Kevin Koster commented on Sean Hannity: Planned Parenthood, Pres. Obama Support Infanticide
2013-04-05 15:28:45 -0400
· Flag
I’m going to repeat some material I put into the other thread, just to make sure there’s no confusion on this matter.
Alisa LaPolt Snow appeared before the Florida State House of Representatives on Wednesday March 27 to discuss HB 759, the so-called “Infants Born Alive” bill which was sponsored by Republican Cary Pigman. Planned Parenthood initially opposed this bill, noting it to be “politically motivated and inflammatory language”. Planned Parenthood has also noted that the bill just states what is already part of existing medical procedures and Planned Parenthood policies. Meaning that the bill isn’t going to save lives. It was intended as another way to chip away at Roe v Wade, as I discussed in my earlier posts. That has been the intent of GOP politicians and pundits ever since they failed at their last major challenge at the Supreme Court.
During Ms Snow’s appearance, as preserved online, she was questioned by four Florida state legislators. The first three – Jim Boyd, Daniel Davis and Jose Oliva are all Republicans, who have been heavily featured in GOP outlets like Fox News with the “gotcha” questions they took the opportunity to throw at Snow. Their intent was clearly to get her to make a definitive statement they could use as a soundbite to help their cause. Snow realized this and refused to give them that opening. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out – the bill was specifically crafted to be an attention-getter, to rile up the GOP base. The sponsor is apparently trying to convince his House colleagues that he’s addressing some kind of a loophole, but Snow made clear in her comments that this matter was addressed last year in the Federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2012, specifically in the Neutrality Clause. A fourth representative, Democrat Mike Clelland, asked Snow some questions, trying to tie her down as to why Planned Parenthood opposed this bill, noting that Cary Pigman had stated that he didn’t think the federal law applied in this specific case, thus allowing him to introduce this bill. Snow corrected Clelland as simply as she could. He pressed her as to Planned Parenthood’s opposition and Snow clarified that there were two areas of concern – the biggest one being the surrender language.
To be clear, the original language of HB 759 had language that required the birth mother to surrender any infant born during an abortion procedure. This was a big part of the inflammatory nature of the bill, since the rest of it just restated what is already on the books. Planned Parenthood opposed this as it was clear the point of it was “to shame and judge a woman” rather than to accomplish anything helpful. There was a second issue having to do with the logistics of what measures could be taken to try to take an infant in this situation to a hospital. The point of the transportation element had to do with the requirement that this be done – Planned Parenthood had a logistical question about what happens when the travel time and distance is too great, the infant dies, and the physician is then held responsible for not fulfilling that part of the law. This part of the law still hasn’t really been answered.
But after this hearing, Cary Pigman backed down and removed the surrender language, at which point Planned Parenthood dropped their opposition and the bill passed the Florida House. I note that Mike Clelland also had issues with that language and only voted to approve this after the language was removed. Clelland was surprised to hear about this potential situation (a live birth during an abortion procedure) and was concerned to make sure that all attempts were being made to protect any life involved. We should be aware that Clelland ran in a newly-drawn, GOP-leaning district in 2012. Taking this position will no doubt help him in his re-election campaign with his conservative constituents.
I note that there weren’t two Democrats questioning Snow in the footage. Only one – Mike Clelland, for the reasons I gave above. And I note that it’s the GOP who’s been trying to make hay out of it ever since, whether that be Reince Priebus or Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford. Having one Democrat, who’s running in a conservative seat, and who has fallen for a GOP semantics gambit, say something in support of a bill that he thinks might be advantageous to him, does not constitute bipartisan support. HB 759 was a politically motivated bill that had no real purpose other than to generate headlines for the GOP and rile up their base.
I also note that Obama’s voting record in Illinois reflects that he and the other Democrats were deftly avoiding a series of “gotcha” bills that the GOP state legislators were trying to throw at them. In certain cases, the Dems would vote “present” rather than be put on the record making a ridiculous statement. These were not critical bills but instead the GOP making wild political statements and trying to force the Dems into an impossible position – either agreeing with the GOP on an extreme view of women’s rights or allowing themselves to be labelled as somehow supporting murder – just as Fox News is trying to play the current situation. In neither the Illinois matters nor the current one with the March 27th hearing is the Fox News position accurate or appropriate.
Alisa LaPolt Snow appeared before the Florida State House of Representatives on Wednesday March 27 to discuss HB 759, the so-called “Infants Born Alive” bill which was sponsored by Republican Cary Pigman. Planned Parenthood initially opposed this bill, noting it to be “politically motivated and inflammatory language”. Planned Parenthood has also noted that the bill just states what is already part of existing medical procedures and Planned Parenthood policies. Meaning that the bill isn’t going to save lives. It was intended as another way to chip away at Roe v Wade, as I discussed in my earlier posts. That has been the intent of GOP politicians and pundits ever since they failed at their last major challenge at the Supreme Court.
During Ms Snow’s appearance, as preserved online, she was questioned by four Florida state legislators. The first three – Jim Boyd, Daniel Davis and Jose Oliva are all Republicans, who have been heavily featured in GOP outlets like Fox News with the “gotcha” questions they took the opportunity to throw at Snow. Their intent was clearly to get her to make a definitive statement they could use as a soundbite to help their cause. Snow realized this and refused to give them that opening. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out – the bill was specifically crafted to be an attention-getter, to rile up the GOP base. The sponsor is apparently trying to convince his House colleagues that he’s addressing some kind of a loophole, but Snow made clear in her comments that this matter was addressed last year in the Federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2012, specifically in the Neutrality Clause. A fourth representative, Democrat Mike Clelland, asked Snow some questions, trying to tie her down as to why Planned Parenthood opposed this bill, noting that Cary Pigman had stated that he didn’t think the federal law applied in this specific case, thus allowing him to introduce this bill. Snow corrected Clelland as simply as she could. He pressed her as to Planned Parenthood’s opposition and Snow clarified that there were two areas of concern – the biggest one being the surrender language.
To be clear, the original language of HB 759 had language that required the birth mother to surrender any infant born during an abortion procedure. This was a big part of the inflammatory nature of the bill, since the rest of it just restated what is already on the books. Planned Parenthood opposed this as it was clear the point of it was “to shame and judge a woman” rather than to accomplish anything helpful. There was a second issue having to do with the logistics of what measures could be taken to try to take an infant in this situation to a hospital. The point of the transportation element had to do with the requirement that this be done – Planned Parenthood had a logistical question about what happens when the travel time and distance is too great, the infant dies, and the physician is then held responsible for not fulfilling that part of the law. This part of the law still hasn’t really been answered.
But after this hearing, Cary Pigman backed down and removed the surrender language, at which point Planned Parenthood dropped their opposition and the bill passed the Florida House. I note that Mike Clelland also had issues with that language and only voted to approve this after the language was removed. Clelland was surprised to hear about this potential situation (a live birth during an abortion procedure) and was concerned to make sure that all attempts were being made to protect any life involved. We should be aware that Clelland ran in a newly-drawn, GOP-leaning district in 2012. Taking this position will no doubt help him in his re-election campaign with his conservative constituents.
I note that there weren’t two Democrats questioning Snow in the footage. Only one – Mike Clelland, for the reasons I gave above. And I note that it’s the GOP who’s been trying to make hay out of it ever since, whether that be Reince Priebus or Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford. Having one Democrat, who’s running in a conservative seat, and who has fallen for a GOP semantics gambit, say something in support of a bill that he thinks might be advantageous to him, does not constitute bipartisan support. HB 759 was a politically motivated bill that had no real purpose other than to generate headlines for the GOP and rile up their base.
I also note that Obama’s voting record in Illinois reflects that he and the other Democrats were deftly avoiding a series of “gotcha” bills that the GOP state legislators were trying to throw at them. In certain cases, the Dems would vote “present” rather than be put on the record making a ridiculous statement. These were not critical bills but instead the GOP making wild political statements and trying to force the Dems into an impossible position – either agreeing with the GOP on an extreme view of women’s rights or allowing themselves to be labelled as somehow supporting murder – just as Fox News is trying to play the current situation. In neither the Illinois matters nor the current one with the March 27th hearing is the Fox News position accurate or appropriate.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox Ignores Draconian ND Abortion Law While Extolling State’s ‘Freedom’
2013-04-04 15:40:36 -0400
· Flag
It’s always been fascinating to me to see the double standard for conservatives between what they hold as a libertarian ideal (no government) and what they hold as a “family values” ideal (laws that set their personal preferences in stone for everyone else.)
The anti-choice laws being promulgated around the country are unfortunately nothing new. The real reason they are put forward by GOP state legislators as happened in Dakota a few years back as well has been openly, brazenly stated: they want to get another case to the Supreme Court, hoping to get Roe v Wade overturned. Hope springs eternal on this idea. They keep thinking that if they can just get enough right wing justices up there, they can eventually pull the lever and have the slot machine give them the jackpot. They never seem to keep in mind that even if they had the full majority they want (rather than the 5-4 one they currently have), there’s no guarantee that one or two of the justices like Roberts or Kennedy wouldn’t just vote to uphold Roe, specifically to avoid a massive political fallout – the same way that Roberts voted against the grain regarding the ACA.
As for libertarian thought, as it is spread around right wing radio and Fox News, I heard a very interesting analysis of it just this past weekend by left economist Doug Henwood. He was asked about the rationale behind libertarianism, and he defined it succinctly as “I’ve Got Mine, The Hell with You”. He described it as an economic philosophy for people with lots of money (or for people who hope to have it someday), as a philosophy of individualistic selfishness that works for people who have poor social skills. Which explains the idea of privatizing everything – why pay for other people’s education, health, safety? Henwood summed it up as “a very gruesome hyper-competitive, hyper-individualized, atomistic vision of life.” It’s a sobering picure of it, particularly when you hear it being espoused every day by right wing radio hosts advocating for cutting public funding, cutting taxes and essentially telling everyone to take care of themselves and not be part of a community. It’s born from an instinct not to help others (which you would think the “family values” crowd would embrace) but instead to hoard for ones’ self instead. For that reason, I tend to receive libertarian arguments with an extremely quizzical ear.
The anti-choice laws being promulgated around the country are unfortunately nothing new. The real reason they are put forward by GOP state legislators as happened in Dakota a few years back as well has been openly, brazenly stated: they want to get another case to the Supreme Court, hoping to get Roe v Wade overturned. Hope springs eternal on this idea. They keep thinking that if they can just get enough right wing justices up there, they can eventually pull the lever and have the slot machine give them the jackpot. They never seem to keep in mind that even if they had the full majority they want (rather than the 5-4 one they currently have), there’s no guarantee that one or two of the justices like Roberts or Kennedy wouldn’t just vote to uphold Roe, specifically to avoid a massive political fallout – the same way that Roberts voted against the grain regarding the ACA.
As for libertarian thought, as it is spread around right wing radio and Fox News, I heard a very interesting analysis of it just this past weekend by left economist Doug Henwood. He was asked about the rationale behind libertarianism, and he defined it succinctly as “I’ve Got Mine, The Hell with You”. He described it as an economic philosophy for people with lots of money (or for people who hope to have it someday), as a philosophy of individualistic selfishness that works for people who have poor social skills. Which explains the idea of privatizing everything – why pay for other people’s education, health, safety? Henwood summed it up as “a very gruesome hyper-competitive, hyper-individualized, atomistic vision of life.” It’s a sobering picure of it, particularly when you hear it being espoused every day by right wing radio hosts advocating for cutting public funding, cutting taxes and essentially telling everyone to take care of themselves and not be part of a community. It’s born from an instinct not to help others (which you would think the “family values” crowd would embrace) but instead to hoard for ones’ self instead. For that reason, I tend to receive libertarian arguments with an extremely quizzical ear.
Kevin Koster commented on Bill O’Reilly: I’m Mandated To Keep America Sane And Save The Easter Bunny
2013-04-04 14:40:50 -0400
· Flag
Oh boy. To quote Joe Biden, the segment was full of “malarky”.
The Jon Hammar case was discussed at length here and elsewhere. Hammar broke Mexican law by trying to bring his shotgun into their country. His family says he tried to clear this with US Border agents, but the Mexican government correctly responded that the no guns policy is clearly stated for anyone going there. Hammar knew this and thought he could get away with bringing a firearm into a foreign country. Since he broke Mexican law, he was then imprisoned by the Mexican officials while his case took an agonizing amount of time to go through the normal channels. During that time, it’s clear that the Mexican officials took pains to separate him from other inmates and not endanger his life. The point of the exercise is that he broke the law and there was a penalty. After this had been going on for some time, Hammar’s family reached out to government officials, GOP legislators and pundits, trying to build up the same uninformed groundswell that happened around the Ramos and Compean mess 7 years ago. In the end, Hammar was finally released by Mexico just before Christmas, once his case had been processed. It was not due to Bill O’Reilly or any other pundit, and it’s shameful of him to be trying to take credit for it.
The two school situations are each unique. The first one is an obvious attempt at fanning outrage over a classroom exercise. The second one is just flat out ridiculous. Both demonstrate why it’s never a good idea to let a pundit into your classroom – inevitably they get trounced by the five year olds.
The Jon Hammar case was discussed at length here and elsewhere. Hammar broke Mexican law by trying to bring his shotgun into their country. His family says he tried to clear this with US Border agents, but the Mexican government correctly responded that the no guns policy is clearly stated for anyone going there. Hammar knew this and thought he could get away with bringing a firearm into a foreign country. Since he broke Mexican law, he was then imprisoned by the Mexican officials while his case took an agonizing amount of time to go through the normal channels. During that time, it’s clear that the Mexican officials took pains to separate him from other inmates and not endanger his life. The point of the exercise is that he broke the law and there was a penalty. After this had been going on for some time, Hammar’s family reached out to government officials, GOP legislators and pundits, trying to build up the same uninformed groundswell that happened around the Ramos and Compean mess 7 years ago. In the end, Hammar was finally released by Mexico just before Christmas, once his case had been processed. It was not due to Bill O’Reilly or any other pundit, and it’s shameful of him to be trying to take credit for it.
The two school situations are each unique. The first one is an obvious attempt at fanning outrage over a classroom exercise. The second one is just flat out ridiculous. Both demonstrate why it’s never a good idea to let a pundit into your classroom – inevitably they get trounced by the five year olds.
Kevin Koster commented on Bill O'Reilly Claims Planned Parenthood Supports Infanticide, Smears Dr. Tiller - Again
2013-04-05 05:35:36 -0400
· Flag
Andrew, that’s a fascinating opinion you’ve got there. Let’s look at the facts so we can clarify this matter, shall we?
Alisa LaPolt Snow appeared before the Florida State House of Representatives on Wednesday March 27 to discuss HB 759, the so-called “Infants Born Alive” bill which was sponsored by Republican Cary Pigman. Planned Parenthood initially opposed this bill, noting it to be “politically motivated and inflammatory language”. Planned Parenthood has also noted that the bill doesn’t break new ground – it states what is already part of existing medical procedures and Planned Parenthood policies. Meaning that the bill isn’t going to save lives – it was intended to call attention to what is a very rare situation that is already covered by existing practices in a manner that would do what was possible to save the life of an infant born as part of an abortion procedure. But this bill was never intended to save lives, was it? It was intended as another way to chip away at Roe v Wade, as I discussed in my earlier post. That has been the intent of GOP politicians and pundits ever since they failed at their last major challenge at the Supreme Court.
During Ms Snow’s appearance, as preserved online, she was questioned by four Florida state legislators. The first three – Jim Boyd, Daniel Davis and Jose Oliva are all Republicans, who have been heavily featured in GOP outlets like Fox News with the “gotcha” questions they took the opportunity to throw at Snow. Their intent was clearly to get her to make a definitive statement they could use as a soundbite to help their cause. Snow realized this and refused to give them that opening. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out – the bill was specifically crafted to be an attention-getter, to rile up the GOP base. The sponsor is apparently trying to convince his House colleagues that he’s addressing some kind of a loophole, but Snow made clear in her comments that this matter was addressed last year in the Federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2012, specifically in the Neutrality Clause. A fourth representative, Democrat Mike Clelland, asked Snow some questions, trying to tie her down as to why Planned Parenthood opposed this bill, noting that Cary Pigman had stated that he didn’t think the federal law applied in this specific case, thus allowing him to introduce this bill. Snow corrected Clelland as simply as she could. He pressed her as to Planned Parenthood’s opposition and Snow clarified that there were two areas of concern – the biggest one being the surrender language.
To be clear, the original language of HB 759 had language that required the birth mother to surrender any infant born during an abortion procedure. This was a big part of the inflammatory nature of the bill, since the rest of it just restated what is already on the books. Planned Parenthood opposed this as it was clear the point of it was “to shame and judge a woman” rather than to accomplish anything helpful. There was a second issue having to do with the logistics of what measures could be taken to try to take an infant in this situation to a hospital. The point of the transportation element had to do with the requirement that this be done – Planned Parenthood had a logistical question about what happens when the travel time and distance is too great, the infant dies, and the physician is then held responsible for not fulfilling that part of the law. This part of the law still hasn’t really been answered.
But after this hearing, Cary Pigman backed down and removed the surrender language, at which point Planned Parenthood dropped their opposition and the bill passed the Florida House. I note that Mike Clelland also had issues with that language and only voted to approve this after the language was removed. Clelland was surprised to hear about this potential situation (a live birth during an abortion procedure) and was concerned to make sure that all attempts were being made to protect any life involved. We should be aware that Clelland ran in a newly-drawn, GOP-leaning district in 2012. Taking this position will no doubt help him in his re-election campaign with his conservative constituents. That’s the reason he used the language you cited.
I note that there weren’t two Democrats questioning Snow in the footage. Only one – Mike Clelland, for the reasons I gave above. And I note that it’s the GOP who’s been trying to make hay out of it ever since, whether that be Reince Priebus or Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford. So your implication that this is a bi-partisan bill is a bit of a reach. Having one Democrat, who’s running in a conservative seat, and who has fallen for a GOP semantics gambit, say something in support of a bill that he thinks might be advantageous to him, does not constitute bipartisan support. HB 759 was a politically motivated bill that had no real purpose other than to generate headlines for the GOP and rile up their base.
Andrew, now that we’ve dismissed your first concern, let’s move on to the second. You bring up Kermit Gosnell, an unscrupulous doctor in Philadelphia who is on trial for eight counts of murder, and who has been in serious trouble before. Not sure why you’re mentioning him, since his situation is irrelevant. If your only comparison is the rare situation where an infant survives a late term abortion procedure, you really need to do a little more research about Gosnell before bringing him up. His methods and character have been condemned by Planned Parenthood. He was not running your typical women’s health clinic. He was running a very specific operation – mostly providing procedures to poor minority and immigrant women. It’s been alleged he does not have certification in gynecology or obstetrics. And his real racket was providing, at a high cost, a very late term procedure that no doctor in their right mind should be doing. That’s not the same thing at all as a professional doctor trying to save the life of a patient. Gosnell was bilking the clients he could, who would come to him too late to get a legal abortion, and essentially delivering near full-term children. Gosnell’s trial started last month. We’ll see how it turns out, but I doubt it will be a happy conclusion for him.
But again, what’s the point of discussing this guy? Planned Parenthood doesn’t send women to people like Gosnell – they specialize in women’s health and preventative planning. That’s most of their work. The GOP would like gullible people to think that all they do is run “abortion mills”, which is patently false. Someone like Gosnell was running a racket like that, and an extremely dangerous one. But that’s something which is already illegal and is being punished under the law as it is. The Florida GOP’s attempted “gotcha” has nothing to do with Kermit Gosnell and it’s odd that you would think that it did.
Now, Andrew, since I’ve addressed your concerns as clearly as I can, I think we can all agree that the matter is nothing like the way you presented it, right? Right. (By the way, are you sure you haven’t posted here before, under another name perhaps?)
Alisa LaPolt Snow appeared before the Florida State House of Representatives on Wednesday March 27 to discuss HB 759, the so-called “Infants Born Alive” bill which was sponsored by Republican Cary Pigman. Planned Parenthood initially opposed this bill, noting it to be “politically motivated and inflammatory language”. Planned Parenthood has also noted that the bill doesn’t break new ground – it states what is already part of existing medical procedures and Planned Parenthood policies. Meaning that the bill isn’t going to save lives – it was intended to call attention to what is a very rare situation that is already covered by existing practices in a manner that would do what was possible to save the life of an infant born as part of an abortion procedure. But this bill was never intended to save lives, was it? It was intended as another way to chip away at Roe v Wade, as I discussed in my earlier post. That has been the intent of GOP politicians and pundits ever since they failed at their last major challenge at the Supreme Court.
During Ms Snow’s appearance, as preserved online, she was questioned by four Florida state legislators. The first three – Jim Boyd, Daniel Davis and Jose Oliva are all Republicans, who have been heavily featured in GOP outlets like Fox News with the “gotcha” questions they took the opportunity to throw at Snow. Their intent was clearly to get her to make a definitive statement they could use as a soundbite to help their cause. Snow realized this and refused to give them that opening. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out – the bill was specifically crafted to be an attention-getter, to rile up the GOP base. The sponsor is apparently trying to convince his House colleagues that he’s addressing some kind of a loophole, but Snow made clear in her comments that this matter was addressed last year in the Federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2012, specifically in the Neutrality Clause. A fourth representative, Democrat Mike Clelland, asked Snow some questions, trying to tie her down as to why Planned Parenthood opposed this bill, noting that Cary Pigman had stated that he didn’t think the federal law applied in this specific case, thus allowing him to introduce this bill. Snow corrected Clelland as simply as she could. He pressed her as to Planned Parenthood’s opposition and Snow clarified that there were two areas of concern – the biggest one being the surrender language.
To be clear, the original language of HB 759 had language that required the birth mother to surrender any infant born during an abortion procedure. This was a big part of the inflammatory nature of the bill, since the rest of it just restated what is already on the books. Planned Parenthood opposed this as it was clear the point of it was “to shame and judge a woman” rather than to accomplish anything helpful. There was a second issue having to do with the logistics of what measures could be taken to try to take an infant in this situation to a hospital. The point of the transportation element had to do with the requirement that this be done – Planned Parenthood had a logistical question about what happens when the travel time and distance is too great, the infant dies, and the physician is then held responsible for not fulfilling that part of the law. This part of the law still hasn’t really been answered.
But after this hearing, Cary Pigman backed down and removed the surrender language, at which point Planned Parenthood dropped their opposition and the bill passed the Florida House. I note that Mike Clelland also had issues with that language and only voted to approve this after the language was removed. Clelland was surprised to hear about this potential situation (a live birth during an abortion procedure) and was concerned to make sure that all attempts were being made to protect any life involved. We should be aware that Clelland ran in a newly-drawn, GOP-leaning district in 2012. Taking this position will no doubt help him in his re-election campaign with his conservative constituents. That’s the reason he used the language you cited.
I note that there weren’t two Democrats questioning Snow in the footage. Only one – Mike Clelland, for the reasons I gave above. And I note that it’s the GOP who’s been trying to make hay out of it ever since, whether that be Reince Priebus or Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford. So your implication that this is a bi-partisan bill is a bit of a reach. Having one Democrat, who’s running in a conservative seat, and who has fallen for a GOP semantics gambit, say something in support of a bill that he thinks might be advantageous to him, does not constitute bipartisan support. HB 759 was a politically motivated bill that had no real purpose other than to generate headlines for the GOP and rile up their base.
Andrew, now that we’ve dismissed your first concern, let’s move on to the second. You bring up Kermit Gosnell, an unscrupulous doctor in Philadelphia who is on trial for eight counts of murder, and who has been in serious trouble before. Not sure why you’re mentioning him, since his situation is irrelevant. If your only comparison is the rare situation where an infant survives a late term abortion procedure, you really need to do a little more research about Gosnell before bringing him up. His methods and character have been condemned by Planned Parenthood. He was not running your typical women’s health clinic. He was running a very specific operation – mostly providing procedures to poor minority and immigrant women. It’s been alleged he does not have certification in gynecology or obstetrics. And his real racket was providing, at a high cost, a very late term procedure that no doctor in their right mind should be doing. That’s not the same thing at all as a professional doctor trying to save the life of a patient. Gosnell was bilking the clients he could, who would come to him too late to get a legal abortion, and essentially delivering near full-term children. Gosnell’s trial started last month. We’ll see how it turns out, but I doubt it will be a happy conclusion for him.
But again, what’s the point of discussing this guy? Planned Parenthood doesn’t send women to people like Gosnell – they specialize in women’s health and preventative planning. That’s most of their work. The GOP would like gullible people to think that all they do is run “abortion mills”, which is patently false. Someone like Gosnell was running a racket like that, and an extremely dangerous one. But that’s something which is already illegal and is being punished under the law as it is. The Florida GOP’s attempted “gotcha” has nothing to do with Kermit Gosnell and it’s odd that you would think that it did.
Now, Andrew, since I’ve addressed your concerns as clearly as I can, I think we can all agree that the matter is nothing like the way you presented it, right? Right. (By the way, are you sure you haven’t posted here before, under another name perhaps?)
Kevin Koster commented on Bill O’Reilly Loses It With Laura Ingraham
2013-04-03 00:50:24 -0400
· Flag
After watching this, I am compelled to agree with Ellen 100 percent. Something is up with O’Reilly and I don’t think it’s just about last year’s election. He is genuinely on a tear over the last month or so, and it may not have anything to do with politics.
This segment consists of him and Ingraham stubbornly yelling at each other for 6 and a half minutes solely over the semantic term “thump the bible”. I’d say this was a popcorn segment, but after a while it just got really irritating.
This segment consists of him and Ingraham stubbornly yelling at each other for 6 and a half minutes solely over the semantic term “thump the bible”. I’d say this was a popcorn segment, but after a while it just got really irritating.
Kevin Koster commented on Kirsten Powers Smacks Down Hannity Vacation Policing The Obama/Biden Families
2013-04-02 06:00:17 -0400
· Flag
Powers’ argument was essentiallly correct. Since the GOP blew the election last year, they’ve been reduced to cruder and cruder tantrums. The swipes about the number of vacation days, etc, are a kind of last refuge now. Hannity wasn’t even able to refute Goolsby last week when the point was made about the massive number of vacations taken by GW Bush at the ranch in Crawford.
But then you have Pavlich, who’s not been noted for her ability to master the facts at hand (see the attack materials she has thrown at President Obama with no effect), and once again she was unable to do anything more than offer Karl Rove’s talking points. They bring up the idea that President Bush only went to Camp David during the holidays and how he made sure the Secret Service could spend the holidays with their families. Not sure that this is actually the case. Among other things, it’s always possible for Agents to arrange to take their holidays, etc. Like any other high security position (or hospital position for that matter), there are different people who wind up working each holiday. You work Thanksgiving, but you get Christmas off. You work New Years, but you get Labor Day off. And so it goes. The implication Hannity and Pavlich were trying to make, that President Obama doesn’t care about the Secret Service, or that the Agents are all working every holiday, is ridiculous on its face.
One has to wonder again what Hannity thinks the President ought to be doing – staying locked in the White House at all times with his family?
But then you have Pavlich, who’s not been noted for her ability to master the facts at hand (see the attack materials she has thrown at President Obama with no effect), and once again she was unable to do anything more than offer Karl Rove’s talking points. They bring up the idea that President Bush only went to Camp David during the holidays and how he made sure the Secret Service could spend the holidays with their families. Not sure that this is actually the case. Among other things, it’s always possible for Agents to arrange to take their holidays, etc. Like any other high security position (or hospital position for that matter), there are different people who wind up working each holiday. You work Thanksgiving, but you get Christmas off. You work New Years, but you get Labor Day off. And so it goes. The implication Hannity and Pavlich were trying to make, that President Obama doesn’t care about the Secret Service, or that the Agents are all working every holiday, is ridiculous on its face.
One has to wonder again what Hannity thinks the President ought to be doing – staying locked in the White House at all times with his family?
Kevin Koster commented on Fox Regular: Public School Teachers Don’t Care About The Kids
2013-04-01 04:14:47 -0400
· Flag
This is another Fox News/Right Wing talking point. It has nothing to do with the reality of teachers and students, and everything to do with the GOP idea that unions are automatically evil.
Public school teachers live anything but glamorous lives. They work very hard, including many hours spent at home grading papers. The teachers’ union has at least given them a living wage, which is more than they had before the union existed and they were expected to work longer hours for much less. One must believe that the GOP union attackers think that public school teachers should be working for the same wages as a fast food employee to hear the attacks they regularly bring against the people trying to educate children every day.
The usual modes of attack have been to try to eliminate the funding for public schools – whether it be via vouchers (whereby poorer families get a small subsidy toward an expensive private school they will still be unable to afford and which will still bar them from admission on other grounds) or via charter schools (whereby instant schools are created without any regard for whether they have any stability or whether they can actually teach students).
Barring those approaches, pundits on AM radio or at Fox News regularly attack the teachers, insulting them with the idea that they somehow don’t care about their students or that they don’t spend the hours that they do spend working to educate them. Anne-claire’s point is well taken. I have several right wing friends whom I have backed down on this issue, simply on the basis that when they say that the schools aren’t educating their kids the way they think it should be done, I have reminded them that many parents aren’t totally reliable either. How many times have the schools had to deal with undisciplined kids coming from parents who can’t handle their kids, and then had the parents complaining after their child is cited for acting out in various ways?
The fact is that the Fox News pundits and many AM radio pundits don’t have their kids in public schools in any case. They send their kids to private schools and still complain, and they’d rather not pay their taxes to support schools that their kids don’t use. And many of their listeners have fallen for the liberterian scam and think that maybe they’ll be a millionaire someday and will be able to also opt out of the public sector.
Public school teachers live anything but glamorous lives. They work very hard, including many hours spent at home grading papers. The teachers’ union has at least given them a living wage, which is more than they had before the union existed and they were expected to work longer hours for much less. One must believe that the GOP union attackers think that public school teachers should be working for the same wages as a fast food employee to hear the attacks they regularly bring against the people trying to educate children every day.
The usual modes of attack have been to try to eliminate the funding for public schools – whether it be via vouchers (whereby poorer families get a small subsidy toward an expensive private school they will still be unable to afford and which will still bar them from admission on other grounds) or via charter schools (whereby instant schools are created without any regard for whether they have any stability or whether they can actually teach students).
Barring those approaches, pundits on AM radio or at Fox News regularly attack the teachers, insulting them with the idea that they somehow don’t care about their students or that they don’t spend the hours that they do spend working to educate them. Anne-claire’s point is well taken. I have several right wing friends whom I have backed down on this issue, simply on the basis that when they say that the schools aren’t educating their kids the way they think it should be done, I have reminded them that many parents aren’t totally reliable either. How many times have the schools had to deal with undisciplined kids coming from parents who can’t handle their kids, and then had the parents complaining after their child is cited for acting out in various ways?
The fact is that the Fox News pundits and many AM radio pundits don’t have their kids in public schools in any case. They send their kids to private schools and still complain, and they’d rather not pay their taxes to support schools that their kids don’t use. And many of their listeners have fallen for the liberterian scam and think that maybe they’ll be a millionaire someday and will be able to also opt out of the public sector.
Kevin Koster commented on Goolsbee Smacks Down Fox's 'Obama Lavish Lifestyle' Meme
2013-03-31 13:16:08 -0400
· Flag
This is one of the sillier talking points the GOP has tried to wave around. It’s similar to when they got humiliated with that ridiculous line about the visit to India that was supposed to cost 200 million dollars a day and involve a big part of the Navy.
The reality is that any time the President travels, there is a Secret Service cost and an entourage cost. A big part of this has to do with the open hostility shown to our Presidents more and more over the past 20 years. Of course, the President could just stay inside the White House and never leave, but that’s a ridiculous condition for the GOP to expect the Obamas to observe. World leaders travel, both within and without their countries – it’s part of the job and appropriately so.
The idea of attacking President Obama because he takes a weekend here or there, or takes his family to Hawaii for the holidays, or because they don’t leave at the same time and take separate transportation, is completely hypocritical. The attempt to say that President GW Bush didn’t really take big vacations because he went to his ranch in Crawford belies the fact that he still had to travel to get there, and he still had to house and accomodate all those Secret Service and entourage people. So yes, those ranch “brush clearing” trips were quite expensive – just as expensive as if President Obama had a ranch in Hawaii and was taking his people there.
It seems that Fox News is desperately hanging on to this talking point as a holdover comparison between Bush and Obama, because it was supposed to work for Bush and didn’t. During the Bush Presidency, it’s clear that Karl Rove worked this out as a talking point defense against the accusations that Bush was taking a shocking amount of vacation time after starting two wars. So Rove told Bush not to play golf until after he was out of office, and told him to stay in town or at Camp David for the holidays each year. And what do you know? Now Fox News touts both of those talking points, which are essentially meaningless, in yet another tantrum.
This is the same sour grapes that led GOP pundits to condemn President Obama attending inaugural balls, particularly in 2009. I remember one pundit on Los Angeles saying that the President should just get a sandwich from the White House kitchen, step out the front door and wave to the press, and then get to work, like they say FDR did. (Not counting the fact that FDR was elected four times and that for the first two times, the country was in a complete Depression…) And it’s the same sour grapes that leads to a ridiculous standoff on just about any initiative President Obama proposes.
It seems that the only action they’ll accept from this President is total surrender.
The reality is that any time the President travels, there is a Secret Service cost and an entourage cost. A big part of this has to do with the open hostility shown to our Presidents more and more over the past 20 years. Of course, the President could just stay inside the White House and never leave, but that’s a ridiculous condition for the GOP to expect the Obamas to observe. World leaders travel, both within and without their countries – it’s part of the job and appropriately so.
The idea of attacking President Obama because he takes a weekend here or there, or takes his family to Hawaii for the holidays, or because they don’t leave at the same time and take separate transportation, is completely hypocritical. The attempt to say that President GW Bush didn’t really take big vacations because he went to his ranch in Crawford belies the fact that he still had to travel to get there, and he still had to house and accomodate all those Secret Service and entourage people. So yes, those ranch “brush clearing” trips were quite expensive – just as expensive as if President Obama had a ranch in Hawaii and was taking his people there.
It seems that Fox News is desperately hanging on to this talking point as a holdover comparison between Bush and Obama, because it was supposed to work for Bush and didn’t. During the Bush Presidency, it’s clear that Karl Rove worked this out as a talking point defense against the accusations that Bush was taking a shocking amount of vacation time after starting two wars. So Rove told Bush not to play golf until after he was out of office, and told him to stay in town or at Camp David for the holidays each year. And what do you know? Now Fox News touts both of those talking points, which are essentially meaningless, in yet another tantrum.
This is the same sour grapes that led GOP pundits to condemn President Obama attending inaugural balls, particularly in 2009. I remember one pundit on Los Angeles saying that the President should just get a sandwich from the White House kitchen, step out the front door and wave to the press, and then get to work, like they say FDR did. (Not counting the fact that FDR was elected four times and that for the first two times, the country was in a complete Depression…) And it’s the same sour grapes that leads to a ridiculous standoff on just about any initiative President Obama proposes.
It seems that the only action they’ll accept from this President is total surrender.
Kevin Koster commented on Michelle Malkin Calls Robert Redford And Susan Sarandon ‘Human Emetics’
2013-03-30 03:53:30 -0400
· Flag
This was one of the more ridiculous segments I can recall in recent times. The Bill Ayers “question” was definitively answered not only in interviews but also during the 2008 Presidential Debates, wherein John McCain brought up Bill Ayers and accused President Obama of consorting with him. Obama immediately and directly responded by saying that he absolutely condemned Ayers’ actions back in the Weather Underground days and noted that he had very little contact or connection with the man. The boards they shared had little contact with each other, and the notion that he started his career in Ayers’ living room was a right wing fantasy.
In reality, then-local candidate Obama did a local junket where he travelled to numerous houses in the area for fundraising and awareness. One of the houses was that of the Ayers family, which was known in the area as the home of a local professor with political interest in the region. The right wing would like to paint that day as all about Ayers but in fact he was a very minor footnote to the day, and certainly not an influence on President Obama.
The new Redford movie is actually a bit of a remake of the 1989 movie “Running on Empty”, which covers the same ground. Neither movie is an endorsement of the Weather Underground. They are instead examinations of what would happen to a family after years of living on the run or under false identities to the point that the family is no longer able to hold itself together. The earlier film concerned itself with the inevitable conflict of the kids growing up and leaving. The new film seems to be more of a thriller. But neither film is intended as an endorsement of the Weather Underground. The earlier film was more of a sad reflection on what happens when you spend your life running from the bad decisions of your youth, and your kids pay the price. The really sad part is that it seems that neither Sean Hannity nor his guest can see past the shallowest, most surfacey part of the discussion.
In reality, then-local candidate Obama did a local junket where he travelled to numerous houses in the area for fundraising and awareness. One of the houses was that of the Ayers family, which was known in the area as the home of a local professor with political interest in the region. The right wing would like to paint that day as all about Ayers but in fact he was a very minor footnote to the day, and certainly not an influence on President Obama.
The new Redford movie is actually a bit of a remake of the 1989 movie “Running on Empty”, which covers the same ground. Neither movie is an endorsement of the Weather Underground. They are instead examinations of what would happen to a family after years of living on the run or under false identities to the point that the family is no longer able to hold itself together. The earlier film concerned itself with the inevitable conflict of the kids growing up and leaving. The new film seems to be more of a thriller. But neither film is intended as an endorsement of the Weather Underground. The earlier film was more of a sad reflection on what happens when you spend your life running from the bad decisions of your youth, and your kids pay the price. The really sad part is that it seems that neither Sean Hannity nor his guest can see past the shallowest, most surfacey part of the discussion.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox’s Solution For Lack Of Retirement Savings: Scrap Social Security!
2013-03-26 20:15:16 -0400
· Flag
This is the same nonsense that Fox News has been spouting about Social Security ever since it started broadcasting.
We usually hear the same mantras: that Social Security will be broke in a few years, that Social Security is already broke, that everyone should just invest some money privately, that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, etc.
What is it really about? Some rich backers of the GOP and their pundits don’t like the fact that a fraction of their taxes goes into a retirement plan for people who have less money than they do. The whole point of the system was to make sure that when people retire after working for upwards of 40 years, they don’t just wind up with nothing. For many people, they don’t make enough money to save much for investment or anything else. For some people, they did invest their money, but the investments didn’t pan out, or they wound up with something like the Bush Recession wiping out almost all of their investments and savings. (And if Bush had succeeded in privatizing Social Security in 2005, millions of seniors would have been ruined by that recession.)
Also, these pundits conveniently forget that under the Ronald Reagan presidency, right wingers predicted that Social Security would go under, which led to a slight change in the withholding and one or two other tweaks, which resulted in the system being viable under that criteria for an addtional few decades.
Under today’s system, if there is a concern about the payout ability of the system, the easy fix is to remove the cap and have people making more than 106K (or so) continue to pay into the system. They could also adjust the withholding amount by a very small percentage. And they could gradually raise the eligibility age to 67 for people who are younger than 55 right now. That’s the most likely scenario we’ll see. The rash thought of “Just get rid of it!” is not a solution at all.
And any politician, GOP or otherwise, who actually tries to take steps to get rid of Social Security would simply be asking to find out why it’s usually referred to as “the third rail” of politics…
We usually hear the same mantras: that Social Security will be broke in a few years, that Social Security is already broke, that everyone should just invest some money privately, that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, etc.
What is it really about? Some rich backers of the GOP and their pundits don’t like the fact that a fraction of their taxes goes into a retirement plan for people who have less money than they do. The whole point of the system was to make sure that when people retire after working for upwards of 40 years, they don’t just wind up with nothing. For many people, they don’t make enough money to save much for investment or anything else. For some people, they did invest their money, but the investments didn’t pan out, or they wound up with something like the Bush Recession wiping out almost all of their investments and savings. (And if Bush had succeeded in privatizing Social Security in 2005, millions of seniors would have been ruined by that recession.)
Also, these pundits conveniently forget that under the Ronald Reagan presidency, right wingers predicted that Social Security would go under, which led to a slight change in the withholding and one or two other tweaks, which resulted in the system being viable under that criteria for an addtional few decades.
Under today’s system, if there is a concern about the payout ability of the system, the easy fix is to remove the cap and have people making more than 106K (or so) continue to pay into the system. They could also adjust the withholding amount by a very small percentage. And they could gradually raise the eligibility age to 67 for people who are younger than 55 right now. That’s the most likely scenario we’ll see. The rash thought of “Just get rid of it!” is not a solution at all.
And any politician, GOP or otherwise, who actually tries to take steps to get rid of Social Security would simply be asking to find out why it’s usually referred to as “the third rail” of politics…
Kevin Koster commented on Prosecutors Don't Buy Steven Crowder's 'Sucker Punched By A Union Member' Story
2013-03-25 23:55:40 -0400
· Flag
I didn’t catch this posting last week. Wish I had. This basically vindicates everything I said about this when the situation first popped up.
I’d be very interested to see if the DA wants to file any charges against Crowder for filing a false report, or if the guy he attacked wants to sue him for defamation, etc. Crowder may have opened up a can of worms he wishes he hadn’t…
I’d be very interested to see if the DA wants to file any charges against Crowder for filing a false report, or if the guy he attacked wants to sue him for defamation, etc. Crowder may have opened up a can of worms he wishes he hadn’t…
Kevin Koster commented on Sean Hannity Waterboard Watch: 1432 Days Since Promising To Undergo 'Dunking' For Charity
2013-03-25 12:54:05 -0400
· Flag
What if two or three people called into his radio show every day for the next month, specifically to ask him when he will be fulfilling his obligations? Wouldn’t that generate some attention and finally get Hannity off the couch?
Kevin Koster commented on St. Ronald Reagan's Son Calls Fox 'Stale And Predictable'
2013-03-23 19:03:42 -0400
· Flag
What you’re seeing here is the latest example of the complete meltdown happening in the GOP. They don’t know how to deal with what happened last November, and the reactions are varying from tantrums (Hannity, O’Reilly, Limbaugh) to utter confusion (Boehner, McConnell, Graham). The only thing they all have in common is that they can’t stand President Obama. So now they’re all devouring each other trying to figure out what’s the best path forward – and they don’t have the ready-made scandals that plagued Bill Clinton.
So it seems like every week, we get another recycled attack from 1-2 years ago. Now they’re trying to repeal the ACA, again. Now they’re trying to get even more answers about Benghazi, again. Now they’re trying to dredge up Fast & Furious, again. Now they want to argue about who proposed a budget when, again. Now they want to shut down the government, again.
It’s no wonder that people like Michael Reagan are frankly getting fed up with Roger Ailes’ approach, particularly seeing as how it didn’t get them very far. From where I sit, it’s at least some good entertainment. Get a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show…
So it seems like every week, we get another recycled attack from 1-2 years ago. Now they’re trying to repeal the ACA, again. Now they’re trying to get even more answers about Benghazi, again. Now they’re trying to dredge up Fast & Furious, again. Now they want to argue about who proposed a budget when, again. Now they want to shut down the government, again.
It’s no wonder that people like Michael Reagan are frankly getting fed up with Roger Ailes’ approach, particularly seeing as how it didn’t get them very far. From where I sit, it’s at least some good entertainment. Get a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show…
Kevin Koster commented on Laura Ingraham Dishonestly Defends O’Reilly Calling Colmes A ‘Liar’
2013-03-10 15:21:03 -0400
· Flag
Laura Ingraham has a radio show, on which she normally opines at least as far over to the right as she does when at O’Reilly’s gig. In the past, she has distinguished herself for not knowing or understanding the facts around multiple issues. Her low point of this came when she spent a show attacking Bush-appointed attorney Johnny Sutton about the infamous Ramos & Compean case, demonstrating that she had no idea what the facts were and just wanted to rile up her listeners.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News Rhapsodizes At Length over Rand Paul
2013-03-10 15:18:08 -0400
· Flag
The trolls are completely ignoring the actual results.
After all the tantrums being thrown by GOP Senators about Chuck Hagel and John Brennan, both men were quickly confirmed and are of course in their Cabinet positions today. So these tantrums accomplished nothing of substance.
Rand Paul’s tantrum was interesting in that he decided to champion a cause actually held by the left. But as another poster listed, such protests during the George W. presidency were described as treasonous on the Fox channel.
It’s hilarious to hear people like Hannity yell about how the left isn’t holding President Obama accountable for things like the drone strikes, when you can hear exactly that left criticism from Pacifica and Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now every day.
After all the tantrums being thrown by GOP Senators about Chuck Hagel and John Brennan, both men were quickly confirmed and are of course in their Cabinet positions today. So these tantrums accomplished nothing of substance.
Rand Paul’s tantrum was interesting in that he decided to champion a cause actually held by the left. But as another poster listed, such protests during the George W. presidency were described as treasonous on the Fox channel.
It’s hilarious to hear people like Hannity yell about how the left isn’t holding President Obama accountable for things like the drone strikes, when you can hear exactly that left criticism from Pacifica and Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now every day.
Kevin Koster commented on Bolling And Hannity Sequester Stunt: Offering Money For White House Tours
2013-03-10 20:05:15 -0400
· Flag
Aria, I think we’re in agreement. I just find it strange that the GOP and Fox News seem to want to present this situation in two contradictory lights.
On the one hand, they say the sequester and any bad results are all President Obama’s fault and that he was behind the whole thing all by himself.
On the other hand, they say that the sequester isn’t really a big deal anyway and it won’t do anything other than slow some spending growth a little bit, so what’s the big deal, anyway?
They can’t have it both ways. And none of their “analysis” includes the fact that most of the actual spending growth that will occur is in Social Security and Medicare, which are unaffected. Meaning that the 85 billion in cuts here are in the discretionary part of the budget – and they are CUTS, not slowed increases.
On the one hand, they say the sequester and any bad results are all President Obama’s fault and that he was behind the whole thing all by himself.
On the other hand, they say that the sequester isn’t really a big deal anyway and it won’t do anything other than slow some spending growth a little bit, so what’s the big deal, anyway?
They can’t have it both ways. And none of their “analysis” includes the fact that most of the actual spending growth that will occur is in Social Security and Medicare, which are unaffected. Meaning that the 85 billion in cuts here are in the discretionary part of the budget – and they are CUTS, not slowed increases.
Kevin Koster commented on Rep. Keith Ellison To Hannity: You’re A Shill For The Republican Party
2013-02-28 13:57:33 -0500
· Flag
“Come on”,
Not sure where you’re getting the idea of anger from me. You may be confusing me with someone else. I don’t recall holding MSNBC’s hosts any less accountable. But you continue to avoid the central question I posed to you. Are you saying that the name calling by Hannity et al is okay in your book or just as you putti “over the top”?
Not sure where you’re getting the idea of anger from me. You may be confusing me with someone else. I don’t recall holding MSNBC’s hosts any less accountable. But you continue to avoid the central question I posed to you. Are you saying that the name calling by Hannity et al is okay in your book or just as you putti “over the top”?
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly Turns To Disgraced Ben Shapiro As Expert On Sequester Truth
2013-02-26 13:03:41 -0500
· Flag
Shapiro and the Breitbart organization are in disarray, as they have been since Breitbart’s death last year. He’s probably happy to have any opportunity to go on television and pose as a legitimate commenter rather than a fringe blogger. But the fact is that the Breitbart material was always just personal attacks, smears and slanders. If Shapiro thinks he can start a big career by doing that kind of thing, he’ll have only himself to blame when it bottoms out.
Kevin Koster commented on O’Reilly’s Stalker Producer Ambushes Obama’s Uncle
2013-02-22 05:06:56 -0500
· Flag
This was a particularly nauseating segment.
We should keep in mind that Watters was on private property and Mr. Obama repeatedly told him to leave and that he wasn’t welcome there. That means Watters was trespassing to start with, and then adding harassment to the charges. I don’t think Obama was kidding about calling the police. Watters could and should have been arrested and taken to the local jail.
As far as Mr. Obama’s deportation hearing, it’s really nothing to do with the President. The hearings for those things are backed up for months if not years due to the massive number of cases. It sounds like Mr. Obama has lived in this country for 50 years and the only thing he’s done wrong is get a DUI. Granted, I don’t approve of drunk driving at all. But there are standard punishments for that kind of thing and I don’t know that one DUI automatically gets anyone deported immediately.
We should keep in mind that Watters was on private property and Mr. Obama repeatedly told him to leave and that he wasn’t welcome there. That means Watters was trespassing to start with, and then adding harassment to the charges. I don’t think Obama was kidding about calling the police. Watters could and should have been arrested and taken to the local jail.
As far as Mr. Obama’s deportation hearing, it’s really nothing to do with the President. The hearings for those things are backed up for months if not years due to the massive number of cases. It sounds like Mr. Obama has lived in this country for 50 years and the only thing he’s done wrong is get a DUI. Granted, I don’t approve of drunk driving at all. But there are standard punishments for that kind of thing and I don’t know that one DUI automatically gets anyone deported immediately.
Kevin Koster commented on Sean Hannity: 'Gutless' SNL Writers Hate Christianity But Are Scared Of Islam!
2013-02-20 16:15:42 -0500
· Flag
This was a hit of a different kind, but I still remember the “Sabra Price is Right” sketch from 1990 or so. Complete lampoon of Israeli salesmen, completely inappropriate on about ten levels, and really funny. Could someone be offended by it? Sure. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t funny. And that’s the basic rule that SNL at its best plays by.
There’s something pretty funny about a sketch from the late 80s with Phil Hartman as Orel Roberts meeting Charlton Heston as God. With Heston’s God having the opening line of “Did you bring the Money?” Inappropriate? Yup. Funny? Yup.
I have to admire the good humor of many religious people. Fred Rogers famously did not object to Eddie Murphy’s “Mr. Robinson’s Neighborhood”. He saw the humor in it and didn’t jump to condemn it. One wishes that the more sanctimonious would learn from Fred Rogers’ example.
There’s something pretty funny about a sketch from the late 80s with Phil Hartman as Orel Roberts meeting Charlton Heston as God. With Heston’s God having the opening line of “Did you bring the Money?” Inappropriate? Yup. Funny? Yup.
I have to admire the good humor of many religious people. Fred Rogers famously did not object to Eddie Murphy’s “Mr. Robinson’s Neighborhood”. He saw the humor in it and didn’t jump to condemn it. One wishes that the more sanctimonious would learn from Fred Rogers’ example.