There is no end to the ridicule heaped on the MSD students for daring to criticize the NRA.
TV talk show host Laura Ingraham laughed at MSD student David Hogg after he was rejected by four California universities (Are they nuts?)
But David Hogg responded with a tweet listing her sponsors and they started withdrawing from her show.
He should have reported her for bullying.
Real adults don’t pick on kids.
ADVERTISERS DROP LAURA INGRAHAM’S SHOW AFTER JAB AT PARKLAND STUDENT: A handful of companies have dropped their advertisements from Laura Ingraham’s Fox News program after the host used Twitter to mock David Hogg, a survivor of the Florida school shooting last month and now an outspoken gun control advocate. The companies include Nutrish, celebrity cook Rachael Ray’s dog food company; TripAdvisor, the American travel website; and Wayfair, the online home-goods store. Ingraham tweeted on Wednesday, “David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it.” Hogg responded by listing Ingraham’s advertisers and calling for a boycott. Ingraham issued an apology on Thursday: “On reflection, in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland,” she said. More.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The brilliant move: But David Hogg responded with a tweet listing her sponsors and they started withdrawing from her show.
LikeLike
If the best response she can come up with is to attack him personally rather than address his points, that suggests she has no reasonable argument, & serves only to strengthen his points. This woman is supposedly a professional journalist, & she can’t see that? What if next week he’s accepted at Harvard, MIT, Oxford, & Cambridge? Then he’s right about the NRA?
LikeLike
“Wholey Weak Apology”and
In the spirit of Wholey weak
Let me retract my former tweet
Advertisers, please take note:
David Hogg has got my goat
LikeLike
After her Wholey Weak apology, Ingraham is taking a Wholey Weak break from her Wholey Weak show.
LikeLike
“The Easter Basket”
Ingraham is a basket case
Egg all over Ingraham’s face
Wholey Weak is near it’s end
Easter Bunny ain’t her friend
LikeLike
The Hill posted an article criticizing David Hogg for trying to end Ingraham’s career. I don’t think they said anything about her bullying a teenager who doesn’t have a national TV platform.
LikeLike
How does providing names of her advertisers qualify as “trying to end her career”? It just offered information, to be used as seen fit. People just as well might have contacted the advertisers to thank them for helping to make such a wonderful, insightful communicator available to them. Anyway, as Ms. Ingraham so astutely pointed out, this jerk got rejected by four (4), that’s right, count ’em, FOUR colleges! Why would anyone listen to him?
<…he pointed out, displaying his finest passive-agressive form.>
🙂
LikeLike
She ended her career a long time ago, when she started it.
She just has not yet figured that out.
LikeLike
Fox “news” along with social media such as Facebook create discord to increase viewership. Some sort of “fairness doctrine” updated for modern communications is needed.
LikeLike
Thirty plus years of this toxic right wing radio, all across the nation, 24/7. Of course Fox News, the TV equivalent of hate wing radio spews its filth non stop. These kids have been mercilessly attacked for challenging the NRA and a perverted notion of the 2nd amendment (which I wish we could repeal). They have handled these attacks with poise, intelligence and humor. I don’t know how they do it but I am so thankful for their strong voices and convictions.
LikeLike
Just about all if not all media voices on the far right will repeatedly use ad hominem attacks on anyone they target, and they will also viciously attack anyone that does something similar to them.
In addition, many of the far right’s hardcore supporters will do the same thing in a forum when someone that actually thinks and reasons points out the conservative’s flawed logic and calls them a name for being such a lout.
Scientific American reports, “Although ad hominem arguments have long been considered errors in reasoning, a recent analysis suggests that this is not always the case. In his new book, Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric, University of Winnipeg philosopher Douglas Walton proposes that fallacies such as the ad hominem are better understood as perversions or corruptions of perfectly good arguments. Regarding the ad hominem, Walton contends that although such attacks are usually fallacious, they can be legitimate when a character critique is directly or indirectly related to the point being articulated.”
David Hogg just demonstrated a much better way to reply to one of these Laura Ingraham troglodytes (I’m referring to the Urban Dictionary’s definition).
A person considered to be reclusive, reactionary, out of date, or brutish.
Knowing the synonyms for troglodyte also helps:
LikeLike
Judging David Hogg by his enemies, I’d say he is doing quite well.
LikeLike
chuck: perhaps David Hogg took a cue from a genuine American hero—
“A gentleman will not insult me, and no man not a gentleman can insult me.”
Frederick Douglass. 19th century. And even better in the 21st!
😎
LikeLike
Particularly appropriate that you chose to quote a person who’s “an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more.”
LikeLike
Dropping Ingraham is meaningless if they do not drop Fox .
LikeLike
Ad hominem: you’re an idiot and therefore your arguments are stupid
Not ad hominem: only an idiot would make the stupid arguments you have made.
LikeLike
That was supposed to go after Lloyd’s post to clarify what makes a comment ad hominem
LikeLike
Revised second paragraph: “Not ad hominem: only an idiot would make the stupid arguments you have made, because . . . .”
LikeLike
This proves how lame Fox is. Laura Ingraham doesn’t care about the damage she has done to a worthy outspoken student. She cares about the money corporations now won’t give to her program.
I applaud David Hogg for being smart enough to find her sponsors and list them. This fellow is a brilliant speaker. What is wrong with any college who wouldn’t be begging to have such a student?
LikeLike
BREAKING: Liberty Mutual insurance just dropped Ingraham as well. I am a customer and contacted them last night – an associate told me they were flooded with calls all day and so they set up a special 800 number for concerned customers, but it was only open business hours. When I called back this afternoon, they had not made a decision but that didn’t last long.
I would disagree with Joel that this is meaningless unless they also drop Fox – this might be half a sandwich, but it is a sharp rebuke to the toxic discourse Ingraham was comfortable with. It’s fine to disagree civilly, but she was smearing Hogg with insults unrelated to the issue at hand.
This is pretty common at Fox, but not universal. The origins of the tactic – smearing and maligning your opponent instead of presenting a better argument – may stem from the Nixon era, where Roger Ailes was a young operative. What’s really troubling is how effective this tactic is with the American public – until it goes too far, like attacking a kid.
We see Ingraham quickly tried to change course, but it was weak sauce and obvious she was only sorry because it hit her in the pocketbook. I think this is a huge opportunity to re-examine our public discourse and the tactic of smears and ad hominem attacks. Trump may be the greatest example of how effective verbal abuse can be in looking strong and going on offense, but I’m hoping this becomes a pivotal moment as other talk show hosts see the writing on the wall.
LikeLike
In somewhat related news, Ann Coulter has jumped on the bandwagon of those on the fringes (and center) of the right who are now all too ready to throw Dumpsterfire under the bus. One wonders if seeing what happened to Ingraham caused her to stick a finger into the wind.
LikeLike
“Holy Week” ! What the he’ll is she talking about?
LikeLike
What she actually said was ” in the spirit of wholey eak”
Everyone just assumed she meant Holy Week.
And there is no Hell. The Pope said so this week — at least so claims an atheist who did or did not interview him. So ” what the Hell?” might better be said “What Hell?”
LikeLike
Wholey weak, not wholey eak
LikeLike
“Wholey eak” works too.
🙂
LikeLike
Ms. Ingraham, et al., don’t have the vaguest conception of whom they’re dealing with. These kids learned to maneuver online around the same time they learned to talk; it’s like breathing to them. It’s as if a drunk guy stepped into a ring with a pro MMA fighter.
LikeLike
Also, what the heck is going on w/Roseanne Barr? Reportedly, she Tweeted that David Hogg was giving the “Nazi symbol,” in a picture whereby he was clearly giving a fist pump.Totally unacceptable.
Plus–she’s in real life a Trump supporter?! & Trump Tweets her congratulations for 18 million watching the premier of her show?
If she truly is a supporter (& not just as Roseanne Conner), even though I loved the show (one of my all-time favorites), I am no longer watching.
LikeLike
Hogg’s boycott call to the advertisers is a threat to free speech. Ingraham should never have apologized.
Hogg himself in this talk with TMZ put out the news out there for the public regarding his rejections. Ingraham twitted by tweet:
David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA…totally predictable given acceptance rates.)
Joey wulfsohn pointed out in a piece where he noted the tweet by Ingraham was bad. At the same time he noted that “David Hogg’s demagoguery is worse. He continued …”It’s ironic that he’s calling on everyone to “love thy neighbor” and to end the “mudslinging” because he certainly hasn’t practiced what he’s preaching. Over the past several weeks, he has referred to the NRA as “child murderers,” called Dana Loesch “disgusting” and accused her of not caring about children’s lives, smeared Republican Sen. Marco Rubio by claiming he’s bribed by the NRA in exchange for the lives of Florida students, and blasted Republicans as “sick f–kers” for not meeting his standards on gun reform. And judging from his boycott campaign, Hogg’s solution to save children’s lives is to bully the opposition into silence.
Rich Lowry added the following demagoguery by Hogg: “In a video interview with an outfit called The Outline, David Hogg said that the NRA and its supporters “want to keep killing our children.” Not that they inadvertently enable people who carry out school shootings via misconceived policy, but they themselves kill children and want to keep doing it. Lest he be misunderstood, Hogg added, “they could have blood from children spattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action because they will still see those dollar signs.”
In accusing their opponents of being bought off, the students deny the sincerity and legitimacy of supporters of gun rights. They treat the Second Amendment as an inkblot on the Constitution and dismiss all counterarguments as transparent rationalizations. Not only is this a (appropriately) juvenile view of the gun debate that ignores Supreme Court jurisprudence, the genuine support of the NRA by millions of people, and the serious, practical objections to gun-control proposals, it removes all possibility of a middle ground.
“Hogg shows no remorse for his vicious attacks against Rubio, Loesch, the NRA, and Republicans. In fact, he recently argued that the political theater at the March For Our Lives where he attacked Rubio with an NRA price tag wasn’t “provocative enough.””
Monica Showalter in the Spectator sees a similar tactic in this boycott used by Media Matters. Hogg, who has made extensive use of his First Amendment free speech rights, immediately turns around and demands that a free press that displeases him — Ingraham’s Fox News show — be “boycotted” by advertisers. This method was used against Hannity, Oreilly and Limbaugh and the conservative customers turned against the advertisers and their products because of their efforts to “imposing their liberal and clearly anti-free press views on them.”
LikeLike
Thanks for the report from the rightwing media. Poor Laura Ingraham!
Read what Mercedes Schneider said about the matter: https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2018/03/31/in-the-spirit-of-holy-week-veneer-is-not-enough/
Trump got away with bullying anyone he didn’t like.
Laura must have thought she too could bully a teenager.
She was wrong.
LikeLike
“Thanks for the report from the rightwing media. Poor Laura Ingraham!”
Correction:
Thanks for the misleading, lying report from the hate-filled, conspiracy theory generating rightwing media machine. Laura Ingraham is getting what she deserves. In fact, Laura should get a lot worse and end up being demoted to a poverty wage paying job with no benefits.
Heck, lets sent her to the Immigration Courts and deport her to Russia.
LikeLike
Equating Hogg’s desire to be safe from gun nuts who go on to kill with Ingraham’s denigration of Hogg’s desire for safety as freedom of speech is stupidity on steroids.
LikeLike
To jscheidel,
That defense of Ingraham is the classic tit for tat,but represents progress. They dug up a bunch of quotes where he insulted people as hominem too. Let’s agree then that Hogg did not practice what he preached and should be now shunned for it, never again taken seriously or covered in the news.
But if we agree going forward that character smears and cyberbullying is bad, what do we do about Trump, Wayne LaPierre, Dana Loesch, Ted Nugent, Hannity and Limbaugh?
I know left wing hosts Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz and Martin Bashir were fired for insulting comments. Are we slowly but surely moving towards civil debate on right wing talk?
LikeLike
I take Hogg very seriously. He has displayed greater maturity and civility than Laura Ingraham. Laura Ingraham, a professional broadcaster and “adult” represents and brings out the worst in people. We need a new fairness doctrine. These dangerous right wing talk shows took off after the repeal of the fairness doctrine.
LikeLike
Jake,
I agree that character smears and cyberbullying is bad”, what do we do about Trump, Wayne LaPierre, Dana Loesch, Ted Nugent, Hannity and Limbaugh? As an adult we make choices – turn the show – tv or radio – off or on to your liking. The same goes for the media of CNN, MSNBC etc or ordering newspapers that constantly don’t fit your views. But on one should be aware of the other viewpoints and compare the facts as they are given and make your decisions.
So…..
Why would David Hogg duck requests for a debate with Kyle Kashuv?
Ginny Montalbano wrote a piece on Kyle Kashuv, a junior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, who emerged as the most prominent pro-Second Amendment voice among students there after the shooting at the school that left 17 dead.
Kashuv, 16, who has been embraced by many conservatives, hopes to debate David Hogg, 17, a Stoneman Douglas senior.
Charlie Kirk, founder and executive director of Turning Point USA, argues that Kashuv is a worthy opponent for Hogg and other young liberals.
In an email to The Daily Signal, Kirk said:
Kyle is absolutely brilliant and deserves a chance to debate David Hogg in an open forum. David has insulted us gun owners enough, and Kyle deserves a chance to get his ideas out to the most amount of people possible.
CNN recently canceled a segment with Kashuv, apparently after someone there took offense to one of the teen’s retweets on Twitter.
Stoneman Douglas junior Cameron Kasky agreed in an appearance on “Fox News Sunday” to debate Kashuv, but later backed out.
Kashuv and other conservative voices were not given the opportunity to be heard at the march and rally in the nation’s capital.
These excluded voices included Hunter Pollack, 29, whose sister Meadow, an 18-year-old senior, died in the shooting. Their father, Andrew Pollack, has become a high-profile advocate of improved school safety.
Several organizations and individuals have offered to host and moderate a Kashuv-Hogg debate, including Dave Rubin, host of “The Rubin Report” on YouTube, described as “a talk show about big ideas and free speech.”
LikeLike
We all have the freedom to speak or not speak. If David Hogg doesn’t want to elevate the profile of a pro-gun student, that is his right.
LikeLike
You changed the subject.
Didn’t someone mention we needed the “Fairness Doctrine” back? I think I read that in this comment thread yesterday and I think it was directed at you, jscheidell.
The Fairness Doctrine should be the subject. This country needs two things to save its Constitutional Republic and everyone that wants to save that Constitution Republic should want those two things. And don’t change the subject, AGAIN, by adding more thinks to this list of two.
The country needs the “Fairness Doctrine” for not only the traditional media but the internet media.
This country needs serious campaign finance reform that ends Citizens United and makes corporations things again instead if treating those corporations like they are an individual with rights that the Constitution only gives to individuals and/or citizens.
LikeLike
Agreed, Lloyd.
Citizens United put a for-sale sign on every election.
Sinclair Broadcasting, a rightwing extremist media outlet, is buying Tribune Media and will control more than 70% of radio across nation.
LikeLike
Lloyd,
If memory serves me, the discussion on the “fairness Doctrine” was reviewed a while back – sorry that I can’t pinpoint the topic or date.
I don’t see the necessity to be redundant but I am against the doctrine and it is not “fairness” unless the ruling part in power perceives the show or comments made to be on their ideological viewpoint – government control is not the answer IMHO.
And AGAIN – using the “fairness” of the issue to provide a balance of opinion why wouldn’t a debate between afore mentioned students for the pro and con of the issues.
Kashuv and other conservative voices were not given the opportunity to be heard at the march and rally in the nation’s capital. Is that fair?
These excluded voices included Hunter Pollack, 29, whose sister Meadow, an 18-year-old senior, died in the shooting. Their father, Andrew Pollack, has become a high-profile advocate of improved school safety. – Fairness?
LikeLike
The March was organized by kids opposed to guns. Why should they invite speakers who want more guns in schools?
Should the NRA invite Emma Gonzalez to speak at their next convention? I think so.
The Fairness Doctrine applies to the public airwaves. There was a consensus that time should be equally available to different points of view in public media.
LikeLike
jscheidell,
Your “IGNORANCE” of the Fairness Doctrine that survived a challenge in the Supreme Court is noted. In fact, both Houses of Congress passed legislation to legalize the Fairness Doctrine but Reagan and the first Bush vetoed that legislation.
“In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld (by a vote of 8-0) the constitutionality of the fairness doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
In an attempt to teach you something. The Fairness Doctrine did not put the government in charge of the media. It forced them to offer both sides a platform on the same program at the same time to the public heard both sides instead of just one voice like Conspiracy Theory spreading jokes like Alex Jones or Sean Hannity.
Since there was no Internet when the Fairness Doctrine existed, it never applied to Blogs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwDI84b3P1Y&t=100s
The Fairness Doctrine also did not open a door for everyone to have a voice like you or me on this Blog. It only required that two allegedly reputable sources were allowed to “debate” each other over important issues on the same program at the same time. The right of reply and the equal time rule did not give every troll and ignorant person a voice to spout off through the media.
LikeLike
Lloyd, I agree with you but arguing with the latest “troll of the month” will never rest on facts. jscheidell argues re: fairness doctrine that students marching and campaigning for sensible gun controls do not give their opponents equal time! How insane is that? He seems to think that the fairness doctrine should apply to advocates who are demonstrating for their beliefs and not understanding that it applies to the public airways and reporting the news.
LikeLike
jscheidell’s comments offer a perfect example of confirmation bias. For instance, at Costco I’ve seen books for sale that support Trump’s lies and fraud and books that reveal his lies and fraud. Many of the people that buy some of these books will select the ones that support their bias.
To make sure that as many people as possible in the audience that is reading jscheidell comments understand this, someone has to leave comments that show the other side.
“People Choose News That Fits Their Views”
https://www.livescience.com/3640-people-choose-news-fits-views.html
For instance, like what did I did when a friend that supports Trump challenged me to admit that Trump was doing a great job because of the lowest unemployment rate in 16 years.
I didn’t step into his trap. Instead, I stayed silent and waited until I got home to do the research. I sent him an e-mail the next day and I haven’t heard back from him for the last five days. His answer to me is silence because my answer, no matter how accurate it was, did not support his confirmation bias.
And I didn’t turn to another media source that would offer me a bias that matched whatever bias I might have. I went to The source where everyone drinks when it comes to these stats. But some will take only the number/s they want and twist them out of context.
“I’ll tell you what, we are indeed making America great again,” Trump said. “What’s going on is incredible. We had the best jobs report in 16 years.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/25/donald-trump/donald-trump-right-us-just-had-best-jobs-report-16/
Buy what do we learn about Trump’s misleading claim when we go to THE source?
In December of 2000 (16 years ago), the unemployment rate at the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency was 4-percent. In January 2003, G. W. Bush was sworn in as President and when he left in January 2009, it was 7.8 percent and climbed as high as 10 percent by Obama’s first October in the White House. A month later, Obama submitted his first budget to Congress so the 10-percent happened during the final months of Bush’s last budget.
http://money.cnn.com/2001/09/07/economy/economy/
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
When Obama left office eight years later in January 2017, the unemployment rate was down to 4.8 percent. That was an improvement of 5.2 percent from what Obama inherited from the former Republican president.
Trump has been in office for a little more than one year and he’s bragging about an improvement of 0.7 percent for a 4.1-percent that’s been stuck for five months.
People that believe Trump without going to THE source (if they know how) are willingly mute, blind, and deaf because Trump’s misinformation feeds their confirmation bias. We can’t do anything to change the minds of these people and jscheidell is one of them.
LikeLike
Part of the problem is that the damage done to public perception includes delegitimization of many major news sources. If I’m citing a source when responding to a comment supporting some commonly held right wing position, I try to avoid such sources as New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, & certain others since they’re likely to be rejected out of hand as part of a left-wing conspiracy. To be fair, these organizations are not blameless. Conspiracy or not, some of that mistrust is justified: I’ve read NYT pieces that gleefully rattle off broad-based insults directed against all Republicans, all conservatives, or the entire population of certain geographical regions (including, ironically, Diane’s home state). I don’t get the logic behind trying to convince someone to consider my point of view while insulting him. Yes, the right does it too. We have to let go of the, “Yeah, well he started it!” justification, & who better than teachers, who have some experience there? Communication can’t start until someone’s the adult in the room, & don’t assume that’s going to be someone from the left:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/09/20/black_lives_matter_leader_wins_over_trump_supporters_if_we_really_want_america_great_we_do_it_together.html
LikeLike
Thanks Lloyd for clarifying the issue as you see it.
LikeLike
Yes, “as I saw it” (with evidence linked to the most reliable source when it came to my example in my previous most recent comment) just like each individual sees it.
Everyone’s opinions and thinking is just theirs and does not reflect the opinions and thinking of everyone else in the world. At least I’m clear about that and knowing that is why I will often go to the primary source of information instead of just another talking head that didn’t gather that info. Anyone can take any info and twist it to fit their confirmation bias, but it is dangerous when they offer citations and links to the original primary source of that info because it can reveal them for the biased person they are.
LikeLike
Jake,
The last thing we need is for the federal gov’t to determine what is “fairness”
As you noted – The thing to watch is whether he has a financial incentive or has words put into his mouth.
Isn’t it interesting the people behind the scenes working for Hogg – Hollywood celebrities – Clooney and Oprah for instance and add Bloomberg money and influence.
Daniel Greenfield did some research in this area of where is the money coming from and by whom in a critique of who runs the march: Below cut and pasted parts from article
“Take Everytown, the noisiest and most dishonest anti-gun group on the scene. The one consistent thing about anti-gun groups is that that they are usually the opposite of what their name says they are.
Everytown for Gun Safety was formed out of two other groups: Moms Demand Action and Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Both are actually front groups for Michael Bloomberg, the lefty billionaire and former boss of the Big Apple, who used New York City resources to host at least one of its websites.
March for Our Lives is on every cable channel, but who runs it? The photogenic teen fronts are out front. But it’s obvious to everyone that a bunch of teens don’t have the resources and skills to coordinate a nationwide movement. Instead it’s the experienced activists who are actually running things.
The March for Our Lives Fund is incorporated as a 501(c)(4). Donations to 501(c)(4) groups are not tax- deductible. And they don’t have to disclose donors. That’s why they’re a great dark money conduit.
The March for Our Lives permit application was filed by Deena Katz, a co-executive director of the Women’s March Los Angeles Foundation. This wasn’t just a little bit of professional activist assistance.
The application lists Katz as the “Person in Charge of Event”.
Katz is a former Dancing With the Stars and current Bill Maher producer. She’s also the former owner of Talent Central, a Los Angeles talent agency, The leaked application lists her as the president of the March for Our Lives Fund.
Media contacts for March for Our Lives are being handled by 42 West. The agency is a full service PR firm operating out of New York and Los Angeles that represents major celebrities. 42 West was supposedly recommended by George Clooney who was one of a number of major celebrity donors.
Where did all those millions of dollars go? Good question.
“They’re being directed by people with knowledge of how to responsibly spend this money and it’s going to be very transparent. Every penny is going to be accounted for,” Jeff Kasky, the father of one of the students, claimed.
One story claims that, “Several members of the Fund for a Safer Future are organizing in\
Now that opportunity is being exploited to the hilt by a professional class of political activists.
Gun control activists wring their hands over the NRA. They claim that a special interest lobby is illegitimately thwarting the “will of the people”. Yet it’s the anti-gun groups that are invariably false fronts. It’s very clear who runs the NRA. But the latest fake anti-NRA group is a nebulous shadow. Out front are the high school students and out back are the professional activists.
And who is really behind the whole thing? Hollywood celebs, Bloomberg, a network of organizations?
We know who supports the NRA. You can see NRA stickers on car windows even in the bluest cities in the country. But who really supports the anti-gun political network? You’ll need to spend hours sorting through paperwork, following the trail, comparing addresses and researching names, to even get a hint.”
Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center’s Front Page Magazine.
LikeLike
Jscheidell, do you read anything that is not published by the far right? I know you love Trump, but do you ever try to read opposing views. I thought it was a joke when you referred to a “Shillman” fellow. How perfect. Yes, he is shilling for the Koch brothers, Robert Mercer, and the other billionaires who want to destroy the middle class.
LikeLike
jscheidell is the latest “troll of the month” who come and go on this blog.
LikeLike
Michael,
He has been here for many months. I warned Tim that any comment including Trump’s campaign slogan would be automatically deleted.
LikeLike
Mike
Thanks for the award !
LikeLike
Diane,
Yes I do read more than just the right side. After my 2 hours on the racquetball court 3 days week I ride the bikes and listen to CNN MSNBC – for 45 to an hour. Read the Times and WaPo. Locally I get the Philadelphia INQ. CNN and MSNBC need viewers – so I give them a click. And I read a couple of blogs – yours for the education updates. Yes, your blog is not the public airwaves – but if one gives the govt control with the airwaves with the Fairness Doc – who says they won’t want to control blogs next – slippery slope?
Love Doonesbury! Trudeau can encapsulate quite a bit in his cartoon – try the March 25th edition found in the archives regarding Trump and his daily briefing – you would enjoy it.
http://doonesbury.washingtonpost.com/strip/archive/2018/03/25#
LikeLike
Do you think the government controlled the public airwaves when the Fairness Doctrine existed? Please provide examples.
LikeLike
Jscheidel, the “turn it off” remedy isn’t strong enough when broadcasters are crossing the line into propaganda. This means intentional lies and distortions, including lies of omission, but also smear tactics or even inciting violence.
The mechanism put in place to counter the deceitful propaganda of WW2 was for domestic broadcasters to be answerable to consumer complaints when they renew an FCC license. There were common sense “equal time” provisions that allowed citizens in the listening area of a station to get air time to rebut claims, and there were even more stringent rules in place during elections. Also, transparency rules meant government info could never be aired without disclosure.
Basically, stations were required to broadcast in the public interest, keeping news divisions separate and independent so the public could make informed decisions on important matters.
Then, Reagan and the neocons wiped this all away, ending the requirements for stations to provide equal time or serve the public interest. By the time the US invaded Iraq, polls showed about half the country erroneously believed Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11, illustrating how easily the public can be tricked without broadcasting safeguards. This led to major losses of life and trillions in debt.
If there is a pro-gun kid at Stoneman, don’t worry – he will have his message amplified by the NRA and Fox and right wing talk radio. The thing to watch is whether he has a financial incentive or has words put into his mouth. As for Hogg, he is looking to use this moment to bring about changes that vast majorities of Americans already support. The obstacle is Congress, not public sentiment and so his job as a shooting survivor is to focus attention on the politicians that take pay-for-play to block sensible legislation.
LikeLike
Diane,
Why do we need a Fairness Doc when we have the tool to make sure we hear points from the opposition – change the channel with the remote, use the mouse or finger to search for the ideas on the net – we do not need Net Neutrality, another govt control –
But it seems there are those individuals who don’t like the opposing thoughts – prime examples of what is taking place on our campuses with speakers –
Even here on the blog we hear from those who spend time throwing up at the toilet in referencing Fox and listening to thoughts that don’t match their views.
LikeLike
When the rightwing, Like Sinclair, buys 3/4 of all the commercial radio stations, we need a Fairness Doctrine.
When they own every major commercial radio station, would you agree that there should be a Fairness Doctrine?
LikeLike
Diane,
I understand your concern with Sinclair, and I have major concerns with Soros – a shadowy behind the scenes character with a past back in Germany. But no, Still wouldn’t want the govt control.
The gun issue is an emotional one as seen with Hogg and many other students. The problem I see is people on the right think that people on the left want to take away their right to self-defense, and people on the left think that people on the right don’t care if children are murdered as voiced by the students and parents on their respective side of the issue. Having a debate or conversation when the opposition turns them off with the desire to silence them or eliminate all together shows a lack of understanding and no desire for finding a solution/s other than theirs. Engaging with an opposing viewpoint isn’t going to “kill” them. It’s healthy. Isn’t that what we try to instill in students in the history civics classes. It seems that some of our colleges and universities don’t feel the same way.
LikeLike
The far right controls the House, the Senate, The Presidency, and the Supreme Court. Yet Jones and Hannity still whine about Soros and the left. Grow up.
LikeLike
Lloyd
I went to Forbes for an updated list beyond article from Logos below that follows his list.
April 5, 2018
Democrats: The Party of the Super-Duper (Mostly White) Gazillionaires
By Rich Logis
Though there are numerous questions I could ask to determine if a fellow American gets his “news” from the DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex), I usually lead with this one: “What political party is the party of the wealthy?”
If the answer is “the Republican Party,” I know that the individual is a regular consumer of DMIC propaganda. It’s tempting to get angered at the individual, but I know that two of the ways the DMIC lies are by distorting and withholding.
The Democratic Party is the party of the mega-, mega-wealthy. This is one of the dangerous cover-ups of the DMIC. Let’s go to the tale of the tape.
Here are the top ten American billionaires, according to Forbes:
1. Bill Gates, $86 billion
2. Warren Buffet, $75.6
3. Jeff Bezos, $72.8
4. Mark Zuckerberg, $56.0
5. Larry Ellison, $52.2
6. Charles Koch, $48.3
7. David Koch, $48.3
8. Michael Bloomberg, $47.5
9. Larry Page, $40.7
10. Sergey Brin, $39.8
The Ds above outnumber the Rs 7-3
In 2016, the Kochs – favorite targets of Democrats – spent over $31 million ($11 million to candidates and political action committees and $20 million on lobbying). These big bucks certainly are not chump change, but they’re ranked 39 among all donors to candidates and PACs and 27 among all lobbyist spending.
Let’s take a look at other Democrat 1-Percenters.
I checked dollar amounts at the Federal Election Commission, where campaign contributions are tabulated (keep in mind that there is usually a lag in tabulations – sometimes up to a year due to off-year election years). Here’s a 2014 graph; there’s some crossover, but the D contributions outnumber R by almost half a billion dollars, and this is over the last 25 years.
For 2016 federal contributions to organizations, seven of the top 10 (including number 1) went to Democrats, totaling over $300 million.
For 2016 federal contributions to individuals, six of the top 10 (including number 1) went to Democrats, totaling nearly $250 million.
In the 2016 Presidential election, President Trump spent $325 million; Clinton spent $563 million.
Let’s give “honorable mention” to Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who is the fourth wealthiest billionaire in the world and a majority stakeholder in The New York Times Company. Over the years, Slim, both personally and through his company, Telmex, has contributed millions to the Clinton Foundation. All this means that Mr. Slim, a Mexican citizen, has heavily involved himself in American politics. Sounds like collusion, doesn’t it?
Forbes list as of yesterday’s changes on the market:
*

#16 Jim Walton $41.7 B $218 M | -0.5% 69 Walmart United States

#47 Paul Allen $21.6 B $32 M | -0.1% 65 Microsoft, investments United States
LikeLike
Like I said earlier, you provide us with a perfect example of “confirmation bias”.
The autocratic billionaires on the extreme right are much better organized than any individual or group that exist on the left. They have the secretive 45-year-old ALEC organization in addition to the rest of the Koch brothers Kochtopus that channels dark money into the political arena and ALEC alone has about 2,000 wealthy far-right extremist members pooling their wealth.
“ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC’s operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy’s ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC_Corporations
90-billion in wealth shared by the Koch brother twins, David and Charles
The Koch brothers are notoriously secretive and so are their organizations.
What about the organizations funded directly by George Soros (net worth $8 billion) and his Open Society Foundation.
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/people/george-soros
George Soros just gave almost 80 percent of his wealth to his charity
Bill Gates has another organization of 14 billionaires that feed wealth into the Gates Foundation.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/14-billionaires-signed-bill-gates-and-warren-buffetts-giving-pledge.html
LikeLike
Lloyd
One could say the same method “perfect example of “confirmation bias”.regarding your use of sources. You do not disprove Forbe’s info as to the party of the rich which demonstrated that the ploy used by the Dems that the Repubs are the party of the rich. Did you change the topic by noting that the Repubs billionaires have a better organized group?
You proffered info from 2012 – that is why I used Forbes and the info – 2018 – is a list that is produced almost daily and is affected by the markets gains and losses.
LikeLike
Jscheidell,
Of course Republicans are the party of the rich! Not because they are rich, but because they are puppets of the rich. Wherever Republicans are in power, they restructure taxes to lower the taxes of the rich and starve the public services used by all. Republicans buy politicians like Scott Walker and manipulate him like a puppet on a string. The party of the people is the party that uses government as an instrument to help all, not as a servant of the 1%.
LikeLike
Diane,
“Wherever Republicans are in power, they restructure taxes to lower the taxes of the rich and starve the public services used by all.” The opposite could be said about the Dems who when in power raise taxes and starve the abilities of individuals to spend that which they work so hard for. Cutting taxes and spending – that is one of the things Repubs run on..
but I bet if any Dem got an increase in pay or pension or upcoming 2018 taxes will have their checkbook and pen ready to write a check to the Us Treasury for those funds which they received from Trump’s tax cuts. And if they all send those “immoral” funds back to the Treasury theyt could be directed to support those programs.
LikeLike
Jscheidell,
Republicans don’t care about working people. I understand you want lower taxes. But do you want to see public education gutted, teachers paid like fast food workers, Medicare gutted, Social Security privatized, old people without benefits or healthcare?
You have been duped.
LikeLike
Diane,
As an historian you should enjoy the following regarding blue and red –
You noted – “Now I understand why Republican states are called Red states.” Well the Dems originally held that honor!
If you go to wikipedia historically the blue was for the Repub ; “Before the 2000 presidential election, the traditional color-coding scheme was often “Blue for Republican, Red for Democrat,”[7] in line with European associations, where red is used for left-leaning parties, and blue for the right.[8] The colors red and blue also are featured on the U.S. flag. Traditional political mapmakers, at least throughout the 20th century, have used blue to represent the modern-day Republicans, as well as the earlier Federalist Party. This may have been a holdover from the American Civil War, during which the predominantly Republican north was considered “blue”.[7]”
Even earlier, in the 1888 presidential election, Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison used maps that coded blue for the Republicans, the color perceived to represent the Union and “Lincoln’s Party”, and red for the Democrats.[10]
According to another source, in 1976, John Chancellor, the anchorman for NBC Nightly News, asked his network’s engineers to construct a large illuminated map of the United States. The map was placed in the network’s election-night news studio. If Jimmy Carter, the Democratic candidate that year, won a state, it would light up in red; if Gerald Ford, the incumbent Republican president, carried a state, it would light up in blue. The feature proved to be so popular that, four years later, all three major television networks would use colors to designate the states won by the presidential candidates on Election Night, though not all using the same color scheme.
By 1996, color schemes were relatively mixed, as CNN, CBS, ABC, and The New York Times referred to Democratic states with the color blue and Republican ones as red, while Time and The Washington Post used an opposite scheme.[16][17][18] NBC used the color blue for the incumbent party, which is why the Democrats were represented by Blue in 2000.
…despite the fact that no official color choices had been made by the parties.[20] Some Republicans argue the GOP should retain its historic link with blue, since most center-right parties worldwide are associated with blue. On March 14, 2014, the California Republican Party officially rejected Red and adopted Blue as its color. Archie Tse, The New York Times graphics editor who made the choice when the Times published its first color presidential election map in 2000, provided a nonpolitical rationale, explaining that “Both ‘Republican’ and ‘red’ start with the letter ‘R.'”[21]
LikeLike
Thanks for the clarification.
I thought that Republicans were “red” because of Trump’s deference to Putin.
Maybe his allegiance is to strongmen and authoritarians, whatever their ideology.
LikeLike
Actually the tax cuts are for the wealthiest. Remember Ryan’s short lived brag about the $1.50 increase in take home pay of a secretary? In a few years the lower 99% actually pay more. Does Bezos need 120+ billion?, Gates 90 billion, Walton 150 billion, and many other billionaires. Let’s go back to the period of a growing middle class that existed with a much more progressive income tax with a maximum rate of 72%. During the period of “socialist” President Eisenhower the max income tax rate was something around 92%. Just think about how we could improve our infrastructure, public schools, social security, medicare, medicaid. Speaking of social security it needs to be massively increased to compensate for the loss of pension plans in the private sector.
Republicans used to scream for a flat tax. What happened to that wish? It’s very simple: a flat tax would result in a tax increase for the wealthiest hence the silence on that one. But I agree we should enact a flat tax. Let’s begin with the social security tax of 6.2% and make it a flat tax. That should fund social security as far as the “eye can see”.
LikeLike
Exactly. A society that enriched the few while eliminating government services cannot survive. Inequality breeds unhappiness, discontent, and revolt.
LikeLike
“I (jscheidell) understand your concern with Sinclair, and I have major concerns with Soros – a shadowy behind the scenes character with a past back in Germany.”
JScheidell, you have provided the evidence for why the Fairness Doctrine is needed so ignorant people like you are exposed to both sides.
I’ve heard so much crap about Soros over the years that I eventually went looking for more reliable info on my own to discover who this billionaire really was. If you live in a far-right bubble, you will never learn this, because the extreme Alt Right only tells you what they want you to think.
What did I discover?
Who is the real George Soros? He is the enemy, the counter force of the Koch brothers and the Walton family and idiots like Betsy DeVos. From what I learned about him, he is the enemy of fascists. He is the enemy of racism and there is a big reason for that.
Who is the real George Soros?
“George Soros is a favorite target of the right — here’s how that happened.”
“the man these conspiracy theorists target is George Soros, the prominent billionaire hedge fund manager.
“The 86-year-old has become a Rorschach test. To the left, he’s a rich guy openly supporting causes many liberals believe in. But to some on the far right, he’s more sinister and nefarious, despite a lack of evidence. For two decades, some have seen Soros as a kind of puppet master secretly controlling the global economy and politics.” …
“The left’s Koch brother
Soros’ choice to put his wealth toward political causes that he believes in is not particularly different from the billions of dollars that right-wing billionaires like Charles and David Koch have been donating to Republican causes for years, said Miami University professor Timothy Melley. The difference is that far more ultra-rich Americans are politically conservative.” …
“No ‘secret plot’
“While many anti-Soros theories accuse him of schemes and secrecy, Soros’ Open Society Foundation is fairly vocal in its commitment to social justice. The foundation’s site states that it has spent more than $1.6 billion on democratic development in Eastern Europe. As a child, Soros fled persecution from the Nazis and has been instrumental in bringing capitalism to countries within the former Soviet bloc. ”
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-did-george-soros-become-the-favorite-boogeyman-of-the-right-2017-5
LikeLike
Lloyd
“The difference is that far more ultra-rich Americans are politically conservative.” …
I bet. you have an explanation for this – your SOURCE –
I thought your SOURCE would have been a primary source for the Who Is – like an interview – for example
LikeLike
jscheidell. I never said I exclusively use only primary sources since for some issues that were generated from Alt-Right conspiracy theory sources, there are no primary sources — just opinions designed to manipulate and mislead with no evidence.
But since you asked:
“According to Open Secrets, Republicans had a larger share of the billionaires — and their contributions to outside spending groups — in the 2012 election cycle. Among the top 100 donors in the Open Secrets list, 33 were billionaires, and of those, 14 gave primarily to liberal groups while 19 gave to conservative groups.
“In addition, the top 100 donors of 2012 gave 41 percent of all the money collected by outside spending groups, and of their donations, 71 percent went to conservative groups.” …
“The Republican advantage in 2012 is even more visible in a Forbes list of the top 40 billionaire backers on each side — including more than just those who donated to outside spending groups, such as direct campaign donations or those who fundraise for a candidate. Of those 40, 29 supported conservative groups and candidates, and just 11 supported liberals.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jun/23/do-many-billionaires-support-democratic-party/
Click the link to see all the sources that Politifact mentioned and/or linked to for this piece of fact-checking.
LikeLike
Diane,
Came across this piece> Showalter has found a doppelgänger – Doesnt everyone have a twin – a ghost .
David Hogg of Florida has one in North Carolina = same name as the David Hogg of Parkland, Florida; resembles the other teen; and is nearly the same age – he’s actually slightly younger, and he’s already studying engineering at the University of North Carolina.
This Hogg is mature, and favors gun rights and has an op-ed essay in the Wall Street Journal on his own experience of being mistaken for the Parkland David Hogg. He wrote harassment and abuse a lot of trolls have thrown his way since he’s in favor of gun rights, as well as gun education in schools. He tweets at @David_Hogg16
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel has a good summary of the piece here, noting:
Although he empathizes with the Parkland students and appreciates their use of their First Amendment right, he said gun rights are important, too. This Hogg’s solution is not gun control, but instead mandatory gun education and armed security officers in schools.
Hogg’s op-ed in the Wall St. Journal states his views and injects civility. An example worth reading op-ed:
“The other David Hogg and I have similar goals but disagree on the means for accomplishing them. He puts more blame on the gun and the National Rifle Association than on the criminal. Still, I applaud him and his fellow activists for exercising their First Amendment right to speak out, without which nothing would ever get accomplished. In order for America to do something about a problem, people must discuss the issue and find the best solution for it.
I am no political scientist, activist or journalist, but I have a viewpoint too. I urge Florida’s Mr. Hogg to listen to people with differing views, because he would want them to listen to him. I recommend he be less demanding and more open to other ideas. People who are not willing to budge from their goal make it harder for change to occur. Also, some of his recent actions – like calling sponsors to stop advertising on a commentator’s program because she was rude to him – come across as bullying, as he claims the NRA is doing to Congress.
I would like to see him soften his tone and be more respectful in delivering his message. Teenagers are smart, but we certainly don’t have all the answers. Both the Florida David and I have a long way to go in life and a lot to learn.”
Who is the adult in the room?
LikeLike
Jscheidell,
You are in the wrong place to advocate for “gun rights.” Guns don’t have rights.
I oppose private ownership of military weapons.
Stop wasting your time and mine posting advocacy for the right to own a weapon designed to kill people.
I support David Hogg of Florida.
By the way, last night I heard on MSNBC that the head of the NRA visited Moscow, all expenses paid, to meet with a phony group called “The Right to Bear Arms.” John Bolton videotaped greetings to the group. The group is closely associated with Putin (its leader Torchin was just sanctioned by the US government). But the joke on the NRA is that no private citizen is allowed to own a firearm in Russia. There is no “right to bear arms” in that country.
LikeLike
Diane,
I watched the Maddow show – another example that I can stretch your credulity to the ninth degree about what I read and watch beyond the right wing sites, and watched the Keene clip and the info on the NRA and the gun ownership group in Russia along with Bolton who addressed the 20th anniversary. and the Rolling Stones individual, forgot his name, who wrote an article that Maddow was refrencing.
I am aware the Russians have limited access to weapons – but they do. 2 articles – one from Moscow Times Quora search
https://www.quora.com/Can-citizens-of-Russia-have-guns
Aug 29, 2017 – Purchase and possession of ammunition is only allowed for calibers in which you have guns on your license. Reloading of ammunition is only allowed for shotguns . Some clever people get around this by claiming they aren’t reloading, but rather “checking the factory powder charge to make sure it’s within specifications”.
How many people have guns in Russia? Apr 4, 2017
Do the Russian people have the right to bear arms? Do Cubans have … Sep 26, 2016
How strict are Russian gun laws? Aug 6, 2016
Are the Russian people allowed to have guns? Apr 11, 2015
April 28 2016 – 00:04
Russians, Their Guns And the State
U.S. gun enthusiasts live in constant fear of the federal government confiscating their weapons. For Russian gun owners, such a fear may be about to become a reality. On April 14, President Vladimir Putin, announced the formation of a new National Guard, and declared one of its key fuctions would be to control firearms.
“We are creating the National Guard to limit the circulation of weapons in the country,” he told the Russian people during his annual “direct line” national call-in show. What wasn’t clear was whether Putin was referring to guns legally owned by law-abiding Russians or to the stockpiles of illegal weapons flowing throughout Russia, fueled by the numerous wars on its borders.
Russia has a short history of private gun ownership — it was rare during the Soviet era — but the country’s stillborn civil society has started to push for greater access to firearms. Despite the government’s apparent willingness to make concessions, statistics still show that many gun-owning Russians prefer to skirt the bureaucracy and keep their unregistered guns off the radar — for one reason or another.
Up until now, the Kremlin had shown little sign of obvious concern. Yet, as millions of unchecked firearms flow through a nation reeling from economic crisis, some of their calculations are changing.
According to the most recent international surveys, roughly 9 percent of Russians own a firearm. Of the estimated 13 million guns in civilian hands, only around 60 percent are legally registered.
If Putin indeed intends to use the National Guard to track down these weapons, it wouldn’t be without precedent. “We have already seen a progressive tightening of the rules for citizens and private security firms alike,” says Mark Galeotti, an expert in Russian security services and criminal affairs. “But even after attempts to clean up the registration of firearms, there are many illegal guns in circulation in Russia.”
There are, however, reasons to doubt the National Guard has really been set up to search for guns. They have no investigative capacity and the only way to fulfill such a task would be to conduct house-to-house searches, an invasive and labor intensive process.
The types of illegal weapon used for the most serious crimes in Russia — contract killings, terrorism and similar types of activity — are often not unregistered shotguns, but military-issue firearms that Russian citizens don’t have access to. “In other words,” says Galeotti, “they are stolen from official stocks, essentially through corruption.”
Internet Shopping
You don’t need to be a corrupt policeman or military officer to procure weapons in Russia. There are many other options, ranging from the physical black markets peppered around Moscow to more modern, darker sources. These are the markets based in far-flung corners of the Internet, absent from the usual indexing services like Google or Yandex.
Those with the requisite technical savvy can get their hands on almost anything they want, provided they know where to look. One source, on condition of strict anonymity, directed The Moscow Times to one such online black market.
The process of getting there requires navigating to the labyrinthine depths of the dark web, and inputting a complicated chain of letters and numbers. Once there, you can access anything from drugs and weapons to information on building bombs. All transactions are facilitated anonymously via the Bitcoin electronic crypto-currency.
Such markets provide troves of information for would-be gun criminals. For example, one forum explains to first time buyers that a gun bought in central Russia costs up to $3,000, while weapons in Crimea are closer to $2,000.
If Interior Ministry statistics are any guide, Russians are more likely than ever to attempt to procure illegal weapons. The ministry recorded 27,000 violations over the course of 2015, an all-time high. The trend coincided with a rising crime rate of 8.6 percent, according to Gazeta.ru.
Some illegal guns are antiques, others are hunting rifles, but they have not been registered. Black-market guns have proliferated while gun ownership laws restrict the number and type of gun legally available.
At a glance
Source: Small Arms Survey
‘Evening the Odds’
Maria Butina is the founder of Russia’s first gun rights advocacy group. A tall, red-headed Siberian native in her late 20s, Butina called the group “The Right to Bear Arms,” and it now boasts 10,000 members.
While the government looks at ways of increasing public safety by reducing gun onwnership, Butina’s movement argues the opposite is the only answer. When crime increases, they say, ordinary people should be armed.
“We know a simple truth,” says Butina. “More legal guns equal less crime. If a country bans guns, only criminals have access to them. We believe in evening the odds for the average Russian.”
Many types of weapons, such as pistols and revolvers, remain off-limits to the Russian public. When they were developed, gun ownership laws were designed to enable Russians to hunt.
The bureaucratic procedure to legally procure a gun is complicated.
Any Russian choosing to legally own a gun is initially limited to a single shotgun, which is subjet to a permit. That permit is only granted after a citizen undergoes background checks, investigations into their criminal history, neighborhood circumstances, mental health and invasive home inspections. They also submit to future snap inspections by police. Five years after receiving a shotgun permit, they can then buy a hunting rifle.
Butina’s group can claim moderate success in influencing government policy. Two years ago, they collected 100,000 signatures petitioning the government to pass the so-called castle doctrine law, legislation that grants citizens the right to defend themselves and their property from danger using lethal force.
The group has also provided legal defense for Russians like Yevgeny Kostirin, who killed an armed intruder, and Alexei Urazov, who severely injured an attacker in his apartment stairwell with a pneumatic pistol, a weapon legal in Russia. The gun advocacy group can boast legal victories in both cases, but their final triumph is yet to be secured. While the State Duma passed the castle doctrine bill in 2014, it is still to be signed into law by the president.
Putin’s comments on the National Guard suggest that the Kremlin isn’t as keen on the idea of armed citizens as Butina’s group would hope. But she is now backed by the Russian gun industry, which — if the U.S. model is any indication — can be a powerful ally.
Russia’s gun industry, which is actively targeting civilian gun markets abroad, is also pushing for increased access to firearms within Russia. Ruslan Pukhov, the head of Russia’s Association of Gunsmiths, is confident of progress. According to Pukhov, the clear trend for gun rights in Russia is toward liberalization. “It’s two steps forward and one step back,” he says.
Broader support among the Russian public is not, however, forthcoming. Though Butina claims that up to 44 percent of Russians now see the value of bearing arms, data from the independent pollster Levada Center indicates the opposite. A 2013 poll showed that 80 percent of Russians remain wary of liberalizing gun rights — these figures have remained constant since the poll was first run in 1991.
Butina is undeterred, saying the public “lacks proper understanding” of the role of guns in modern society.
“Some people think guns have a will of their own; that guns kill people, rather than bad people killing people,” she says. “Removing guns from criminals is all well and good, but the best ‘National Guard’ would be ordinary people with legal guns ready to defend the Motherland.”
LikeLike
Jscheidell,
This is a blog about “better education for All.”
If you have nothing to say on this subject, please post elsewhere.
You are a Trump troll and an NRA troll. Your presence here is not warranted.
LikeLike
Diane,
I did not start the discussion on gun rights and neither did I start the NRA comments here on you education blog. But I thought it was ok to educate and offer a different opinion to that end.
The 2 issues and your original direction for this blog reminds me of how you addressed the issue of Hillary Clinton’s loss and how you called an end to the discussion.
LikeLike
I call an end to ridiculing David Hogg, a teenager. Take it to LAura Ingraham’s show.
LikeLike
You actually believe that another David Hogg just turned up in this gun debate? Just shows how effective the real David Hogg is. Your arguments are pathetic if not laughable.
LikeLike
Jscheidel, thanks for asking about why we need fairness in our media. I can show how people will die otherwise.
One example is the Iraq war, with right wing media saying there were WMD. Millions marched in protest worldwide claiming the WMD claims were lies. Almost all major news outlets pushed the WMD lies instead of the truth that inspectors cleared Iraq already. Congress bought the fake news and authorized an invasion.
Hundreds of thousands died, including thousands of US troops. This was preventable – had there been a fairness regulation, O’Reilly and Hannity would have been compelled to give someone like Amy Goodman substantial rebuttal time on THEIR platform, so their prime audience members could find out the evidence was known to be fabricated, and was extracted during illegal torture.
These examples really happened: after one local radio station was subsumed by ClearChannel, they started piping in syndicated content with no human DJs. When a train carrying toxic chemicals derailed, there was no longer any newsflashes on air so people kept traveling towards the scene. This was thanks to deregulation and reckless mega-mergers.
Your other criticism brings up a good point – the government can never be the referee calling balls and strikes in media. A new fairness doctrine should therefore be similar to the original, only serving as a government enforcement mechanism, not as an arbiter of content. The worst the government can impose on stations is to make them address counter arguments out in the open and make them respond to the people in their listening area.
The Communication Act of 1939 was simply saying that radio and TV news must serve the public, not private interest. Another example was Hannity broadcasting there was no gas available in NYC after Hurricane Sandy, thanks to Obama who was facing re-Election within days. I heard this claim at an empty gas station while filling my tank.
Hannity was also caught lying about Obamacare premiums, discouraging people from getting policies which save lives and reduces sickness. Just some examples.
So a fair media that regulates the death-profiting mega-corps not only saves lives and consumers money, it strengthens democracy and the agency of average citizens against the paid propaganda of billionaires like George Soros.
LikeLike
Diane,
As you noted – “The Fairness Doctrine applies to the public airwaves. There was a consensus that time should be equally available to different points of view in public media.”
But consider Lloyd’s reaction –
Lloyd Lofthouse
April 2, 2018 at 12:54 pm
“Thanks for the report from the rightwing media. Poor Laura Ingraham!”
Correction:
Thanks for the misleading, lying report from the hate-filled, conspiracy theory generating rightwing media machine.”
Although he references the Doctrine – it doesn’t sound like it would fit him –
LikeLike
The Fairness Doctrine would put both of you on the media.
But my personal blog is not the public airwaves.
I don’t have to post anything unless I want to.
LikeLike
This was posted on HuffPost.
…………………
…The bad news keeps coming for Fox News host Laura Ingraham even while she’s on vacation: Another sponsor has reportedly dropped her show.
Ace Hardware will no longer advertise on “The Ingraham Angle,” TheWrap reported on Thursday.
“I can confirm that we do not have any plans to nationally advertise on Ingraham’s show in the future,” an unnamed spokeswoman for the company told the website.
TheWrap said Ace had two ads on the show in March, including one on March 28, the day she launched her ill-fated slam against David Hogg, a teen survivor of the Feb. 14 mass shooting in Parkland, Florida….
LikeLike
Diane,
Forgot the source – Russians, Their Guns And the State – The Moscow Times
https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/russians-their-guns-and-the-state-52720
for the article.
LikeLike
Goodbye, jscheidell.
It just goes to show how corrupt your argument is, that you are quoting from “The Moscow Times.”
Now I understand why Republican states are called Red states.
LikeLike
Diane,
So I take your direction and offer the following regarding education: The following article reference Planned Parenthood Bullying program and what is taught. I wonder why the curriculum admin shouldn’t be fired allowing the following topics to be covered. When do the parents not demonstrate at Board mtgs ab0out their right to decide what is appropriate for their child at their age regarding a parent’s responsibility. And Trump allowed funding for this organization to continue in the omnibus recently
Parents Stage Walkout Over Planned Parenthood’s Graphic, Violent Sex Ed in Public Schools
LikeLike
Jscheidell,
Sorry but that story about horrible sex education promoted by Planned Parenthood is nor relevant to any topic discussed on this blog ever.
I don’t know who Megan Fox is or the validity of her claims. I won’t let you smear Planned Parenthood because you feel like it. Does she write for the rightwing Human Events or Eagle Forum?
Comment relevantly or just stop.
LikeLike
Oh, I googled and see you cited something from PJ Media, a rightwing website.
Please stop.
LikeLike