"Land Of The Free?" - Arianna Huffington

[Steve Machol]

Over the past year, Arianna Huffington has become one of my favorite writers and columnists, along with Leonard Pitts and Molly Ivins. My wife read this column to me this morning and I thought I'd share it with everyone and get some feedback.

I think Arianna raises some interesting and important points. What do you think?

http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/092401.html

[LaurieC]

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death, for your right to say it."

This said many years ago in Fayetteville, NC as he (an Air Force Security Policeman) my brother (an Air Force Pilot), a friend (a Green Beret) and I (a wife and mom) sat in a "Bennigans Restaurant. The men were all in uniform and a total stranger felt compelled to interupt our meal with their opinions on the Granada attack.

The only thing I ever liked about the show "Politically Incorrect" is the title. I like it even less now. My response to it is the same as with any other show I don't care for! I DON'T WATCH IT! As an American who believes in the first amendment the only form of censorship I agree with is self-censorship. I have no desire to see it canceled by a ground swell of misguided patriotism. This show should be allowed to live or die by it's ratings.

That said, Ms. Huffington would do well to recognize that "radio shock jocks" like Dan Patrick and the sponsors Fed Ex and Sears are also exercizing the same rights she seeks to protect.

[Jeff Trail]

Steve-aroo,


Something's I agree with some not with her "posting" (what's new,right?) :-) ..I do disagree with her mentioning the type of warfare and it being "cowardly" (in Bill's words) .. if you have the technology to be able to use bombs, missiles or whatever even though they are more expensive ($) than say fighting a conventional war I still say it's cheaper than losing an American soldiers life.. to me that is not cowardly it's effective use of modern technology.
The local news here in Orlando ran a story on Grumman and they developed a system that drops one bomb and it opens up with multiple "bomblets" and not the more expensive "smart" bombs BTW but laser guided and with this new system they can target MOVING vehicles and multiple targets in the kill zone ... it was an amazing test that they shown... the vehicles were going upto 50 mph. and it hit 10 of 10 in the test!! ... maybe that is a little closer than "lobbing" cruise missiles 2,000 miles but I would rather do it this way than have to send a platoon of "kids" to do the same thing..
No matter what she says and what Bill might say, might as well face it we are not ever going to fight a war the way we did in Vietnam, which I'm glad about (if we do have to fight).
One thing I found amazing was when that missile did hit the so called "pharmaceutical" plant there was a big deal over what it actually was, if I remember correctly (I am a news junkie) a bunch of the experts who seen the tapes and all agree'd that "there were a lot of bottles and things that appear to be pharmaceutical things" but when viewed closer none of the equipment, WHICH there was very few pieces matched what they said the plant was doing. Plus their was far fewer pieces equipment in there if it were a working plant and the report from the U. N did not match with what they were saying as well... hmm.. wonder what that other equipment that wasn't shown was doing? Now it seems that all those debates have fallen to the side and now it's just an accepted truth that "oh well we lobbed missiles at a pharmaceutical"
The part I do agree with is Bill's right to say what he wants and yes if you do cancel it for the reason of censorship than it is a slippery slope I do NOT want to head down as well. People have the right to say things we do not agree with, I like that better than we all get in line and start "goose stepping" to the drum beat of the far right! :-)
As long as we stay towards the middle to moderate I'm happy, makes for good hearted debates.. just don't want us swinging to far left or right. :-)

Jeff "always likes a good hot blooded debate" Trail

[Steve Machol]

I agree that freedom of speech goes both ways and that people have a right, even an obligation, to oppose views they strongly disagree with. I have no problem with people tuning out this show or refusing to buy commercial time for it.

The interesting thing is I had only seen the show once myself. I really wasn't that impressed with it and never bothered to watch again. Not for any ideological reasons - I just didn't think that particular show was very interesting.

However I have to admit that I am surprised at the response and anger directed at Bill Maher for his comments. Here is the offending passage from Arianna's account:

In response to guest Dinesh D'Souza's assertion that people who are willing to die in service to their cause, whatever else they may be, are not "cowards," Maher said: "We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly."

While I think that Bill's characterization was a bit strong, I remember thinking similar throughts when the Clinton Administration aimed cruise missiles at 'terrorist training camps' in Afganistan. I didn't think of it as 'cowardly' but I do remember thinking that it was a totallly absurd and ineffective act designed to make it appear he was being 'strong'. If we were serious about removing Bin Laden, then we should have done whatever was necessary to get him. Instead Clinton decided to take action that appeared strong, but only managed to make a bad situation worse.

The good news is that I feel much more confident in the Bush Administration's capabilities of dealing with this threat. They appear to understand that this will not be a quick or easy fight, and that there will be many sacrifices. I'm not happy about this of course, but I'm glad that the President isn't trying to minimize the difficulties or dangers.

[Darris Chambless]

Hello Steve,

First let me say that what Laurie said couldn't have been said any better.

I am familiar with the Bill Maher "situation" and will state for the record that I have watched Politically Incorrect a long time ago, but have never liked Bill Maher as the host of that show. I have received transcripts of the show in question and seen the video clips (whether I wanted to or not) and know what he was trying to refer to but he missed some very important factors even in his apology which made it very thinly vailed.

The first thing I would bring Mr. Maher's attention to is that we don't sit 2,000 miles away lobbing missiles as an attempt at war. We lob missiles from 2,000 miles away as military support for those that are on the ground be it the US military or others. When we are directly involved we are there with US troops air, land and sea. So me thinks he was speaking out of school just a bit.

Then there is the subject of "cowardice." It's amazing at what in this day and time counts as heroics or cowardice. In the Bill Maher and the other guy I can't remember or even spell his name if I could remember( Something like D'Asous SP?) The hijackers were warriors and we exhibit cowardice. Now I know what Billy boy was trying to say but he and the other guy are incorrect. Cowards may be committed to what they're doing but they're still cowards. The hijackers come into this country, reside here, learn skills from our schools (probably on our dollar as well) and then buy tickets for several seats on a flight so that the resistance will be as low as they can get it. They then take over and airplane (remember you can't drive infront of a plane and make it pull over) telling the passengers to be calm and no one will get hurt and fly the plane into the WTC where the unsuspecting die by their hands. I'm not sure but I believe cowards hide and attack you from behind the last time I looked.

I retrospect Mr. Mahers words were ill timed and ill placed. His apology said he was directing it at the government. The last time I checked the government couldn't call for a war only a declaration of it. Again he has opened his mouth and inserted his foot even in his apology.

As to the writer of the piece. She seems to be a good writer but is as much in the dark as Bill Maher when it comes to backing him. She is talking about censorship and what is happening with PI is not censorship. As Laurie said it is a Constitutional right of any sponsor or individual to do what they see fit. If that means pulling advertising or an idividual speaking their mind or no longer watching the program then so be it. Censorship is when the Government comes in and says "You can't say that, write that or broadcast that." That is censorship. She needs to check her definitions before she writes these things lest she look like a fool. If the money isn't there or the viewers aren't there then a show gets pulled and it happens all the time. It is not an advertisers "responsibility" to support TV shows especially those that they don't agree with. That's why they can pick and choose where their spots will be run.

Here's what's funny about bringing up censorship. By Arianna's definition a mutitude of information is censored all the time if the the controling faction (i.e. Network owners and CEO's) don't agree with particular views (i.e. Conservative views). Unless you really look hard you won't find many Conservative views broadcast in the video media, or written in newspapers. We Conservatives have our views of things as well as our opinions but you don't see them very often. I wonder where they go? ;-) Not to mention on PI Conservative views are drowned out by the Liberal idealists constantly and they're never heard or given the chance to be heard. So is that censorship or expression of ones views done so loudly that the other guy can't be heard? I wonder.

Anyway, Bill Maher is misguided as is Ms. Arianna. She's entitled to her views and defending ones friends is admireable, but at least she should know what she's talking about first. Journalism is a responsibility and should never be taken lightly. Unfortunately the majority of journalists that you see everyday take it very lightly and don't have the whole story and are not as well informed as they would have you believe.

Steve, she writes well but I wouldn't put too much stock in what she's saying although she has the Constitutional right to say it all she wants as do I :) I think she is cluelessly defending the clueless or the blind leading the fight for the blind so to speak.

Take care,

Darris C

[Steve Machol]

I forgot to mention another of my favorite columnists - John Leo of U.S. News & World Report. (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/jleo.htm)

John is one of the best Conservative columnists around and regulars writes about the idiocy and dangers of 'political correctness' in major U.S. Universities. One of the abiding themes in these controversies is the radical left's intolerance of any speech that doesn't meet their idea of 'acceptable' discourse. Consequently there is a sizable contingent in our Universities that uses their free speech rights to actively oppose and limit the rights of anyone they disagree with.

As far as I'm concerned, I am bothered anytime someone acts to shut down opposing views - regardless of the their political persuasion. This is antithetical to what America is all about. Although I didn't see the show in question, I agree that such a comment was in extreme poor taste and had bad timing. However, like Laurie, I'd hate to 'see it canceled by a ground swell of misguided patriotism.'

However I can't help but think that Clinton did us more harm than good with his half-hearted missile attacks on Bin Laden. In my view if you're going to do something like this, you have to finish the job.

I am hopeful that President Bush won't repeat this mistake. He has an experienced and smart team around him. I am also afraid for what this means to the people who have to take this war to the enemey, and I pray for their protection.

[chip anderson]

May all enemies (except us rednecks in The Confederate States) of the United States be destroyed by any means possible.

Chip

P.S.

I have E. Mailed Miss Huffington who says she was sitting next to Mr. Maher when he said this, and asked if she sat on his right or his left at the time.

[Joann Raytar]

She is trying to make Maher a First Ammendment martyr out of what was merely a business desicion on the part of the network. Most intelligent folks do exactly as Laurie C does; "My response to it is the same as with any other show I don't care for! I DON'T WATCH IT!" If folks stop watching the show, then they stop watching the commercials that sponsor the show too. This is wasted money to the sponsors. The sponsors pull out so as not to waste money. The networks now aren't making any money by having the show on so off the air it goes. That is how radio and television does business everyday. Simple. Maher is not a martyr he just won't be a money maker until folks get over the comments made on his show. Blacking out the screen or bleeping out that part of the show would have been a form of subduing freedom of speech.

When the country just learned with such penetrating anguish what real terror is, how can the corporate logo polishers fear Bill Maher? Particularly when the point he was making was such an important one.

It wasn't fear. He ticked too many people off and demonstrated very, very bad timing. At a time when Armed Forces regulars are going overseas and reservists are being called up, you do not call the US military cowardly.

I do agree with her comments about the media's affect on opinion. I strongly believe that many of the recent attacks on Arab Americans by other Americans are the result of poor judgement and choice of words by the media. It started with the shots of the terrorist's neighbors in Florida. :finger: The media kept stressing that the terrorists were ordinary folks the average family next door complete with backyard bar-b-que's and topless bars. We forget that this is always the case. Serial killers, work place killers and sex offenders are also the average guys next door but we don't go and literally beat each other up every day because of it. The media cause this problem and they should be working extra dilligently to fix it.

[Steve Machol]

Good points Jo. I only disagree with one thing:

Originally posted by Jo
At a time when Armed Forces regulars are going overseas and reservists are being called up, you do not call the US military cowardly.

I could be wrong, but I didn't think these comments were directed at the military. Instead, I read this to mean the leaders who made the decision to do this, i.e. Clinton, et al. After all, in the U.S. the military follows the orders and policies of the Commander-in-Chief. There is absolutely no way they could have, or would have, made this decision themselves.

Other than that, you're right on. This comment was very ill-timed and unfortunate. Sensitivities are very high right now and we all need to choose our words carefully.

By the way, my son is talking about re-enlisting in the Army. I'm not happy about it of course, but I fully understand and support his decision. His mother, on he other hand, is a bit less philosophical about it.

[Joann Raytar]

Originally posted by Steve Machol
Good points Jo. I only disagree with one thing:

I could be wrong, but I didn't think these comments were directed at the military. Instead, I read this to mean the leaders who made the decision to do this, i.e. Clinton, et al. After all, in the U.S. the military follows the orders and policies of the Commander-in-Chief. There is absolutely no way they could have, or would have, made this decision themselves.

Yes, you are correct Steve. It is easy to misinterpret certain topics, especially since I have also been caught up in our new "Unified Nation" along with so many other folks. I believe this also is what started the process of Maher being ousted; Nationalism is very strong right now. I'll give Arianna half a point for that one.

[Steve Machol]

I know what you mean Jo. My wife and I didn't speak to each other for several days because I interpreted some of her remarks as not being patriotic enough! That wasn't the case, of course, but sensitivities, including mine, are running high right now.

[Alan W]

I agree, the "I don't watch it" doctrine works.
Around here in red neck country not only does the "I don't watch it" theory apply, but three ABC affiliates have taken it to the next level and . . . "We won't broadcast it" has kicked in!

[Blake]

I've seen Politically Correct (not a typo) several times, and have reached this conclusion - Bill Maher is a jerk. If he says something that gets your blood boiling, he'll consider himself a success. I guess I watched him for the same reason that ultra-liberals listen to Rush Limbaugh.
I agree with Jo that the so-called "censorship" was really just a business decision. In TV, it all comes down to money. If Maher ticks off too many viewers, they'll stop watching his show and, as a result, won't see those commercials. Thus the advertisers would be wasting their money.
A final thought: If these terrorists were warriors, why didn't they overtake an Air Force Base and steal some fighter jets? Instead, they chose to hijack a plane full of unarmed civilians and crash it into thousands more unsuspecting civilians. You can be dedicated and still be a coward.

Blake

[Darris Chambless]

Hello to all,

I have really enjoyed tis exchange (but I always enjoy exchanges, but that's just me :) I want to marry Laurie and Jo if they'll have me :) Aw heck Steve, I'll even marry you if you don't mind me leading ;)

I would like to address something though "I could be wrong, but I didn't think these comments were directed at the military. Instead, I read this to mean the leaders who made the decision to do this, i.e. Clinton, et al. After all, in the U.S. the military follows the orders and policies of the Commander-in-Chief. There is absolutely no way they could have, or would have, made this decision themselves." I'm not sure that Bill was directing this at Clinton (although I'd like to believe that :) I think he was just directing his remarks at an entity to take the blame. I believe this because first he directed it at the military, then in his "apology" he directed it at the Government, but as I said they can only call for a declaration of war not the actual process. I really don't think Bill knows who he was directing it at, he was simply trying to stir stuff up and he suceeded. He should be happy with the outcome as well since did what he set out to do.

Bill was being Politically Incorrect. The funny thing is that by doing so there are enough people out there that took offense and said something about it through patriotism or whatever. Just think, if we could get people to do that to Daschle and Gephardt we'd be doing okay :)

Tkae care,

Darris C.

PS, Arriana is a good writer, I just think she's misguided that's all.

[Steve Machol]

Perhaps what's coloring my view is my simmering anger at the Clinton Adminstration for it's foreign policy debacles, of which the cruise missile attack on Bin Laden was one. It's clear in my mind that Clinton wanted to appear 'strong' without actually risking anything. Unfortunately whenever you engage an enemy, you need to accept risks. The problem is he decided to do something half-assed and the result was a further erosion of respect for the U.S.

[Darris Chambless]

Careful there Steve,

There are some people out there that, dare I say, thought Bill Clinton was a good president that actually did good things. You could end up ruining their belief in him by saying what you said :)

Seriously though I agree with your analogy of Bill Clinton whole heartedly. As far as Bill Maher goes he was being not unlike Bill Clinton in that he was doing and saying without thinking of the ramafication or not caring because of his stature, basically just being arrogant. Regardless of the shows content or name there is a simple thing called common courtesy that one should exhibit when hard times befall so many. Bill Maher chose to ignore it, got called on it and then tried to back peddle showing his true ignorance. I agree with others too, that say he should have been called on a lot of things he has said yet no one said a word. Primarily because he was making comments about Conservatives or the handicapped which is "okay" in the eyes some because it creates that much needed political seperation that Liberal ideology depends on and is "okay" when a Liberal says it.

In short Bill Maher wasn't being politically correct or incorrect. He was being stupid and thoughtless. I understand and agree with your thinking but again consider the source and understand that their arrogance is to blame not the scapegoats their using. To people like them it doesn't matter who they blame or what they meant as long as the spot light isn't on them when the s**t hits the fan. Talk about cowardice ;)

Take care and I'm glad you posted the link to the article.

Darris C.

[Pete Hanlin]

One of my favorite shows for some time has been Chris Matthew's HardBall (just thought that I should admit to enjoying a Democrat if Steve could admit to enjoying a Republican ;) ).

Until the advent of FoxNews, I would have been a bit more upset about this situation. It has seemed to me that, for some time, almost the entire spectrum of our major media has been controlled by extremely liberal entities and persons. Frankly, the major networks, CNN, NPR, and the larger news publications usually take a liberal bias to the newsroom. At the same time, I believe the majority of Americans are still conservatives (and for good and bad reasons, when Americans are faced with adversity, they tend to become even more conservative), so one has to hope that there will continue to be a demand for unbiased (or conservatively biased ;) ) news sources.

This last election, I was impressed with PBS's coverage of the debates and election. I found it to be almost neutral. Furthermore, I thoroughly enjoyed being able to watch FoxNews (which my cable provider says was added to the lineup due to intense subscriber demand).

As it stands, if the only reason this show is being cancelled is because of this comment, that is a sad testament to the intolerance that has gripped America in the wake of this tragedy. I notice that this intolerance doesn't seem to extend to people who call President Bush cowardly... Come on, the press has made inflammatory statements and "shots" at Republicans for years (after all, the Gingrich Republicans wanted to starve the elderly, poison our drinking water, and send our children to second rate schools according to the major media).

To sum, if Politically Incorrect really has a following, there are venues which will pick it up. If the show doesn't have a following, perhaps this is just being used as an excuse to kill off a white elephant.

Pete