Comments on: Spocko weighs in on Melanie Morgan’s layoff http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/ Politics in the Bay Area and beyond Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:39:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Ron http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/comment-page-2/#comment-9944 Ron Sat, 09 Jan 2010 09:13:11 +0000 http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/#comment-9944 It's amusing reading these comments a year and a half after the fact... as usual, liberals present facts for the most part, conservatives blather, flap their arms and call people names (something we're all used to by now), sort of like ol' Dave, right above me, and of course, we can't forget Joe W., hammering Spocko for something as stupid being anonymous, but not telling us anything about himself, including the FACT that he's involved with MAF, not until he's busted by our host. Perhaps Joe W. would've been happier if Spocko had called himself Joe. He doesn't trust someone who is anonymous? Fine. Turn your radio on Joe, and give this she-pig a listen. Or do you not trust your own ears? It’s amusing reading these comments a year and a half after the fact… as usual, liberals present facts for the most part, conservatives blather, flap their arms and call people names (something we’re all used to by now), sort of like ol’ Dave, right above me, and of course, we can’t forget Joe W., hammering Spocko for something as stupid being anonymous, but not telling us anything about himself, including the FACT that he’s involved with MAF, not until he’s busted by our host. Perhaps Joe W. would’ve been happier if Spocko had called himself Joe. He doesn’t trust someone who is anonymous? Fine. Turn your radio on Joe, and give this she-pig a listen. Or do you not trust your own ears?

]]> By: Dave http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/comment-page-2/#comment-5864 Dave Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:57:51 +0000 http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/#comment-5864 Good thing there are self absorbed self appointed, narcisistic liberals like yourself to protect us from the scarry conservatives and ourselves that might oppose your perspective of the world. Protesting and counter protesting occurs all the time, and what makes it best is individuals that are willing to stand up and push liberalism back. Mel was not the most vitrolic on KSFO if your theory holds any water, Lee Rodgers would have been first out the door. Alas he was not. "High noon", "showdown" , inciteful? Yeah, KSFO listened to you. Keep telling yourself that. Good thing there are self absorbed self appointed, narcisistic liberals like yourself to protect us from the scarry conservatives and ourselves that might oppose your perspective of the world. Protesting and counter protesting occurs all the time, and what makes it best is individuals that are willing to stand up and push liberalism back. Mel was not the most vitrolic on KSFO if your theory holds any water, Lee Rodgers would have been first out the door. Alas he was not. “High noon”, “showdown” , inciteful? Yeah, KSFO listened to you. Keep telling yourself that.

]]> By: Al Rossi http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/comment-page-1/#comment-5873 Al Rossi Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:43:08 +0000 http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/#comment-5873 Hey spekkyboy, by Gawd, you sound just like a communist. Let us distribute the wealth so you can have some of my share! Hey spekkyboy, by Gawd, you sound just like a communist.
Let us distribute the wealth so you can have some of my share!

]]> By: Lou Charles http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/comment-page-1/#comment-5889 Lou Charles Sat, 22 Mar 2008 05:46:43 +0000 http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/#comment-5889 spekkyboy - nice historical review, but you have a major misunderstanding of today's conservatives. The fear is not of 'progress' or the working man vote. The concern is the role of government. In 1866 England the Conservative Party's desire was to have the government maintain the status quo. The last thing conservatives today want is the government to control anything other than what the constitution expressly allows. This is an over simplification - read Bill Buckley's stuff to get a much fuller picture. Conservatives are true progressives in that we desire to see all people be successful, with minimum interference from government. Liberals seem to think people cannot succeed without government help, but history disproves that approach. Look at how LBJ’s Great Society has destroyed the inner city. Elitist - one who considers himself better than others. JSM did consider himself better than others, especially the Conservative Party members of that era. I don't consider elitist to be a pejorative term when the term is truly descriptive - Willy Brown is an elite politician. Where it is pejorative is when one considers himself an elitist by putting down others – JSM as an example. Hope that helps. BTW Too many of today's professional politicians consider themselves to be of the elite (party does not matter) and need to be knocked down to size. BTW 2 - I take offense to suggestions that I use terms I hear on the radio, implying that I don't understand the term. I enjoyed reading your post up to your last paragraph. ==== Jim Moore – you said in #29 – “Which makes me wonder again why they were so put out when someone merely printed those “colorful”, “non-weak” “opinions” so a wider audience could see them?” I took that to mean you were referring to the 4 hour program KSFO produced to counter Spocko. If that was not your intent, sorry I agreed with you. I’m too slow on the uptake to understand the rest of your rant 47. But to net it out it appears that other than Mel leaving Spocko accomplished nothing, and I doubt he had much to do about her contract not being renewed. The sponsors that were claimed to have left are still on KSFO. spekkyboy – nice historical review, but you have a major misunderstanding of today’s conservatives. The fear is not of ‘progress’ or the working man vote. The concern is the role of government. In 1866 England the Conservative Party’s desire was to have the government maintain the status quo. The last thing conservatives today want is the government to control anything other than what the constitution expressly allows. This is an over simplification – read Bill Buckley’s stuff to get a much fuller picture. Conservatives are true progressives in that we desire to see all people be successful, with minimum interference from government. Liberals seem to think people cannot succeed without government help, but history disproves that approach. Look at how LBJ’s Great Society has destroyed the inner city.

Elitist – one who considers himself better than others. JSM did consider himself better than others, especially the Conservative Party members of that era. I don’t consider elitist to be a pejorative term when the term is truly descriptive – Willy Brown is an elite politician. Where it is pejorative is when one considers himself an elitist by putting down others – JSM as an example. Hope that helps.

BTW Too many of today’s professional politicians consider themselves to be of the elite (party does not matter) and need to be knocked down to size.

BTW 2 – I take offense to suggestions that I use terms I hear on the radio, implying that I don’t understand the term. I enjoyed reading your post up to your last paragraph.
====

Jim Moore – you said in #29 – “Which makes me wonder again why they were so put out when someone merely printed those “colorful”, “non-weak” “opinions” so a wider audience could see them?” I took that to mean you were referring to the 4 hour program KSFO produced to counter Spocko. If that was not your intent, sorry I agreed with you. I’m too slow on the uptake to understand the rest of your rant 47.

But to net it out it appears that other than Mel leaving Spocko accomplished nothing, and I doubt he had much to do about her contract not being renewed. The sponsors that were claimed to have left are still on KSFO.

]]> By: spekkyboy http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/comment-page-1/#comment-5911 spekkyboy Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:38:38 +0000 http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/#comment-5911 Lou, What was the big fear of the Conservatives in 1866? Working class voters. On one side you have the conservative Benjamin Disreali (the PM was the Earl of Derby, but Disreali was the better statesman, and was probably calling the shots. Sort of like Bush and Cheney). On the other side, William Gladstone, liberal. The big question was voter reform, and whether or not to extend it to more people (well, more men people, anyway). From the BBC Website: "The [Reform]Act extended the vote to all adult male householders (and lodgers paying £10 rental or more, resident for a year or more) living in a borough constituency. Simply put, it created more than 1.5 million new voters. Versions of the Reform Act had been under serious discussion since 1860, but had always foundered on Conservative fears. Many considered it a 'revolutionary' move that would create a majority of 'working class' voters for the first time." The Conservative didn't like the idea of workers voting, but Disreali, to his credit, and seeing the writing on the wall, pushed the Reform Act through because he didn't want the Conservative party labeled "anti-reform", even though most of them were. So yes, England in 1866 is different than America now, but, then as now, there is still a battle between those who want progress, and those who want to keep power limited to those they think should rightly have it: the true elite class. Both Disreali and Gladstone got their shot at PM. They disagreed on almost everything, and were antagonistic through their lives. Fun facts: Disreali and Gladstone are pictured as the Lion and the Unicorn in "Through the Looking Glass." This was a joke by illustrator John Tenniel. Other fun fact: Gladstone liked prostitutes, and often brought them back to 10 Downing Street. Even though more there was more respect for privacy back then, Gladstone's colleagues nonetheless felt they had to explain this as "rescue work" to save "fallen women." Spitzer and Sen.Why-Is-He-Still-In-Office Vitter should have used this excuse. Also, I never implied conservatives don't care about the country, Louster. I wrote that to counter the what the frothing Rob S. posted (#22):"liberals HATE this country." By the way, you still haven't defined what you mean by "elitist." My guess is that it sounds like a scary word, tossed out by Sussman, Rush et al, meaning to imply that those who listen to those morons are somehow Norman Rockwell style simple folk who sucks-all just have good old common sense, and we liberals are too smart to understand them. It's another word to make the rightwingers who listen to that audio dreck feel good while they wallow in their ignorance. Basically, they are saying someone is "elitist" when they point out the lies of the Bush administration, or try to go beyond the simplistic black-or-white and "you're either-with-us-or-against-us" discussion of events. Throw in a fact that may present a level of complexity, and you're labeled "elitist." Lou,
What was the big fear of the Conservatives in 1866?
Working class voters.
On one side you have the conservative Benjamin Disreali (the PM was the Earl of Derby, but Disreali was the better statesman, and was probably calling the shots. Sort of like Bush and Cheney). On the other side, William Gladstone, liberal. The big question was voter reform, and whether or not to extend it to more people (well, more men people, anyway).
From the BBC Website:
“The [Reform]Act extended the vote to all adult male householders (and lodgers paying £10 rental or more, resident for a year or more) living in a borough constituency. Simply put, it created more than 1.5 million new voters. Versions of the Reform Act had been under serious discussion since 1860, but had always foundered on Conservative fears. Many considered it a ‘revolutionary’ move that would create a majority of ‘working class’ voters for the first time.”
The Conservative didn’t like the idea of workers voting, but Disreali, to his credit, and seeing the writing on the wall, pushed the Reform Act through because he didn’t want the Conservative party labeled “anti-reform”, even though most of them were.
So yes, England in 1866 is different than America now, but, then as now, there is still a battle between those who want progress, and those who want to keep power limited to those they think should rightly have it: the true elite class.
Both Disreali and Gladstone got their shot at PM. They disagreed on almost everything, and were antagonistic through their lives.
Fun facts: Disreali and Gladstone are pictured as the Lion and the Unicorn in “Through the Looking Glass.” This was a joke by illustrator John Tenniel.
Other fun fact: Gladstone liked prostitutes, and often brought them back to 10 Downing Street. Even though more there was more respect for privacy back then, Gladstone’s colleagues nonetheless felt they had to explain this as “rescue work” to save “fallen women.”
Spitzer and Sen.Why-Is-He-Still-In-Office Vitter should have used this excuse.
Also, I never implied conservatives don’t care about the country, Louster. I wrote that to counter the what the frothing Rob S. posted (#22):”liberals HATE this country.”
By the way, you still haven’t defined what you mean by “elitist.” My guess is that it sounds like a scary word, tossed out by Sussman, Rush et al, meaning to imply that those who listen to those morons are somehow Norman Rockwell style simple folk who sucks-all just have good old common sense, and we liberals are too smart to understand them.
It’s another word to make the rightwingers who listen to that audio dreck feel good while they wallow in their ignorance. Basically, they are saying someone is “elitist” when they point out the lies of the Bush administration, or try to go beyond the simplistic black-or-white and “you’re either-with-us-or-against-us” discussion of events. Throw in a fact that may present a level of complexity, and you’re labeled “elitist.”

]]> By: Jim Moore http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/comment-page-1/#comment-5887 Jim Moore Fri, 21 Mar 2008 01:36:28 +0000 http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/#comment-5887 <i>I would tend to agree with Jim Moore - it appears that KSFO over reacted to Spocko.</i> Wow Lou Charles, just stopped in to see what other comments had been made on this post and yours has got to be the biggest lack of understanding of another's position I've ever seen. Where on earth did you get the idea that I'd said anything remotely like what you read? I mean, reconnect your brain -- they come connected, but yours must have rattled loose somewhere along the way. KSFO certainly did not overreact; if anything, they shouldn't have needed any push to pull the plug on those hatemongers, even when they were making money for the station. Of course, once Spocko pointed out to people what the advertisers were associating themselves with, and the advertisers finally realised that maybe, just maybe, associating themselves with hatemongers wasn't the best commercial move they'd ever made, and once they pulled their ads and the station realised, not out of any sense of decency but just coldly commercially, that maybe pushing hate on the air wasn't a good move... well, they hardly overreacted. I am so glad that Spocko delivered their words to a wider audience; I'm just "surprised" (helpful ironic quotes for people like Lou who are a little slow on the uptake) that Morgan et al. were so against Spocko doing it since they claim to "stand by their words". Seems they don't stand by them, but instead over by the nearest exit to run for cover once people other than their rabid fans see their words. (You'll notice no ironic quotes around the word rabid; that's intentional.) I would tend to agree with Jim Moore – it appears that KSFO over reacted to Spocko.

Wow Lou Charles, just stopped in to see what other comments had been made on this post and yours has got to be the biggest lack of understanding of another’s position I’ve ever seen. Where on earth did you get the idea that I’d said anything remotely like what you read? I mean, reconnect your brain — they come connected, but yours must have rattled loose somewhere along the way. KSFO certainly did not overreact; if anything, they shouldn’t have needed any push to pull the plug on those hatemongers, even when they were making money for the station. Of course, once Spocko pointed out to people what the advertisers were associating themselves with, and the advertisers finally realised that maybe, just maybe, associating themselves with hatemongers wasn’t the best commercial move they’d ever made, and once they pulled their ads and the station realised, not out of any sense of decency but just coldly commercially, that maybe pushing hate on the air wasn’t a good move… well, they hardly overreacted. I am so glad that Spocko delivered their words to a wider audience; I’m just “surprised” (helpful ironic quotes for people like Lou who are a little slow on the uptake) that Morgan et al. were so against Spocko doing it since they claim to “stand by their words”. Seems they don’t stand by them, but instead over by the nearest exit to run for cover once people other than their rabid fans see their words. (You’ll notice no ironic quotes around the word rabid; that’s intentional.)

]]> By: Lou Charles http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/comment-page-1/#comment-5863 Lou Charles Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:03:29 +0000 http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/#comment-5863 Spekkyboy - Sorry to burst your bubble - the elite I was referring to JS Mill, and if you read much about him you know that he was an elitist. Self proclaimed elitist and proud of it. He also lived in England in 1866. You will have a difficult time equating what was "Conservative Party" member in 1866 to today. The quote is only meaningful to you since the term conservative is used. Now if it is your opinion that consevatives are stupid, why are you even responding to stupid people? After all, aren't we hopeless? petereugene - I'm a little insulted. A comment I made you attributed to another. No one has answered this question: Why can't a conservative say "Because we point out flaws, because we want it to be the best, and because we deeply care..." The implication is that only "progressives" really care. That is a crock. I do know what ad hominem and there is too much of it in these discussions. I have tried not to paint with a broad brush - the Mills quote is VERY elitist in that regard. We have different worldviews, but does that mean we can't try to understand the other side? I learn more about what I beleive from reading opposing views. Spekkyboy – Sorry to burst your bubble – the elite I was referring to JS Mill, and if you read much about him you know that he was an elitist. Self proclaimed elitist and proud of it.

He also lived in England in 1866. You will have a difficult time equating what was “Conservative Party” member in 1866 to today. The quote is only meaningful to you since the term conservative is used. Now if it is your opinion that consevatives are stupid, why are you even responding to stupid people? After all, aren’t we hopeless?

petereugene – I’m a little insulted. A comment I made you attributed to another.

No one has answered this question: Why can’t a conservative say “Because we point out flaws, because we want it to be the best, and because we deeply care…” The implication is that only “progressives” really care. That is a crock.

I do know what ad hominem and there is too much of it in these discussions. I have tried not to paint with a broad brush – the Mills quote is VERY elitist in that regard. We have different worldviews, but does that mean we can’t try to understand the other side? I learn more about what I beleive from reading opposing views.

]]> By: Spekkyboy http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/comment-page-1/#comment-5894 Spekkyboy Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:09:06 +0000 http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/#comment-5894 Lou, Thanks for the complete quote. As Peteruegene mentions, it only makes the point better. What could be more clear than, "I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." (Mill) Mill was right then, and it fits now. Generally, stupid people are conservative. And by the way, Lou, what do you mean by elite? I am self-employed, and when I check the little box on the form that asks how much I earn, it isn't the "$100,000 or more box." I have a 10 year old used car that runs great, don't buy a lot of stuff (except books--maybe reading makes me "elite"), and live well on what would be considered meager earning. Nor do I wield any power beyond my vote and my small voice clacking away on the keys. I am less elite than Lee, Sussman, and the Melanie. This is typical of the right. They throw around accusations like "elite" without knowing what it truly means. So Lou, here's your chance: why am I part of the "elite"? Do you know? Or is it something you parrot because Rushbo and Mel and Lee say it? Lou,
Thanks for the complete quote. As Peteruegene mentions, it only makes the point better. What could be more clear than, “I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.” (Mill)
Mill was right then, and it fits now. Generally, stupid people are conservative.
And by the way, Lou, what do you mean by elite? I am self-employed, and when I check the little box on the form that asks how much I earn, it isn’t the “$100,000 or more box.” I have a 10 year old used car that runs great, don’t buy a lot of stuff (except books–maybe reading makes me “elite”), and live well on what would be considered meager earning. Nor do I wield any power beyond my vote and my small voice clacking away on the keys. I am less elite than Lee, Sussman, and the Melanie.
This is typical of the right. They throw around accusations like “elite” without knowing what it truly means.
So Lou, here’s your chance: why am I part of the “elite”?
Do you know? Or is it something you parrot because Rushbo and Mel and Lee say it?

]]> By: petereugene http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/comment-page-1/#comment-5895 petereugene Sun, 16 Mar 2008 03:32:58 +0000 http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/#comment-5895 It's always fun to observe wingnuts' pretzel logic as they attempt to defend the indefensible. To wit: Fredrick P Wilson Says: Melanie has taken on one group of Anti-Americans, the Anti-Americans of Code Pink and other US Military despisers. Don’t mix her in with other folks that she has not, at least publicly, allied herself with. Two comments later Fredrick P Wilson Says: "Spekkyboy Says: “… Because we point out flaws, because we want it to be the best, and because we deeply care….” I could easily call this implied hate speech since the implication is conservatives do not care nor do they want the country to be the best. But the implication of Spekkyboy are precisely why we get into rhetorical controversy of hate speech and opinion." First, I'm just not getting the "hate speech" reference regarding Spekkyboy's comment. A sentiment that should be the goal of every American citizen is characterized as "hate speech" while a comment that overtly labels concerned American citizens "Anti-American" is ignored. And what is Lou Charles trying to accomplish by attempting to ameliorate Spekkyboy's quotation of John Stuart Mill? Lou's fuller quote does <em>nothing</em> to change the meaning. And finally, Lou, I do not think <em>ad hominem</em> means what you think it means. Oh, alright. One more thing. Spocko rawks! It’s always fun to observe wingnuts’ pretzel logic as they attempt to defend the indefensible. To wit:

Fredrick P Wilson Says:

Melanie has taken on one group of Anti-Americans, the Anti-Americans of Code Pink and other US Military despisers. Don’t mix her in with other folks that she has not, at least publicly, allied herself with.

Two comments later Fredrick P Wilson Says:

“Spekkyboy Says: “… Because we point out flaws, because we want it to be the best, and because we deeply care….”

I could easily call this implied hate speech since the implication is conservatives do not care nor do they want the country to be the best. But the implication of Spekkyboy are precisely why we get into rhetorical controversy of hate speech and opinion.”

First, I’m just not getting the “hate speech” reference regarding Spekkyboy’s comment. A sentiment that should be the goal of every American citizen is characterized as “hate speech” while a comment that overtly labels concerned American citizens “Anti-American” is ignored.

And what is Lou Charles trying to accomplish by attempting to ameliorate Spekkyboy’s quotation of John Stuart Mill?
Lou’s fuller quote does nothing to change the meaning.

And finally, Lou, I do not think ad hominem means what you think it means.

Oh, alright. One more thing. Spocko rawks!

]]> By: Lou Charles http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/comment-page-1/#comment-5884 Lou Charles Sat, 15 Mar 2008 04:14:31 +0000 http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/03/04/spocko-weighs-in-on-melanie-morgans-layoff/#comment-5884 For anyone who cares, you might be interested in the Mill's quote in context: What I stated was, that the Conservative Party was, by the law of its constitution, necessarily the stupidest party. Now, I do not retract that assertion; but I did not mean to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. (Public and Parliamentary Speeches, 31 May 1866, pp. 85-86.) For anyone who cares, you might be interested in the Mill’s quote in context:
What I stated was, that the Conservative Party was, by the law of its constitution, necessarily the stupidest party. Now, I do not retract that assertion; but I did not mean to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. (Public and Parliamentary Speeches, 31 May 1866, pp. 85-86.)

]]>