posted July 31, 2004 02:29 PM            

************

If this is indeed true, I guess freedom of speech only applies to Mr. Moore, those who agree with Mr. Moore, and "Hate Movies"...

Hubby was telling me that Michael Savage played a clip of Michael Moore on "The Tonight Show" yesterday, the content of which included Mr. Moore stating that when Kerry gets into office they're going to "abolish hate radio", referring to conservative talk radio. I can't find any online transcripts because according to the NBC-sponsored Tonight Show website, "we don't sell tapes or transcripts of past broadcasts.", nor does the Savage site have any info about transcripts.

Has anyone else heard anything about this? If the accounting of the comments I received is indeed accurate, I find it frightening but not surprising that someone like Moore wants to restrict the free speech of those that disagree with him to the point of legally abolishing their right to do so (via some restriction on the medium used) - the point isn't whether he can do so (obviously he can't, and I've not ever heard a comment by Kerry in that regard), rather that, in his extreme hypocrisy, he believes that's acceptable...

posted July 31, 2004 02:32 PM              

Love,
Rainbow

posted July 31, 2004 02:45 PM            

As for those things, they involve celebrities being remunerated for work. Just as the rest of the freakin' workforce, it is best to keep one's religious and political affiliations and beliefs OUTSIDE of the workplace. I personally think they went overboard in Vegas by booting her from the hotel, but they had every right to fire her - she was not paid to make a political point, she was paid to perform.

As for Whoopi, as a spokesperson for a company, the image you project is EXACTLY what it is you're selling, and by coming out publicly about her political beliefs, she thereby alienated the other 50% of the population that disagrees with her - thereby reducing her effectiveness as a spokesperson for the company - a company that is employing someone for the purpose of being their spokesperson (via advertising), has every right to hire and fire based on the public's perception of the celebrity - Whoopi didn't get fired for being political, she got fired because her public political statement lessened the effectiveness of her as a spokesperson.

When she is a benign public figure she appeals to everyone, when she comes out in favor of or against something, that can alienate the consumers who will inevitably disagree with her.

posted July 31, 2004 03:13 PM              

Interesting...and speaks volumnes about Moore's character.

posted July 31, 2004 03:55 PM            

When they get the attention they deserve, they whine, moan and say their rights have somehow been violated.

Not aware of any law, rule, policy or procedure requiring anyone to listen to the Dixie Chicks, or buy their music.

Not aware of any provisions of Whoopi's contract with Slim-Fast requiring her continued employment. In fact all such contracts have a clause that permits a company to opt out, usually for cause. And that cause usually involves conduct on the part of the other party that holds the company up to ridicule, jeopardizes their position in the market place or jeopardizes the marketing and/or sale of the product or service.

Beyond that, the thing I found particularly disgusting was that after Whoopi and the other jerks were finished with the Bush bashing entertainment, Kerry got up on stage and said "this is the heart and soul of America". Oh really?

posted July 31, 2004 06:04 PM              

I don't know word for word, but he was talking about how he walked across a hall at the DNC, and since the cameras never show you this, he wanted to mention how all of these talk show radio hosts were screaming such hateful things about the democrats. Then, because he believes that John Kerry will win, he said in quote, "Their days are numbered." However he says he doesn't support John Kerry, he says he is an Independant.

posted July 31, 2004 07:09 PM              

But then...would that mean that they couldn't continue to support their pet causes, such as animal rights and world hunger and gun ownership and whathaveyou? Couldn't you say that supporting a political party or speaking out against another is also a pet cause? Or, would politics fall into another catagory altogether?

Nah, they can speak out if they like, but they have to be prepared to deal with any harm it may do to their popularity with the generic masses, because they WILL be opposing the views of a portion of the masses.

posted August 01, 2004 12:05 AM            

Michael Moore is a congenital liar, a serial liar, if you will. The Democrats already attempted to stop talk radio. They tried an equal time provision that they attempted to foist off on the public called the "fairness doctrine" where by someone with an opposing view was to be given equal air time when something controversial was discussed.

They're also attempted to get Rush Limbaugh off Armed Forces Radio. Seems our military personnel really like to listen to Rush and the Democrats think it's just so "unfair" that no one wants to listen to their liberal views. Air America is a dismal flop as were all the other liberal talk shows.

posted August 01, 2004 03:51 PM            

I would further say that those who cannot keep their opinions out of their "news" broadcasts or papers should confine themselves to editorial comment.

posted August 01, 2004 11:35 PM              

quote:

---

So before I assume and misunderstand you, are you saying that it's ok to, or that they should, get rid of conservative talk radio because Linda Rondstadt got booed out of a show in Vegas? Or that it makes it ok in some way?

---

I was NOT saying it is okay to get rid of "conservative" talk radio,because Linda Rondstadt got booed out of a show in Vegas? Or that it makes it right in some way? sheese....

When I spoke of the incidents with Linda and Whoopie....I was referring to what you said in the following quote.....you were talking about free speech being restricted....and I was also talking about their free speech being restricted.

quote:

---

I find it frightening but not surprising that someone like Moore wants to restrict the free speech of those that disagree with him to the point of legally abolishing their right to do so (via some restriction on the medium used) - .....

---

In other words, I was saying , Moore isn't the ONLY ONE who would like to restrict (or get rid of, altogether) FREE SPEECH!

If Linda and Whoopie lost their "jobs" because of speaking FOR Michael, or AGAINST Bush, then free speech for them has "consequences" and something in Denmark isn't smelling very nice!

There could very well be "consequences" for other people who are afraid to speak out against the war or GWB too, since they are called "unpatriotic"" and lord knows that's right next to treason, if not downright treason.......so it could be really dangerous to exercise your right of free speech these days...*sigh*

.....and the thing about Michael Moore.....he was NOT guilty of talking about abolishing conservative talk radio anyway, according to StarLover, who SAW the show....

...saying "their days are numbered" was just a guess on his part, so I guess the whole point of this thread is not even relevant.

Love,
Rainbow

posted August 01, 2004 11:51 PM              

quote:

---

I would further say that those who cannot keep their opinions out of their "news" broadcasts or papers should confine themselves to editorial comment.

---

Oh jwhop you are soooo funneee .....

You mean others like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanity, and that O'Riley fellow, right?

....or as Proxieme said FOX NEWS.....

LOve,
Rainbow

posted August 02, 2004 12:59 AM            

When Limbaugh writes a piece for the print media, it appears on the editorial pages, not on the news pages...or at least all that I've seen have.

posted August 02, 2004 01:22 AM            

quote:

---

I SAW THE SHOW, and this is what Michael Moore was really saying. I don't know word for word...

---

And now that I've not been able to find any transcripts, blog, news piece, nothing about it, it's bugging the crap out of me...now I really want to know what the heck was said...

Thanks for answering my question though. Good to know you don't think its ok regardless of which direction it's coming from - I guess I just view certain forms of censorship under the umbrella of employment when it's one's image that one is selling, as not unreasonable.

I'll be keeping an eye out online trying to find some form of transcript from the show to see what was in fact said.

Either way I guess it is irrelevant Rainbow. We on the right know what a lying, self-aggrandizing, hypocritical, deceptive, and well, just plain sad human being Michael Moore is, and we know that no amount of facts are gonna change your minds anyway.

posted August 02, 2004 11:21 AM              

Myself...I admire him very much and think it took a lot of courage to make that movie...I guesss that movie was "his editoral," jw...

Love,
Rainbow

posted August 02, 2004 11:46 AM            

Hmmm, Michael Moore is radioactive Rainbow, with every politician running for election or reelection avoiding Moore like the plague.

New York Times Discovers Its Liberal Bias

Just about anybody who reads the New York Times knows that it is a bastion of liberalism, an allegation the Times has denied -- up until July 25, that is, when its staff ombudsman suddenly jumped the reservation and admitted that the Times really is a liberal newspaper.

Daniel Okrent, a self-described liberal Democrat and the Times' "Public Editor" (they don't want to admit they needed an ombudsman after the Jason Blair scandal erupted), let loose with a ringing declaration that the Times doesn't merely lean to the left - it is left.

"Is the New York Times a liberal newspaper?" he asked. "Of course it is."

Before taking off on an extended summer hiatus, Okrent cited chapter and verse to back his assertion, noting, for example, that the Times editorial page is "so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right."

Promising to examine the Times' record in covering this election when he returns, he zeroed in on the hot social issues that divide liberals and conservatives -- "gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed."

The Times' coverage, he writes, is based on its views, which are solidly New York-Northeastern urban liberal and which are at odds with the views of Middle America. "But if you're examining the paper's coverage of these subjects from a perspective that is neither urban nor Northeastern nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide [devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans]; if your value system wouldn't wear well on a composite New York Times journalist, then a walk through this paper can make you feel you're traveling in a strange and forbidding world."

Okrent takes a tour through the various sections of the Times, and finds lots of evidence for the paper's far left slant on the social issues.

While the editorial page is solidly liberal, he found a meager attempt to provide balance on the op-ed page, where there are "seven opinionated columnists, only two of whom could be classified as conservative (and, even then, of the conservative subspecies that supports legalization of gay unions and, in the case of William Safire, opposes some central provisions of the Patriot Act)."
In the Sunday magazine, he finds that "the culture-wars applause-o-meter chronically points left while on the Arts & Leisure front page every week, columnist Frank Rich slices up President Bush, Mel Gibson, John Ashcroft and other paladins of the right in prose as uncompromising as Paul Krugman's or Maureen Dowd's." The culture pages, he adds, "often feature forms of art, dance or theater that may pass for normal (or at least tolerable) in New York but might be pretty shocking in other places.
The Sunday Styles section, he reports, features not only gay wedding announcements but also "downtown sex clubs and T-shirts bearing the slogan, 'I'm afraid of Americans.'" The Times "presents the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading," Okrent charged.
The sports pages report on the findings of racial-equity reformer Richard Lapchick, which have been appearing in the sports pages for decades. ("Since when is diversity a sport?" one reader complained).
The front page of the Metro section has featured a long piece best described by its subhead, "Cross-Dressers Gladly Pay to Get in Touch with Their Feminine Side."
Okrent writes that his boss, Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., doesn't think this walk through The Times is a tour of liberalism. "He prefers to call the paper's viewpoint "urban." He says that the tumultuous, polyglot metropolitan environment the Times occupies means "We're less easily shocked" and that the paper reflects "a value system that recognizes the power of flexibility."

Sulzberger is right, he says, explaining that "living in New York makes a lot of people think that way, and a lot of people who think that way find their way to New York (me, for one). The Times has chosen to be an unashamed product of the city whose name it bears, a condition magnified by the been-there-done-that irony afflicting too many journalists."

Given the paper's unshakable devotion to the reigning liberal ideology of New York, Okrent concludes that "readers with a different worldview will find The Times an alien beast."

Unfortunately, in America's heartland the Times is an alien beast.

posted August 02, 2004 02:23 PM            

"Perhaps the question should be why aren't more people of a conservative bent attracted to lower-paying "public service" jobs"

Really struck a nerve with me. It seems that we have created this sort of delusion that conversatives only choose high paying jobs that serve themselves and not the people. It is such a biased stereotype that is makes me sick.

My dad was in law enforcement since right before I was born and just recently retired. He is conservative. He also wasn't rich. He put his life on the line protecting people like the people here from Heroin and arms trafficking so that we could all live a safer life. After 34 years on the job he never made more than an average blue collar working in the Union (they make about $100,000 a year plus overtime).

I would consider my father as having worked in "Public Service"

My brother is a conservative and earned his Master's Degree only to become a teacher making less in Idaho than what most post office workers make. He teaches the 7th and 8th grade and loves it - because it gives him the opportunity to make a difference in others lives...I would call that public service.

For me, well I took many low paying jobs to pay for my college to get into research so that I could make a difference in someones life through my work in the lab. I worked at a LARGE eastern university running a diagnostic lab and working 10-15 hour days making less that what a manager at McDonalds would make.

In the end, after the years of time I put in keeping animals healthy and working on research projects I was able to get a better paying job in the private sector. I STILl worked on behalf of the public with farmers and animal raisers...who incidently DO NOT make tons of money and yet the fruit of their labor ends up on our tables - which I would consider a public service.

When I went from working for the state to working in the private industry I lost over 2 weeks a year of annual time (yep in the private industry you must EARN it, in government you get 21 days of annual leave, 10 days of sick time, 3 "personal" days, a fully funded retirement, my medical was about $10.00 per month (Medical was the top of the line PPO)and dental was free). In the private sector I received 5 days off once I had worked one full year, 5 holidays, NO personal leave, 1.67 hours of sick leave every 2 weeks, my health insurance went from $10.00 per month to $120.00 per month and dental was $30 per month (for a family of 4 the health care would go up to almost $300 per month for the bare min. HMO service)and I had to put away for my own retirement.

My paycheck was bigger, but now I had a much bigger burden in taxes, health care and retirement costs. In the end, my home pay for the first two years in the private sector was even to what I was making at the University - WITHOUT the benefit of all the time off.

The point is, it is way to easy to point fingers and buy into the stereotype that all conservatives are rich and will not work in public service and all liberals take lower pay in order to make this world a better place.

posted August 02, 2004 03:39 PM              

I agree with you, and, looking back, I think it was I who misspoke, mostly because I couldn't find quite the right words.

My question still remains, though - why aren't there more conservatives on PBS in particular and in the mass media in general?
There are conservatives there without a doubt, but they - and stations predominant in their viewpoint - seem to be anomalies.