Juan Williams, the ‘Greater Good’ … It’s All Semantics
Dogs and other “less than human” critters probably don’t lie. People are different. They can and do lie, frequently. It is said that George “Cherry Tree” Washington never told a lie. If so, he must have been a disagreeable chap with few friends. “Do you think I’m fat, George?” “Yes, dear.” Polite people generally don’t say that sort of thing, even if they have to lie (or fake a coughing fit) to avoid it.
In recent years, the concept of polite lies has expanded to the increasingly vast universe of political correctness, where approved lies are encouraged and not telling them can get you fired — pronto. Politically incorrect truths are “inconsistent with [NPR's] editorial standards and practices, and undermined [Juan Williams'] credibility as a news analyst with NPR.” Some credibility; some news analysis! Happy fund raising week! NPR and its affiliates may need it more than ever. There is no truth (probably) to any rumor that Helen Thomas has been hired to replace Williams.
No matter the absurdity of a mere opinion, it is not a lie to the extent that it does not purport to state a fact — either about what was done or said or about what the speaker thinks was said or done. It is my opinion that the honorable (but floundering) Barney Frank is no less despicable than fortunately incarcerated but equally honorable Bernie Madoff, and I can express that opinion truthfully. It may not be accurate as to Messrs. Frank and Madoff, but it is not a lie because I stated that it is merely my opinion and it is. On the other hand, if knowing for a fact that the moon is made of rock (having been there and brought back to Earth moon rock samples), Neil Armstrong were to claim to think it is made exclusively of Gorgonzola cheese, that would be a lie because it is not his opinion.
In politics, lies as to objective facts and the nature of one’s opinions concerning them are not always easily distinguishable. When Barack Obama, our incredible shrinking president, declaimed against the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision during his State of the Union address on January 10, he said:
[L]ast week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.
Citizens United, based on apparently inconvenient First Amendment prohibitions against infringement of free speech, involved a small non-profit corporation with “an annual budget of about $12 million. Most of its funds are from donations by individuals; but, in addition, it accepts a small portion of its funds from for-profit corporations.” It produced a film unfavorable to Senator Clinton to be presented during her run for the Democratic Party presidential nomination during a “blackout period” (thirty days before primaries and 60 days prior to elections). It was produced and to be distributed independently of any political party or candidate. During oral argument, the government conceded that books produced by or for unions or corporations could fall under the same prohibition as movies. It was apparently a tough concession to make.
The decision that the statutory prohibition was in violation of the First Amendment is applicable to for-profit as well as to non-profit corporations, no distinction having been made in the statute. It also opened a door for unions (which have been outspending corporations almost 3:1. Oh well). Justice Sotomayor dissented, and Attorney General Kagan presented the final oral arguments for the government.
The decision had nothing to do with contributions to political parties or candidates, and it affirmed the constitutionality of existing disclosure requirements, stating: “we find the [disclosure aspects of the] statute valid as applied to the ads for the movie and to the movie itself.” Nor did the decision upset statutory restrictions on foreign donations. It stated, among other things:
We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s].”
President Obama must have known that he was being “less than candid” either about what the Supreme Court had actually done or about his understanding of it. He is, after all, a world class constitutional scholar and very bright; at least he would have us so believe. President Obama could presumably have asked his attorney general or solicitor general what the actual decision did. He did not say, “I haven’t read the Citizens United decision, so this is just based on my gut feeling that the justices who decided the case are beastly union-hating corporate shills.” Still the beat goes on.
There’s no evidence for it, but it is claimed that those dastardly corporations might even outspend unions due in part to dirty foreign money — which some unions (the SEIU and Teamsters, for example) may well themselves use for political purposes; lots more is on the way. President Obama may have opened a Pandora’s box. Mr. Justice Alito’s silent mouthing of “not true” may have been impolite, but it was well deserved and true. Perhaps he does not think that the president should just follow his heart as emphatically as some would like, rather than the laws and the Constitution.
weather its wan williams or some other niger, the inclusion of an african in every case off public advertising mustalso put a WHITE girl at his side ! this practice is a numerical must ,so many whites must include so many negro’s . If equality were base on individual merit, GREAT ! instead of legal action of 1964 , most african negro’s are indigents without knowledge of whence they came,and couldnt care less, so long as the welfair check isnt delayed !
An even bigger mystery is how you ever got past the mods.
You sound like a Tea Party-infiltrator type.
A vote to boom sideboom.
There are lies and there are brooms that do not sweep clean and leave the floor covered with slimy dirt. Congratulations sidey.
Another troll trying to use an open forum to discredit conservatives and Tea Party supporters. The inept attempt to sound racist doesn’t work and we don’t buy it sideboom or sidecar or whatever your name is. Fortunately, the forum is frequented by some of the more intelligent minds and commentators on the blogosphere and comments like yours are unwelcome. Your dishonesty is on display for all to see simply by the way you purposely and obviously misspelled so many simple words. “welfair” – give me a break.
I also agree with Bill Lawrence. How the hell did your comments get past the moderators? I am formally asking for the moderators to remove the post because it violates the rules we all follow.
Wow – These faux posts from troll agents provocateur posing as right-wing whackos are really getting lame. This one is especially amateurish. Have some pride in your craft will you? If you must try to slip in a racist smear on conservatives at least try and write a coherent sentence. This one sounds like some high-school sophomore’s idea of a “typical” southern bigot circa 1956. Why not change your nom-de-blog to “Cletus” and get it over with?
Leaving his post is most important. It reveals what some will resort to to try to discredit others.
When you go into a court room, put your hand on The Bible, and swear to tel the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, you are held accountable for your words if you knowingly tell a lie. And, this is called perjury and you can go to jail for perjury.
Our elected leaders, who in their official capacities, tell lies should be held no less accountable than any other citizen who commits perjury. And, in fact, the lies of our elected leaders reach a much larger audience and do a great deal of harm to the whole nation which consists of over 300 million people.
So, whether our elected officials lie in Congress, In Press Conferences or On the Campaign Trail once Elected, they Should Be Held Accountable.
We have a President who is a Serial Liar and he has the Biggest Megaphone on the Planet. This man, Obama, has access to 24-7 coverage on a world wide level, and he uses the Media Daily to tell Official Lies and To Spread Propaganda. This man should be held accountable for his Official Lies because he is Mis-Leading an entire nation, and this can have International Consequences and is the Biggest Threat We Have To Our National Security.
And, Obama is just one of the hundreds of Socialist Elected Leaders who Routinely Tell Lies in order to Perpetuate their Own Power and they are doing it by Misleading The Citizens of this Nation.
We need to hold our elected leaders to the same core principles as an individual who swears to tell the truth in court, and when found to be a liar, they should be prosecuted and held accountable.
Why should our elected officials be above the laws of this land that the rest of us have to adhere to?
“The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” is a fine aspiration. But try to say the part of the truth the judge or lawyers don’t want you to say. You’ll find they don’t want the whole truth at all, and are uneasy about the rest of it.
Grey Hawk, I hardly recognized you! (Well done.)
I totally agree with you about holding elected officials accountable.
“He [Obama] is, after all, a world class constitutional scholar and very bright.”
One can argue the second point, but the first is without any foundation. As Editor of the Harvard Law Review he published … nothing. Ditto for his brief time as a law professor. Scholars publish. It’s their way of putting ideas forward and advancing their field of study. “World class” also suggests international recognition of his accomplishments and authority in his field. That too is completely absent.
I agree that President Obama is much over rated; that’s why I said, “at least he would have us so believe.” Heck; he may even believe it himself.
Even “law professor” is untrue. He was an “Adjunct Lecturer”- a part-time non-faculty position.
Oh- and Obama was NOT Managing Editor of the Harvard Law Review. He was President of the HLR- an entirely separate, elected position whose duties consist primarily of organizing the annual banquet. It’s about as prestigious as French Club President.
I feel that comment #1 has not been filtered appropriately.
Nor quickly enough, nor with enough MOBY-slaying gusto.
Agreed…pointing out the annoying politically correct advertising trends is one thing, a blatent racist rant is another.
Number one is indeed over the line, perhaps he is a Democrat plant/troll.
They cant find any racism in the TP rallys, so have to create some?
Moderators:
Tic, Toc, Tic, Toc . . . .
Who or What Is Barney Frank?
Democrat Congressman Barney Frank’s website gives this quickie introduction: “Barney Frank has been in Congress since 1981. He is the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee. Previously he was a Massachusetts State Representative and an assistant to the Mayor of Boston. He has also taught at several Boston area universities.”
Would that that were all that could be said about the representative of Massachusetts’ 4th c.d.
The second member of the United States House of Representatives to openly declare his homosexuality, in 1987, according to Wikipedia, Barney shares his Newton, MA. duplex with his current “partner,” Jim Ready of Maine when both are in town. Sister to Democrat Ann Lewis, DNC operative and advisor to Hillary Clinton in 2008, Barney’s net worth as of that year was claimed to be $972,150.
Not bad at all for a nice, Jewish boy from Bayonne whose father managed a truck stop and served a year in the clinker.
Wikipedia provides precious little other information about Barney’s “personal life” but does say, correctly, that, “He is considered to be one of the most powerful members of Congress, which also makes him the most powerful homosexual in Congress and he’s never been reticent to exercise that power with gay legislation and causes.
What Wikipedia notably omits are references to the scandals of Rep. Barney Frank, principally consorting with a male prostitute, Steven Gobie, whom he later hired as a “personal assistant” and who used Barney’s Washington basement as a homosexual brothel. Barney’s fellow Dems didn’t see any of that as worthy of expulsion or even of censure.
It must be nice to work with good, Democrat buddies. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2419)