airliner is digitally blinded by a CB radio transmission, or well, you get the point. The FCC makes our communications infrastructure work without interference. We should keep the FCC for now, if for no other reason, they also control the use of military/government spectrum, which has national security implications. Reasonable minds can disagree as to whether civilian industry would be better managing all this among themselves.
But regulating speech on those airwaves is one area we can agree they have no legitimate business. And the Commissioner was out of line "suggesting" he could do so, even if he legally "could" do so. And it was unnecessary even for him to "suggest" as ABC/Disney was already on top of that - with pending merger deals in front of the Commission. Kimmel's firing didn't need the Commish to say a thing - the consequences would have come either way, without thuggish insinuation. I would have preferred the high road, which he didn't take. I didn't vote for that.
Absolutely better to let them hoist theselves with their own petard.
I know that Harris would have been a disaster as President and I feared the same with Trump and so that's why I wrote in your name this last election. However, are you starting to wonder if Trump isn't going to be as big of a disaster only in a different way?
"As big?"
Not a chance. The Right is not happy about Trump's censorious ways, which is a vast difference from the Left cheering it on and covering for it when Biden did it.
I predicted a mixed bag from Trump, and we are getting it. But, a mixed bag is better than a bag comprised entirely of rotten fruit. On energy policy alone, Harris would have perpetuated the Biden disaster, and while Trump has sucked on spending, a Harris admin would have brought us another wave of spending that would have restoked the inflation beast. I could go on.
That's not to excuse this behavior, of course. But, you and I know that Harris's crew would be doing the same shit.
With exceptions like you, I am seeing a lot of people on the right thrilled with Trump's heavy handed attempts at censorship and cheering for it. I appreciate your commitment to principle. Harris would have been BAD but I have to think that a Congress controlled by the GOP could have frustrated some of her worst ideas but I don't see the Congress doing that today with Trump.
Oh, yes, the "MAGA" cohort, which is all about payback, is exalting this. The conservative press, however, is not.
As for a "GOP controlled Congress," you're engaged in wishful thinking. If Harris had won, she'd have taken Congress with her.
A Harris presidency with a Dem Congress is indeed a very scary thing to contemplate.
"payback." Washington warned of this in his farewell address when he addressed the idea of political parties. Here is but a short, but quite relevant, excerpt:
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."
Playing tit for tat is a losing strategy, we will lose the moral high ground. We have seen this way too many times, republicans grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.
Kimmel was answerable to his employer. He told his boss he planned to double down on his next show. That's when Iger said no. The FCC has not gone beyond the scope of 1A and has no need to. Bondi's wording was unfortunate but it has given the left another reason to over react and what's more fun than watching the left lose its collective mind over the possibility of the right trying to do something the left are so guilty of doing! Exposing their hypocrisy is always entertaining.
Oh, I disagree about the FCC. Even the conservative press read it as a threat.
What legal basis are they going to use? Or do you think they will violate the protections clause?
I think the real pressure was on the antitrust side. Give a dirty look at the merger of the ABC affiliates. They were the first domino in the Kimmel chain.
But, CEOs are cowardly. Sinister overtones are usually enough.
Tangled webs. Disney as spent years exploiting their positions and turning off their base. When you lose the 18-49 year olds you're in big trouble. I've enjoyed watching them get tangled in their own web! They are the architects of their own demise. What would Walt say?
Well, he was a screaming racist, so.... :)
I am unsure what to make of this mixed bag. "Going after" a self-identifying terrorist network (Antifa) which seeks to violate civil rights, instigate violence and property destruction and willfully evade law-enforcement as a political (terror) tactic, is hardly an abridgement of the First Amendment right to speech and association. Trump has *said* he *will* do it (future tense), though he hasn't yet declared *how*, other than to say it (Antifa and their financiers) will be "investigated in accordance with the highest legal standards and practice." And I'm confident courts everywhere will be "helpful" to him in maintaining the highest legal standards possible. So this much is a nothing-burger. Trump declared Antifa a terrorist organization in June 2020 as well amid cities burning post-George Floyd. The Republic didn't crumble then either.
The doxxing (canceling, really) of people guilty of awful language is a completely different and unrelated subject. Citizens in this country have every right to say awful things - but they have no right to avoid the consequences of the awful things they say. If your kid's teacher says some awful things, you have every reason to confront the school board about that - and zero responsibility to confront the teacher directly (even though you may do so). Just as if the salesman at the Chevy dealer spouts some awful antisemitic rant publicly, you have zero responsibility to confront that salesman, but you can let the dealership know you find this kind of bigotry objectionable, and it paints that business in a bad light. Confronting awful speech *with your own speech* is absolutely your right, and how one chooses to do that is their own business, not anyone else's. Because if awful speech is left consequence-free, then what purpose is there to confronting awful speech? This is the whole idea behind the Left's "punch, no punch-backs" ideology - where they get to say whatever awful things they want with zero consequences, but drop nukes from space on their "enemies".
I get your point about attempting to convince others. In civil debate among open-minded folks, this happens all the time. I'm even doing it now! But there is a keen difference between what we're doing here and those who incite (or condone) violence as a political tactic - are we really supposed to attempt to reason with people who publicly celebrate an assassination?
Further, how do I "confront" Jimmy Kimmel's disgusting remarks? Do I find him online and post a retort? Or do I just stop watching ABC programming? Probably the latter. Or do I contact my local affiliate and tell them I'm blocking ABC programming in my home, so long as that lunatic has a platform among their enterprise? I can do that too. The point being, I'm not denying Kimmel his speech right by refusing to watch the network that carries his poisonous bilge, nor by encouraging others to do the same. I'm imposing *consequences* on speech. As is my right.
As for the FCC, they do a LOT of very good things that don't involve policing public speech - among other things, they deconflict and license device designs including satellite, RF, IR and cable, oversee spectrum allocations, bandwidth and signal strength etc., so your garage door doesn't open every time your neighbor changes the TV channel, or a commercial airliner is digitally blinded by a CB radio transmission, or well, you get the point. The FCC makes our communications infrastructure work without interference. We should keep the FCC for now, if for no other reason, they also control the use of military/government spectrum, which has national security implications. Reasonable minds can disagree as to whether civilian industry would be better managing all this among themselves.
But regulating speech on those airwaves is one area we can agree they have no legitimate business. And the Commissioner was out of line "suggesting" he could do so, even if he legally "could" do so. And it was unnecessary even for him to "suggest" as ABC/Disney was already on top of that - with pending merger deals in front of the Commission. Kimmel's firing didn't need the Commish to say a thing - the consequences would have come either way, without thuggish insinuation. I would have preferred the high road, which he didn't take. I didn't vote for that.