The Resistance Thinks This Is Appropriate Political Humor. This Tells Us All We Need To Know About The Resistance [UPDATED]

After the shooting of  Rep. Giffords in Tucson, Democrats and the news media attempted to blame the tragedy on the “eliminationist rhetoric” used by Republicans, citing Sarah Palin’s use of cross-hairs on an electoral map to point to Democrats being targeted for defeat. At one point, CNN’s John King even chastised a guest for using the term ‘”in the crosshairs” in talking about the candidates. “We’re trying, we’re trying to get away from that language,” King solemnly inveighed.  “Andy is a good friend, he’s covered politics for a long time, but we’re trying to get away from that kind of language.”

Eighteen months later, the producers of “Game of Thrones” thought it was a hilarious inside joke to place a model of George W. Bush’s head  on a pike in one scene showing multiple severed heads.. Alluding to his beheading was wonderful, at least to Hollywood liberals. Putting Obama’s head on a pike would have been, of course, unthinkable, and proof of racism.

I wrote at the time,

“Criticism, satire and humor regarding any U.S. President, living or dead, is fair, ethical and within the realm of the freedom of expression that makes America great. Incivility, disrespect, denigration, hate and incitements to violence directed against any President, living or dead, is wrong. However any of these men performed in office, whether their policies were popular or not and whatever the consequences, good or bad, of their decisions were, every one of them was a patriot and a public servant who made significant sacrifices to attempt to meet the challenges of the most difficult job in the nation, and to do what he thought was in the best interests of the nation. Eight of the 44—that’s 18%—were shot at. Five of the 44—-11%—were shot, and four of them died.  The acceptance of the responsibility of the President is itself an act of courage. Evoking the intentional killing of a U.S. President in any context is irresponsible, and to mock a former and living President in the manner of barbarians and terrorists of other lands, to treat him as the terrorists treated Nick Berg, is as offensive an act of disrespect as I can imagine.”

Now Kathy Griffin, who hosts New Year’s Eve for CNN, has posed for the photograph above. I’m sure the “resistance”—you know, like Hillary—thinks it’s just hilarious, and that Griffin is getting high-fives from her pals at the network and Hollywood.

These are objectively hateful, ugly, irresponsible people, and their depravity becomes deeper and sicker almost daily. They really think behaving this way toward the nation’s elected leader will return them to power. In that belief, they are insulting all of us.

UPDATE: I almost forgot: this is the second controversy over beheaded Trump art. In half of one year in one term, Trump has been graphically murdered twice, while no other President since Lincoln had been beheaded in any high profile forum once.

240 thoughts on “The Resistance Thinks This Is Appropriate Political Humor. This Tells Us All We Need To Know About The Resistance [UPDATED]

  1. I think you perhaps should step away for a while from the right wing news mill, or perhaps just news in general. I’m starting to get a little concerned for you.

    Normally, it would not need to be pointed out to you that Kathy Griffin is not a politician, but a notoriously ethically challenged has-been entertainer desperate for any scrap of attention given to her. So her hooking up with a photographer who openly admits that he wants to be provocative and make his audience uncomfortable is not surprising. And I’m not surprised that the outrage mill fell for it. It’s what they do. I am surprised you gave this non-news a place on this blog, even with your eagerness to castigate the left wing for all of America’s recent failings, this seems like thin gruel indeed.

    Kathy Griffin does dumb stunts. If ever there was a need for the Julie principle, it would be here. No one of any respectable stature is endorsing this stunt, except as a wannabe transgressive exercise of her 1st Amendment rights. It’s just about as interesting and as deep as the teen who thinks he’s being oh so cool by flipping the bird in pictures. It does not merit a screed, nor can one smear the entire progressive movement with her antics. At best, an eye roll before scrolling on.

    • ‘Don’t look at right-wing news’ as a solution? I’m sure you remember numerous examples of people being castigated/fired for referring to either President Obama or the former First Lady as apes? This is far worse, and you don’t think it’s worth a mention…..incredible.

    • I saw the photo. That was all I needed, thanks. I don’t take cues from anyone. My quote from 2012 is on point; I am my own best authority. The fact that you would excuse this reaffirms the headline. FACT: no comic would have done this with any other President, and if one did, she would be roundly condemned by every inch of the political spectrum. She also represents CNN on New Years, along with Anderson “take a dump on his desk” Cooper and Don “How dry I am” Lemon. Classy.

      If the right wing media agrees with me, that just means they are having a good day. Anyone who doesn’t find this way over the line, for the reasons I cited in 2012, is thoroughly corrupted.

      • I saw the photo. That was all I needed, thanks.

        So…you didn’t need to actually find out what the Resistance was saying about the photo to declare what the Resistance thinks about the photo. And now that you’ve been proven wrong about what the Resistance thinks about the photo, you refuse to acknowledge the error.

        Got it.

        Sidenote: Ted Nugent repeatedly alluded to beheading, hanging and shooting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. He was invited to the White House by Trump in April. Kathy Griffin was fired by CNN. But please, tell me more about how the Right would never accept this behavior and the Left does.

        • Jake Tapper has already condemned it. But now, we want a news organization to issue a statement about someone for posing in a picture that people disagree with? I have to laugh about how quickly talks about respecting the spirit of the 1st Amendment, tolerance, open dialogue, etc. falls to the wayside when it’s someone on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Just engage in a respectful dialogue with her about where she went wrong Jack! We should probably treat her at least as gently as we do Nazis!

          • Right. Visually advocating the beheading of the President is appropriate speech for a public figure? What’s wrong with you?. Nobody’s advocating that the government ban speech. A supposedly objective news network, however, betrays its values, or the values a news network should have, by allowing its employees to express violent hatred for anyone, but especially elected officials.

            You really will defend anything that has a D next to it, won’t you?

            • Yes, yes deery absolutely will.

              And that’s why we can’t take a single thing he says seriously anymore.

              If he declares that the moon orbits the Earth, I will assuredly do my own research to be certain.

          • She has the right to speak. Jack is not arguing that. In fact or in spirit. Simply noting the speech and condemning it is not a demand for repealing free speech.
            The social consequences of ugly speech need to be discussed. An ethics blog seems to me to be the ideal place for that.

            • We have discussed it. Extensively. In other threads people were told that rather than overreacting outside the context of the action that we disagree with, we should instead engage in an “open dialogue” and try to persuade them to see our point of view. Perhaps such gentleness is only called for on behalf of figures who advocate for killing lots of people, rather than a person posing in a picture next to a bloodied dummy head.

                • I think Griffin is an idiot, so I won’t defend her, except on the standard free speech grounds. I personally th also think she should have never been hired by CNN in the first place, so I have no problem with them firing her because of this. But the hypocrisy rankles nonetheless.

      • KO didn’t say it was wrong, just too much, and the trail on his feed is equivocal “Bad for our side.” A smattering of B-listers, has-beens and never-wases (like Chelsea0 is not widespread condemnation. But by all means, continue. This just a slight tick up from “dump on the desk” and “cock holster.” These are your soul mates. Enjoy.

        Griffin is only expressing what’s there.

        • Do you have any examples of prominent left wingers endorsing it Jack? I’m not the one making claims about how this represents the liberal kindest and how the “resistance” will be cheering her on. Of those liberals who deigned to comment, none have supported Griffin.

          • There isn’t a single mainstream media source condemning it yet. CNN has made no official statement: Tapper is an outlier (he’s relatively objective and honest.) So far, I see no Democrat of note, not one leader, condemning the disrespect and violent hate for the man and the office—because this what they have been promoting for months.

            • So, basically no one of note supports the photograph. In contrast to your post, all the lefties who have mentioned it, have condemned it. Now, not even Griffin is standing behind it. It’s over.

              I’m far from certain that any elected official should give her any more time and attention than she has already milked from the outrage machine. Hopefully, she can sink back into whatever obscure hole she crawled out of until the next publicity stunt.

              • “Now, not even Griffin is standing behind it. It’s over. ”
                It’s over because why? Will Trump keep being a jerk? Will the left keep insisting on resisting? If they will then it isn’t over.

                • This particular controversy is over. The Left’s “job” is to formulate and advocate for the implementation of policies that are in line with its ideological views. Insofar as Trump stands in opposition to those policies, he should be resisted from the Left. So in that sense, you are correct, it isn’t over.

                  • The way you say that, it sounds like the left is just engaged in organized, strategic resistance of the adult variety rather than suffering from some kind of collective psychosis.

                    • Maxine Waters, honored and acclaimed leader of the Democratic resistance: “I can’t stand him! He’s the most horrible man I’ve ever seen in my life!… Your President is a dishonorable, lying man. He mocked a journalist. I’ve never seen a grown man do that! He talked about grabbing women by the private parts. He’s lies everyday. He’s in bed with Putin and the Russians about oil! And everybody around him are allies with the Kremlin and with the Oligarchs of Russia. They’re gonna take us down!”

                      Yup. Professional. Fair. Adult. Reasonable.

                    • Your President is a dishonorable, lying man. He mocked a journalist. I’ve never seen a grown man do that! He talked about grabbing women by the private parts. He’s lies everyday. He’s in bed with Putin and the Russians about oil! And everybody around him are allies with the Kremlin and with the Oligarchs of Russia. They’re gonna take us down!”

                      But where’s the lie though? Some of these things you yourself have discussed.

                    • “He’s in bed with Putin and the Russians about oil! And everybody around him are allies with the Kremlin and with the Oligarchs of Russia”

                      Absolutely an assertion of fact without justification or evidence. (Well, Chris thinks the fact that “he’s that kind of guy” is evidence enough, but it isn’t.) She has the idiot defense, of course, just like Trump does for some of his misstatements….but the Left calls those lies. By her own constituency’s standards, she’s lying.

                      The fact that you somehow didn’t notice this is a tell.

      • Well, I think Chelsea having a president for a father might have contributed to her opinion. I mean… really. Not even a Clinton can possibly have THAT level of unawareness.

        There WAS a lot of bipartisan condemnation on this issue, but I think we have to separate the hot and cold takes to this. After it was obvious that the pictures were bombing spectacularly with viewers, media was dripping to trip over themselves with condemnation, even if it wasn’t direct: “Trump called the pictures disgusting”, “Griffin issues apology for gruesome picture.” Wonderful. If a couple days late, which in a 24 hour news cycle might as well be forever. But take a look at MSNBC’s take, Morning Jow said that the Griffin picture wasn’t a story, and immediately dived into covfefe. I can’t make that up, they thought a typo was more important. I’m not going to say Trump isn’t an idiot, I’m not going to say the memes aren’t funny (because they are. Oh internet, I love you.), but I am going to say that one might reasonably outweigh the other.

    • Who’s up for a rousing game of “Let’s Count the Rationalizations”?

      “I think you perhaps should step away for a while from the right wing news mill, or perhaps just news in general. I’m starting to get a little concerned for you.”

      “Normally, it would not need to be pointed out to you that Kathy Griffin is not a politician,”

      Not the worst thing. #22

      “but a notoriously ethically challenged has-been entertainer desperate for any scrap of attention given to her.”

      I can’t tell if this is a monumentally bald-faced NEW rationalization that literally says “this person is irredeemably unethical, so it’s ok that they are unethical” OR, if this is just a #41 (Evasive Tautology) or “She is what she is”.

      “So her hooking up with a photographer who openly admits that he wants to be provocative and make his audience uncomfortable is not surprising. And I’m not surprised that the outrage mill fell for it. It’s what they do. “

      So warning us that he’s going to be unethical makes it ethical? This is a species of #36

      “I am surprised you gave this non-news a place on this blog, even with your eagerness to castigate the left wing for all of America’s recent failings, this seems like thin gruel indeed.”

      Jack discusses Ethics. This is an Ethics topic. And this is also a #22, though mild in construction. As a side note, the damage the Left is causing to the Republic is serious and possibly irreversible, I for one am glad Jack is “eager to castigate” your camp for what it is doing.

      “Kathy Griffin does dumb stunts.”

      Another #41 blended with #36.

      “If ever there was a need for the Julie principle, it would be here.”

      Ethics Incompleteness Theorem, even people from whom you expect bad behavior can still cross lines that need addressing.

      “No one of any respectable stature is endorsing this stunt, except as a wannabe transgressive exercise of her 1st Amendment rights.”

      Oh, good, so even people we can expect a general kneejerk defense of the Left from recognize this as unethical. And yet, here you are, defending this.

      “It’s just about as interesting and as deep as the teen who thinks he’s being oh so cool by flipping the bird in pictures. It does not merit a screed, nor can one smear the entire progressive movement with her antics. At best, an eye roll before scrolling on.”

      #22.

      So not too many individual rationalizations, but a veritable exposition in detail on a handful of them with variations.

      Well done.

      • Except…well, I never said what Griffin did was ethical. Pointed out several times that she was both dumb, and unethical, in fact.

        I do think this would have been a good time to apply Jack’s “Julie principle” though. She’s an unethical hack, desperate for attention in a bald-faced attempt to remain relevant. Why give it to her?

        But my main bone of contention was Jack’s attempt to smear the entire left wing with Griffin’s antics. He’s been on something of a tear lately, condemning all progressives for this or that, while simultaneously writing that the left should take care not to demonize the other side, or paint the right with too broad a brush. There is no evidence that any prominent figure on the left agreed with Griffin’s actions. Griffin herself seems to be attempting to disavow it. Yet the hunt for the “big, bad lefties” continues.

        • “But my main bone of contention was Jack’s attempt to smear the entire left wing with Griffin’s antics. He’s been on something of a tear lately, condemning all progressives for this or that, while simultaneously writing that the left should take care not to demonize the other side, or paint the right with too broad a brush.”

          Have you not paid attention to the Left since, oh, about November 9th of 2016?

          • I think that if a person is going to condemn one side for engaging in overblown rhetoric, then they should refrain from engaging in it themselves. If someone States this: I’m sure the “resistance”—you know, like Hillary—thinks it’s just hilarious, and that Griffin is getting high-fives from her pals at the network and Hollywood., then you should naturally supply some evidence of that. All evidence so far points in the opposite direction however. I would believe a revision to that statement would be in order at this point, but I’m not holding my breath either.

            • Hillary has directly allied herself with “the resistance,” a disgrace for any defeated Presidential candidate. She deserves nothing but criticism and ridicule, continuously, and permanently, for that disgusting statement. I pledge to make sure she gets it.

              You see the background for Ethics Alarms? It’s photos from one of “the resistance’s” Not my President riots/demonstrations, and it’s been up for months. Why? Because the Democratic/progressive undermining of the Trump Presidency is the #1 ethics crisis of the year, the decade, and quite possibly since the Civil War, with a few exceptions: Jim Crow, the Red Scare, Watergate. I’m sure I missed one or two.

              From the moment of his election, Trump has been called a monster, a fascist, a racist, and a traitor, non stop. The hate is non-stop. Charles Blow puts quotes around “President.” As I continue to write, this is irresponsible and dangerous, and everyone complicit in it, including performers, journalists and pundits, should be scorned by decent and fair citizens. It is an assault on the Constitution, and poses an existential threat….and “the resistance” doesn’t care. Saying that they should be ashamed doesn’t decribe how bad this is. I’m ashamed to share society with them.

              Why do you think Griffin thought she could get away with going one more step down the same road? Every single progressive, Democrat and reporter who has demonized the President is complicit in this photograph. They can’t come back now and say, “Oooo THAT was too much.” It has all been too much, and not just too much, un-American and within a whisker of evil. There is no equivalency, because no other party or ideological bloc has ever behaved this way for a week, much less for six months, in US history.

              So pick your nits, and spin, and make excuses for your ideological pals trying to tear the country apart with hate and rumors. The blood, if and when it comes, is on your hands, among many others. You should be saying stop, and instead you are spewing rationalizations and providing cover for the unconscionable.

              • I just wish you could step back and hear yourself. The opposition party is now the ethical equivalent of Jim Crow? We, just now, are in a crisis because of the Left’s rhetoric?

                Trump has been called a monster, a fascist, a racist, and a traitor, non stop. The hate is non-stop. Charles Blow puts quotes around “President.” As I continue to write, this is irresponsible and dangerous, and everyone complicit in it, including performers, journalists and pundits, should be scorned by decent and fair citizens.

                Where was all this outrage when the Right became unhinged during the Obama presidency, and were calling him a “monster, a facist, and a racist”? The pointedly missing outrage when they (including the current president) were saying Obama was not a real president because he was born in Kenya? Calling his wife a fatass and/or a transsexual? Calling them both apes and monkeys? Why has it only become a crisis now?

                Despite your claims that the Lefts behavior is unprecedented, you must have a very short memory, because the Right behaved this way and worse for most of the eight years of the Obama presidency. Trump, at the very least, gives his ideological enemies a lot of material to work with to support their claims of racism and/or racism on his part. Obama never pledged to ban an entire religion from entering the country. Or stated outright that a judge could not be neutral because of his ethnicity. But people resisting policies and politicians that they disagree with, as is their right (and I would argue, their ethical duty) is the constitutional crisis? No, I don’t buy it. People who point out the splinter, while adamantly refusing to notice the log in their own eye is a continuing problem.

                • I can hear myself, and read as well. I did not say the effort to overturn the election and undermine a President was “the equivalent of Jim Crow,’ but then if you can’t construct fake arguments, you would have none at all. The quote: Because the Democratic/progressive undermining of the Trump Presidency is the #1 ethics crisis of the year, the decade, and quite possibly since the Civil War, with a few exceptions: Jim Crow, the Red Scare, Watergate. I’m sure I missed one or two

                  Note that I said EXCEPT for Jim Crow, not “including” Jim Crow. A typical distortion on your part. I’m sick or your rationalizations, equivocations and lies, deery. My patience with hyper-partisan hacks only goes so far.

            • So, the left has been engaged in overblown rhetoric since 9 November, 2016? Would those be the words you would use?

    • It is clear that there very obviously is a special and unique standard for the political Left as it brings forward any and all levels of critique and denigration of Pres. Trump. It doesn’t matter if the critique is based in truth or semi-truth or is fabricated: anything is fair game because the target is seen as evil (or very bad). Media portrayal can show an unfavorable person in a very good light when it wants to; and someone it does not like, or the public does not like, in such a way that it convinces the one reading/seeing.

      What I would say is that were the NYTs (for one example) to desire to present Pres. Trump in a favorable light, it would ‘bend’ journalistic reporting and presentation to do so. But it does very much the opposite. It literally hates Donald Trump, and has for 20 years (the reporting on him can easily be researched) and is now carrying out an anti-president campaign, possibly in concert with intelligence people if not directly with agencies of intelligence.

      I do not know what skill of perception is required to *see clearly* in this crazy chaotic media-public relations-propaganda-political world but it has become obvious to me, a political naïf, is that I do not have the skill to make much more than superficial analysis. But at least I can see how these media are used in influencing opinion and how ugly the business can be.

      I did locate this apology and, I will wager, Jack would be satisfied with it.

      Her apology convinces, yet the general hateful animus will, surely, continue on.

  2. For what it is worth, she has apologized. While I hate how someone would treat our POTUS (4 years in the Marines has taught me you respect the commander in chief) I am glad that she did this.

    • If she really is sorry we won’t see any more of this from her. Past experience tells us we most likely will see more.

      • Is she really sorry or sorry it was not well received? I hope she is sincere but time will tell. Everone should take note of what she did and say to themselves, “It’s time to stop and take a long breath”, before doing or saying something”. A lesson our current President needs to learn as well.

    • I want to say that she apologized for offending people’s sensibilities and pushing the envelope too far. She does not rebuke the sentiment behind this (alleged) art piece. That is to say, “I (or we, as in the collective Left) hate Trump so much, I want his head”. I am sure if the piece was clever and socially acceptable, it would have been a good day for the #Resistance. (I can’t prove this, my speculation) It came out to be an embarrassment, and of course no one will want to endorse it, if they know what’s good for them. I think what Jack is trying to say, there is no condemnation of the sentiment, the spirit behind this piece from the Left (the institution, party leadership, influential people), because they tacitly approve of it. With the progression of anti-Trump rhetoric, perhaps in a while such forms of speech will be viewed as acceptable, and then we’ll really be in trouble. (Not suggesting banning speech)
      To wrap up, I think this is an 7 and/or 9 on the EA apology scale, because it was done due to the backlash received and it was worded in a weasle way, making it a bona fide non-apology.

      • Good analysis. She expected a positive response, as in “It’s terrible…but funny!” and miscalculated. She knew how bad it was, and was perfectly happy to be hateful as long as the right people were offended. If she had just received some applause (rather than silence) from her compatriots, she would have been defiant.

      • Aleksei wrote,
        ” It came out to be an embarrassment, and of course no one will want to endorse it, if they know what’s good for them. I think what Jack is trying to say, there is no condemnation of the sentiment, the spirit behind this piece from the Left (the institution, party leadership, influential people), because they tacitly approve of it.”

        And it is also possible that some Democrats/Resistance/Left people worked backstage to convince mrs. Griffin that she went to far and that she should apologize.

        • I think that is very possible, and even likely. Not because they found the photo repulsive, but because it would alienate moderates, the sane and the fair. “It doesn’t help,” as many tweeters noted. It makes bringing down the President harder, because it exposes the ugliness of his opposition.

    • It’s easy to say “I’m sorry” when half the servicemen are pissed off about your remarks. Maybe what she really meant was “I’m sorry that I caused such an uproar I may lose my job.”

    • Kathy Griffin needs to understand that “Nothing shows a man’s character more than what he laughs at.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

      I rate Kathy Griffin’s apology as a #6. A forced or compelled version of 1-4, when the individual (or organization) apologizing knows that an apology is appropriate but would have avoided making one if he or she could have gotten away with it. I may be wrong in this but I think I detected an underlying tone of 13A The Road To Hell, “I didn’t mean any harm!”, a touch of 19. The Perfection Diversion: “Nobody’s Perfect!”, a piece of Rationalization 41 A. Popeye’s Excuse, or “I am what I am.”, 44. The Unethical Precedent, or “It’s Not The First Time”, and of course 54. The Joke Excuse, or “I was only kidding!”.

      Kathy Griffin can apologize all she wants, her character has been revealed, I simply don’t believe her apologies.

    • Her apology rings hollow. She and the photographer/artist knew exactly what they were doing and knew that the photo shoot was going to cause a lot of heads to explode (erm . . . pardon the expressions . . .). Here is a “behind the scenes” video of the photo shoot. Check out the 33 second to 60 second marks.

      Kathy Griffin has never been funny. She has always been crude, crass, and vulgar. She needed to make herself relevant. What better way than to court the “not my President” crew and rocket to the top of the stack than to create a revolting image of the beheaded President. Now, she will be the anti-Trump crowd’s martyr celebre. I mean, what is better recognition than having the POTUS personally call you out on Twitter? The cable talk shows want to talk to her, I am sure.

      jvb

  3. Who on earth even thinks that’s an appropriate image to display for people to see? Not only is it gruesome and obscene, it isn’t even a very good likeness. What a horribly worn out tattered rendition of someone’s face. Who even thought that was a well-done likeness?

    Someone should have stop such a travesty from even occurring based on how terribly haggard that even looks.

    Don’t even get me started on what is supposed to be Trump’s head…

  4. Epic POS Griffin is a “never-was” that’s desperately seeking relevance and whose crocodile tears ring hollow.

    She’d be giddy as a cat-in-a-fish-house had this gone over as she intended; an unqualified knee-slapper created by preaching to the “it’s never enough” crowd.

    Griffin in January 2011: “I’ve already gone for Sarah, Todd and Bristol obviously. But I think it’s Willow’s year to go down. In 2011, I want to offend a new Palin.”

    Willow Palin was 16 at the time.

    I don’t recall any admonishment from the Lefty child advocates at the time. They must have been otherwise occupied fawning over the considerable skills shown by the parents of Malia & Sasha

    Think Griffin’s handlers are such lowlifes as to suggest that she go sans make-up (she was in such a rush to make things right) for her public Mea Culpa to inspire pity and because, you know, like, she’s just one of us?

    • CNN has attached itself to her by allowing her to ring in each year on its behalf, while teaming her with its “face,” Anderson “Teabagger”/ “Dump on the desk” Cooper. They made her relevant and gave her status. I’m not letting her or CNN off the hook. They knew what she was, and they endorsed her anyway. They asked for this.

      • But, but, but, but, but, but, isn’t CNN trying to do the right thing by “evaluating” her participation in the New Year’s Eve telecast?

        Plus, if they publicly shit-can her, all they have to do is say is they “evolved.”

        Or they “misspoke.” Perhaps something along these lines: “I say a lot of things — millions of words a day — so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement,”

        Or they were “inartful.” I’d highly recommend: ”my inartful use of those few words doesn’t change who I am, what I’ve stood for my entire life, what I stand for today,”

        • Clinton News Network is going to “evaluate” her participation long enough for this to blow over, and they will keep her on once the furor dies down, as it eventually will.

          Besides, Trump’s gonna pull us out of the Paris Climate Accord – and that will be MUCH MORE HORRIBLE than Kathy’s “joke gone wrong.”

          She will get a pass the way David Letterman got a pass after he targeted Willow Palin.

          • Besides, Trump’s gonna pull us out of the Paris Climate Accord – and that will be MUCH MORE HORRIBLE than Kathy’s “joke gone wrong

            I know you mean this as sarcasm, but it’s also obviously true. The consequences of refusing to take any action on climate change will of course have further reaching consequences than an offensive joke that has been almost universally panned.

  5. As of this morning, these are the online sources that think the Griffin’s “joke” is newsworthy: The American Mirror, ABC News, CNN, Mediaite, Politico, Breitbart, IJR, The Gateway Pundit, LifeNews.com, Daily Wire, East Bay Times, Scared Monkeys, Heat Street, CNBC, Fox News, Conservative News Today, Fox News Insider, The Daily Caller, NBC News, CBS New York, Full Feed, Townhall.com, MichelleMalkin.com, AOL, NewsBusters, Washington Post, Business Insider, RedState, twitchy.com, CBS Los Angeles, FOX2now.com, WREG-TV, Hot Air, CBS News, Washington Free Beacon, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, The Week, Washington Times, Deadline, Instapundit, The Last Tradition, New York’s PIX11, Mashable, WCCO | CBS Minnesota, John Hawkins’ Right Wing News and Clayton Cramer

    CNN, like most other MSM sources, focuses on the apology by Griffin. It does not show the photo, or wasn’t when I last checked.

  6. What is “newsworthy”?

    There is a group called ‘Project Censored’ that puts out lists of ‘newsworthy’ stories that are nevertheless severely under-reported. These stories typically are about the plight of the poor, climate change, US military excesses, etc — the stories are all important, they all are objectively newsworthy, they all are relevant to our lives — and they all are inconvenient to a corporate controlled world — and so they are not covered. Project Censored has a website. For decades, they have been publishing annual books of the 25 most underreported stories of the year.

    What IS covered in the news? Well, corporate media in its essence is entertainment, and sensationalism is primo entertainment, so a sensationalist story moves to the top of the list regardless of its “news value” in any objective sense. To use the appearance of Griffin’s story on the news as evidence of its newsworthiness is disingenuous, in my opinion. It is evidence only of the story’s sensationalistic value. Actual newsworthy items are not covered. Crap like this non-story is … because it sells.

    • Who do you trust for your sources? This is a life long question for me, ever since I was exposed (at 16 years old) to local TV station misreporting to events I was witness to. The reporter simply shrugged and said “If it bleeds it reads.”

      I have tried to insert a nudge here and there to make the smug progressives realize that their sources (like the NYT) admit to cherry picking, distortions, and outright lies in their pursuit of the socialist agenda. If a source admits that they will lie when they feel like it, they are not a source.

      • In the early 1990’s there was a magazine called LOOT, standing for ‘Lives of Our Times’, referring to the New York Times. Noam Chomsky was a frequent contributor. The magazine was dedicated to exposing the lies and biases that occur daily in the NYT. A pro-establishment bias, a pro-Israel bias, and a pro-military bias were regularly demonstrated by LOOT contributors by exposing the unstated assumptions, apparent omissions, and outright lies made in NYT reporting. Anyone who believes that the NYT is a liberal paper does not have a great grasp of what “liberal” really is, in my opinion. True liberals dismiss it as a corporate organ. Any alleged “smug progressive” worth her salt is more likely to consider the NYT as an establishment paper than anything worth emulating.

        Check out The Real News Network ( therealnews[dot]com ) and Democracy Now! for some alternative views. Russia Today ( rt[dot]com ) is a pretty good antidote to corporate biased news, too. Enjoy!

          • Yeah, I guess RT is not a favorite source for me, but it is often useful just to show that some items reported as “facts” in US mainstream media just are not factual at all. RT tends not to regurgitate corporate propaganda without question, as US media often will.

            http://stream%5Bdot%5Daljazeera%5Bdot%5Dcom is another alternate perspective worth investigating. It helps one discern the pro-US and pro-Israel bias in Middle East stories that occurs in most mainstream media.

  7. I actually thought she used to be fairly funny, back when she was not too seriously involved in politics outside of beating the drum for gays (which I have no problem with, particular at the time before it was more normalized for them). Back when she first came out and spent most of her time skewering fellow celebrities, or wanna-be’s.

    Sadly that time left long ago, and she’s now resorting to the shock-action that so many who have faded from their better times, in a bad attempt to get attention.

  8. Sorry, I am very late to this discussion, my brother is in his last days with bile duct cancer and we are fighting a horrible HMO and doctors who failed to even give him a diagnosis up until last week, effectively eliminating any chance he may have had to seek newer treatments.

    This disgusting act in no way represents the liberal mindset any more than Ricky John Best represents the conservative mindset. I shudder to think what his young son thinks when he sees such things. Neither left nor right has any immunity from the insane, criminal, opportunistic or blind zealots. I am liberal and I have heard nothing but condemnation on my feeds.

    BTW: On my Facebook feed a few years back, some of my more strident and ignorant conservative FB friends did circulate several cartoons and memes depicting Obama dead, lynched and strung up like a game animal or prize fish. I don’t excuse the present “free speech/artistic expression” or the same directed at Obama, Bush, etc., etc…. I do think there is a line that should not be crossed and these cross it. I know free speech and artistic license are extremely important to a free society, so I can only console myself that we are also free to express how repugnant we find such things. I am glad she apologized although that does not, and should not, leave her forgiven.

  9. All this talk about Kathy Griffin’s motivation in her apology makes me a little uneasy (as if we are smart enough, wise enough, or possess the psychic abilities to accurately divine her motivations. It seems a bit presumptuous. But, relevant, and largely missing from this post is something I figured Jack would have highlighted prominently: The Jester’s Privilege.

    As Jack has said in the past: In days of old when knights were bold, it is said, the King’s Fool was able to safely say outrageous, disrespectful things to the sovereign that might get anyone else drawn and quartered. This lucky exemption came to be known as the Jester’s Privilege, and it existed, and exists, for valid reasons. Humor, satire and all the other permutations of comedy are essential to societal sanity, and it makes sense to give the broadest discretion to practitioners of the craft in their efforts to provoke laughter—which is, as Reader’s Digest still reminds us monthly, “the best medicine.” That means that comics should not fear DECAPITATION (this is my highlight, as it seems particularly ironic here) if their inspiration of the moment fails to provoke the desired mirth, or touches an audience member’s sensitive areas. In addition, the jester is sometimes able to expose a truth that will not be reached any other way.

    Here is the link to the full post: https://ethicsalarms.com/2014/01/04/natasha-leggeros-stand-protecting-the-jesters-privilege/

    Can we agree that the Jester’s Privilege applies to Kathy Griffin?

    That is not to say that you have to actually BE funny to be the Jester; it just has to be your job to BE funny. With that caveat, I think it does.

    So, what is wrong here?

    1. The photo is not funny. No apology needed for that.

    2. The photo is of a taboo topic. No apology needed for that, per se, as the Jester’s Privilege is often granted for taboo topics.

    3. The photo invokes a particularly severe taboo: “we don’t joke about assassinating the president.” I think it is safe to say that, whatever limit there is on the Jester’s Privilege, it does not extend this far. Furthermore, she should have known it. This is no new concept. However, Trump has driven people crazy. If DeNiro can say he would punch Trump in the face, maybe the old rules don’t apply. Or maybe Trump is the exception to the rule. I honestly don’t know what was going on in her head and the thought of trying to understand her makes me fear for my sense of humor. In any case, if the privilege does not apply (as seems to be the almost unanimous consensus), an apology is warranted, I suppose.

    So, what did she say?

    “I am sorry. I went too far. I was wrong.”

    Disclaimer: I did not watch the video, so I don’t know what it says, but it is probably safe to assume it is far less clear, succinct and unambiguous than the text.

    Where does this fall on the apology scale? Let’s weed out the easy ones:

    #2: no. That relates to “one’s legitimate and defensible action or words.” Without the privilege, the words were not defensible.

    #3: no. That deals with “a desire to accept accountability for an event or occurrence that one may not have caused.” She caused it.

    #4: no. That relates to ” victims of the unavoidable consequences of a necessary action.” Her actions were not necessary.

    #5: no. That one states: “A spontaneous apology designed to prevent future, preventable harm by expressing regret that a past action was necessary or that it occurred at all.” The apology was not spontaneous; it came after criticism. It make no mention of future harm or the prevention of future harm. She is going to keep telling jokes, and we will all suffer for it.

    #8: no. This is “A forced apology for a rightful or legitimate act.” Because the Privilege does not apply, her act was not rightful or legitimate.

    #9: no. This relates to “Deceitful apologies, in which the wording of the apology is crafted to appear apologetic when it is not. Her apology was unambiguous and succinct. She admitted wrongdoing. She said she “went too far.” Because she has the Privilege, she knows she can push the boundaries and acknowledged that this went beyond that. I don’t think these are weasel words. And, she apologized.

    Those are the easy ones.

    #’s 6 and 7 incorporate 1-4 and the only one not yet eliminated in 1-4 is #1, which states:

    An apology motivated by the realization that one’s past conduct was unjust, unfair, and wrong, constituting an unequivocal admission of wrongdoing as well as regret, remorse and contrition, as part of a sincere effort to make amends and seek forgiveness.

    This one fits. If she realized she “went too far” (i.e. the Privilege did not apply here), #1 is still in play. She unequivocally admitted she was wrong. She said she was sorry. What we do not know is whether this is “part” of a sincere effort to make amends and seek forgiveness. This is tricky. Even if she apologized to Trump in person, there seems to be no “making amends” with him; he is petty and vindictive.. In addition, even if she did, come tomorrow, he will still be the President and she will still be trying to be funny. She goes right back to making fun of him because that is part of her job.

    So, if #1 is a possibility, #’s 6 and 7 may be relevant.

    #6 is “A forced or compelled version of 1-4, when the individual (or organization) apologizing knows that an apology is appropriate but would have avoided making one if he or she could have gotten away with it.” We simply do not know if she would have avoided an apology if she thought she could get away with it. A central feature of the Jester is that you get away with things without having to apologize. But, a lot of comics seem to apologize when things fall flat or a joke is “too soon.” The fact that she did not invoke the Jester’s Privilege (“it was just a joke”) is telling to me.

    #7 is “A forced or compelled version of 1-4, in which the individual (or organization) apologizing may not sincerely believe that an apology is appropriate, but chooses to show the victim or victims of the act inspiring it that the individual responsible is humbling himself and being forced to admit wrongdoing by the society, the culture, legal authority, or an organization or group that the individual’s actions reflect upon or represent.” We just don’t know. However, given how prevalent the “we don’t joke about assassinating the President” taboo is, it would be hard to believe that she did not realize that an apology was appropriate. It is kind of hard to fathom that a buzzer did not go off in the head of anyone in the photo shoot. That alone: the stupidity that did not prevent anyone from saying “we don’t go there” is difficult to believe. But, bias makes us stupid. At any rate, I am inclined to rule out #7, just because of the very obviousness of the mistake.

    #10 is “An insincere and dishonest apology designed to allow the wrongdoer to escape accountability cheaply, and to deceive his or her victims into forgiveness and trust, so they are vulnerable to future wrongdoing.” We can’t judge her sincerity of honesty. We can’t determine whether she will escape accountability or if CNN will terminate her. But, there is really no deceiving anyone here. She is a Jester, so, whether she is fired or not, we all know she is going to keep on trying to be funny, and we will all suffer for the effort. So, I think #10 does not apply.

    That kind of narrows it down to #1, and #6. Because of the Jester’s Privilege, which by its nature is getting away with saying inappropriate things without having to apologize, I think #6 has to be ruled out.

    That leaves me at #1, not because it is right, but because it seems to be the best explanation of what we know, once the Privilege is taken into consideration.

    -Jut

  10. JutGory wrote, “Disclaimer: I did not watch the video, so I don’t know what it says, but it is probably safe to assume it is far less clear, succinct and unambiguous than the text.”

    You should watch the video then you can reevaluate your own comment.

    • My own comment had a disclaimer. The comment would stand as is. What you are suggesting is not that I re-evaluate my own comment, but that I comment on something else.
      -Jut

      • JutGory wrote, “My own comment had a disclaimer.”

        That disclaimer showed everyone that you were actually choosing to have a severe case of tunnel vision and and are choosing to remain willfully selectively ignorant of all the facts that were presented.

        JutGory wrote, “The comment would stand as is.”

        I don’t think this statement reflects what you were likely thinking.

        JutGory wrote, “What you are suggesting is not that I re-evaluate my own comment, but that I comment on something else.”

        No Jut, I wrote what I meant, I meant what I wrote, and I stand behind what I wrote.

        I’m not suggesting in any way that you should comment on something else, I’m stating outright that “you should watch the video then you can reevaluate your own comment”. That would not be twisted into you should comment on something else by any reasonably thinking person. Both Chris and you have shown a severe case of tunnel vision and you’re both completely ignoring facts which directly contradict both of your assertions that her apology was a #1 on the apology scale and neither one of you have enough strength of character to admit it.

        • I think Jack pointing out the fact that she didn’t apologize to Trump and his family is enough to make me reconsider her place on the apology scale.

        • No Jut, I wrote what I meant, I meant what I wrote, and I stand behind what I wrote.

          Me too. I evaluated “A, without reference to B” You said, “you should look at “B” and re-evaluate what you said about “A.””

          But, then, I would not be re-evaluating “A,” I would be evaluating “A and B.”

          It was not a matter of tunnel vision. It was a matter of spending an amount of resources and I generally do not review video, especially if I would have to transcribe it in order to do a full analysis.

          “Both Chris and you have shown a severe case of tunnel vision and you’re both completely ignoring facts which directly contradict both of your assertions that her apology was a #1 on the apology scale and neither one of you have enough strength of character to admit it.”

          But, here, you said she was a #6, right? Explain that. I said #1/#6, since #6 incorporates #’1-4. Okay, where does she stand on #s 1-4 to get her a #6. I gave my analysis. Give me yours, because you will have to admit it is a #1, if “you have enough strength of character to admit it.”

          -Jut

    • Quote from the article…

      Griffin, an outspoken critic of Trump, likely knew the images would draw some negative attention.

      In a behind-the-scenes video posted by Shields that has since been removed, Griffin can be heard joking with Shields about moving to Mexico after the images were released.

      “We’re not surviving this, okay?” she said in the footage.”

    • What did she think was going to happen? This wasn’t a “brain fart” where you let something slip that you shouldn’t have said because you were only half thinking about it. This wasn’t even (I believe) a break room joke that went too far like the stupid 9/11 mattress commercial. This took thinking, planning, and preparation, and it wasn’t a joke that she was just going to share with her friends, they’d all have a laugh, and then she’d delete, with no one but them the wiser for it.

      It’s one thing to criticize the sitting president, people great and small do it all the time, and they should. It’s one thing even to mock the sitting president, shows like SNL and cartoonists of all stripes are in the business of mockery, although excessive or repetitious mockery runs the risk of getting old, becoming a one-trick pony, and boring the audience to the point where they say move on, already, we get that you don’t like the president. It’s quite another to create and present a fairly realistic display of graphic violence against the actual sitting president, perpetrated by the creator of the display. Never mind the disgust, never mind the horror. No adult should be comfortable with the thought that they would want to actually saw off the head of the sitting president and hold it up, dripping blood, like an ISIS fighter who had just beheaded some poor hostage.

      I remember when we were 13-16 we sometimes talked about how we would like to do this or that to whoever, including talking about how we’d like to punch out this or that political figure we didn’t like, or do worse (watching too many action movies will do that to you). Never mind that we were skinny or out of shape kids who didn’t have any kind of access to or much skill with weapons, never mind that, realistically speaking, anyone who tried to attack a major political figure was going to be thrown into jail long before he got close enough to do any damage, we were tough, we knew everything, we felt strongly about this or that, and we were going to make our point. We were like Conan, or his many tintypes, even though none of us looked anywhere close to Ah-nuld, we were going to take no crap from anyone and we were going to back our pride with a punch in the mouth. Eventually we grew out of it, or at least most of us did. Some still make idiotic statements like that, in fact someone blocked me on fb about a year ago when he posted that he wanted to kill the governor of Georgia for being insufficiently progressive on LGBT issues, and I pointed out to him that 1. The Georgia State Police’s Executive Protection Unit was unlikely to allow it, 2. The GBI might come knocking on his door, and 3. Fully grown adults should know better than to post death threats against high public officials on social media. He threw a profane snit – how dare I challenge him on this issue he felt so passionately about – and blocked me. No big loss.

      Passion is a very powerful alarm blocker, obviously. I have let it get to me a few times. I should not. Kathy obviously passionately hates the president. However, like my former friend, she hates him so passionately that he alarms have gone dead and she’s not thinking like a rational adult. The Secret Service is likely to come knocking on her door and asking her just what the hell she was thinking. There is no real answer – I was angry doesn’t cut it. God forbid she DID actually try for the president, she’d be lying dead in a pool of her own blood from 20 or so gunshot wounds. She’s also 56 years old and has been doing comedy for 20+ years. She knows where the line is – when she’s not letting her passion make her forget.

      Passion isn’t an excuse for throwing the basic rules of society out the window – I can’t punch someone’s lights out and hope the judge will let me off because I was just that angry. Any consequences that fall on her she deserves.

      • Steve-O-in-NJ,
        I only have one real quibble, “Any consequences that fall on her she deserves.” Using the word “any” leaves the book open for literally anything, physical violence, death, house burnt down, her brake lines cut.
        Using the word “any” in this context is the equivalent to…

        Unethical Rationalizations and Misconceptions
        2 A. Sicilian Ethics, or “They had it coming”

      • P.S. “The Resistance” said “we must not normalize Trump.” Instead they are normalizing this kind of crap. If that’s not a clear example of becoming what you are supposedly against, I don’t know what is.

  11. Jack,

    Your headline here is 100% false. You presented no examples of “The Resistance” saying this was appropriate political humor, and when presented with examples of notable liberals denouncing it, ludicrously declared they didn’t matter. Seriously, Chelsea Clinton isn’t important enough on the left for her condemnation to count?

    Your characterization of deery’s comments as “defending” Kathy Griffin’s actions here were also obviously false. Nothing in his comments came close to a defense.

    You are letting your bias against the Left overtake your logical faculties. You should acknowledge the falsehood in this headline and your false characterizations of deery’s arguments. You should also consider why you are willing to blame the entire Left for this while also claiming Trump bears no responsibility for attacks on journalists when he has been demonizing them for the past two years.

    • Chris wrote, “You are letting your bias against the Left overtake your logical faculties.”

      That statement coming from Chris raises the question; if Chris can’t see that kind of bias in himself, which has been pointed out before, then how can anyone believe that he can see it in those he ideologically differs without his own obvious bias of the Right clouding his own logical facilities?

      Has anyone around these parts ever heard of psychological projection?

      Those were rhetorical questions.

      • When have I ever claimed to not have a left-wing or anti-Trump bias? I absolutely do. We all have biases here. I am aware of my bias; I really don’t think Jack is aware of his.

        • Chris wrote, “When have I ever claimed to not have a left-wing or anti-Trump bias?”

          No one said you made that claim; your bias has caused you to read what doesn’t exist, again; your bias has clouded your logical facilities, again.

          Chris wrote, “I absolutely do.”

          You can make that claim if you like but your comments show that you’re either not truly aware of your bias or you’re willing to state that you’re biased even though you truly don’t believe it. The fact is that an ethical person that actually recognized a bias in them self, especially a bias that’s as pronounced as yours, would actually do something about it; you haven’t shown that to us yet.

          Please don’t reply to this Chris, it’s really not open for discussion and I’m not going to argue with you about it.

          • No, please; tell me what you think I should do about my bias.

            Otherwise, your comment is nothing but a distraction from the inaccuracies that I brought up in my comment.

            • Chris asked, “No, please; tell me what you think I should do about my bias.”

              You asked.

              To change oneself, the change begins with a conscious choice to change and then make an honest effort to implement things that will inspire the desired change. Consciously think about your bias before you blindly react because of it. If you want to change such things, the change must begin with you choosing to use logic and reason to drive your reactions instead of allowing your bias to be the major driving factor to your reactions.

              Again; you asked.

              Chris asked, “Otherwise, your comment is nothing but a distraction from the inaccuracies that I brought up in my comment.”

              By your own standards, there was no distraction.

        • By the way Chris; your statement above “Your headline here is 100% false. You presented no examples of “The Resistance” saying this was appropriate political humor” is a false statement. See if you can use logic to figure out why it’s false.

          • Stop expecting me to make your argument for you, Zoltar. If I thought my comment was false I wouldn’t have written it. You explain what’s wrong with it.

            I am finding your commenting style of late to be quite obnoxious and tiresome.

            • You have no logic, so you turn the table; that’s fine I don’t mind proving you’re wrong again.

              The title says “The Resistance Thinks This Is Appropriate Political Humor. This Tells Us All We Need To Know About The Resistance”

              You wrote that it was 100% false.

              Well Chris for your “100% false” statement to be accurate Kathy Griffin could not be part of the anti-Trump resistance and that is simply not true; Kathy Griffin is obviously part of the anti-Trump resistance, Kathy Griffin obviously thought it was appropriate enough to show the world, and Kathy Griffin obviously thought it was funny. It only takes one to prove your argument wrong; but wait there’s more; how about the photographer photog Tyler Shields, he falls in the same categories as Kathy Griffin; that’s two but there’s more.

              If there are Liberals and Progressives that are part of the anti-Trump resistance that didn’t think it was funny that does not prove that the title is “100% false” it just makes the title not 100% true as in identifying all anti-Trumper resistance people that think the photo is funny.

              Here is a FACT that you are completely ignoring: you actually don’t know how many that think they’re part of the “resistance” that thought the video/photo was hysterical. I received two emails before Jack even posted this from a couple of blatant anti-Trumper friends that consider themselves part of the resistance (they’re always spamming me with shit like that that they think is hilarious) and the emails included a snapshot like the one Jack posted with this blog and the email included a huge pile LOL’s, ROFLMFAO’s, and at least one “Take that Trump”, etc.; one of the emails was from a current middle school teacher. Also, a few of my other Facebook friends posted the snapshot with things like “Now that’s hilarious”, “OMG, that’s funny”, “I can’t stop laughing!!”; guess what Chris, after all the backlash started they quickly deleted their posts and have gone dead silent about it.

              Your claim that Jacks title was 100% false was an ignorant, illogical, bias makes you stupid claim.

              • Sweet Jesus…

                Well Chris for your “100% false” statement to be accurate Kathy Griffin could not be part of the anti-Trump resistance and that is simply not true; Kathy Griffin is obviously part of the anti-Trump resistance, Kathy Griffin obviously thought it was appropriate enough to show the world, and Kathy Griffin obviously thought it was funny. It only takes one to prove your argument wrong; but wait there’s more; how about the photographer photog Tyler Shields, he falls in the same categories as Kathy Griffin; that’s two but there’s more.

                This is a self-evidently stupid paragraph. One member of a group engaging in a certain type of behavior does not justify attributing the behavior to the entire group. By your logic, the title “Redheads think this is appropriate political humor” would have been just as accurate, as Kathy Griffin is a redhead.

                If there are Liberals and Progressives that are part of the anti-Trump resistance that didn’t think it was funny that does not prove that the title is “100% false” it just makes the title not 100% true as in identifying all anti-Trumper resistance people that think the photo is funny.

                OK, so what percentage false is it then? 80%? 60%?

                It doesn’t matter. False is false. Stating that “The Resistance,” as a group, approved of this photo was not true. It was, to borrow Jack’s favorite phrase, fake news.

                That you have some friends who approve of the photo doesn’t prove anything about the Resistance as a whole, which is the group Jack was maligning. And unlike you, Jack admits that he did not even see any reactions from the Resistance before writing the headline!

                Your choice to nitpick the exact degree to which Jack’s headline is false here–while saying nothing about the fact that the headline is, indeed, false–is indicative of your own bias.

  12. Kathy Griffin poses with a severed head of Trump: admits it was over-the-top; loses her job with MSM; and (btw) Chelsea Clinton immediately repudiated it on Twitter (piercing your un-generous presumptious assumption that any who have associated themselves with resistance to anti-science, anti-democratic Trump agenda are smeared wth it’s worst aspects).
    Ted Nugent threatens twice to kill Obama: invited to White House by Trump.
    Hmm. Which side has an accountability issue?

  13. Trump’s response after Ted Nugent said in 2012 of Obama, Biden, HRC: “We should ride in there and chop their heads off”:

    Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
    4/19/12, 3:02 PM
    Ted Nugent was obviously using a figure of speech, unfortunate as it was. It just shows the anger people have towards @BarackObama.

    Sad.
    This “tells us all we need to know” about anyone who supports/apologizes for/normalizes Trump.

    • Disclosure: I’m neither a Nugent nor a The Donald fan.

      “This ‘tells us all we need to know’ about anyone who supports/apologizes for/normalizes Trump.”

      Yo Chrissy-Boy, you want sad? I’ll give you sad.

      I’m curious; if we’re to question the integrity of WH visitors, ought we not remove our industrial-strength-thickened-weapons-grade-hardened ideological blinders in the interests of something resembling balance?

      If so, we’d find it was yer Hope-n-Change hero that supported/apologized for/normalized the EPIC POS and sexist, racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, criminal, hate-mongering PRICK Reverend Al Sharpton by making him the “go-to” guy on race relations?

      And wasn’t formerly employed Lefty miscreant Bobby Creamer (remember him?) a WH guest over 340 times, 47 of those with a personal audience with the self-anointed 4th Greatest President EVAH who was tasked with overseeing the Most Transparent Administration EVAH?

      Sometimes this stuff just writes itself, doesn’t it?

      • Paul, Jack’s claim was that this type of behavior–implying that the president should be killed–would never be accepted on the right, but that it is accepted on the left. Chrissy-Boy (ooh, I hate that name) used the Nugent incident to show that in that case, it absolutely was accepted by the right, and showed that in the Griffin case, it was not accepted by the left. Your response doesn’t really engage with his point; it merely distracts from it.

        • Nugent and reality show Trump constitute “the right’? Nugent is the Neanderthal rights at best, and Trump is STILL not “the right.” Conservatives, some of them, prefer him to Democrats, but he’s sui generis, non-ideological, and his comments cannot be attributed to the right. Nor does “he didn’t mean it literally” constitute what Chrissy-Boy claimed.

          • He won his party’s nomination, and as president, is his party’s de facto leader in the same way Obama was the leader of the Democrats. Furthermore, his actions as president are more significant and representative of his party than the actions of a D-list comedienne’s are representative of hers.

            And of course, you must know Trump is not the only conservative politician who continued to embrace Nugent after his remarks.

            You made a couple of bad assumptions in this article, Jack, and they have since been disproven. Own it.

            • HOLY FRICKIN’ CRAP! Trump is NOT a conservative. WE never said he was. He is the carnival prize the country won after Hillary and the Democrat machine colluded to get him the GOP nomination.

              Democrats calculated that Trump would be easy to beat, and did not count on Trump using their tactics against them. Which he was free to do because he is not a conservative, and need not be bothered by, oh, silly things like principles, morals, or even a logical, consistent narrative: just ends-justify-the-means. Sound like a certain political party we know?

              No, the GOP is not better in this regard, and the elected majority are not conservatives, either. However, they must retain the optics of morals to pacify their base (many of whom are, if not conservative, at least traditionalists) and thus cannot stoop to typical progressive methods.

        • “Chrissy-Boy (ooh, I hate that name)”

          Don’t like the word “hate,” but I hear ya!. I hate but three things:
          1-the chicago bares (only twice a year unless my 13 Time World Champion Green Bay Packers have to wax their sorry @$$e$ in the Playoffs),
          2-running into a cold, wet, driven wind, and
          3-non-variegated Bishops Weed.

          “used the Nugent incident to show that in that case, it absolutely was accepted by the right” (bolds mine)

          Do tell!

          I wouldn’t turn the station were some of his music to come on, and he’s made a good point or two over time, but I’m no fan of his convoluted, perforated ideology, especially since he jumped the shark.

          And I don’t think you’ll find many Righties that hold him in high regard on Ethics Alarms.

          • Nor will you find any members of the Resistance on Ethics Alarms who defended Kathy Griffin’s stunt, but that didn’t stop people from saying we were defending it.

            The Right, as a group, was far more accepting of Nugent’s behavior than the Left has been of Griffin’s. Nugent’s relationship with FOX News never changed. Hannity and Rush never condemned him. He continued appearing at campaign rallies for Romney. The premise of this article is that the Left is accepting behavior the Right never would; in the case of Griffin, this is just not true.

            • Really, you just have to stop. Crazy Nugent is not an equivalent for Griffin, words are not the equivalent of holding a bloody head, he was never associated with an allegedly reliable news organization, and Nugent’s barely registering comment did not come in the wake of six months of Republican and news media representations of Barack Obama as Hitler, a monster, and someone looking to place citizens in internment camps.

              There some real arguments to make—that you have defaulted to this one only shows desperation.

              • Really, you just have to stop. Crazy Nugent is not an equivalent for Griffin,

                Why not?

                words are not the equivalent of holding a bloody head,

                Why not? If Nugent had said “I’m going to kill Barack Obama,” would Griffin’s photo still have been worse? Of course, Nugent didn’t go that far, but did tell Obama to “suck on my machine gun” and called multiple times for Obama and Clinton to be hanged. I would put that at least on the same level as the beheading photo.

                he was never associated with an allegedly reliable news organization,

                Again, he had a very strong relationship with Fox News. Perhaps not as strong as Griffin’s is with CNN…but CNN fired her, so what’s your point?

                and Nugent’s barely registering comment

                Again, I remember media coverage of it, but if it did “barely register,” how does that support your contention that the media is irredeemably biased toward the left? Wouldn’t they have wanted to make his comments a huge story?

                did not come in the wake of six months of Republican and news media representations of Barack Obama as Hitler, a monster, and someone looking to place citizens in internment camps.

                Man, you really didn’t spend much time on right-wing blogs in those days, did you? I did. All of this was said about Obama. FEMA camps were a big thing. Now, this was from conspiracy theory sites, not major networks…but I think you’d have to go pretty obscure to find a lefty who has said Trump wants people in internment camps too.

                But all this is irrelevant to the main point, which is that the Resistance did NOT accept Griffin’s behavior, as you falsely claimed in your headline.

            • “The Right, as a group, was far more accepting of Nugent’s behavior than the Left has been of Griffin’s.”

              Opinion stated as fact.

              The Lefties that distanced themselves from Griffin’s stupidity only did so after careful cost-benefit analysis revealed their feigned horror would poll far better than would benign neglect, especially in the case of Chelsea Clinton.

              C’mon, had the indignant wrath not shifted into warp speed immediately, this would have been a Lefty Yuck-Fest involving all the usual suspects, similar to another furloughed Lefty (Melissa Harris-Perry) who, et al, thought it was highfreakin’larious to mock Mitt Romney’s Black grandchild.

              “Hannity and Rush never condemned him.”

              Take that up with them, I can’t be of any help as I don’t consume their content.

              Please click the link I listed above which shows the talented Ms. Griffin’s situational “Respect The Office” outrage on full hypocritical display. (scroll down for the mediate.com “The View” video)

              http://www.mediaite.com/tv/kathy-griffin-scolds-elisabeth-hasselback-over-obama-question-take-it-down-a-notch-btch/

              Reply

              • “The Right, as a group, was far more accepting of Nugent’s behavior than the Left has been of Griffin’s.”

                Opinion stated as fact.

                No, it is a fact, for the reasons already stated.

                The Lefties that distanced themselves from Griffin’s stupidity only did so after careful cost-benefit analysis revealed their feigned horror would poll far better than would benign neglect, especially in the case of Chelsea Clinton.

                C’mon, had the indignant wrath not shifted into warp speed immediately, this would have been a Lefty Yuck-Fest involving all the usual suspects, similar to another furloughed Lefty (Melissa Harris-Perry) who, et al, thought it was highfreakin’larious to mock Mitt Romney’s Black grandchild.

                This is what opinion stated as fact looks like.

    • “Everybody does it”/’Mob ethics”/ “tit for tat”

      This quite an argument: So gonzo celebrity Ted Nugent engaging in violent hyperbole is defended by Trump five years ago when he is an amateur troll, and that is cited as justification for a resistance comic depicting a terrorist style beheading of the President. The mind boggles.

      The use of “nornmalizing” is your tell. Every elected President is a normal President. This just a phony and transparent excuse to mistreat one that humiliated your favorite party and candidate. The fact that you have lots and lots of company to make the bad conduct seem “normal” doesn’t make it so.

      • This quite an argument: So gonzo celebrity Ted Nugent engaging in violent hyperbole is defended by Trump five years ago when he is an amateur troll, and that is cited as justification for a resistance comic depicting a terrorist style beheading of the President.

        That was quite clearly NOT the argument, Jack, so none of the rationalizations you listed apply. The question “Which side has an accountability issue?” should have tipped you off to that.

        Trump’s response to Nugent was not a “justification” of Griffin’s behavior. Absolutely no one in this thread has justified his behavior. We have explained that you were wrong to state the Resistance as a whole accepted it. Nugent was brought up as an example of the Right accepting similar behavior. That was a direct response to your false claim that the Right would never accept such behavior, and that the Left is much worse.

        You keep ignoring this point and choosing to respond to strawman arguments instead.

  14. I kind of feel sorry for Kathy. She had every reason to believe that her peers and the anti-Trump mob would get a guilty giggle from The Head, and I think she was right. After all, the theme of wishing and advocating Trump’s assassination has been widespread all year: https://www.google.com/search?q=calls+for+Trump%27s+assassination&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

    And why not? The second he was inaugerated and before, the mob and the media portrayed him as Hitler (remember what happened to Hitler?), Satan, a monster, evil. Kids were told to be afraid. The President of the United Staes was a boogie man, a super-villain. He was a traitor (they hand traitors, don’t they?), a rapist, a criminal.. The disrespect and hate emanating from all corners of social media and Hollywood is non-stop. Her CNN partner on New Years talks about Trump shitting on his desk, and nothing happens to him. Stephen Colbert called the President a “cockholster,” and he received no negative consequences. She thought that usual standards of respect, decorum and sanity didn’t apply to this President—why wouldn’t she?—so placing him in the classic position of vanquished monsters—Medusa, MacBeth—seemed a natural thing to do.

    It was juuuuust a bit too transparent, establishing the line where the ugly resistance had the sense to recognize that Griffin’s mask stunt lowered their own mask too far. They chuckled furtively, and then agreed: this will hurt US. We have to slap her down. So eventually, they did, mostly by not defending her.

    Nonetheless, Griffin’s ugly gag was a direct product of the months of fear-mongering and hate. She was virtually set up. Poor Kathy….

    • This is a very poor comment, Jack.

      So your argument now is that even though the Resistance did NOT approve of Griffin’s attack, and in fact explicitly condemned it, that doesn’t matter at all because (from your perspective) it was reasonable to believe they WOULD approve of Griffin’s attack before they condemned it. So you don’t need to acknowledge that your headline wasn’t true, since it should have been true.

      Furthermore, you argue that the condemnations from the Resistance don’t matter, because you have concluded–with your magical mind-reading powers–that they don’t really mean it when they say this was wrong; they just say that it’s wrong for political gain.

      These mind-reading powers, of course, don’t work on conservatives! When someone does something that might appear racist, we can’t call them that because we don’t know what’s in their hearts. When Trump fires an FBI director who is investigating his campaign, it’s bigotry to assume he fired him *because* he was investigating his campaign, even if the other reasons given don’t make sense.

      And of course, blaming Trump for instances of *actual violence* against reporters perpetrated by conservative politicians, and for a growing acceptance of such violence to the extent that the perpetrator won his election, is also unfair. Trump has demonized reporters and encouraged violence against dissenters at his rallies, but that doesn’t matter; he’s not responsible for voters now accepting this type of behavior. Journalists are responsible for journalists getting bodyslammed, because fake news. But all members of the Resistance are responsible for Kathy Griffin’s fake violence, because Colbert told a naughty joke about how Trump is too close to Putin (which he is).

      Wow.

      I am really disheartened at how the level of analysis and standards of objectivity at this blog have been slipping as of late.

      • I consider this response gibberish.You choose not to see what the non stop hate, lies and smear tactics have wrought, or recognize that the Democrats and “the resistance” are accountable when the hate bursts “over the line.” How about a real assassination, Chris, after styling the President as a monster, dangerous, scary, evil, and Hitler? Would that be completely unrelated too? And, as has been sadly routine, you misstate my argument to mock it. Colbert and Anderson, and more, are along a spectrum that directly led to Griffin;s stunt. The rhetoric of the Left is revolution, is that too much to take in? First it was hijacking the Electoral College, then it was denying the legitimacy of the election, then the Russian conspiracy, calls for impeachment, wishes for impeachment, then the “he’s crazy, so the cabinet should unseat him” fantasy. These all are failing, so what’s left? Go ahead, what’s left? Revolution and assassination. There is no reason to believe that a deranged mob that would advocate the other outrageous and undemocratic responses to losing an election would draw the line before those, and given half an opening, they won’t.

        Spare me your condescension and attacks on my objectivity. I am sick that someone as unqualified and unfit as Trump was elected President. I advocated not allowing him to run, and not nominating him when he had the delegates to win the nomination. Nothing could have made me vote for him, even the prospect of electing Clinton, who is the most unethical Presidential candidate since Aaron Burr—and he wasn’t really a candidate. The dangerous, un-American, irresponsible and reckless conduct of Trump’s opposition has forced me to defend him, because it is necessary to defend him to defend the Constitution and democracy, and that takes all my objectivity and integrity. I hate the threat, I hate having to be on the same side as some of Trump’s supporters, and I have to fight not to hate the news media and vicious politicians who have placed me in this position.

        Don’t you dare use this topic to impugn my objectivity, You are the blind one. you have proved it again and again. “Trump is too close to Putin” is a great example. He’s too close to Putin despite never having an extended or documented conversation with him. Typical.

        • Jack,

          Nothing you wrote above justifies your fake news headline, “The Resistance Thinks This Is Appropriate Political Humor.”

          Please retract this false claim.

              • OK, your house, your rules. I can’t say I have the same patience, since eventually everyone knows where everyone else stands and there’s a tendency to “tune out” those you know won’t agree with you.

                • People who don’t agree with you still sometimes make a decisive point you haven’t considered. Listening (reading) matters. This is a frustrating issue, because so many otherwise reasonable people have locked in to a biased and emotional position.

                  I do get annoyed at being called biased when my position requires me to insist on fairness to someone I objectively loathe. “Why aren’t you as cripplingly biased as this comment shows me to be?” is an irritating argument.

                  Forgive them, for they know not what they do…

                  • Defending Trump makes me want a bath. He just is not a politician, nor conservative. He spouts views that got him elected, and he uses the left’s tactics against them. Vile. Only a Hillary Administration would be worse.

                • Steve,
                  I will often engage in long, drawn-out discussions about gun rights with people that I KNOW will never agree with my position. I don’t do that in order to convince the person that I am speaking with; I do it in order that those listening (or reading on line) will get the truth – this has often had a very salutary effect on the listeners. They will notice the lack of content in the gun banner argument and how it is solely based on emotion.

                  I realize that your mileage may vary, but thought I would plug for Jack’s patience having a potential good effect.

            • Steve, can you defend the headline as factually true? Jack has chosen to ignore the issue, which is his prerogative–it’s his blog. But you seem to take umbrage at my request that the false headline be retracted. Care to explain why?

              • I don’t have to explain why. Jack already did. As you yourself admitted, it’s his blog, and that’s the ball game. Just as none of us on the other side politically have the power to tell you to leave, or even to shut up because the discussion has reached a point where everyone has made his position clear and all involved are talking in circles, you have no power to tell him to change a headline, nor to press the issue once he’s indicated he isn’t doing what you want him to do.

                I don’t take umbrage at your request, per se. I take umbrage at your presumption. You’re a teacher who isn’t even thirty, marinated for far too long in California, which isn’t called the Left Coast for no reason, yet you seem to believe you know everything better than Jack, who’s probably twice your age, much more experienced, and has been running this since you were in undergrad. You are not at all polite nor deferential to those of us who have a few years, or in some cases a couple of DECADES on you.

                You are frankly a mouthy kid, and if you were a new hire where I used to work in private practice, you’d be a candidate to be handed a file with no notice and sent to cover a hearing in front of the presiding judge in Hudson County which “accidentally didn’t get calendared,” so you’d show up barely knowing anything and that judge, a known ruthless intimidator who tied even the slickest and most prepared lawyers in knots, would swallow you whole and spit out your shoes, leaving you to return hopefully chastened to the office, there to receive a stern dressing down about losing the cocky attitude while the wounds were still fresh.

                Put another way, you’re not taking over here. I won’t let you, and there are a few others here who won’t let you. We get it, you’re a blazing liberal and you hate the President. Too damn bad. We aren’t interested in hearing endless variations on this theme for the next four years.

                • I don’t have to explain why. Jack already did.

                  No, Jack has not explained how the headline ““The Resistance Thinks This Is Appropriate Political Humor” is true. No one has, because they can’t. It is a false headline. The Resistance as a group condemned the photo.

                  • Chris claims that, “The Resistance as a group condemned the photo.”

                    What?!

                    Since when did the resistance become a formal group and not just a wide spread informal bunch of random people (similar to Anonymous) that share a hive anti-Trump mind.

                    Who is the spokes person for this formal group; was there a vote from its members to install this spokesperson?

                    Was there a poll taken of the members to come up with this “resistance as a group” condemnation?

                    I know people that are part of the “the resistance”, I just now got off the phone with one and they don’t know what the hell you’re talking about?

                    Back up your claim with facts, lots of facts.

                  • The Resistance as a group condemned the photo.

                    Wait… did you just use the assumption that you know the feelings and members of an arbitrary informal group to refute Jack’s assertion of the same thing?

                    If Jack cannot know who these people are and what they think, can you explain to us how you know this? Do you have a secret membership list, or is it more like a ‘I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it?’

                    You cannot have this both ways, Chris.

                    • This is exhausting. Prominent leaders in the Resistance condemned the photo. The response was overwhelmingly negative. She was fired from the liberal-leaning CNN.

                      Perhaps I overreached when I said “The Resistance as a whole…” but no more so than when Jack said “The Resistance” finds the photo acceptable–a statement he has been totally unable to back up. Read deery’s comments and mine and you will see we provided tons of examples of members of The Resistance condemning the photo. Choosing to nitpick my statement–while ignoring the falsehood of Jack’s headline–is indicative of bias.

                    • Choosing to nitpick my statement…

                      …you mean, like you all too often do here, Chris? How did you like it? It was exhausting, wasn’t it?

                      Perhaps I overreached when I said “The Resistance as a whole…

                      My point exactly. Thank you for the honesty.

                      …but no more so than when Jack said “The Resistance” finds the photo acceptable–a statement he has been totally unable to back up

                      I did not endorse what Jack said. I pointed out a logical error in your narrative and conclusions. He made a generalization that was true in the context for a headline. You started this rabbit trail by picking at Jack’s words, using the same generalizations you complained to him about. This was dishonest on your part.

                      :Read deery’s comments and mine and you will see we provided tons of examples of members of The Resistance condemning the photo.

                      I did. It was exhausting. And no more representative of the group than Jack’s headline. They waited until it made them look bad to react with condemnation. Otherwise it would never have occurred to them to draw back. I present how they have acted since the election as evidence of this assertion. Why did they not condemn the ‘art’ showing a severed Trump head when that came out? No enough blow-back, so they let it ride.

                      Choosing to nitpick my statement–while ignoring the falsehood of Jack’s headline–is indicative of bias.

                      Notice I did not chime in during that rabbit trail. I ignored nothing. I was not biased. I simply pointed out that you were using a circular argument to beat Jack up.

                      It was a great hijack of the thread, by the way. Nitpicking a statement out of context is a tactic you use often, when you cannot defend the topic. Sometimes, Chris, you should let it go. Your rabbit trail gained you nothing more than an eye roll, an attempt to validate outrageous behavior that you are associated with politically.

                      THAT is indicative of bias, Chris.

                    • This is special; Chris can’t even quote himself properly.

                      “I said “The Resistance as a whole…”

                      No that’s not what you wrote; what you actually wrote was…

                      “The Resistance as a group…”

                    • I did. It was exhausting. And no more representative of the group than Jack’s headline.

                      How so, slickwilly? Deery and I gave actual examples of the Left’s response; Jack gave none. How is the statement “The Resistance Thinks This is Appropriate Political Humor” as valid as the statement “The Resistance Does Not Think This is Appropriate Political Humor” when the former is supported by zero examples and the latter by many?

                      I did. It was exhausting. And no more representative of the group than Jack’s headline. They waited until it made them look bad to react with condemnation. Otherwise it would never have occurred to them to draw back. I present how they have acted since the election as evidence of this assertion. Why did they not condemn the ‘art’ showing a severed Trump head when that came out? No enough blow-back, so they let it ride.

                      Some did condemn it right away. I’m not sure how fast a reaction you’re looking for here–Griffin was fired within 24 hours, and that’s about the amount of time it took for most of the Left to condemn the photo. Is that really not fast enough in the Information Age?

          • Chris wrote, “Nothing you wrote above justifies your fake news headline, “The Resistance Thinks This Is Appropriate Political Humor.”

            Please retract this false claim.”

            That comment folks is what a combination of bias makes you stupid and overt obsession to discredit those who you oppose does to political hack.

              • And I addressed this below. I stand behind that headline, now more than ever.

                I seriously do not see where you addressed how it is fair to say that the Resistance finds this appropriate when the overwhelming response of the Resistance has been that it is inappropriate.

                But I suppose I will have to just accept that you won’t address it while claiming that you have, and move on. The Julie Principle.

                • Chris wrote, “I will have to just accept that you won’t address it while claiming that you have”

                  This is how it goes with Chris; anytime someone specifically addresses something, like Jack did with his June 1, 2017 at 3:26 pm comment, and the outcome of that comment is not inline with Chris’ world view he categorically denies that they addressed it at all.

                  So is this repetitive pattern from Chris bias driven ignorance, intentional misrepresentation of others, or is it a bit of both? Chris is making it damn hard to choose but I think it’s a bit of both.

                • Surely the assertion that the public position and the private position are at variance isn’t inconceivable to you. Not the Julie principle at all, and I explained in the long comment why. Indeed, it’s inconceivable to me, given their previous statements, that their objections, such as they are, are not based purely on expedience.

  15. I was curious about what Rush Limbaugh was saying about this. Reviled as he is, Rush is pretty astute at flagging liberal hypocrisy. From today’s transcript:

    “There was a rodeo clown at the state fair in Sedalia, Missouri, who wore an Obama mask, and you would have thought, you would have thought that God and the Creator himself was being made fun of and laughed at and mocked. This clown, the man who wore the Obama face mask was smeared, he was targeted, he was lampooned, he was criticized, he was savaged for wearing an Obama mask, because it was sacrilegious, it was insulting, it was beyond the pale, it was over the top.

    Now with Kathy Griffin and her decapitation of Trump stunt all over the Drive-By Media you hear people saying, “I don’t want to talk about it. Come on, come on, let’s move on. This is so outrageous, it’s not even worth talking about.” Mika Brzezinski, soon to be Mika Brzezinski Scarborough, on Morning Jolt, “I don’t want to talk about it. I don’t want to talk about it. There’s nothing to see.” Some woman named Molly Ball who writes for some left-wing publication inside the Beltway was on CNN. “What’s the big deal? It isn’t any big deal.” Total, total hypocrisy.

    But I’m telling you, folks, this kind of stuff will permeate the American landscape. The Kathy Griffin stunt and the beginning of the unraveling of this whole Russian collusion thing, because the media has made people believe this stuff. You know, there are consequences. You gotta be careful what you ask for…”

    (I wrote about that rodeo clown…)

      • Who cares? 1) They were not widely reported 2) Trump was right: it was obviously a tasteless exaggeration. Was Ted Nugent connected to a major anti-Obama news network? How often was Ted Nugent on TV?

        Here–I’ll explain Rush’s point: An insignificant rodeo clown just wore an Obama mask, and it was held up as a symbol of racism from the Right against Obama. A prominent liberal comic depicts Trump being decapitated like Nick Berg, and the same people who expressed disgust at a poor clown just wearing a mask reacts by saying “What’s the big deal”? Now what does that mean to you?

        • Who cares? 1) They were not widely reported

          Nugent’s remarks? Yes, they were. And if they hadn’t been, how would that support your contention that the media is biased against the right? Wouldn’t Nugent’s remarks have been more widely reported than Griffin’s if the media is as terrible as you claim?

          2) Trump was right: it was obviously a tasteless exaggeration.

          And…Griffin’s was not? Are you taking the photo as an actual threat?

          Was Ted Nugent connected to a major anti-Obama news network? How often was Ted Nugent on TV?

          He was on Fox News, especially Hannity, all the time. He appeared at campaign rallies to give endorsements to Republican politicians. You don’t know what you’re talking about here.

          Here–I’ll explain Rush’s point: An insignificant rodeo clown just wore an Obama mask, and it was held up as a symbol of racism from the Right against Obama. A prominent liberal comic depicts Trump being decapitated like Nick Berg, and the same people who expressed disgust at a poor clown just wearing a mask reacts by saying “What’s the big deal”? Now what does that mean to you?

          Again, neither you nor Rush have established that it was “the same people” upset at the rodeo clown and not by this.

          • Not his point, nor mine. His point was that was indeed a manufactured outrage, while a real outrage was being minimized and trivialized by the meid and pundits. A prominent call to assassinate a President from a public figure is not just “dumb.” It’s only dumb when you don’t really care about the threat, because you would applaud the act, if privately.

            • A prominent call to assassinate a President from a public figure is not just “dumb.”

              Do you really believe this was a genuine call for an assassination?

              Do you believe Ted Nugent’s comments were also a genuine call for an assassination?

    • Also: Did Molly Ball express outrage over the rodeo clown thing? Did Mika Brzezinski? If so I guess I can see how their comments might be hypocrisy, but how does that hypocrisy reflect on liberals as a whole, when plenty of notable liberals have expressed outrage at both?

      Of course this assumes that Rush even represented their comments accurately, which is…unlikely, given his track record. Here, let me Google: Brzezinsky said it was “too gross” to talk about, and her comment seemed to suggest that she didn’t want to dignify Griffin’s trolling with a response. That seems fair. Ball suggested it was “dumb” and not “acceptable discourse.” Rush, of course, left out those parts of their respective comments. Taking his word on what actual journalists are saying strikes me as incredibly naive.

      • Pete, they TELL us who they are and what they are thinking, every minute of the day, every day of the year. They cannot help themselves. They have to spout off to get attention, or we would never know they existed.

  16. How did the left get to the point of displaying such propaganda and what happens to our tomorrows as a result of this event?

    Yesterday evening I began recalling some pretty ugly things that the resistance subculture has said and/or written about Trump over the last 7-12 months that’s likely lead to the ludicrous actions of Kathy Griffin and her accomplice Tyler Shields and their obvious belief that their actions would be acceptable in the eyes of the resistance sub culture, the political left, and the public at large. What I find interesting about this event is that there ARE people in the political left that think what Griffin and Shields did was absolutely hilarious, proving that Griffin and Shields were at least partially correct in their beliefs of acceptance but then after the public outrage started rising about the video/photo, especially the condemnation from prominent “lefties”, extreme lefties started cleansing their social media history and blogs of things that could connect them to that kind of extreme thinking. Extreme lefties afraid of being condemned by both lefties and righties. I thought this intentional historical air-brushing was a very interesting outcome of this event and I wondered just how wide spread this kind of air-brushing reaction stretched, so I set out on an internet search quest. I “traveled” far and wide for hours yesterday evening, revisiting lots of sites that I’ve visited over the last year, social media sites of people I know, their friends, returning to anything and everything that I could recall as pushing these kinds of limits. What I found is that there is definitely a historical air-brushing taking place, not wide spread yet, but it’s there. What I’ll will be really interested to see if this trend of historically air-brushing your own extreme attitudes continues to spread and if that self induced air-brushing causes those that have been extreme to moderate themselves in the future.

    Griffin and Shields might have just done more to moderate the anti-Trump resistance extremes with one wacko piece of extreme propaganda than anything the political right could do. Only time will tell.

    • Well, an “extreme leftie” isn’t really going to be “afraid of condemnation” by anybody, so he/she is unlikely to change behavior based on that notion. A lifetime of being marginalized for holding views out of the mainstream rather inures one to such slings and arrows. So, this argument is a bunch of smoke.

  17. America has lost and the true “resistance” – not the left-wing, Anti-Trump contingent, but the chaos-sowing, anti-America group – has won.

    This blog is full of some of the most insightful and intelligent people I have come across in my years of reading perspectives online. Yet, even the people here have not been immune to the chaos-baiting. While the division between liberal and conservative continues to widen, America itself flounders. Nothing productive is getting done and our world standing continues to diminish, and our problems at home only get worse by the day.

    The left is playing directly into the hands of the Trump administration, overreacting to basically every word that is said/tweeted. The administration uses this overreaction and feeding frenzy to do two things – propagate fake/misleading news (through leaks in many cases) to perpetuate the cycle and decry the media as fake. There are those that naturally support the president, lean right politically, or simply want to believe that our leaders are trustworthy, whose beliefs are strengthened as the “fake news” claims are validated in some cases. On the other side of the spectrum, skeptics seeking out untruths have little difficulty finding them in the statements made by the President and those representing him. There have been several cases where President Trump has said something on camera and still persisted in denying ever saying such a thing.

    This creates an environment where half of America believes that the White House is lying about everything but nothing can be done about it and the other half believes that the media is lying about everything and nothing but what the President or his agents say is true. The former group can’t believe that nothing is being done about all of the insane things happening in the country, and the latter group can’t believe that the former group is reacting in such an irrational matter about a bunch of drummed up nothing/lies.

    Look at the last 36 hours. So many words have been written about a typo and the reaction to said typo and an incredibly poor taste “joke” that no one found funny nor endorsed. To me, this was all classic misdirection – the Paris Climate Accord and the Ethics Waivers (to a lesser extent, only due to the lobbyists involved) were much more relevant topics even from an ethics perspective. Who cares about the nomenclature of the headline of this article when our kids might not live to see old age if a large majority of climate scientists are correct? And if the President is right in pulling out of the agreement (which he may be, I am not well-read enough to make that distinction yet), is the manner in which it was done ethical? I would love to have that discussion instead of talking about an irrelevant comic.

    • when our kids might not live to see old age if a large majority of climate scientists are correct?

      Joe, can you substantiate your assertions, even in the limited statement I have selected here?

      First, the hysterical ‘our kids will die’ assertion. Even the climate advocate’s own projections place any substantial threat to human existence well beyond the lifespan of anyone today. (This is to remove accountability for their claims, while making things seem urgent, IMHO)

      Second, the assertion that a ‘majority of climate scientists’ (let alone a ‘large’ one) have agreed to ANYTHING, much less the end of the world. While this is reported as fact, a little research finds that it is not true. The first lie is that they are a majority. The second lie is that they agree to anything. Please source your findings.

      This creates an environment where half of America believes that the White House is lying about everything but nothing can be done about it and the other half believes that the media is lying about everything and nothing but what the President or his agents say is true.

      This is a presentation of an either-or fallacy. You assign everyone to one of two groups, then further assign what they believe. The truth is that there are many varied opinions in our nation, and very few follow the narrow interpretations you present.

      This site is about ethics. The ethics of the smallest item is as valid a topic as the larger looming issues. If you cannot choose an ethical choice in a small decision, the larger issues are lost to you. Jack educates about ethics. You may suggest possible topics (many of us often do) but Jack picks where he spends his time. His house, his rules.

      Please stick around, read current and past topics, review the extensive educational materials provided (they help understand the references: for instance, if I refer to the ‘Julie Principle,’ would you get the meaning?) and engage in a responsible manner. We could use your viewpoint, if you can articulate and substantiate it.

      • I think you have some valid criticisms, SW. I probably leaned too hard on the climate button in order to make my point, and I should know better than to make a wild(ish) assertion on a site populated with people that will have none of such foolishness.

        I very much respect that this is Jack’s house and his rules. I love reading about small ethical dilemmas and especially love the stories of 7-11 (as they have been uplifting recently). I’m sorry if my point was unclear – I thought posting under the Kathy Griffin story would help frame the overall theme of the post, which was that we as a culture are being bamboozled into talking about things that are far less relevant than the wide-scale crumbling of “truth” as a concept. I certainly should have included a disclaimer that debating Kathy Griffin is a totally appropriate conversation on an ethics blog and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise.

        The either-or fallacy that you mentioned that I presented above is also a good point. I would counter by saying that the truth is that the point I was trying to make is that if we don’t stop the direction we are going, we will end up widening a divide that has already started. Much like a small crack that becomes a great ravine, what at first may be an easy gap to straddle will eventually send people clamoring to one side or the other as evidence piles up in the minds of the individual.

        Anyways, I appreciate the criticism and the welcoming tone. I will try and articulate my points with less bombast in the future (and better citations) as clearly the exaggeration is unnecessary and people here do enjoy reading the source of the arguments.

        PS. I always associate the Julie Principle with the story “The Scorpion and the Frog,” which was one of my favorites growing up.

      • Chris wrote, “Comment of the Day, Joe.”

        I could be wrong but I don’t think it fits what I’ve observed to be the criteria.

        Maybe you’re reacting based on your bias again? 😉

        • Thanks, Chris, but I agree with Zoltar on this one.

          While I stand by what I said, I wasn’t as clear as I would like – I will work on it in the future. I come here to learn, listen, and try and keep my head screwed on straight. I appreciate the feedback.

    • 1. Good comment.
      2. You are correct that the Democrats are cutting their own throats, much as Marco Rubio did when he stooped to Trump’s juvenile name-calling. The Democrats could win by doing what they falsely said they would do: go high. Be statesmanlike; be civil; try to make the government work; pledge to be as cooperative as Trump will let them be. They should condemn “the resistance,” and what it stands for. It should have rebuked the inauguration boycotters. It should condemn, as a party, Colbert and Griffin. Instead, it is trying to pander to its worst anarchists and hate-mongers. It is a tragic miscalculation.
      3. In ethics, small events are as significant as large. The typos obsession shows the insane bias of the news media, where it would headline a Twitter typo just to mock the President. That is a new and ugly development, and not trivial. Neither was Griffin’s stunt. The fact that she felt she could get away with it shows how far the Left and the media has stripped away decency and respect regarding our institutions. A giant statue of Trump naked was erected in various locales. He has been openly denigrated and demonized. You cannot be so naive as to think this isn’t more than just trivia. It affects the national spirity, the effectiveness of the government, and our civic cohesion.
      4. The fact that I write about A does not mean that I don’t consider B as important or more important.
      5. Ethics waivers are a game and a process, and have precious little to do with ethics. It’s a morass, and while relevant, is not a favorite topic.
      6. The Paris Accord is eyewash, and the main ethics issue is the hysterical proclamations about how the future of the earth rests on it. It doesn’t. There is no enforcement mechanism (nor could there be) and all the screaming, including that being done by corporations, is cynical virtue-signalling. There is, as you say, no way to know whether quitting is the right thing to do, except that the symbolic statement that Obama’s One World Government dream no longer rules, and that message is worth sending.

      • Jack wrote:

        “3. In ethics, small events are as significant as large. The typos obsession shows the insane bias of the news media, where it would headline a Twitter typo just to mock the President. That is a new and ugly development, and not trivial.”

        The twitter obsession is interesting. During the 2008 campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama stated that he had traveled to all 57 states. Clearly a mistake and most ignored it as a mistake; only the hyper-partisans (the ever-brilliant Sean Hannity comes to mind) made a big deal about it. That is what should have happened with Pres. Trump’s ‘covfefe’ blunder, no?

        I wonder, though. Social media was not the omnipresent force in 2008 as it is today. The creator of Twitter stated that if he had known that Twitter would be used as widely – and as effectively – by the Trump campaign, he would not have been so overjoyed at is creation (I guess the “social” in social media is short for “social justice”). Social media is a force the main sources of media cannot control, and the Trump Administration knows that. Pres. Trump has direct access to millions of people and communicates directly to them without the filter of the traditional press. That must be driving the press nuts. Considering that Pres. Trump sidesteps the traditional press, and the majority of the traditional press would like to pillory him on regular basis, any mistake he makes is grounds for impeachment. For instance, CNN spent a ton of time talking about the error last night.

        Pres. Trump’s use of Twitter presents a number of ethics issues, though. For instance, if the President and his staff are intent on using social media (and nobody is able to disable the President’s computers, cell phones or other electronic devices – or break his Twitter fingers), then absolute care should be taken to convey a coherent message. Misspellings and typos should be minimized at all costs. If the Administration knows that he is going to get demolished for typos, then why concede the point? Why not ensure that tweets are intelligible?

        Furthermore, it is unseemly for the POTUS to be responding directly to his critics. The Obama Administration’s involvement in local matters should be a good example of why the most powerful political executive office in the nation should be extremely careful about interjecting Presidential commentary on instances that may not be of a national concern (Prof. Gates, for example). Yet, Pres. Trump directly responds or attacks his critics, whether it is The New York Times, Saturday Night Live, or Kathy Griffin. On a personal level, I understand the impulse to respond to Kathy Griffin’s stupid political theater, especially if my son saw it and was frightened that someone was threatening to harm me. That is human. However, the POTUS should be above that. It brings potential scandal to the office.

        jvb

        • For me, the covfefe issue was more about how long the tweet stayed up. He’s the President of the United States, and he’s communicating directly to the people; there should be someone around to catch and correct a mistake like that. With the way Twitter works, it felt more like if Obama had been speaking to a crowd, said “57 states,” and then stood there staring at the crowd for 12 hours. The fact that no one corrected the error in a reasonable amount of time is hardly the most damning indictment of the Trump administration, but it is a great microcosm of it. And then of course there was Spicer’s nonsensical response to it.

          But mostly it was just funny.

            • I suspect that was one of the few tweets that Trump did not actually write himself; he has never really shown self-deprecation before.

              • So, Chris, just WHO has access to Trump’s twitter account(s)? Is that the person who has been tweeting all the bad stuff, or the good stuff (has there been good stuff?) How does that line up with your progressive narrative? How can Trump be the controlling, fascist Nazi you accuse him of when someone else can tweet for him? Really, how do we know WHO writes those tweets? That rascal Barron?

                What do you know that we don’t? Or is this speculation on your part, unsubstantiated opinion? Because it was quite ungenerous (biased, perhaps?) and unnecessary: one might called it mean spirited. You are suggesting that Trump is too what? Stupid? Maniacal? Unselfaware? to make a self deprecating joke? You could have left it alonE, especially days after the fact, but you had to get a mean little slam in… doesn’t this ring ANY alarms for you?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.