April 27, 2010
I AM SPARTACUS
Here's what I said yesterday only better:
Jon Stewart Flunks His Spartacus Test(And I don't think Stewart's bit was that bad...but the article has good parts.)
-- I'm back. I feel like I should elaborate. Stewart is right that Comedy Central pays the bills and has the right to censor whatever they like. He's also right that the radical Muslims are the true enemy and can bleep themselves. But...shouldn't we hold a bit of contempt for Comedy Central for caving? Paying the bills or not, they took the cowardly route, and he kinda excused them. He made the bigger point, but I can see where Jeffrey Lord thinks that the bigger I-am-Sparticus would have been for Jon Stewart to berate Comedy Central for not standing with Parker and Stone.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:12 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Don’t look for principles and values from Jon Stewart.
Posted by: tim at April 27, 2010 03:25 PM (vb4Ci)
2
Agreed. Stewart is a comic, not a journalist. (Not that I expect any kind of integrity there, either.)
I think comedy central has every right to censor their station--they DO pay the bills. Parker and Stone have every right to go John Galt, and move to a network, one that will allow them to express themselves more openly.
Do I think comedy central has a double standard? Absolutely. (Remember Merry F'ing Christmas?) What are their options? Cave, and let the cartoonists do what they want, or censor. What are the results of each? If they cave, either Islamic Rage Boy kills someone, or multiple someones, or they don't. If they censor, Islamic Rage Boy is appeased, nobody dies.
CS was in a lose-lose, and I don't think it's worth pissing off half the muslim world (ask Salman Rushdie about that) over a cartoon. Had CS not caved, it'd be a tempest in a teacup for certain, but they'd have garnered nowhere near the same amount of publicity as they have for censoring it. They took a lose-lose and turned it into a win-lose-win.
Posted by: C huck at April 27, 2010 09:44 PM (bMH2g)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 19, 2010
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF RIGHTS
I'm learning the ropes of taking care of a baby, but I still don't get on the internet that often. (Example: my friend said, "So how about that volcano business?" and I said, "What volcano?") However, today I did read something that got my goat.
Via Mark Steyn, who
says, "No matter how fast Obama Europeanizes America, you can't out-Euro the
Euros":
Vacationing a human right, EU chief saysThe European Union has declared travelling a human right, and is
launching a scheme to subsidize vacations with taxpayers' dollars for
those too poor to afford their own trips.
Antonio Tajani, the European Union commissioner for enterprise
and industry, proposed a strategy that could cost European taxpayers
hundreds of millions of euros a year, The Times of London reports.
"Travelling for tourism today is a right. The way we spend our
holidays is a formidable indicator of our quality of life," Mr. Tajani
told a group of ministers at The European Tourism Stakeholders
Conference in Madrid on April 15.
And this is the slippery slope of rights. Once we believed that we only had "
rights to action." Now by declaring that we have the right to health care, we have fundamentally shifted to saying we believe we have the right to someone else's labor. So where does it end? Once you have the right to money from another taxpayer's pocket, who's to say it should end with health? It's good for your health to be stress-free, and vacations help you relax.
So then they're a right too.
I find this slippery slope frightening...
Posted by: Sarah at
03:02 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I'm still on the Internet a lot, but I didn't know about this new "human right."
This article lists thirteen "third rails." Will vacations be a fourteenth?
Posted by: Amritas at April 19, 2010 06:38 PM (hBtE2)
2
Sarah, I don't know if you caught Chuck's definition of a right: http://tcoverride.blogspot.com/2010/03/simple-definition.html
It is amazing how much you can appreciate someone you hardly know.
Posted by: Kate at April 20, 2010 01:41 PM (J1l7A)
3
Wonder how the "right" to vacations interacts with the "right" to "a carbon-free environment?"
Posted by: david foster at April 21, 2010 09:45 AM (Gis4X)
4
Kate, thanks for the link to Chuck Z's definition.
A government-given "right" is wrong. And government "giving" always entails
taking from someone else.
Posted by: Amritas at April 21, 2010 02:50 PM (+nV09)
5
david,
Initially travel expenses will only be paid to those who pledge to use ground-based mass transit to reach their destinations. Only the One, St. Al, and other elites should have the right to fly. Eventually "travel expenses" will be redefined as expenses incurred during travel by bicycle or by foot. Then bicycles will be banned ... oops, forget we said that. Propaganda campaigns will tout the value of vacations spent at home. One can take a day off without leaving a big carbon footprint.
Posted by: kevin at April 21, 2010 03:47 PM (+nV09)
6
Wow, that is really interesting. I live in a system where my money from my pocket pays for health care for those that can't afford it, and I have been ok with that so far. But paying for someone else's vacation? Not sure I'm on board with that! I guess it really can be that slippery slope.
Posted by: Stacy at April 22, 2010 01:55 PM (qlReK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
48kb generated in CPU 0.0132, elapsed 0.0705 seconds.
48 queries taking 0.0614 seconds, 177 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.