Urp. I just threw up in my mouth a little...thanks a lot.

Ok....mea culpa. After decades of being the propaganda wing for the far right, I do automatically think anyone willing to defend them must be a fan. I'm not a CNN fan, but I often defend them.

I agree, they offer the "other" side's view, often drafting it themselves. What I can't agree on is them being a source of information beyond what the right's talking points will be. As I noted before, their viewers are astonishingly less informed than people who watch zero news.

I agree, there is slant in most news today, sometimes outright zealous bias, and that's a bad thing no matter who does it.

I am surprised Fox can still think ahead enough to back freedom of the press, especially their nemesis CNN, considering the short sightedness and hyper partisan nature of their hosts and writers....pleasantly surprised. I often hope I'm wrong in my assessments, which are invariably cynical.

That's a lot of people on the streets in France.

But my favorite is still the meeting of world leaders, including Turkey's Davutoglu (highest # of journalists in prison), Bahrain's Sheikh Khalid (#2 on the list of journalists in prison), Polish PM Kopacz (raided newspaper for criticising the government), etc.

When these folks are presented as staunch defenders of the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, you know someone spiked your beer with LSD.

They don't catch shells because it is just something else to deal with. Military operations cause a lot of waste and contamination (the bullets are lead as an example). It would be superfluous to worry about the casings and just take up more space and crew time.

The reason they take reporters is because it helps the public see and support what is going on. Having public support behind these sort of things is important. Also most western nations have pretty strong freedom of the press rules.

Yes, he took up some space, but it isn't like that is the only helicopter they sent. This isn't a case of "one chopper and then the rest of you are screwed." They are sending more flights. That same chopper probably went back, after refueling and rearming, for that matter.

Oh Bob, how I envy you. The world must be such a nice place if you can view it only in black or white. Binary thinking must be easy on the synapses.
Here's one thing I don't understand, though. Maybe you can help me out.
Why do you hate liberty so much?
I mean, you're an american, right? Land of the free, home of the brave?
Home of the Liberty Bell? The country whose most famous landmark is called the "Statue of Liberty".
Why so much hate the most american thing? I always wanted to asked somebody who's so obviously republican as you.
Here's something I found on Wikipedia:
"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property."

Hmmm... generally supporting following ideas:
- free and fair elections (voter id laws and voting fraud prevention)
- civil rights (Dude! Don't tread on me!)
- freedom of the press (concern about lamestream media and "liberal bias" in the media)
- freedom of religion (for example the freedom of teaching children creationism)
- free trade (capitalism yay!)
- private property (for some reason the name "Ron Jeremy" came to mind but I think I got the name wrong)

I can understand a dislike for equality (come on, slaves are super useful) but not for liberty. Not if you're a true american.

Shouldn't you call yourself a liberal? Is it just a weird closet you're in?

Y'know, with the US now ranking 43rd, one notch above Haiti and one below New Guinea, or something like that, in freedom of the press, I'm not sure how much your freedom to express yourself without legal interference is the result of "imperfect men."

But that's just me.

Good luck.

I love how Jon points out that we are a nation of overreactors while at the same time he too is overreacting (along with the rest of the media). Guns are used in less than 10% of violent crime, yet that's all the media is concerned about. Jon and the media are both overreacting about so called assault rifles as well. Only 3% of crimes are committed with any type of rifle, and "assault rifles" are only a small sub-category of rifles. Why is the media only focusing on less than 10% of violent crimes (those that only involve guns), and why put so much of that focus on the least used type of gun to commit violence? Mass shootings barely make up 0.1% of all murders, yet it gets constant media coverage for weeks after it happens. If we do something to cut down on ALL violence, gun violence will also drop.

Jon also gets a lot of his "facts" wrong. The CDC has an average (1999-2010) gun homicide rate of 12,807 per year and an average accidental gun death of 758 per year, that doesn't add up to 30,000. There is no epidemic of gun violence either. Violence, including gun violence has been on a steady decline every year.

He was almost about to make a good point about gun control with the comparison to drunk driving. Drunk driving deaths were reduced through common sense laws, stricter sentences for drunk driving offenders and educating the public, not by banning alcohol or cars, or imposing ridiculous limits on cars like reducing the size of fuel tanks so drunk drivers would have to stop and refuel more often. When has banning anything ever solved a problem? We tried that with alcohol already, it didn't work. Drugs are illegal, and hows that war on drugs going? I don't use drugs, but I'm all for legalizing and regulating them. It's our generation's prohibition and it needs to end because all it's doing is causing more crime than it's preventing.

The argument that muskets were all that was available when the constitution was written is ridiculous. When the constitution was written they also didn't have radio, TV or the internet, so should we limit free speech and freedom of the press to only newspapers and soap boxes?

I'm willing to have a common sense discussion on how to reduce not just gun violence but all violence, but I'm waiting for the "anti-gun" side to show up with some common sense instead of fear and ignorance.

Guns are already highly regulated, but I'm not opposed to any new regulation as long as it will keep guns from criminals, include harsher punishment for criminal use of guns, and doesn't put any added burden on responsible gun owners. The current legislation being cooked up (what little has been revealed so far) is completely insane.

And by the way (since Jon brought up Mr. Belding), in 1997 at the Pearl, MS high school, it was the school's assistant principle with a gun that stopped the shooter. This was reported only in local papers. Only one national media network covered it, NBC, they mentioned it only twice, and then it was forgotten. Under the law the assistant principal was considered a criminal for having a gun in a gun free zone, yet if he didn't have his gun in his car that day to stop the shooter, the shooter would have been able to carry out his plan to drive to the junior high and kill more students while police were responding to the high school.

>> ^ponceleon:

Don't have time to see the whole thing now, but I feel like the new challenge for journalism in the information age is that they need to understand that freedom of the press is not freedom to report without checking facts. Sensationalism is the rule rather than actual reporting. In an age where "reality" TV is scripted and caters to the lowest commmon denominator, as a society we have to hope that this too will bounce back.
If anyone saw last night's South Park, it was pure brilliance. We just need James Cameron to come in and raise the bar dammit!


Journalists work for money the same as most folks. Good journalism in the sense you're talking about takes time, and therefore is expensive. Furthermore, balanced, dry articles about the nuanced nature of the world around us don't lend themselves well to attention-grabbing headlines, a problem perhaps exacerbated by the need for page views and the ability to track, per article posted, what people view most.

I mean, really, what are more people going to want to read - or rather, see - "Higgs Boson identified with high probability" or "Lady Catherine caught with her tits out - photos inside!"?

We've conflated information with entertainment. I wonder how to turn that particular tide back.

Don't have time to see the whole thing now, but I feel like the new challenge for journalism in the information age is that they need to understand that freedom of the press is not freedom to report without checking facts. Sensationalism is the rule rather than actual reporting. In an age where "reality" TV is scripted and caters to the lowest commmon denominator, as a society we have to hope that this too will bounce back.

If anyone saw last night's South Park, it was pure brilliance. We just need James Cameron to come in and raise the bar dammit!

Yes,he's a dead man walking. Martyrdom for freedom of the press will be his fate,and he knows it.

If that were me...I'd release EVERYTHING onto the net. Every dirty secret,every stain of guilt they have on our government and the Banks and Corporations that rule us. If you have only one weapon,use it over and over.The greater majority won't know nor care,being hypnotized by the parade of nonsense that our Media forcefeeds us,but pockets of people will harvest it,keep it safe,and use it even when that drone comes saling into his window.

I pity him,but I thank him.

thanks back at ya =)

i'm a china analyst serving overseas for the state dept

and you?

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

@criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

>> ^quantumushroom:

Now now, I believe there are many lefty voices who STILL accuse the Tea party of being Fox/Murdoch-sponsored.
Say what you will about Cain, but he's right on this: what do these people want? What do they want to achieve?
Sorry to poop in the punch bowl, but if you take any of these hippies and swap them with the guys in the skyscraper, they'll act exactly the same way and do the same exact things as the originals.

>> ^Sagemind:
This idiot thinks these protesters are organized as a scheme by a political party? - These protesters are a spontaneous uprising. They aren't uprising because they are jealous, they are protesting because they and the public were and are being shafted over and over by the elite wealthy without concern for those they step on.



As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!

*These grievances are not all-inclusive.

http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/

Steve is absolutely right in THIS case the "journalists" have nothing they can do to defend themselves. Listening to a private citizens messages is indefensible. However the guy defending the press makes ONE good point about the Freedom of the press, it's a point that shouldn't be ignored even if he's a slimey piece of shit. I don't know what the answer is at this point but I guess it's to have the public smack the press down whenever something like this happens and maybe they won't do it.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Thanks for that. I think I understand your position now too. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

In reply to this comment by Opus_Moderandi:
lol, immediately after I sent that mssg, I thought I probably should have said "Not that your position makes you a non-level headed guy." Sorry bout that. I always seem to think after I hit send.

And thanks for that out pouring, I think I understand your position a little better now.

I guess our difference is there are no laws or ordinances restricting what I want out of life for myself. In my country, of course. This includes dancing in a memorial, which I still am sure not a lot of people (outside of protesters) care to do.

You see this (if I may) as the long arm of the law reaching out and bitch slapping these protesters. I see it as the protesters stomping on the arm of the law and then pretending nothing happened. And I disagree as far as the use of excessive force. The one instance where it might seem excessive (that I saw) was due to resisting arrest, imo.

As far as peaceful disobedience threatening the cops authority, in this case, I think it was forced. The cop warned them not to dance. They went ahead and danced. He has to back up his warning or look like a moron. In front of a crowd of people, no less. So, I'm sure his/their testosterone level was peaking out. And who wants cops that are timid about following through? "Stop or I'll shoot! Maybe...."

Not all cops are good. Not all cops make the best decision regarding situational outcomes. And I will agree that a lot of them are looking to fill a quota. But in this instance, I sincerely believe their actions were warranted.

Not problem. I'm actually happy with your thoughts as well. I might not agree with some of them but, it's a good discussion, imo.


In reply to this comment by dag:
Wow, I always thought you were a critical thinker.
I'm so perplexed that you would take this position. <- Condescension is never a good way to argue a point. I'm probably as "level-headed" as the next guy, but much like yourself I have opinions.

My opinions are shaped by my life experiences. I currently live in a bureaucratic nanny-state. It's functional, and in many ways serves the public better than the United States - but I do now have a keener appreciation for the wilder, unvarnished idea of American liberty. Here in Australia we're mainly well-off. (by world standards) We have public healthcare, well-stocked libraries, good schools - and incidentally one of the highest tax rates in the world.

Because we're so fat and happy and lacking an underclass, not many care that we need a permit to have a protest anywhere, that there is no enshrined bill of rights guaranteeing things like free speech or freedom of the press - or that we owe allegiance to a monarch thousands of miles across the pond.

But one thing that really, really chafes my balls - so to speak - is that I feel constantly governed. There are laws and ordinances covering everything - and the government wants to know everything about you. It's all for my own good of course, but I fear stepping out of line, standing out and becoming subject to the scrutiny of the all-seeing-eye of the State.

To answer your question directly, I don't think that those cops were looking for an excuse to arrest them - I do think they were using excessive force. I do think that sometimes the best option is to issue citations and wait for the troll fest to finish. Cops rarely err on the side of non-aggression though, because they see any peaceful disobedience as a threat to their authority.

But speaking in general terms, yes, I do think that police often look for excuses to cite, arrest or otherwise assert their authority / meet their citation quota - and laws like this give them one more way to do it.

PS. Sorry for going from private to public, but I'm kind of happy with my thoughts on this, as I've never really examined them this way. Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Opus_Moderandi:
Yeah, I was debating with myself when (if at all) would be a good point to carry this conversation "underground". I'll try now.

Also, I hope it doesn't seem like I'm trying to badger you. If you don't feel it's necessary to move forward with this discussion, I understand. From what I know of you on the site, I believe you're a level headed guy and I'm puzzled that you see this demonstration as you do.

So, you're saying that those cops were just looking for a reason to arrest them? Then why warn them? Just to make it look good? I don't buy that. And, again, I have to say that if you put this up to a vote, a real democratic vote, the majority would agree with the law (or ordinance, what have you) against dancing.

And aren't most protests about things that have been going on for awhile? I mean, dancing at this memorial wasn't really an issue until these "activists" made it one. I'm guessing you'll say it was the cops that made it an issue but, I'm gonna stick with "They were given a warning."

In reply to this comment by dag:
I don't think that at all. At the risk of blowing away the new crusty layer of love and peace that has recently been established here - I'm against silly freedom-restricting laws and ordinances that police can use as an excuse to arrest people at any time or place.

If people are really disturbing the peace, use that. We don't need laws against dancing and we don't need laws against people sitting on park benches sans children (see my above link).

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^dag:
A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^dag:
Small little creeping, insiduous changes. Little prohibitions against little things. No dancing at national monuments, no burning old glory, apple pie must always be served with an American flag toothpick, and then slowly, slowly it becomes much safer to just stay home, watch Fox News on your jumbo Sony-tron and eat microwave burritos.

This is what paranoia looks like.

It doesn't matter how little the law is changed here and there.
If it's a bullshit law it should be challenged. This is the way Jefferson would have wanted it.
It's not paranoia. If anything it's democracy wearing a ball gag in the name of Justice and Tourism.

Tell me, what is the next step for the dancing activists? What will this great victory lead to? I'll tell you what, nothing. And a nothing that doesn't even deserve all caps.


I think you and blankfist (and the others crying freedom) believe that most people that go to the Jefferson Memorial go there to dance. They don't. It's just this bunch of "activists" that are concerned with it. The majority of people that go there do not go there to dance. If you were to take a vote, a public vote, passing out ballots at the entrance to the Jefferson Memorial that ask "Should dancing be allowed here?" I will bet you my firstborn that you will get a resounding NO.