Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-12-21/friday-news-roundup-domestic
President Barack Obama taps Vice President Joe Biden to lead a gun violence task force. House Republicans vow to push a "Plan B" to avert the fiscal cliff. And four State Department officials leave after a damaging report on Benghazi, Libya. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Steve Roberts
syndicated columnist and journalism professor at The George Washington University.
Susan Davis
chief congressional reporter for USA Today.
John Dickerson
chief political correspondent for Slate.com and CBS political analyst and contributor. Author of "On Her Trail: My Mother, Nancy Dickerson, TV News' First Woman Star."
Friday News Roundup Video
The panel remembered the life and legacy of Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, who died Dec. 17 at age 88. Susan Davis, chief congressional reporter at USA Today, said his role in the U.S. Senate represented a fading era. "Senator Inouye was someone who was probably one of the most powerful people in Washington that you never heard of," Davis said. George Washington University professor Steve Roberts described Inouye as a man of quiet integrity and decency who was trusted by politicians from both sides of the aisle.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The Last Moderate wrote: "A moral victory"
What has been gained, he speaks in a violent way that most liberals agree with. I prefer to see that front and center because those feelings should be made apparent to all.
Has anyone noticed that Susan Rice was castigated for supposedly being wrong about the motivation of a group of people FIVE days after the event in a country half way around the world which speaks a different language and which is in upheaval while we still haven't heard the motivation of ONE person in THIS country speaking the same language as the rest of us with how many people investigating?
The Last Moderate wrote:
"Hey ecgberht! A moral victory! Clifford's disgusting "NeoNutzi" comment has been removed."
Moderate,
I didn't mark that comment and I don't mark such comments. When people make personal attacks against me, those I mark. Here are just two examples - most attacks come from just a single poster:
"you empty-headed blabbermouth."
"your poor, poor dementia addled brain."
Personal attacks violate the dr show code of conduct. Other than that, anybody is free to spew what they like in terms of opinion, no matter how whacky I think it is.
Dan D. wrote:
The Last Moderate wrote: A moral victory
What has been gained, he [Clifford saying "NeoNutzi"] speaks in a violent way that most liberals agree with. I prefer to see that front and center because those feelings should be made apparent to all.
Yack! What's the matter with you? First of all, I happen to live in Ann Arbor, MI, which is a college town and thus a sort of bastion of liberalism. I have at least several friends who are liberals, and no way would any of them "agree" with such language. In fact, they would condemn that kind of talk as absolutely disgusting, all the more if somebody tried to tie all liberalism to it. I also have conservative friends, and there's only one of them who would agree with you in your comment. Actually, he would support the use of "NeoNutzi" by conservatives in describing the President of the United States. I guess he isn't really my friend, just an acquaintance.
Second of all, even if it was true that most liberals felt that way, it doesn't mean we have to let them pollute our public discourse like that! That kind of talk should always be halted. Hate speech should not be free speech.
Third, I doubt either you or Clifford would be able to stomach "You're Not As Crazy As I Thought (But You're Still Wrong): Conversations Between a Devout Conservative and a Diehard Liberal" by Jacob Hess and Phil Nesser. But you should still read it cover to cover. Spoiler alert: The authors are not swayed in their positions in the slightest, but after numerous focused one-on-one debates they find that the other guy is really nice and sincere and remain best friends happily ever after. I bet if you read it, you would ask Clifford to. Then he would be not only very civil in his comments but also would pick up a friendship with you. It could happen... it should happen. At least, I think so. Me, the lone Last Moderate. *sigh*
ecgberht wrote:
The Last Moderate wrote:
"Hey ecgberht! A moral victory! Clifford's disgusting "NeoNutzi" comment has been removed."
Moderate,
I didn't mark that comment and I don't mark such comments. When people make personal attacks against me, those I mark. Here are just two examples - most attacks come from just a single poster:
"you empty-headed blabbermouth."
"your poor, poor dementia addled brain."
Personal attacks violate the dr show code of conduct. Other than that, anybody is free to spew what they like in terms of opinion, no matter how whacky I think it is.
Well, okay. I flagged that comment because I felt nobody is "free to spew" that kind of hate speech, and I got the impression that you agreed (citing the author of the comment as "moronic" and displaying my own horror at what an angry liberal he was to write like that). You are free to not take any credit for getting the "NeoNutzi" comment removed if you don't want to. :)
(However, if you try to flag every personal insult leveled across the DR Show's pages, you'll find yourself overwhelmed. I think easily half of the comments qualify as "offensive" under that definition, which is why I largely ignore them.)
@Clifford: You so make my day with your comments... Let's look at the checklist for your qualifications to be the lib version of Rush Limbaugh...
- Starts every post with...it's all Bush's fault or the T party's fault...check
- Has a Lean Forward bumper sticker on both bumpers...check
- Could put on a dress and sit in on The View or Behar show easily..check
- Don't need to research anything because your wagon is loaded with party
line commentaries that you throw out in every post....check
- Can use the words "oligarch", "Neo-Nazi" and "Plutocrat" all in the same
sentence and sometimes with multiple spellings...check
Keep up the good work Cliff....You are the best man on our team!!!
Fresh Air (WHYY) and Terry Gross gave citizens a factual Christmas present on gun violence by hosting Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center on Friday's show (December 21st, 2012).
Tom shared some news:
1. The NRA is a trade group and not a sportsmen's organization
because the bulk of funding comes from gunmakers, importers and sellers.
2. Their lobbying power is such that they've been able to censor gun violence statistics from public view with legislation.
3. Handgun technology is at a point where a semi-automatic plastic weapon (not metal detectable when unloaded) holds a clip of 30 armor piercing, exploding, hollow nose, jacketed (most any combination) bullets and is readily available to any American deemed eligible for gun purchase. It has almost no recoil and is light enough for comfortable use by most 10 year old girls. Bullets start at about $.30 each at $30.00 per hundred.
4. In a recent speech the NRA president boasted a booming sales outlook for such weapons and assault rifles. He projected pink and pastel weapons for women and girls they could accessorize at public and social events. He showed a bra holster along with a panty stash. Youth was also a ripe market and he planned to use violent video games as gateway to "shooting sports."
5. The NRA is an open advocate for overthrow of the federal government (as a marketing device) because most guns are made overseas and imported, therefore; such talk might amount to terrorist plotting.
(I wonder why the NRA is not on a domestic terror organization list. Maybe because of bribes.)
I hope you'll be curious enough to hear all what Tom Diaz shared at the Fresh Air archive. (No wonder Clifford is perturbed: We all should be.)
@The Last Moderate wrote
Feel the need to respond to this.
"You are free to not take any credit for getting the "NeoNutzi" comment removed if you don't want to."
I don't take any credit because I didn't mark it not because I "don't want to" take credit.
"However, if you try to flag every personal insult leveled across the DR Show's pages,"
Never said I did. I said, "When people make personal attacks against ME, those I mark" (emphasis now added) ... because they violate the code of conduct of DR Show mb. Other posters can look out for themselves ... or not, if they choose. THX, for example, will flag virtually nothing as offensive - that's up to him.
As for "hate speech", that is in the eye of the beholder, so I don't pay much attention to that. The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". There is no "hate speech" exception. I don't make myself the arbiter of that.
ecgberht wrote:
@The Last Moderate wrote
Feel the need to respond to this.
"You are free to not take any credit for getting the "NeoNutzi" comment removed if you don't want to."
I don't take any credit because I didn't mark it not because I "don't want to" take credit.
"However, if you try to flag every personal insult leveled across the DR Show's pages,"
Never said I did. I said, "When people make personal attacks against ME, those I mark" (emphasis now added) ... because they violate the code of conduct of DR Show mb. Other posters can look out for themselves ... or not, if they choose. THX, for example, will flag virtually nothing as offensive - that's up to him.
As for "hate speech", that is in the eye of the beholder, so I don't pay much attention to that. The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". There is no "hate speech" exception. I don't make myself the arbiter of that.
Okay.
"Fresh Air (WHYY) and Terry Gross gave citizens a factual Christmas present on gun violence by hosting Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center on Friday's show (December 21st, 2012). "
Factual? Because they have no agenda?!
Terry Gross, and Tom Diaz, and Violence Policy Center should never be used in the same sentence as the word "factual".
ecgberht and the Last Nazi write their own facts as Goebbels suggested.
That's party discipline. (I may have lost a chess match by stating additional accurate facts. So be it.) Want some climatewhip on that?
Pancake Rankin wrote:
"ecgberht and the Last Nazi write their own facts as Goebbels suggested.
That's party discipline. (I may have lost a chess match by stating additional accurate facts. So be it.)"
No. You lose the debate by violating Godwin's Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Better watch out, better not cry, Santa will be swooping in over the US next week wearing camouflage, bulletproof vest, helmet, gas mask, twin 50s on his sleigh (slay?), the reindeer swapped out for an extra armored Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and Rupdolph manning drones from the North Pole.
Welcome to Fortress America where everyone believes in the Charleton Heston motto "...until they pry my weapon from my cold dead hands". Only way to survive is to stay in your bunker and homeschool everybody......cannot trust even the Shelf Elf (...is he carrying?). All the neocons have brainwashed the electorate into thinking the SWAT guys will be crashing through your windows like a Lampoon Vacation.
Maybe they want us to put Claymores at the end of each walkway in case that dreaded Fed "guvvamint" comes to call.
I prefer to head to the local dollar flix and watch last summer's cheapie movies and eat stale popcorn. If I get wounded, maybe it will just be flesh wounds.......unless, of course, the old Mayans were correct........then I hope it won't occur until the end of the flick.
We really need to get away from all of the non-sensical comments about how other countries deal with gun control. We DON'T LIVE in other countries! Let's concern ourselves with what to do in this country. Since the end of the Second World War, our over-concern with what's going on in other countries has led us to a series of disastrous military adventures in other countries. This has solved virtually nothing, and has contributed to the breakdown of our own economy.
The people who came here from many of these countries did not come here so that they and their descendants could eventually get re-involved with the countries they left. They came hoping for a better life. A life which so many influential people have dedicated themselves to destroy since our country was founded.
Pretty funny re: bloggers claiming each other did or did not flag somebody's over-the-fence comment - meanwhile chiding all the other blogger's opinions and glibly saying they don't disparage anyone. Ad hominem obviously a term that will stay in an old dusty translation of Cicero.
Congress left town......ho hum. Sameold sameO. They did zip nada neecheevo while in session......so who will notice. Meantime businesses tell their software guys to hold the presses on paycheck modifications.....who knows what to calculate for the new year? Intuit ala Quicken and TurboTax remains in limbo....except, of course, for those bogus Henry Winkler ads for reverse mortgages (aka rip yourself off along with your heirs). The "cliff" is actually a deep freeze on everything.....at or below the collective miniscule intelligence of our ultrawealthy political leaders (sic).....single digits in gray matter. Congress has all the qualities of a Tom Arnold movie....minus the zippy dialogue. (Anybody courageous enough to have seen even two minutes of his "The Stupids"?) If the bogus "Job Creators" who have had over 10 years of bennies to create those jobs had been as productive as the Congress who created their tax cuts, then no wonder the economy is in the shape it is in.
Finger Pointing is now going to be the national and olympic sport.
Great and informative show today, Diane & co.
Thanks
Maybe our Forefathers should have listened closer to our "ForeMOTHERS". Most Moms are less warlike.
(Jerry Springer's bunch notwithstanding....)
Today we have both the Republican house and the NRA
saying "in order to solve today's problems, which
resulted from doing what we've done, let's solve
them by doing even more of the same".
It is always those benefiting most from the
status quo that protect it most ardently.
Honest Abe wrote:
"Better watch out, better not cry, Santa will be swooping in over the US next week wearing camouflage, bulletproof vest, helmet, gas mask, twin 50s on his sleigh (slay?), the reindeer swapped out for an extra armored Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and Rupdolph manning drones from the North Pole."
Samuel Colt let this genie out of the bottle more than 150 years ago, HA. And now you're blaming "neocons" because they can't put it back in? Hardly sounds fair now, does it?
BTW, in his speech today Wayne LaPierre pointed out that five years ago he was calling for an armed security guard to be placed in every school. He was ridiculed by the media. 20 kids dead? Might the outcome have been different if one was there?
Before 9/11 there was a Saturday Night Live skit in which Shrub Bush and Mom Barb played Marco-Polo while lost in the White House. Some wrong wing bloggers here exhibited that same misfunctionality when they began to squeal like pigs as soon as Clifford began calling extreme gun advocates NeoNutsies. They identifies so strongly with the name Clifford suggested that one even flagged a post as violating blog policy.
My gracious, are these guys ever eager to be identified as right wing nihilists, and also embrace the word "nut" even as they've tried to displace blame to mental illness as a protection of their guns all week. The very fact that the "conservative element" here advocates semi-automatic weapons in the hands of emotional extremists and claims owership themselves makes them potentially deadly bullies and skews discoourse wildly. It is also pitiful when any discussant requires an assault rifle (or the abstraction of brutal dominance embodied in the idea of one) as a brain crutch. If you truly worsip guns ask yourself,"Would I still love guns if I were unarmed in a society of over-armed gun bullies ?" Because if you don't tone down your threats that's probably gonna happen, or something worse.
HonestAbe wrote:
"Finger Pointing is now going to be the national and olympic sport."
You seem to be honing your skills right here on this board, HA ... in fact, right there in your post!
"Pretty funny re: bloggers claiming each other did or did not flag somebody's over-the-fence comment - meanwhile chiding all the other blogger's opinions and glibly saying they don't disparage anyone. Ad hominem obviously a term that will stay in an old dusty translation of Cicero."
Care to back that up that statement, HA?
Here, read up.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Pancake Rankin wrote:
"The very fact that the "conservative element" here advocates semi-automatic weapons in the hands of emotional extremists "
The very fact that, Pankin? If that is "fact", then you shouldn't have any problem pointing to the post of that "conservative element", should you? I'd like to refute that point of view right along with you.
Oh, Eggie,
Leave it to you to have your finger on the pulse of Messr LaPierre and the rest of the killmongers. Would there have been a "different" result if an armed guard had been at that school, or that theatre....ad infinitum? Could have been even worse.....the shooter woyld have been challenged to an all out firefight.....more ammo and confirmation that he was somehow vindicated in his maniacal assault. How many guns would have been necessary? How many fortified doors? Maybe a flamethrower or laser guided smart bomb, or death ray, or whatever? More guns is NOT the answer... It IS the problem.
Way to go, mainstream media, for debunking the ravings of the Gun-Guy-in-Chief.
I agree with Pancake, it's entirely appropriate to have Clifford's post the first post. I see it as Diane's real face exposed on a daily basis. While she may not approve openly of the words used, she would certainly approve of the perceived righteousness of the content. Clifford is D.R.'s inner child.
Oh Abe, I notice you don't reply to this, "Samuel Colt let this genie out of the bottle more than 150 years ago, HA. And now you're blaming "neocons" because they can't put it back in? Hardly sounds fair now, does it?"
"Would there have been a "different" result if an armed guard had been at that school, or that theatre....ad infinitum? Could have been even worse.....the shooter woyld have been challenged to an all out firefight.....more ammo and confirmation that he was somehow vindicated in his maniacal assault. How many guns would have been necessary? How many fortified doors? Maybe a flamethrower or laser guided smart bomb, or death ray, or whatever? More guns is NOT the answer... It IS the problem."
"Maybe a flamethrower or laser guided smart bomb, or death ray, ...". This is what is known as "hyperbole", HA. On the other hand, a well trained guard might have dropped him with one shot.
These issues are not difficult when you break them down and look at them in light of the real world. I asked this question before, but still haven't gotten an answer. Would you place a sign on your house that said, "Gun Free Zone"? If not, why not.
Again, Eggie, "ad hominem" can be translated by any first year Latin student or any altar boy worth his surplice. It does mean literally "to the man" and typical of your many, many entries you assault the commenters rather than the predicate of their opinions.......just like you are doing today.
Nil illegitimi carborundum.
Mr. Nobel "let the genie out of the bottle" re: dynamite quite a while back too. And the Manhatten Project let out the atomic demon. And someone in history sharpened a stone into a cutting edge.
None of your diatribe proves that killing or harming others is a viable way to resolve any issue. If you want to remain a troglodyte (note that Neanderthals were actually more peaceful than the violent species that replaced them) go right ahead......accent on the "right". Might makes WRONG.
I need no signs on my house....or letters on my tires or logos on my shirt or bumper stickers about Smith & Wesson. Those of us who actually served in national defense etc. know more war means more war; violence begets violence.
Our country need cogitation not obliteration.....reason not reloading.
"Drew Kelly wrote:
IMhumbleO, anyone who feels the need to own rocket grenade launchers, missile launchers, nuclear material, or guns capable of killing scores of people in a few seconds- likely has some mental "issues" and should seek help- SOON!
Terrorism?- “We has met the enemy and he is us”
December 21, 2012 - 8:01 am"
Remember the flap when our poor Soldiers, protecting our Freedoms, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Etc, etc, had to pay extra charges for their excess Baggage?
The Baggage was their entire individual armamentium- Automatic Rifles, RPG Launchers and God knows what else!!
Astounding for 2 reasons, Military taking their weapons home and taking WEAPONS on commercial airliners!!!
The Bush New World Order.
I'll have more to say, today, about the Bush/CIA/Mossad/FBI/NeoCon/GOP/Jew Media/Military/NRA Militia/Hoover Institution/NPR/Bloomberg News/MI5-MI6 Kabal, particularly as the Newtown tragedy intersects numerous other aspects of Life such as Dictators and their Militias, Stand your ground and the media's protection of Jew Racists, The total lack of even one Institution that is able and/or willing to defend the Democrat Party and our Democracy from the half-Century of depredations of the Bush Kabal.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Why is the President not acting by looking into the imports of assault weapons. He can do that with out any legislation, right now.
ecgberht on December 21, 2012 @ 12:13 pm wrote: “As for ‘hate speech’, that is in the eye of the beholder, so I don't pay much attention to that. The first amendment says, ‘Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech’. There is no ‘hate speech’ exception.”
We don’t agree on much (actually, very little), but we are in agreement about this.
I, also, rarely if ever mark a Comment for censorship (sorry, Diane, “moderation”). I believe in robust and vigorous debate and, on the assumption we’re all adults here, believe we should be able to “take it” if someone calls us nasty names (“Socialist!”, “Fascist!”, “Commie!”, “Nazi!”). Besides, we’re all using pseudonyms, so it’s not like our real lives will be affected.
I came here apparently after the offending Comment by Clifford was removed, so I can make no judgment on whether it was truly “beyond the pale”. But the only Comments I mark are either advertising (which has no place here), spam (where someone deliberately repeats the same Comment several times - as distinguished from when they accidently duplicate it once). I have been tempted to mark Comments that seem to be deliberately targeting abuse at a specific individual, but won’t precisely because that can involve a subjective judgment on my part (as you correctly note, ecgberht).
As for “hate speech”, it’s important to remember that while mere speech is protected, it can cross a line. If someone shouts “get the ________” [supply your own epithet], and sparks a riot attacking the person or group indicated, that can be punished. The physical act, advocated and instigated by the speech, negates the protection of the First Amendment.
TO BE CONTINUED