I guess Imus comment on this

I wasn’t going to say anything at all about this — I’m uncomfortable calling for the firing of radio hosts over their speech, no matter how venal and reprehensible their comments may have been — but I thought I’d pass along this post from Crooks and Liars:

On “The Situation Room” today, Human Events editor Terry Jeffrey said that Don Imus “represents a general decline in standards in American broadcasting” and that politicians should avoid his show because they would then have to “take a stand on the various outrageous things he says.” During his high and mighty sermon of decency, Jeffrey conveniently ignores the far more toxic venom spewed on a daily basis on conservative talk radio.

Imus’ statements past and present — documented here by MediaMatters — are deplorable and should be condemned. That goes without saying. The point, however, is the blatant double standard. Did Dick Cheney have to “take a stand” on Rush Limbaugh’s myriad racist/sexist /insensitive remarks before going on his show last week? Did Secretary Gates have to condemn Laura Ingraham for advocating that her listeners jam the Democratic voter assistance lines in November before chatting it up last week?

I agree entirely with Jeffrey’s point that we need to raise the standard of American broadcasting, but the most egregious violators are squarely on his side and we should apply the standard consistently. Echoing what John and Digby said earlier, this incident should provide a perfect opportunity to expose right-wing talk radio
for what it really is: a bubbling cauldron of vile hate-speech.

Any thoughts?

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Out-foxed

John Edwards and Barack Obama may win some support among the Democratic netroots for the decision to skip the Fox-sponsored TV debates, but they are doing a disservice to voters.

John Nichols, the peerless correspondent for The Nation, writes today on his blog that John Edwards — and by extension, other Democrats — should not have backed out because “Democrats need to get a whole lot better at dealing with conservative media” and because the “should, by their actions, confirm that they are better than Bush,” who rarely faces off against his critics.

Most broadcast and cable networks are unfriendly forums for progressive ideas. But they won’t get any friendlier if Democratic presidential candidates refuse to appear on them. And those candidates won’t get any more agile when it comes to parrying attacks – be they fair or unfair – if they avoid challenging venues.

Edwards should have accepted the invitation and then used the debate to talk about what’s wrong with American media. He could have started by discussing the flaws of Fox and then, if he wanted to do something useful, he could have pointed out that they are mirrored by other networks.

Instead, he has decided to avoid a potentially unfriendly forum. It’s a political misstep that this able contender ought to reconsider.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Baroni on the death penalty II

I wanted to expand upon a post I wrote last week on legislation introduced by Assemblyman Bill Baroni (R-Hamilton) that focused on the death penalty. (My post is the only place I’ve seen this.)

Here’s the post:

The bill, a constitutional amendment that would strip the Legislature of its authority to repeal the death penalty.

We’ll be asking him about this as the campaign wears on, but it appears that the Assemblyman — and candidate for state Senate — is on the wrong side of the death penalty debate.

I talked about the bill today with Mr. Baroni, who offered a more nuanced explanation. The bill is not a “backdoor attempt to enshrine the death penalty in the constitution” (my characterization), but is designed to ensure public debate.

“The death penalty is too important of an issue to go forweard with the status quo, or to make a radical change without a serious public policy debate.”

Mr. Baroni, who voted for the state’s death penalty moratorium and to create the commission to study capital punishment, said he is troubled by the two extremes of the debate. He accepts much of the report issued by the commission, but believes doing away with the death penalty completely is the wrong approach.

“My view is that to keep it just as it is in New Jersey is not working, helping the families of victims, but at other extreme I believe there are certain crimes that do warrant the death penalty — terrorism, killing a police officer, killing a child — government needs to have it available.”

He believes that the racial differences in sentencing have to be addressed and wants more conclusive evidence required before the death penalty can be imposed.

“If you don’t have DNA evidence, there shouldn’t be a death sentence.”

He calls the legislation — there is a companion bill introduced in the state Senate by Peter Inverso (R-Hamilton) — a “brake” that can be applied to “slow down” the discussion. It is, he said, “a mechanism for a public referendum.”

“I think public has to have some involvement in this process.

He admits it’s not likely that the legislation will even get to committee — he’s hopeful, but not particularly optimistic.

“My goal would be that it would trigger hearings that would lead to new sentencing laws.”

Essentially, and Mr. Baroni admits this, he is hoping to find some middle ground on the issue, preserving the death penalty for the most extreme of cases and only those that he thinks are irrefutable. I’m not sure this is possible, however. I still believe that granting the state the power to take a life implicates us all — as the French philosopher and author Albert Camus said 50 years ago (I’ve quoted him a number of times on this), capital punishment is “the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal’s deed, however calculated can be compared.”

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Bad idea becomes law

The Record may think county “super” superintendents are a good idea, but I have to disagree.

Here is the editorial we ran on the topic in November — our opinion hasn’t changed, even though the governor has signed legislation creating the newly empowered bureaucrats.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.