Associated Press
What could be considered worst, telling somebody they’re “un-American” or calling somebody a “racist”? We could probably spend lots of time debating the answer to this question. Most would agree, however, that neither is very constructive, especially as it pertains to public discourse that is intended to shape public opinion.
It’s like a vacuum-cleaner salesman, pitching a product for someone else to buy. What is the best way, or methods, of getting someone to buy your product? Knocking on somebody’s door and belittling them for owning an old, useless, broken-down, filthy vacuum cleaner is probably not going to get you that sale. Furthermore, mocking, ridiculing, and debasing the prospective purchaser and calling them names probably won’t work either.
Well, the same can be said in the world of politics, where shaping public policy is often the subject of hotly contested debate and where ideas are sold to the masses. It is in this arena that delivery, or “salesmanship” is just as crucial as in the vacuum-cleaner’s.
How ideas are presented and in what manner the potential purchaser is treated, has everything to do with whether or not that sale is going to be made.
Just as important, however, is why that idea is being presented to the public. This is where personal integrity comes in. Is the salesman, for example, aware that the product he/she is selling may be of sub par quality? Does the salesman know that the product he/she is selling is unworthy? If the answer to these questions is “Yes” and he/she continues to sell that product, then the argument can be made that integrity is no longer part of the transaction.
A salesman with no integrity becomes unscrupulous. In this manner, those who aim to shape public opinion also sabotage the very cause for which they may be fighting.
Back to the original question: Is it worst to call someone “un-American” or “racist”? The answer really doesn't matter here. Though the argument can always be made that both of these are disingenuous and, ultimately, counterproductive in public debate, the fact is that BOTH are protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. This means that no matter how distasteful one might find these to be, those who choose to express themselves in this manner are protected under the Constitution.
Someone who finds others’ free-speech rights absurd and then actively seeks to hamper their ability to earn a living is violating the Constitution. Ultimately, it is a blatant infringement on somebody else’s right to freedom of speech.
“ColorofChange.org quickly targeted companies whose ads had appeared during Beck's show, telling them what he had said and seeking a commitment to drop him. The goal is to make Beck a liability, said James Rucker, the organization's executive director. They have a toxic asset," Rucker said. "They can either clean it up or get rid of it."
Quite logically, then, the following question must then be asked:
Who does Mr. Rucker think he is to infringe upon someone else’s freedom of speech?
Does Mr. Rucker feel just as passionate about Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s comments regarding the town-hall crowds who voiced their opposing views? If Mr. Rucker’s logic follows, then Mrs. Pelosi must, in some way, suffer the same punishment that Colorofchange.org seeks of Mr. Beck. Maybe in her case there are no “sponsors” to speak of, but what about her status as “elected” official? Should she lose her position, after all, she really works for her constituents, right?
While I can’t say that Mr. Beck exercised his right to freedom of speech in the most productive manner, he is certainly entitled to his “opinion” as detestable as Mr. Rucker might find it. Therefore, James Rucker and his organization, have no business “seeking a commitment to drop” Mr. Beck, from his sponsors.
As for the sponsors who did drop their ads during Glen Beck’s Fox show, shame on you. You ran away scared because a “social commentator” who happens to be quite fiery exercised his right to freedom of speech. Why are you not standing up for the basic principles of the capitalist democracy that has allowed you to prosper as you have? Wake up! Don't turn your back on Freedom!
For more info: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090824/ap_on_en_tv/us_tv_beck_s_advertisers
Comments
I think you're looking at this from the wrong angle. This story is an example of everyone having freedom in America. Glenn Beck has a right to spew racism on his show, and advertisers have a right to choose where to air their ads. You would have a point if Mr. Beck was being arrested or even fired.
You're right about the advertisors having the right to air their ads as they please. What I'm referring to is Colorofchange.org who is actively seeking to punish Mr. Beck for expressing his views. The executive director, Mr. Rucker is actively seeking a commitment from advertisors to drop Beck. They want to ensure that Beck becomes a "liability." If Beck becomes a liability for Fox, will Fox not be forced to possibly fire Mr. Beck? If Beck becomes a liability rather than an asset, why would they keep him around? This is a blatant power-hungry infringement on someone else's free speech. They want to punish Glenn Beck. Period, end of story. Colorofchange.org has no right to do this. By the way, shouldn't they be going after Mr. Patterson, the governor of NY, for his comments regarding a "racist" America that has it out for Obama? Where's the ACLU to defent Mr. Beck's right to freedom of speech?
The ColorofChange sells T-Shirts claiming President Bush gave the military orders to kill blacks by saying "Kanye Was Right". These folks are nasty hypocrites and hardcore racists.
Kanye West didn't say that George Bush gave military orders to kill blacks. Kanye West said, "George Bush don't like black people."
FOX "news" is a conservative propaganda machine. Glen Beck couldn't possibly be a liability for FOX so long as he is doing his job by scaring the sense out of conservatives. If FOX was the tiniest bit concerned about Glen Beck causing a stir, they'd make him tone it down, and they have not.
The bottom line is that controversy sells. If he's causing controversy, people will tune in to see what the fuss is about and his ratings will go up. As long as his ratings are up, there will be no shortage of advertisers.
Barack Obama's anti-white views: IN HIS OWN WORDS
youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3jsFs&feature=fvw
via his book Dreams of My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance
We the people should find out who those advertisers are and boycott their products for trying to take away Glen Beck's free speech on his show!
Any company that advocates a dictatorship type of government doesn't deserve to be operating in a Free Enterprise system and needs to suffer the consequences of the Communistic, Marxist, Fascist style type of country where business is not highly regarded but only to the few priveleged closest to the Czars! What a crap house many of you are making of America!
Wait a minute Paul...! Do you mean me too? I don't think I'm one of them. I don't like the Czars either; or colorofchange.org.
S.D. Community Issues Examiner
hehe... the terrified racists are rearing their ignorant heads. George Bush lied us into a war, spied on Americans illegally, and nullified your Constitutional rights with the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Barack Obama has been president for 7 months, the Dow Jones is coming out of the freefall that started before he took office, he's trying to make sure everyone has health insurance, and suddenly he's the Antichrist?? Why can't you people just admit that you hate Obama because he's black?
Yeah, sure, keep playing that race card, that's all you people know how to do. Racism, racism, racism. Too many Americans are turned off by President Obama's unwillingness to listen to the voice of opposition with respect. Like Pelosi and others, those on the left mock patriotic, god-loving, Christian Americans. They aim to marginalize them as "right-wing fanatics". It's not going to work, however.
However, credit must be given to the president if and when things begin to turn around. The debate shouldn't revolve around beating up on the president simply for disliking him. He was, as we all know, handed the country in pretty bad shape. No one can debate that. Let's hope for the best, while voicing our constitutional right to freedom of speech.
JFK. Martin Luhe King. Bobby Kennedy. In my liftime I have seen the racist hatred that drives people to murder. Those venomous people are a dying breed, but they do still exsist. They can no longer spew their racist poison in the light of day; they must disguise it. Are we really expected to believe that these militia groups are toting guns to town hall meetings because they hate HEALTHCARE?? The same people who didn't bat an eye when Bush nullified rights we've taken for granted since the MAGNA CARTA are calling Obama a tyrant SEVEN MONTHS into his presidency??? Come on! How stupid do you think we are? "Obama's a muslim!" "Obama wasn't born here!" Just say what's really on your mind: Obama is black; and it's driving you mad! (Not you personally, Alberto)
ugh... hate this keyboard. excuse the typos
ugh... hate this keyboard. excuse the typos
"Can Do" you're obviously very passionate about this issue and you care, both of which are positives, especially in a democracy like ours. We, the little, people do have the power to shape public opinion, even if it's a little bit at a time. Also, thank you for not including me in that "group". However, I tend to share those views: lack of trust over Mr. Obama's judgement/lack of experience, apparent power-grab, like the folks in the town halls Trust me, I'm not a racist - although some of my liberal childhood friends have taken to calling me a "coconut" - brown on the outside and white on the inside - which is actually kind of funny. We're still friends, however, and they know that alhtough I'm pretty conservative - I'm not a "gun-toting racist" and neither are the majority of town hall protestors.
Oh, yes, and remember, don't fall prey to the notion that this is simply a democrat vs. republican issue. Nope! It's large government increasing its power and Americans losing their's. Republicans have not done a great job either. Think independently, not party-affiliation. That helps.
I don't think in terms of democrat & republican; I think in terms of progressive (or liberal) & conservative. In the days of Lincoln, I would have been a republican because that was the progressive party at the time.
The difference has to do with a person's relation to the top 2% of the population. Before democracy, this was the ruling class. They were the high priests and the monarchs, and they ruled by "because I said so," or "because God said so." Today they are the televangelists and the heads of multinational conglomerate corporations. Their power is (ideally) regulated by the government (though they are often in the government themselves, or able to buy off key officials).
Liberals tend not to associate themselves with the ruling class by race, religion or ideology, & look to the government to regulate their influence and ensure equal opportunity and freedom for ALL. Conservatives seek to regulate individual morality and liberate corporations and the top 2%.
I don't think in terms of democrat & republican; I think in terms of progressive (or liberal) & conservative. In the days of Lincoln, I would have been a republican because that was the progressive party at the time.
The difference has to do with a person's relation to the top 2% of the population. Before democracy, this was the ruling class. They were the high priests and the monarchs, and they ruled by "because I said so," or "because God said so." Today they are the televangelists and the heads of multinational conglomerate corporations. Their power is (ideally) regulated by the government (though they are often in the government themselves, or able to buy off key officials).
Liberals tend not to associate themselves with the ruling class by race, religion or ideology, & look to the government to regulate their influence and ensure equal opportunity and freedom for ALL. Conservatives seek to regulate individual morality and liberate corporations and the top 2%.
why are my posts posting twice??
"Can Do" welcome back. I don't know why your comments are posting twice. Tech glitch I suppose. I enjoy your look back at history. We, in general, don't do that often enough. It is too important to be left behind. You assumption/claim, however, that "liberals don't associtate with the ruling class" has missed the mark. Is Obama not considered an elitist and part of the ruling class? Ted Kennedy (now deceased -RIP), Nancy Pelosi, and on and on? In fact, right now they make up the majority of "the ruling class." As far as working to ensure "freedom for all" that's a good thing. ALL - meaning conservatives as well, right? And their belief in God? Right? You mean to tell me that liberal politicans aren't "bought off"? That's naive...at best.
Of course liberal politicians are bought off. I said "key officials," not "conservative officials."
The "ruling class," in the sense I'm using it here, does not refer to people in political power, but people who have held ECONOMIC power 4 GENERATIONS.
"Elitist" is a term conservatives use to label educated liberals (partly because the more educated a person becomes, the more liberal they become). But it's worth noting that the pundits who throw out the term "elitist" are often highly educated, & they are advocating 4 the most elite among us (that top 2%). They use terms like this to pluck the strings of animosity that the lower class naturally bear for the upper class. It's an "us & them" game where a white Christian blue-collar Joe is duped into to honestly feeling that he has more in common with George Bush than Barack Obama, even though Obama hails from the working class and George Bush does not. Even though Obama wants to help Joe have health insurance and send his kids 2 col
"college" got cut off on the last comment.
As for religion; freedom of religion and ideology is what makes this country great.
But freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion. For generations in England; every time a new monarch of one religion took the throne, people of opposing religions would be jailed & massacred. This is the primary reason our forefathers decided to protect us from the government's use of religion to control the population.
There are some moral rules which are almost universal to every culture; these rules will inevitably become laws. "Don't kill" "Don't steal" etc. Other moral rules are specific to certain religions and should not be forced on everyone. "A man can't marry a man" falls under this category. This is the same as "a white person can't marry a nonwhite person," which used to be a LAW in this country.
Everyone should be able to believe what they want and govern their own lives with their own moral rules. This is not the place for gov
Freedom "from" religion is absolutely right. That does not, however, give atheists, for example, the right to take religion away from other Americans, or society in general. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" If Congress is not actively engaged in "making" a law giving preferential treatment to any one religion then non-believers have not basis from which to take away religious freedoms. Furthermore, the only "religious" fanatics engaged in "massacres", today, are the Jihadists blowing innocent civilians around the world, remember 911? Christians, for example, are always linked with such fanatical groups and its wrong... and it's backfiring. Public opion is shifting. Like it or not.
Attempting to draw a parallel between the struggle of the African American community and those, today, in the gay movement is disingenous. People of color sought the right to be considered American citizens. They were lynched, beaten, raped, spit on, and segregated. Gays today enjoy all of the freedoms that our country has to offer. The only people being mocked, ridiculed, persecuted, and denied employment/fired are the Carrie Prejeans of the world, for standing up for what they believe in.
Actually, my comment was not an attempt to compare civil rights to gay rights (though I do think such a comparison can be made). My point was that the laws prohibiting interracial marriage were laws based solely on religious ideals. My grandpa will tell you that a white person who marries a black person is going to hell.
The laws banning gay marriage today are also religious in origin. If you think marrying a guy is wrong; great! Then don't marry one. You have a right to live your life how you want. But you DON'T have a right to push your religious views onto anyone else.
If you think that 2 gays getting married are going to hell; you have a right to think that. You even have a right to say that and teach it to your kids, just like my grandpa taught me. But you don't have a right to force other people to live the way YOU want them to live, because they have rights also.
You don’t think there are Christian fanatics? You really ought to visit the Westboro Baptist Church. You can go 2 their site at www.GOD HATES F*GS.com. Do you know what a “f*gg*t” is, by the way? It’s a bundle of sticks. As in for BURNING heretics. The Lullards, the blacks, the gays... just a few of the groups of people who have been SET ON FIRE by Christians.
Christian groups w/ recent histories of violence: Ku Klux Klan, Army of God, Christian Identity (Oklahoma City ring a bell?), Promise Keepers, Aryan Nations, Operation Rescue. These are groups on the FBI terrorist watch list.
Christian Groups advocating violence: American Center for Law and Justice, America’s Promise Ministries, Campus Crusade for Christ, Chalcedon Foundation, The Order, The Sword & the Cross... the list goes on and on.
Is Christianity a bad religion? Not in itself. & neither is Judaism or Islam. That's why we should be free 2 live as we want, & respect the freedom of others 2 live as they want.
Stop arguing with me. I can't take it any more! Just kidding. It's funny how easily the actions of Islamist extremists are ignored by those on the left. I suppose it's the p.c thing to do. Yet, "Christian fanatics" are mentionted all the time. You're right. Those you listed are whacked out. The truth is, however, those you mentioned aren't representative of real Christianity. Christian doctrine does not espouse violence. The fact that, historically, churches, priests, and public individuals have acted violently reflects their inability to take the word of God as it was intended. To be continued....
I must mention again. Atheists, for example, have a right to not believe. They don't, however, have the right to take "belief" away from everyone else just because they happen to find others' belief system "offensive." Christians are well aware of their sinful nature, of their imperfections as human beings. This is, primarily, the reason why they seek the Lord and belive in his word; to help them turn away from those things which separate them further from God. Christians are also susceptible/guilty of lust, greed, jealousy, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. They don't set out to point everyone else's downfall. They simply encourage others to turn to God for help. After all, we really are Not of this World. We're only here, on this planet, for a brief period of time and when we die, what happens? This is where Christianity comes in.
You don’t think there are Christian fanatics? You really ought to visit the Westboro Baptist Church. You can go 2 their site at www.GOD HATES F*GS.com. Do you know what a “f*gg*t” is, by the way? It’s a bundle of sticks. As in for BURNING heretics. The Lullards, the blacks, the gays... just a few of the groups of people who have been SET ON FIRE by Christians.
Christian groups w/ recent histories of violence: Ku Klux Klan, Army of God, Christian Identity (Oklahoma City ring a bell?), Promise Keepers, Aryan Nations, Operation Rescue. These are groups on the FBI terrorist watch list.
Christian Groups advocating violence: American Center for Law and Justice, America’s Promise Ministries, Campus Crusade for Christ, Chalcedon Foundation, The Order, The Sword & the Cross... the list goes on and on.
Is Christianity a bad religion? Not in itself. & neither is Judaism or Islam. That's why we should be free 2 live as we want, & respect the freedom of others 2 live as they want.
You don’t think there are Christian fanatics? You really ought to visit the Westboro Baptist Church. You can go 2 their site at www.GOD HATES F*GS.com. Do you know what a “f*gg*t” is, by the way? It’s a bundle of sticks. As in for BURNING heretics. The Lullards, the blacks, the gays... just a few of the groups of people who have been SET ON FIRE by Christians.
Christian groups w/ recent histories of violence: Ku Klux Klan, Army of God, Christian Identity (Oklahoma City ring a bell?), Promise Keepers, Aryan Nations, Operation Rescue. These are groups on the FBI terrorist watch list.
Christian Groups advocating violence: American Center for Law and Justice, America’s Promise Ministries, Campus Crusade for Christ, Chalcedon Foundation, The Order, The Sword & the Cross... the list goes on and on.
Is Christianity a bad religion? Not in itself. & neither is Judaism or Islam. That's why we should be free 2 live as we want, & respect the freedom of others 2 live as they want.
"Can do" wake up and smell the coffee. Enough of your pathetic, far-fetched examples. You're talking about an almost non-existent faction of society. Sorry, you lose!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!