More Liberal Commitment To Free Speech.

[otterinbham 0]

I don't know which pack of idiots is more scary...The neanderthal conservatives or the bizarro liberals.

NUREMBERG-STYLE TRIALS PROPOSED FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS

CONTACT: MARC MORANO ( marc_morano@epw.senate.gov ), MATT DEMPSEY ( matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov )

A U.S. based environmental magazine that both former Vice President Al Gore (http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19/11408/1106?show_comments=no ) and PBS newsman Bill Moyers, for his October 11th global warming edition of “Moyers on America” titled “Is God Green?” (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/index.html ) have deemed respectable enough to grant one-on-one interviews to promote their projects, is now advocating Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for skeptics of human caused catastrophic global warming. Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “b*****ds” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry.”

Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these b*****ds -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.” http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19...how_comments=no

Gore and Moyers have not yet commented on Grist's advocacy of prosecuting skeptics of global warming with a Nuremberg-style war crimes trial. Gore has used the phrase "global warming deniers" to describe scientists and others who don't share his view of the Earth's climate. It remains to be seen what Gore and Moyers will have to say about proposals to make skepticism a crime comparable to Holocaust atrocities.

The use of Holocaust terminology has drawn the ire of Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. “The phrase ‘climate change denier’ is meant to be evocative of the phrase ‘holocaust denier,’” Pielke, Jr. wrote on October 9, 2006 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...dex.html#000952. “Let's be blunt. This allusion is an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system,” Pielke, Jr. explained.

The article Global Warming: The Chilling Effect On Free Speech ( http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/ ) last week in Spiked Online addresses this new found penchant by environmentalists and some media members to charge skeptics of human caused catastrophic global warming with “crimes against humanity” and urge Nuremberg-style prosecution of them.

[TexasTiger 13,055]

I don't know which pack of idiots is more scary...The neanderthal conservatives or the bizarro liberals.

NUREMBERG-STYLE TRIALS PROPOSED FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS

CONTACT: MARC MORANO ( marc_morano@epw.senate.gov ), MATT DEMPSEY ( matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov )

A U.S. based environmental magazine that both former Vice President Al Gore (http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19/11408/1106?show_comments=no ) and PBS newsman Bill Moyers, for his October 11th global warming edition of “Moyers on America” titled “Is God Green?” (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/index.html ) have deemed respectable enough to grant one-on-one interviews to promote their projects, is now advocating Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for skeptics of human caused catastrophic global warming. Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “b*****ds” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry.”

Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these b*****ds -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.” http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19...how_comments=no

Gore and Moyers have not yet commented on Grist's advocacy of prosecuting skeptics of global warming with a Nuremberg-style war crimes trial. Gore has used the phrase "global warming deniers" to describe scientists and others who don't share his view of the Earth's climate. It remains to be seen what Gore and Moyers will have to say about proposals to make skepticism a crime comparable to Holocaust atrocities.

The use of Holocaust terminology has drawn the ire of Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. “The phrase ‘climate change denier’ is meant to be evocative of the phrase ‘holocaust denier,’” Pielke, Jr. wrote on October 9, 2006 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...dex.html#000952. “Let's be blunt. This allusion is an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system,” Pielke, Jr. explained.

The article Global Warming: The Chilling Effect On Free Speech ( http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/ ) last week in Spiked Online addresses this new found penchant by environmentalists and some media members to charge skeptics of human caused catastrophic global warming with “crimes against humanity” and urge Nuremberg-style prosecution of them.

What is probably more scary for me is how easily otherwise intelligent people like you fall for such BS spin.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Here's another example of their repect for others opinions.

Streisand Silences Concert Heckler With F-Bomb

NEW YORK -- Comedians are used to hecklers -- but apparently not Barbra Streisand.

The legendary entertainer dropped an F-bomb when chiding a man who didn't like the President George W. Bush impersonator that she brought out for a sketch during her concert Monday night.

The show -- at Madison Square Garden in New York -- was the third stop in Streisand's 20-city concert tour.

After the sketch, a few people in the crowd jeered and told Streisand to stick to singing. She told them, "Come on, be polite."

But one heckler wouldn't let up and Streisand let him have it.

In response, Streisand told him to "Shut the (expletive) up!"

The crowd applauded, and Streisand added, "Shut up if you can't take a joke!"

Streisand later apologized to the audience for using the F-word. As for the Bush impersonator, Streisand pointed out that "the artist's role is to disturb."

Streisand's concert tour is her first one in 12 years.

Link

BTW, Babs and the rest of the Hollyweird imbeciles:

You are trained monkeys. Your job is to entertain. Your job is not to think. You don't live the real world. You aren't entitled to an opinion on the real world. What's more I don't care what your opinion is.

So...

STFU and dance for my entertainment monkeys! DANCE!

[TexasTiger 13,055]

You aren't entitled to an opinion on the real world.

The typical Republican view of the opposition.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

You aren't entitled to an opinion on the real world.

The typical Republican view of the opposition.

Especially when..

You don't live the real world

They should shut their mouths and entertain. I'd be uber-pissed if I shelled out $100 for a liberal indoctrination speech when I thought I was paying to hear someone sing. Most Americans would agree with that statement.

Just having a microphone positioned in front of their cakeholes doesn't give them liscense to preach politics to me. Sing, act, and STFU.

[otterinbham 0]

I don't know which pack of idiots is more scary...The neanderthal conservatives or the bizarro liberals.

NUREMBERG-STYLE TRIALS PROPOSED FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS

CONTACT: MARC MORANO ( marc_morano@epw.senate.gov ), MATT DEMPSEY ( matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov )

A U.S. based environmental magazine that both former Vice President Al Gore (http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19/11408/1106?show_comments=no ) and PBS newsman Bill Moyers, for his October 11th global warming edition of “Moyers on America” titled “Is God Green?” (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/index.html ) have deemed respectable enough to grant one-on-one interviews to promote their projects, is now advocating Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for skeptics of human caused catastrophic global warming. Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “b*****ds” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry.”

Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these b*****ds -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.” http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19...how_comments=no

Gore and Moyers have not yet commented on Grist's advocacy of prosecuting skeptics of global warming with a Nuremberg-style war crimes trial. Gore has used the phrase "global warming deniers" to describe scientists and others who don't share his view of the Earth's climate. It remains to be seen what Gore and Moyers will have to say about proposals to make skepticism a crime comparable to Holocaust atrocities.

The use of Holocaust terminology has drawn the ire of Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. “The phrase ‘climate change denier’ is meant to be evocative of the phrase ‘holocaust denier,’” Pielke, Jr. wrote on October 9, 2006 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...dex.html#000952. “Let's be blunt. This allusion is an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system,” Pielke, Jr. explained.

The article Global Warming: The Chilling Effect On Free Speech ( http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/ ) last week in Spiked Online addresses this new found penchant by environmentalists and some media members to charge skeptics of human caused catastrophic global warming with “crimes against humanity” and urge Nuremberg-style prosecution of them.

What is probably more scary for me is how easily otherwise intelligent people like you fall for such BS spin.

It's fairly simple, TT. Did this man say it or not? According to his web site, he really believes this.

[otterinbham 0]

Oh. And here's another excellent instance of Liberal suppression of any opinion that doesn't fit their world view. My point is a simple one. Both sides of the ideological debate are nothing more than a bunch of thugs. So sling all the mud you want at the other side, because neither the Republicans or Democrats are ethical or moral. Anybody who unqualifiedly supports either side is either not very bright or very, very cynical:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52405

YouTube blocked video mocking Clinton administration

Limits imposed on access to clip critical of Albright-run North Korea policy

Posted: October 12, 2006

1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

The popular video-sharing YouTube site, which is being purchased by Google for $1.65 billion, limited access to a political ad that mocks the Clinton administration's policy on North Korea, but contains no profanity, nudity or other factors generally thought objectionable.

The company announced a "flagging" policy change just this week, about the time that a controversial spoof by Republican filmmaker David Zucker depicting former Secretary of State Madeline Albright as a cheerleader for Islamic terrorists started appearing with a warning page in front, requiring verification that a viewer is 18 before the video will appear.

The short film by Zucker, who worked with "Scary Movie 4," "Airplane!" and other comedies, reportedly had been offered to the Republican Party for use as an ad, but it was declined. Then it appeared on the Drudge Report and also on YouTube.

However, after a brief period of accessibility, the verification page started appearing on YouTube. It asked that: "This video may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community. To view this video, please verify you are 18 or older by logging in or signing up." Today the verification page on the spoof was removed.

Some other YouTube videos on stripping or other explicit activities have similar advisories; some don't. But the campaign video doesn't contain any of those typically objectionable items.

It contains depictions and references to Albright and North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, with Albright presenting the dictator with a basketball, and later singing Kum Ba Yah. At the same time terrorists are sneaking past in the background or foreground.

The audio tells that, "Making nice to our enemies will not make them nice to us," and, "Some people think terrorists will change their ways if we only show them our good intentions."

The video continues, "But evil exists. History teaches that evil needs to be confronted. Evil dictators will be evil dictators no matter what we do.

"The security of the U.S. is not a game. Can we afford a party that treats it like one?" is how the video concludes.

YouTube's newest posting about such "flagging" came just a few days ago, as the political ad was making the rounds.

Maryrose, of The YouTube Team, said if any video viewer flags a video as inappropriate, it is forwarded to a queue for the company's customer support team to review.

"Videos are NEVER automatically removed simply because they've been flagged," Maryrose said. "Every single flagged video is reviewed by someone at YouTube who then determines if the video contains material that is against our terms of use."

If videos are flagged, viewers must sign in to watch.

And, the company said, sometimes flagged videos follow the companies guidelines, but "are not quite appropriate for all YouTube users. This could be due to a number of things – profanity, violence, adult content etc."

However, the political video contained none of those ingredients unless satire also could be considered objectionable.

"The closest thing to an explicit image in the ad is a scene in which 'Albright' bends over and her skirt tears a bit in the seat, hardly the stuff that sets FCC commissioners' hearts aflutter," said a comment from Matthew Sheffield on Newbusters.org.

The commentator noted that YouTube has "dismembered conservative and politically incorrect speech" in the past, pulling videos critical of Islam and even banning popular conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, who is also a WND commentator.

Sexually suggestive videos were found on the site unblocked, as were entire episodes of television shows. So was a clip from a movie featuring the assassination of a future president, in "Death of a President."

"Perfectly OK to show our soldiers getting killed, but they'll be damned if they allow that ani-democrat ad," added "Spaceman Spiff." "This [is] very scary to me. However, not surprising. But, now that they are owned by Google, we'll certainly be seeing a lot more of this censoring."

Google has come under its own criticism for holding an anti-conservative or anti-Republican agenda. It has been criticized in the past, according to a WND report for hosting "Paiderastia: The Boy Love Revival" site on its weblog.

It has in the past censored various Christian-themed ads, but allowed porn ads. In the past it's produced "President Bush" when searchers hunt for "miserable failure."

And a Google search for "liar" produced as the top choice a site for a biography for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a close ally with President Bush in the war on terror.

Sheffield said he believes the intention of YouTube's "censorship squad" was to limit access. Even though the same video may be available somewhere else, such as the Drudge Report, "lots of non-political and moderate folks don't read Drudge, but they might hear about the video from a friend and try to look it up in the search engine, only to be foiled in their attempts to decide whether it was truly 'objectionable.'"

jdhawk noted that Rush Limbaugh has been doing acerbic lampoons of "the Defeatocrats" for some time. "They are not only hilarious, but get right to the point. Of course, one can only visualize a scene when listening to one of his barbed zingers. Zucker has done to video what Rush has been doing to the audio genre. It can only be hoped that the RNC sees its way to release Zucker's work to a wider audience."

Bloggers also reported that the Council on American Islamic Relations has in the past taken steps to have anti-radical Islamist videos pulled from the YouTube site, and Malkin said she was told her video was pulled because it was "inappropriate."

The New York Times even was critical of the censorship of Malkin's piece, titled "First They Came," which talked of authors, politicians and filmmakers who had been made targets by Islamists.

"This is not to suggest that Ms. Malkin's video would not be particularly offensive to some people. There is little that Ms. Malkin says or does that is not. But it is hard to imagine what YouTube hopes to gain by punting such content, or what sort of uphill rhetoric battle it is setting itself up for when it does so," the Times report said.

One blogger immediately responded: "Michelle Malkin offends people who spend every waking minute, and probably a significant portion of their dreams, scouring the universe for reasons to be offended. You only get the big target on your back from the MSM when you're conservative and you're scoring points on them with impunity. Go Michelle! "

[Tigermike 3,067]

I don't know which pack of idiots is more scary...The neanderthal conservatives or the bizarro liberals.

NUREMBERG-STYLE TRIALS PROPOSED FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS

CONTACT: MARC MORANO ( marc_morano@epw.senate.gov ), MATT DEMPSEY ( matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov )

A U.S. based environmental magazine that both former Vice President Al Gore (http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19/11408/1106?show_comments=no ) and PBS newsman Bill Moyers, for his October 11th global warming edition of “Moyers on America” titled “Is God Green?” (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/index.html ) have deemed respectable enough to grant one-on-one interviews to promote their projects, is now advocating Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for skeptics of human caused catastrophic global warming. Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “b*****ds” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry.”

Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these b*****ds -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.” http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19...how_comments=no

Gore and Moyers have not yet commented on Grist's advocacy of prosecuting skeptics of global warming with a Nuremberg-style war crimes trial. Gore has used the phrase "global warming deniers" to describe scientists and others who don't share his view of the Earth's climate. It remains to be seen what Gore and Moyers will have to say about proposals to make skepticism a crime comparable to Holocaust atrocities.

The use of Holocaust terminology has drawn the ire of Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. “The phrase ‘climate change denier’ is meant to be evocative of the phrase ‘holocaust denier,’” Pielke, Jr. wrote on October 9, 2006 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...dex.html#000952. “Let's be blunt. This allusion is an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system,” Pielke, Jr. explained.

The article Global Warming: The Chilling Effect On Free Speech ( http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/ ) last week in Spiked Online addresses this new found penchant by environmentalists and some media members to charge skeptics of human caused catastrophic global warming with “crimes against humanity” and urge Nuremberg-style prosecution of them.

What is probably more scary for me is how easily otherwise intelligent people like you fall for such BS spin.

It's fairly simple, TT. Did this man say it or not? According to his web site, he really believes this.

Otter, you have to remember, Tex is a first responder for the dems. Always attack the intelligence of any poster who would dare print what the dems actually say. Get the discussion going in a different direction from what the dims say. What they say is hardly ever the real issue. The real issue is to denigrate any and all who show them for the extremists and hypocrites they are.

[otterinbham 0]

Oh, here's another good one. A college for the deaf in Maryland protests a new university president who, while completely deaf, is not "deaf enough" in their estimation. This because she insists on actually speaking, and did not master sign language until she was 23.

How deaf is "deaf enough?" This is exactly the kind of loopy advocacy that disenfranchises people from liberals. Yet, you'll hear all kinds of bromides about open-mindedness and inclusion.

Students blockade Gallaudet D.C. campus

By LUBNA TAKRURI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 8 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Students at Gallaudet University blocked access to much of the campus for a second day Thursday, escalating their protest against the incoming president they say lacks the skills to lead the nation's only liberal arts university for the deaf and hearing impaired.

ADVERTISEMENT

"Our leadership is flawed," said junior Jesse Thomas, a protester who signed his comments through an interpreter.

The blockade started around 3 a.m. Wednesday and forced the university to cancel classes for a second day Thursday as about 100 students protested at the front gate. Students blocked campus entrances with cars, tents and human barricades. They said they wouldn't reopen the school unless the presidential search process was reopened.

The protests began last spring when then-Provost Jane K. Fernandes was appointed president starting this coming January by the school's board of trustees.

Students intensified their protests on Oct. 5, when they took over Gallaudet's main classroom building — an occupation that was marred by complaints about rough actions by campus police. Since then, hundreds of students have been camped out inside and around Hall Memorial Building, forcing school officials to move or cancel classes.

The university's outgoing president, I. King Jordan, issued a statement late Wednesday warning the protesters of possible suspensions and arrests.

"This illegal and unlawful behavior must stop," he said.

Students and some faculty feel their input was not considered in the selection process for a new president. Some also felt the field of candidates was not ethnically diverse.

Fernandes has said some people do not consider her "deaf enough" to be president. She was born deaf but grew up speaking and did not learn American Sign Language until she was 23. Those who are against her presidency say she is an unsuitable choice for other reasons.

"I feel that this institution cannot move forward under Dr. Fernandes' leadership because there are too many disagreements about her as a leader," said Mark Weinberger, a professor of foreign languages at Gallaudet and also chair of the faculty's Senate.

The school has about 1,800 undergraduate and graduate students.

[otterinbham 0]

Oh. And here's a dandy instance provided by our friends the French, the people whom Liberal America seem to revere above all. In short, Freedom of Speech is great in the liberal imagination, as long as it's speech that you agree with:

France has sought to calm an uproar in Turkey and in the European Union after the French parliament approved a bill that would make it a crime to deny that the 1915-17 massacres of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks constituted genocide.

The French foreign ministry insisted that Paris was still "very keen" on dialogue with Turkey and wanted its "strong ties" with that country to continue.

But a furious Ankara -- which strongly contests the use of the term genocide -- was in no mood to listen, saying that France had dealt "a heavy blow" to longstanding bilateral relations.

Turkish parliamentary speaker Bulent Arinc called the vote "shameful" and said it reflected a "hostile attitude".

The European Commission also criticised the French bill, saying it would hinder efforts to heal the wounds caused by the Armenian carnage nine decades ago.

The sharp reactions came after France's lower house of parliament, the 577-seat National Assembly, approved the bill by 106 votes to 19. It now goes to the upper house, the Senate, for another vote.

If voted into law, it would become a crime in France to deny that the killings of the Armenians were genocide. Those violating the law would face up to one year in prison and a fine of up to 45,000 euros (57,000 dollars).

Although introduced by the opposition Socialist Party, President Jacques Chirac's ruling centre-right UMP party did not use its parliamentary majority to block the bill. Some UMP parliamentarians voted in favour of it but most were simply absent for the vote.

The clash over the bill highlighted broader tensions between France and Turkey over the latter's bid to join the European Union.

While Chirac has championed Ankara's ambition, he has had to soften his support somewhat in the face of domestic opposition even within his own party.

The French government has done what it can to put distance between itself and the bill.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei said: "We are very keen on dialogue with Turkey, as well as on the strong ties of friendship and cooperation which link us to that country."

But the spat dividing them has been festering since 2001, when France adopted a law officially calling the Armenian massacres a genocide.

The new bill seeks to build on that by criminalising those who disagree, much in the same manner as a French law that outlaws revisionism concerning the Holocaust of World War II.

Armenians say up to 1.5 million of their ancestors were slaughtered in orchestrated killings that can only be seen as genocide.

Turkey angrily rejects the notion that its Ottoman predecessor was responsible for such a gross violation of human rights.

It admits 300,000 Armenians died when the Ottoman Empire fell apart during World War I. But it but says at least as many Turks did too, as civil strife raged and the Armenians took up arms for independence alongside invading Russian troops.

An association representing the Armenian disapora in Europe, the Brussels-based Euro-Armenian Federation, hailed the French parliamentary vote as a "historic step forward".

Around 400,000 people of Armenian origin are estimated to live in France, the most famous being singer Charles Aznavour, born Chahnour Varinag Aznavourian to immigrant parents.

Turkey has cast the French bill as a restriction on freedom of expression.

It has threatened economic reprisals against France if the bill becomes law, warning that French firms could be excluded from public tenders and a boycott of French goods might be imposed.

The European Commission, the European Union's executive arm, was also unsettled by the draft law.

"Should this law indeed enter into force, it would prohibit the debate and the dialogue which is necessary for reconciliation on this issue," said Krisztina Nagy, the commission's spokeswoman on enlargement.

"It is very important to see that there is an opening in Turkey to conduct debate on that issue," she said, adding that the French bill, if it became law, "could have a negative affect on that debate".

========

Isn't it fascinating? A casual perusal of the internet between crossing things off my To-Do list found four different instances of liberal ideology at work. None of these are about openness or honest debate. All have to do with nothing less than suppression of belief.

[TexasTiger 13,055]

Oh. And here's a dandy instance provided by our friends the French, the people whom Liberal America seem to revere above all.

Mr. Freedom Fries, you are indeed a garden variety Repug.

You're a big fan of guilt by the loosest, and even imagined, associations.

[TexasTiger 13,055]

Oh, here's another good one. A college for the deaf in Maryland protests a new university president who, while completely deaf, is not "deaf enough" in their estimation. This because she insists on actually speaking, and did not master sign language until she was 23.

How deaf is "deaf enough?" This is exactly the kind of loopy advocacy that disenfranchises people from liberals. Yet, you'll hear all kinds of bromides about open-mindedness and inclusion.

Students blockade Gallaudet D.C. campus

By LUBNA TAKRURI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 8 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Students at Gallaudet University blocked access to much of the campus for a second day Thursday, escalating their protest against the incoming president they say lacks the skills to lead the nation's only liberal arts university for the deaf and hearing impaired.

ADVERTISEMENT

"Our leadership is flawed," said junior Jesse Thomas, a protester who signed his comments through an interpreter.

The blockade started around 3 a.m. Wednesday and forced the university to cancel classes for a second day Thursday as about 100 students protested at the front gate. Students blocked campus entrances with cars, tents and human barricades. They said they wouldn't reopen the school unless the presidential search process was reopened.

The protests began last spring when then-Provost Jane K. Fernandes was appointed president starting this coming January by the school's board of trustees.

Students intensified their protests on Oct. 5, when they took over Gallaudet's main classroom building — an occupation that was marred by complaints about rough actions by campus police. Since then, hundreds of students have been camped out inside and around Hall Memorial Building, forcing school officials to move or cancel classes.

The university's outgoing president, I. King Jordan, issued a statement late Wednesday warning the protesters of possible suspensions and arrests.

"This illegal and unlawful behavior must stop," he said.

Students and some faculty feel their input was not considered in the selection process for a new president. Some also felt the field of candidates was not ethnically diverse.

Fernandes has said some people do not consider her "deaf enough" to be president. She was born deaf but grew up speaking and did not learn American Sign Language until she was 23. Those who are against her presidency say she is an unsuitable choice for other reasons.

"I feel that this institution cannot move forward under Dr. Fernandes' leadership because there are too many disagreements about her as a leader," said Mark Weinberger, a professor of foreign languages at Gallaudet and also chair of the faculty's Senate.

The school has about 1,800 undergraduate and graduate students.

I had no idea that deaf=democrat. Thanks for clearing that up, Raptor, uh, Otter.

[otterinbham 0]

Oh. And here's a dandy instance provided by our friends the French, the people whom Liberal America seem to revere above all.

Mr. Freedom Fries, you are indeed a garden variety Repug.

You're a big fan of guilt by the loosest, and even imagined, associations.

Nope. Actually it's quite consistent with the well-meaning, but misguided Hate Speech laws that are proliferating in this country. Essentially they punish thought.

[TexasTiger 13,055]

Oh. And here's a dandy instance provided by our friends the French, the people whom Liberal America seem to revere above all.

Mr. Freedom Fries, you are indeed a garden variety Repug.

You're a big fan of guilt by the loosest, and even imagined, associations.

Nope. Actually it's quite consistent with the well-meaning, but misguided Hate Speech laws that are proliferating in this country. Essentially they punish thought.

What laws? What country?

[otterinbham 0]

Oh, here's another good one. A college for the deaf in Maryland protests a new university president who, while completely deaf, is not "deaf enough" in their estimation. This because she insists on actually speaking, and did not master sign language until she was 23.

How deaf is "deaf enough?" This is exactly the kind of loopy advocacy that disenfranchises people from liberals. Yet, you'll hear all kinds of bromides about open-mindedness and inclusion.

Students blockade Gallaudet D.C. campus

By LUBNA TAKRURI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 8 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Students at Gallaudet University blocked access to much of the campus for a second day Thursday, escalating their protest against the incoming president they say lacks the skills to lead the nation's only liberal arts university for the deaf and hearing impaired.

ADVERTISEMENT

"Our leadership is flawed," said junior Jesse Thomas, a protester who signed his comments through an interpreter.

The blockade started around 3 a.m. Wednesday and forced the university to cancel classes for a second day Thursday as about 100 students protested at the front gate. Students blocked campus entrances with cars, tents and human barricades. They said they wouldn't reopen the school unless the presidential search process was reopened.

The protests began last spring when then-Provost Jane K. Fernandes was appointed president starting this coming January by the school's board of trustees.

Students intensified their protests on Oct. 5, when they took over Gallaudet's main classroom building — an occupation that was marred by complaints about rough actions by campus police. Since then, hundreds of students have been camped out inside and around Hall Memorial Building, forcing school officials to move or cancel classes.

The university's outgoing president, I. King Jordan, issued a statement late Wednesday warning the protesters of possible suspensions and arrests.

"This illegal and unlawful behavior must stop," he said.

Students and some faculty feel their input was not considered in the selection process for a new president. Some also felt the field of candidates was not ethnically diverse.

Fernandes has said some people do not consider her "deaf enough" to be president. She was born deaf but grew up speaking and did not learn American Sign Language until she was 23. Those who are against her presidency say she is an unsuitable choice for other reasons.

"I feel that this institution cannot move forward under Dr. Fernandes' leadership because there are too many disagreements about her as a leader," said Mark Weinberger, a professor of foreign languages at Gallaudet and also chair of the faculty's Senate.

The school has about 1,800 undergraduate and graduate students.

I had no idea that deaf=democrat. Thanks for clearing that up, Raptor, uh, Otter.

Wow. More disingenuous nonsense. The woman doesn't pass a rarefied litmus test of what "deafness" is, so activist students shut down the university. Not exactly a tact endorsed by college Republicans, I can guarantee that. It's part of the identity politics that seems to drive all Democratic ideological thinkng.

[TexasTiger 13,055]

Oh, here's another good one. A college for the deaf in Maryland protests a new university president who, while completely deaf, is not "deaf enough" in their estimation. This because she insists on actually speaking, and did not master sign language until she was 23.

How deaf is "deaf enough?" This is exactly the kind of loopy advocacy that disenfranchises people from liberals. Yet, you'll hear all kinds of bromides about open-mindedness and inclusion.

Students blockade Gallaudet D.C. campus

By LUBNA TAKRURI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 8 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Students at Gallaudet University blocked access to much of the campus for a second day Thursday, escalating their protest against the incoming president they say lacks the skills to lead the nation's only liberal arts university for the deaf and hearing impaired.

ADVERTISEMENT

"Our leadership is flawed," said junior Jesse Thomas, a protester who signed his comments through an interpreter.

The blockade started around 3 a.m. Wednesday and forced the university to cancel classes for a second day Thursday as about 100 students protested at the front gate. Students blocked campus entrances with cars, tents and human barricades. They said they wouldn't reopen the school unless the presidential search process was reopened.

The protests began last spring when then-Provost Jane K. Fernandes was appointed president starting this coming January by the school's board of trustees.

Students intensified their protests on Oct. 5, when they took over Gallaudet's main classroom building — an occupation that was marred by complaints about rough actions by campus police. Since then, hundreds of students have been camped out inside and around Hall Memorial Building, forcing school officials to move or cancel classes.

The university's outgoing president, I. King Jordan, issued a statement late Wednesday warning the protesters of possible suspensions and arrests.

"This illegal and unlawful behavior must stop," he said.

Students and some faculty feel their input was not considered in the selection process for a new president. Some also felt the field of candidates was not ethnically diverse.

Fernandes has said some people do not consider her "deaf enough" to be president. She was born deaf but grew up speaking and did not learn American Sign Language until she was 23. Those who are against her presidency say she is an unsuitable choice for other reasons.

"I feel that this institution cannot move forward under Dr. Fernandes' leadership because there are too many disagreements about her as a leader," said Mark Weinberger, a professor of foreign languages at Gallaudet and also chair of the faculty's Senate.

The school has about 1,800 undergraduate and graduate students.

I had no idea that deaf=democrat. Thanks for clearing that up, Raptor, uh, Otter.

Wow. More disingenuous nonsense. The woman doesn't pass a rarefied litmus test of what "deafness" is, so activist students shut down the university. Not exactly a tact endorsed by college Republicans, I can guarantee that. It's part of the identity politics that seems to drive all Democratic ideological thinkng.

Everything not Republican is Democrat? Okay, Tigermike.

[AUChizad 0]

Oh. And here's another excellent instance of Liberal suppression of any opinion that doesn't fit their world view. My point is a simple one. Both sides of the ideological debate are nothing more than a bunch of thugs. So sling all the mud you want at the other side, because neither the Republicans or Democrats are ethical or moral. Anybody who unqualifiedly supports either side is either not very bright or very, very cynical:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52405

YouTube blocked video mocking Clinton administration

Limits imposed on access to clip critical of Albright-run North Korea policy

Posted: October 12, 2006

1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

The popular video-sharing YouTube site, which is being purchased by Google for $1.65 billion, limited access to a political ad that mocks the Clinton administration's policy on North Korea, but contains no profanity, nudity or other factors generally thought objectionable.

The company announced a "flagging" policy change just this week, about the time that a controversial spoof by Republican filmmaker David Zucker depicting former Secretary of State Madeline Albright as a cheerleader for Islamic terrorists started appearing with a warning page in front, requiring verification that a viewer is 18 before the video will appear.

The short film by Zucker, who worked with "Scary Movie 4," "Airplane!" and other comedies, reportedly had been offered to the Republican Party for use as an ad, but it was declined. Then it appeared on the Drudge Report and also on YouTube.

However, after a brief period of accessibility, the verification page started appearing on YouTube. It asked that: "This video may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community. To view this video, please verify you are 18 or older by logging in or signing up." Today the verification page on the spoof was removed.

Some other YouTube videos on stripping or other explicit activities have similar advisories; some don't. But the campaign video doesn't contain any of those typically objectionable items.

It contains depictions and references to Albright and North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, with Albright presenting the dictator with a basketball, and later singing Kum Ba Yah. At the same time terrorists are sneaking past in the background or foreground.

The audio tells that, "Making nice to our enemies will not make them nice to us," and, "Some people think terrorists will change their ways if we only show them our good intentions."

The video continues, "But evil exists. History teaches that evil needs to be confronted. Evil dictators will be evil dictators no matter what we do.

"The security of the U.S. is not a game. Can we afford a party that treats it like one?" is how the video concludes.

YouTube's newest posting about such "flagging" came just a few days ago, as the political ad was making the rounds.

Maryrose, of The YouTube Team, said if any video viewer flags a video as inappropriate, it is forwarded to a queue for the company's customer support team to review.

"Videos are NEVER automatically removed simply because they've been flagged," Maryrose said. "Every single flagged video is reviewed by someone at YouTube who then determines if the video contains material that is against our terms of use."

If videos are flagged, viewers must sign in to watch.

And, the company said, sometimes flagged videos follow the companies guidelines, but "are not quite appropriate for all YouTube users. This could be due to a number of things – profanity, violence, adult content etc."

However, the political video contained none of those ingredients unless satire also could be considered objectionable.

"The closest thing to an explicit image in the ad is a scene in which 'Albright' bends over and her skirt tears a bit in the seat, hardly the stuff that sets FCC commissioners' hearts aflutter," said a comment from Matthew Sheffield on Newbusters.org.

The commentator noted that YouTube has "dismembered conservative and politically incorrect speech" in the past, pulling videos critical of Islam and even banning popular conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, who is also a WND commentator.

Sexually suggestive videos were found on the site unblocked, as were entire episodes of television shows. So was a clip from a movie featuring the assassination of a future president, in "Death of a President."

"Perfectly OK to show our soldiers getting killed, but they'll be damned if they allow that ani-democrat ad," added "Spaceman Spiff." "This [is] very scary to me. However, not surprising. But, now that they are owned by Google, we'll certainly be seeing a lot more of this censoring."

Google has come under its own criticism for holding an anti-conservative or anti-Republican agenda. It has been criticized in the past, according to a WND report for hosting "Paiderastia: The Boy Love Revival" site on its weblog.

It has in the past censored various Christian-themed ads, but allowed porn ads. In the past it's produced "President Bush" when searchers hunt for "miserable failure."

And a Google search for "liar" produced as the top choice a site for a biography for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a close ally with President Bush in the war on terror.

Sheffield said he believes the intention of YouTube's "censorship squad" was to limit access. Even though the same video may be available somewhere else, such as the Drudge Report, "lots of non-political and moderate folks don't read Drudge, but they might hear about the video from a friend and try to look it up in the search engine, only to be foiled in their attempts to decide whether it was truly 'objectionable.'"

jdhawk noted that Rush Limbaugh has been doing acerbic lampoons of "the Defeatocrats" for some time. "They are not only hilarious, but get right to the point. Of course, one can only visualize a scene when listening to one of his barbed zingers. Zucker has done to video what Rush has been doing to the audio genre. It can only be hoped that the RNC sees its way to release Zucker's work to a wider audience."

Bloggers also reported that the Council on American Islamic Relations has in the past taken steps to have anti-radical Islamist videos pulled from the YouTube site, and Malkin said she was told her video was pulled because it was "inappropriate."

The New York Times even was critical of the censorship of Malkin's piece, titled "First They Came," which talked of authors, politicians and filmmakers who had been made targets by Islamists.

"This is not to suggest that Ms. Malkin's video would not be particularly offensive to some people. There is little that Ms. Malkin says or does that is not. But it is hard to imagine what YouTube hopes to gain by punting such content, or what sort of uphill rhetoric battle it is setting itself up for when it does so," the Times report said.

One blogger immediately responded: "Michelle Malkin offends people who spend every waking minute, and probably a significant portion of their dreams, scouring the universe for reasons to be offended. You only get the big target on your back from the MSM when you're conservative and you're scoring points on them with impunity. Go Michelle! "

But this is ok (warning this actually does contain offensive language, but it's ok because it's some pseudo-intellectual-know-it-all spouting conspiracy theories). It was in the top 10 most viewed Youtube clips. I tagged it as offensive.

[TexasTiger 13,055]

Oh. And here's another excellent instance of Liberal suppression of any opinion that doesn't fit their world view. My point is a simple one. Both sides of the ideological debate are nothing more than a bunch of thugs. So sling all the mud you want at the other side, because neither the Republicans or Democrats are ethical or moral. Anybody who unqualifiedly supports either side is either not very bright or very, very cynical:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52405

YouTube blocked video mocking Clinton administration

Limits imposed on access to clip critical of Albright-run North Korea policy

Posted: October 12, 2006

1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

The popular video-sharing YouTube site, which is being purchased by Google for $1.65 billion, limited access to a political ad that mocks the Clinton administration's policy on North Korea, but contains no profanity, nudity or other factors generally thought objectionable.

The company announced a "flagging" policy change just this week, about the time that a controversial spoof by Republican filmmaker David Zucker depicting former Secretary of State Madeline Albright as a cheerleader for Islamic terrorists started appearing with a warning page in front, requiring verification that a viewer is 18 before the video will appear.

The short film by Zucker, who worked with "Scary Movie 4," "Airplane!" and other comedies, reportedly had been offered to the Republican Party for use as an ad, but it was declined. Then it appeared on the Drudge Report and also on YouTube.

However, after a brief period of accessibility, the verification page started appearing on YouTube. It asked that: "This video may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community. To view this video, please verify you are 18 or older by logging in or signing up." Today the verification page on the spoof was removed.

Some other YouTube videos on stripping or other explicit activities have similar advisories; some don't. But the campaign video doesn't contain any of those typically objectionable items.

It contains depictions and references to Albright and North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, with Albright presenting the dictator with a basketball, and later singing Kum Ba Yah. At the same time terrorists are sneaking past in the background or foreground.

The audio tells that, "Making nice to our enemies will not make them nice to us," and, "Some people think terrorists will change their ways if we only show them our good intentions."

The video continues, "But evil exists. History teaches that evil needs to be confronted. Evil dictators will be evil dictators no matter what we do.

"The security of the U.S. is not a game. Can we afford a party that treats it like one?" is how the video concludes.

YouTube's newest posting about such "flagging" came just a few days ago, as the political ad was making the rounds.

Maryrose, of The YouTube Team, said if any video viewer flags a video as inappropriate, it is forwarded to a queue for the company's customer support team to review.

"Videos are NEVER automatically removed simply because they've been flagged," Maryrose said. "Every single flagged video is reviewed by someone at YouTube who then determines if the video contains material that is against our terms of use."

If videos are flagged, viewers must sign in to watch.

And, the company said, sometimes flagged videos follow the companies guidelines, but "are not quite appropriate for all YouTube users. This could be due to a number of things – profanity, violence, adult content etc."

However, the political video contained none of those ingredients unless satire also could be considered objectionable.

"The closest thing to an explicit image in the ad is a scene in which 'Albright' bends over and her skirt tears a bit in the seat, hardly the stuff that sets FCC commissioners' hearts aflutter," said a comment from Matthew Sheffield on Newbusters.org.

The commentator noted that YouTube has "dismembered conservative and politically incorrect speech" in the past, pulling videos critical of Islam and even banning popular conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, who is also a WND commentator.

Sexually suggestive videos were found on the site unblocked, as were entire episodes of television shows. So was a clip from a movie featuring the assassination of a future president, in "Death of a President."

"Perfectly OK to show our soldiers getting killed, but they'll be damned if they allow that ani-democrat ad," added "Spaceman Spiff." "This [is] very scary to me. However, not surprising. But, now that they are owned by Google, we'll certainly be seeing a lot more of this censoring."

Google has come under its own criticism for holding an anti-conservative or anti-Republican agenda. It has been criticized in the past, according to a WND report for hosting "Paiderastia: The Boy Love Revival" site on its weblog.

It has in the past censored various Christian-themed ads, but allowed porn ads. In the past it's produced "President Bush" when searchers hunt for "miserable failure."

And a Google search for "liar" produced as the top choice a site for a biography for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a close ally with President Bush in the war on terror.

Sheffield said he believes the intention of YouTube's "censorship squad" was to limit access. Even though the same video may be available somewhere else, such as the Drudge Report, "lots of non-political and moderate folks don't read Drudge, but they might hear about the video from a friend and try to look it up in the search engine, only to be foiled in their attempts to decide whether it was truly 'objectionable.'"

jdhawk noted that Rush Limbaugh has been doing acerbic lampoons of "the Defeatocrats" for some time. "They are not only hilarious, but get right to the point. Of course, one can only visualize a scene when listening to one of his barbed zingers. Zucker has done to video what Rush has been doing to the audio genre. It can only be hoped that the RNC sees its way to release Zucker's work to a wider audience."

Bloggers also reported that the Council on American Islamic Relations has in the past taken steps to have anti-radical Islamist videos pulled from the YouTube site, and Malkin said she was told her video was pulled because it was "inappropriate."

The New York Times even was critical of the censorship of Malkin's piece, titled "First They Came," which talked of authors, politicians and filmmakers who had been made targets by Islamists.

"This is not to suggest that Ms. Malkin's video would not be particularly offensive to some people. There is little that Ms. Malkin says or does that is not. But it is hard to imagine what YouTube hopes to gain by punting such content, or what sort of uphill rhetoric battle it is setting itself up for when it does so," the Times report said.

One blogger immediately responded: "Michelle Malkin offends people who spend every waking minute, and probably a significant portion of their dreams, scouring the universe for reasons to be offended. You only get the big target on your back from the MSM when you're conservative and you're scoring points on them with impunity. Go Michelle! "

Funny. The Republicans rejected it before YouTube did. What does that make them?

[AUChizad 0]

Oh. And here's another excellent instance of Liberal suppression of any opinion that doesn't fit their world view. My point is a simple one. Both sides of the ideological debate are nothing more than a bunch of thugs. So sling all the mud you want at the other side, because neither the Republicans or Democrats are ethical or moral. Anybody who unqualifiedly supports either side is either not very bright or very, very cynical:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52405

YouTube blocked video mocking Clinton administration

Limits imposed on access to clip critical of Albright-run North Korea policy

Posted: October 12, 2006

1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

The popular video-sharing YouTube site, which is being purchased by Google for $1.65 billion, limited access to a political ad that mocks the Clinton administration's policy on North Korea, but contains no profanity, nudity or other factors generally thought objectionable.

The company announced a "flagging" policy change just this week, about the time that a controversial spoof by Republican filmmaker David Zucker depicting former Secretary of State Madeline Albright as a cheerleader for Islamic terrorists started appearing with a warning page in front, requiring verification that a viewer is 18 before the video will appear.

The short film by Zucker, who worked with "Scary Movie 4," "Airplane!" and other comedies, reportedly had been offered to the Republican Party for use as an ad, but it was declined. Then it appeared on the Drudge Report and also on YouTube.

However, after a brief period of accessibility, the verification page started appearing on YouTube. It asked that: "This video may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community. To view this video, please verify you are 18 or older by logging in or signing up." Today the verification page on the spoof was removed.

Some other YouTube videos on stripping or other explicit activities have similar advisories; some don't. But the campaign video doesn't contain any of those typically objectionable items.

It contains depictions and references to Albright and North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, with Albright presenting the dictator with a basketball, and later singing Kum Ba Yah. At the same time terrorists are sneaking past in the background or foreground.

The audio tells that, "Making nice to our enemies will not make them nice to us," and, "Some people think terrorists will change their ways if we only show them our good intentions."

The video continues, "But evil exists. History teaches that evil needs to be confronted. Evil dictators will be evil dictators no matter what we do.

"The security of the U.S. is not a game. Can we afford a party that treats it like one?" is how the video concludes.

YouTube's newest posting about such "flagging" came just a few days ago, as the political ad was making the rounds.

Maryrose, of The YouTube Team, said if any video viewer flags a video as inappropriate, it is forwarded to a queue for the company's customer support team to review.

"Videos are NEVER automatically removed simply because they've been flagged," Maryrose said. "Every single flagged video is reviewed by someone at YouTube who then determines if the video contains material that is against our terms of use."

If videos are flagged, viewers must sign in to watch.

And, the company said, sometimes flagged videos follow the companies guidelines, but "are not quite appropriate for all YouTube users. This could be due to a number of things – profanity, violence, adult content etc."

However, the political video contained none of those ingredients unless satire also could be considered objectionable.

"The closest thing to an explicit image in the ad is a scene in which 'Albright' bends over and her skirt tears a bit in the seat, hardly the stuff that sets FCC commissioners' hearts aflutter," said a comment from Matthew Sheffield on Newbusters.org.

The commentator noted that YouTube has "dismembered conservative and politically incorrect speech" in the past, pulling videos critical of Islam and even banning popular conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, who is also a WND commentator.

Sexually suggestive videos were found on the site unblocked, as were entire episodes of television shows. So was a clip from a movie featuring the assassination of a future president, in "Death of a President."

"Perfectly OK to show our soldiers getting killed, but they'll be damned if they allow that ani-democrat ad," added "Spaceman Spiff." "This [is] very scary to me. However, not surprising. But, now that they are owned by Google, we'll certainly be seeing a lot more of this censoring."

Google has come under its own criticism for holding an anti-conservative or anti-Republican agenda. It has been criticized in the past, according to a WND report for hosting "Paiderastia: The Boy Love Revival" site on its weblog.

It has in the past censored various Christian-themed ads, but allowed porn ads. In the past it's produced "President Bush" when searchers hunt for "miserable failure."

And a Google search for "liar" produced as the top choice a site for a biography for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a close ally with President Bush in the war on terror.

Sheffield said he believes the intention of YouTube's "censorship squad" was to limit access. Even though the same video may be available somewhere else, such as the Drudge Report, "lots of non-political and moderate folks don't read Drudge, but they might hear about the video from a friend and try to look it up in the search engine, only to be foiled in their attempts to decide whether it was truly 'objectionable.'"

jdhawk noted that Rush Limbaugh has been doing acerbic lampoons of "the Defeatocrats" for some time. "They are not only hilarious, but get right to the point. Of course, one can only visualize a scene when listening to one of his barbed zingers. Zucker has done to video what Rush has been doing to the audio genre. It can only be hoped that the RNC sees its way to release Zucker's work to a wider audience."

Bloggers also reported that the Council on American Islamic Relations has in the past taken steps to have anti-radical Islamist videos pulled from the YouTube site, and Malkin said she was told her video was pulled because it was "inappropriate."

The New York Times even was critical of the censorship of Malkin's piece, titled "First They Came," which talked of authors, politicians and filmmakers who had been made targets by Islamists.

"This is not to suggest that Ms. Malkin's video would not be particularly offensive to some people. There is little that Ms. Malkin says or does that is not. But it is hard to imagine what YouTube hopes to gain by punting such content, or what sort of uphill rhetoric battle it is setting itself up for when it does so," the Times report said.

One blogger immediately responded: "Michelle Malkin offends people who spend every waking minute, and probably a significant portion of their dreams, scouring the universe for reasons to be offended. You only get the big target on your back from the MSM when you're conservative and you're scoring points on them with impunity. Go Michelle! "

Funny. The Republicans rejected it before YouTube did. What does that make them?

More responsible than Democrats?