Fox News calls THIS "an interview"???

[Gravitymaster 0]

Since you are so "ON" about the ACLU as the protector of our freedoms, I thought you might enjoy reading this.

Quote

A.C.L.U. May Block Criticism by Its Board
Sign In to E-Mail This
Print
Reprints
Save


By STEPHANIE STROM
Published: May 24, 2006
The American Civil Liberties Union is weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization's policies and internal administration.

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge this Image

Ashley Gilbertson for The New York Times
Anthony D. Romero, head of the American Civil Liberties Union.
"Where an individual director disagrees with a board position on matters of civil liberties policy, the director should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement," the committee that compiled the standards wrote in its proposals.

"Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising," the proposals state.

Given the organization's longtime commitment to defending free speech, some former board members were shocked by the proposals.

Nat Hentoff, a writer and former A.C.L.U. board member, was incredulous. "You sure that didn't come out of Dick Cheney's office?" he asked.

"For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members — I can't think of anything more contrary to the reason the A.C.L.U. exists," Mr. Hentoff added.

The proposals say that "a director may publicly disagree with an A.C.L.U. policy position, but may not criticize the A.C.L.U. board or staff." But Wendy Kaminer, a board member and a public critic of some decisions made by the organization's leadership, said that was a distinction without a difference.

"If you disagree with a policy position," she said, "you are implicitly criticizing the judgment of whoever adopted the position, board or staff."

Anthony D. Romero, the A.C.L.U.'s executive director, said that he had not yet read the proposals and that it would be premature to discuss them before the board reviews them at its June meeting.

Mr. Romero said it was not unusual for the A.C.L.U. to grapple with conflicting issues involving civil liberties. "Take hate speech," he said. "While believing in free speech, we do not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities."

Lawrence A. Hamermesh, chairman of the committee, which was formed to define rights and responsibilities of board members, also said it was too early to discuss the proposals, as did Alison Steiner, a committee member who filed a dissent against some recommendations.

In a background report, the committee wrote that "its proposed guidelines are more in the nature of a statement of best practices" that could be used to help new board members "understand and conform to the board's shared understanding of the responsibilities of its members."

But some former board members and A.C.L.U. supporters said the proposals were an effort to stifle dissent.

"It sets up a framework for punitive action," said Muriel Morisey, a law professor at Temple University who served on the board for four years until 2004.

Susan Herman, a Brooklyn Law School professor who serves on the board, said board members and others were jumping to conclusions.

"No one is arguing that board members have no right to disagree or express their own point of view," Ms. Herman said. "Many of us simply think that in exercising that right, board members should also consider their fiduciary duty to the A.C.L.U. and its process ideals."

When the committee was formed last year, its mission was to set standards on when board members could be suspended or ousted.

The board had just rejected a proposal to remove Ms. Kaminer and Michael Meyers, another board member, because the two had publicly criticized Mr. Romero and the board for decisions that they contended violated A.C.L.U. principles and policies, including signing a grant agreement requiring the group to check its employees against government terrorist watch lists — a position it later reversed — and the use of sophisticated data-mining techniques to recruit members.

Mr. Meyers lost his bid for re-election to the board last year, but Ms. Kaminer has continued to speak out. Last month, she was quoted in The New York Sun as criticizing the group's endorsement of legislation to regulate advertising done by counseling centers run by anti-abortion groups. The bill would prohibit such centers from running advertisements suggesting that they provide abortion services when they actually try to persuade women to continue their pregnancies.

Ms. Kaminer and another board member, John C. Brittain, charged that the proposal threatened free speech. "I find it quite appalling that the A.C.L.U. is actively supporting this," Ms. Kaminer told The Sun.

The uproar their comments produced at the April board meeting illustrates how contentious the issue of directors' publicly airing dissent with policies and procedures has become at the organization.

Some directors lamented that Ms. Kaminer and Mr. Brittain had shared their disagreement with the paper, and Mr. Romero angrily denounced Ms. Kaminer. "I got frustrated and lost my temper," he said yesterday. "In retrospect, that was a mistake."

At the meeting, Mr. Romero did not denounce Mr. Brittain. But board members said he had demanded that Ms. Steiner step outside the meeting room, where he chastised her for the look on her face when he was criticizing Ms. Kaminer.

"Anthony went on to say that because I was Wendy's 'friend' and did not appear ready to join him in 'getting rid of her,' (by, among other things, lobbying her affiliate to remove her as its representative) I was no better than she was, and then stormed off angrily," Ms. Steiner wrote in an e-mail message to the board.

Later in the meeting, Mr. Romero asked another board member, David F. Kennison, to step outside after Mr. Kennison apologized for failing to object to Mr. Romero's attack on Ms. Kaminer.

Mr. Kennison reported in an e-mail message that Mr. Romero "told me that he would 'never' apologize to the target of his outburst and that his evaluation of her performance as a member of this board was justified by information he had been accumulating in a 'thick file on her.' "

When Mr. Kennison asked whether Mr. Romero intended to start such a file on him, "he asked me what made me think that he didn't already have a file on me," Mr. Kennison wrote.

Mr. Romero said Mr. Kennison had provoked him. "I do not have a file on Wendy," he said.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Kennison said his biggest concern was the relationship between the board and the A.C.L.U. staff.

"I think of the board as the brain and the staff as the fang and the claws," he said, "and the brain should govern the fangs and claws rather than the other way around."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/us/24aclu.html?_r=2&hp&ex=1148443200&en=9a8b9549e98abc4c&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

[ryoder 1,397]

Quote

A few of the people caught up in McCarthyism were actual Russian spies.The overwhelming majority, say 99.9%, were Americans targeted for exercising their freedom of speech, who held unpopular views, or who challenged the prevailing orthodoxy. At that time, with little technical prowess, the primary weapon of the government was the loyalty oath. If someone wouldn’t swear the oath, or would not swear never to have been a communist, their lives and careers were targeted for destruction.

Where are the Joseph Welch's now when we really need them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_uTbVfDtgI

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm still waiting for a credible source to tell us where all those secret CIA prisons are...

Would you believe George W. Bush?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99Hgo1ibsI

Nice cheesedick tactic to cut and paste a portion of what some one said in order to try and prove an already weak position. What's next, reference to Hitler?

Here's the entire statement I made. Of course you can't back up they whole statement, can you?

***I'm still waiting for a credible source to tell us where all those secret CIA prisons are that are whisking good law abiding American Citizens out of their beds at night to be beaten and tortured because they disagree with "The Administration".


.

[ryoder 1,397]

Quote

I'm still waiting for a credible source to tell us where all those secret CIA prisons are that are whisking good law abiding American Citizens out of their beds at night to be beaten and tortured because they disagree with "The Administration".

In the original post I linked to a video clip of an interview in which the interviewee was not allowed to speak because the interviewer kept railing that he wanted proof of secret prisons, insinuating they did not exist. You have been defending that. Now I gave you a video clip showing GWB himself acknowledging that fact.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Amazon 7]

DUDE.. it like argueing with a blank wall.... you prove the point.. then the NEO CONS want it to come from their OWN propaganda sites... and ONLY from that... I guess You tube of the mans own words dont count...


THere is nothing to see here.. these are not the facts that prove our Imperious Leader is seeking a dictatorship ....move along


You are now ONLY allowed to get your facts from FAUX NEWS.. and Lush Rimjob.. if they have not said it.. its not the news they want to hear.

[ryoder 1,397]

Quote

There is nothing to see here.. these are not the facts that prove our Imperious Leader is seeking a dictatorship ....move along.

I think what the Dubya administration forgot was::

"The first rule of Secret Prisons is - you do not talk about Secret Prisons.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[DZJ 0]

Quote

What struck me was she did not answer any questions. She returned to her generalizations over and over

I watched the interview again to remind myself of what was said, and all in all it looks like that show was probably the wrong place for such a discussion. The presenter clearly had no interest in the book's thesis (he plainly acknowledges he hadn't read the full work, and didn't even see the need to) and the author failed to grasp the soundbite-y nature of the show, apparently expecting an opportunity to lay out her conclusions in some detail.

[ryoder 1,397]

Quote

I watched the interview again to remind myself of what was said, and all in all it looks like that show was probably the wrong place for such a discussion. The presenter clearly had no interest in the book's thesis (he plainly acknowledges he hadn't read the full work, and didn't even see the need to) and the author failed to grasp the soundbite-y nature of the show, apparently expecting an opportunity to lay out her conclusions in some detail.

Had she actually been allowed to speak, the interview would have sounded more like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKkduuY-M4

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[1969912 0]

All I can say is "wow". The first true response to the OP was by jenflly00, with gravitymaster concurring. From then on, reading the responses to their assertions is very similar to watching the interviewee respond to Kasic. Evade, pontificate, change subject, etc. It's no wonder that jenfly and gravitymaster had interpretations of the interview that were sympathetic to the interviewer, and vice versa.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Quote

Jon Stewart, etc, invites authors of new books on their show to TALK ABOUT THE BOOK.

Did you see the show Stewart where he tore Chris Matthews a new one and told him he thought his book was dumb?

.

Interesting contrast you present there.

Jon Stewart actually gave the author the courtesy of reading his book. That's more than can be said about the jackass filling in for O'Reilly in the subject interview.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[Erroll 49]

Quote

What struck me was she did not answer any questions. She returned to her generalizations over and over

Are you talking about the author or one of the regular posters in SC?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I never realized the purpose of an interview was to prevent the interviewee from speaking:

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/11/23/naomi_wolfe_unnerves_john_kasich_on_oreilly_factor.php

And this is different than Olbermann or Matthews, how?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

All I can say is "wow". The first true response to the OP was by jenflly00, with gravitymaster concurring. From then on, reading the responses to their assertions is very similar to watching the interviewee respond to Kasic. Evade, pontificate, change subject, etc. It's no wonder that jenfly and gravitymaster had interpretations of the interview that were sympathetic to the interviewer, and vice versa.

I wasn't the least bit sympathetic to the interviewer. He was a dick who ambushed the author with his own right wing agenda.

My comment was that the author could have do a better job, even under adverse conditions.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

All I can say is "wow". The first true response to the OP was by jenflly00, with gravitymaster concurring. From then on, reading the responses to their assertions is very similar to watching the interviewee respond to Kasic. Evade, pontificate, change subject, etc. It's no wonder that jenfly and gravitymaster had interpretations of the interview that were sympathetic to the interviewer, and vice versa.

I wasn't the least bit sympathetic to the interviewer. He was a dick who ambushed the author with his own right wing agenda.

My comment was that the author could have do a better job, even under adverse conditions.

Sorry! Read it wrong, but you were still the first, and one of the only people to actually make a thoughtful comment.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

What struck me was she did not answer any questions. She returned to her generalizations over and over

Are you talking about the author or one of the regular posters in SC?

Now there is a point of view I had not thought of
...........at least for this post.............

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[masterrig 1]

I've come to the conclusion, what is now called 'The NEWS', is nothing more than a rip-off of an old Broadway song; "That's Entertainment!" Any more, it's all about the 'news reader'. Some hot looking babe or some gruff talking guy with their eye on the camera. Jon Stewart does better than any of them!


Chuck

[nerdgirl 0]

If interested ... for a counter example, one can watch an interview of Naomi Wolf by Professor Viet Dinh (Georgetown School of Law), who was Assistant Attorney General from 2001 to 2003 and who is generally credited with being the "chief architect" behind the USA PATRIOT Act, i.e., someone who clearly has an authoritative voice on his own with a different point of view.

Wolf gratefully acknowledges some of the 'hard' questions that Dinh asks.

Her comments on what she calls "American exceptionalism," i.e., the general American public being more interested in American Idol than the state of the world and the changing role of US (perceived versus actual) in the world resonated with me. Pragmatically, I'm not sure how different that is from the majority of the US past history.

It's a fantastic example of the civility, intelligence, and thoughtful exchange, with some artful rhetoric from both.
It's not a 30-second sound bite, however ... well, other than Dinh talking about the role of "the man."

C-SPAN Book TV.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[ryoder 1,397]

Quote

Jon Stewart does better than any of them!

I agree completely! His is the only show I watch regularly. (I get most of my news online). His is the only show that will call out politicians on their lies and contradictions by going back and pulling up video of earlier speeches and playing them back to back with what they are saying now.

It is ironic that what started out to be a parody of news shows has become a harder-hitting source of news that the shows it was imitating.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Jon Stewart does better than any of them!

I agree completely! His is the only show I watch regularly. (I get most of my news online). His is the only show that will call out politicians on their lies and contradictions by going back and pulling up video of earlier speeches and playing them back to back with what they are saying now.

It is ironic that what started out to be a parody of news shows has become a harder-hitting source of news that the shows it was imitating.

Seems like, any time I check CNN, CNN-Headline, FOX or MSNBC News, they are either talking about the latest and greatest in the lives of Britney or the other one or about the President 'freeing' two turkeys before Thanksgiving! I heard that last one and wondered which two of his cabinet members were fleeing the sinking ship. I try not to miss Stewart and like you, get my news from the I-net.


Chuck

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm still waiting for a credible source to tell us where all those secret CIA prisons are that are whisking good law abiding American Citizens out of their beds at night to be beaten and tortured because they disagree with "The Administration".

In the original post I linked to a video clip of an interview in which the interviewee was not allowed to speak because the interviewer kept railing that he wanted proof of secret prisons, insinuating they did not exist. You have been defending that. Now I gave you a video clip showing GWB himself acknowledging that fact.

The fact they exist is no secret as you just proved with the video. So unless you are willing to make a desperately stupid argument about the definition of "Secret", I'd say you just disproved your own claim. The fact their location isn't divulged doesn't make them secret. Or would you prefer we divulge the locations where these terrorists are being held and endanger the lives of those working at these prisons?

Back to my point since you and others so obviously missed it. I don't care about where they put AQ or other enemy combatants during a war. I do care that they aren't unjustifiably mistreated. What I do care about is whether our Govt. has become, as Ms. Wolfe contends a Facist Govt. which by definition, would wisk innocent American Citizens away in secret, just for disagreeing with "The Administration". Which is of course is ridiculous.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

DUDE.. it like argueing with a blank wall.... you prove the point.. then the NEO CONS want it to come from their OWN propaganda sites... and ONLY from that... I guess You tube of the mans own words dont count...


THere is nothing to see here.. these are not the facts that prove our Imperious Leader is seeking a dictatorship ....move along


You are now ONLY allowed to get your facts from FAUX NEWS.. and Lush Rimjob.. if they have not said it.. its not the news they want to hear.

And this from the Neo-Liberal who believes Bush is going to quash the elections next year and declare himself Supreme Dictator and also believes that when the NYPD prevent some moron from driving around spray painting the streets of NY, that is somehow an infringement on that persons right to free speech, and post links to some of the most insane whacked out and extreme left-wing sites including the Communist Party.

[Amazon 7]

I am so sorry I did not dig deeper to find proof on Fascist News.. so you would believe the source.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I am so sorry I did not dig deeper to find proof on Fascist News.. so you would believe the source.

I believe you use sources you trust. Nothing wrong with that if you honestly believe they provide you with your "truth". I find it pretty hypocritical to use sources like you have in this thread and then to accuse others of using highly biased sites.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I believe you use sources you trust. Nothing wrong with that if you honestly believe they provide you with your "truth". I find it pretty hypocritical to use sources like you have in this thread and then to accuse others of using highly biased sites.

BULLSHIT.. you guys do it every fucking day

so PLEEEEEZE dont claim that your favorite news source is FAIR AND BALANACED....( sure.. if you are a right wing nut job I guess it appears that way)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I believe you use sources you trust. Nothing wrong with that if you honestly believe they provide you with your "truth". I find it pretty hypocritical to use sources like you have in this thread and then to accuse others of using highly biased sites.

BULLSHIT.. you guys do it every fucking day

so PLEEEEEZE dont claim that your favorite news source is FAIR AND BALANACED....( sure.. if you are a right wing nut job I guess it appears that way)

I refer you, again, to the many Pew reports and reports from other places that show that Fox is closer to center than the rest.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706