Arpaio rudely interrupted by students singing 'Bohemian Rhapsody'
PHOENIX -- A night aimed at discussing First Amendment issues with the controversial Maricopa County Sheriff ended with protesters disrupting the session and Sheriff Joe Arpaio walking out.
"People are saying this looks really bad for ASU, for one of the forward thinking journalism schools in the country," said student Elizabeth Shell.
The Arizona State University event in downtown Phoenix was part of a series at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication where guests respond to questions about journalism and media.
After 45 minutes of questioning Monday night, a group of protesters started to sing and chant in the back of the room, interrupting Sheriff Arpaio's response to questions about illegal immigration.
"Is this legitimate?" the protesters sang, to the tune of Bohemian Rhapsody, a popular ballad by Queen.
During the outburst, Arpaio placed a University of Arizona hat on his head followed by an ASU hat.
"I thought this was going to be a situation not allowing this to go on," Arpaio said, referencing the disruption.
"You know what, this is ridiculous. I'm going to go," said Arpaio, before walking out of the forum.
"Was I forced," asked Arpaio, "Nobody forces the sheriff to stop, it was an agreement I made with the professors."
ASU Dean Christopher Callahan called the protest misplaced.
"I think it's very short-sighted, because these are people who are against Sheriff Arpaio's policies, and what they succeeded in doing is stopping focused, intense questioning of his policies," he said. "It just seems kind of dumb to me."
I have mixed feelings about these events. As you can see from the footage, Arpaio was just being pressed about why his office is stonewalling the Department of Justice in its investigation of Arpaio for corruptly using the threat of official retaliation against his critics. It would have been good to see his feet held to the fire on this.
On the other hand, Arpaio is such a contemptible figure -- the manacling of a woman in childbirth being only the most recent example -- that he deserves every expression of contempt that comes his way. (Besides, it was also a very funny stunt.)
Speaking (or singing) over the top of someone is rude, and it's inimical to democratic discourse. But this isn't a First Amendment issue, as some claimed, because it had nothing to do with government suppression of free speech. These were just people exercising their own free-speech rights.
As we've noted, Arpaio has even had citizens arrested for applauding his critics at County Supervisors meetings. Now that is a true threat to First Amendment rights. It would have been worth the time of a panel devoted to the First Amendment for Arpaio to have answered to that. Instead, he was just answering questions about how well his office issues press releases. No wonder people were frustrated.
The students here are idiots. The fact that Arpaio is a d-bag doesn't make suppression of speech any more acceptable.
... or those trying to shill for that d-bag.
Freedom of speech is a two way street, deal with it. LOL
I've been going back and forth on this. On one hand it's always nice to see Arpaio get some backlash on his insane douchbaggery. On the other hand, they could have used the opportunity to ask him some difficult questions and/or gotten some useful info/confessions out of him.
Singing incomprehensible lyrics to a Queen song doesn't seem very strategic. Did they even provide the lyrics in a press release?
... at least I am damned glad someone actually did something for a change.
If I had been there I would have sung right along with them. This Arpaio is a disgrace to the human race.
It's funny watching Arpaio get poked with a stick, and I don't really have a problem with a bunch of college kids with the pointy stick. The part that bothered me was the pathhetic douchebag supposedly running the show, bleat about the disruption and mumble about waiting for the dean to fix it. Dude get on the edge of the stage and call the little pukes out. Christ, call the cops, just don't sit there and allow something like this to happen, and not make any attempt to stop it.
some of the Arpaio cry brigade in this site would have you believe, that the guy giving a literal blowjob of an interview to Arpaio... was about to pull a "Frost vs. Nixon" moment right when the kids started singing.
Damn kids, messing the timing of one of the most incisive and brutal questioning lines of this century!
would have answered any difficult questions?
by a team of lawyers.
everything is terrible.
It makes me so sad.
and savour them. And seeing all that "concern" was a very nice side dish too. LOL
.
...freedom of speech is not black and white. At least morally, it ends or turns gray when it infringes on someone else's freedom of speech. were this not generally recognized among adults, the tea party asininity would be the norm.
Arpaio might have been far more severly damaged had sharp questioners been permitted to flay him with words and demand answers. However a group of sophomoric children hijacked the event and succeeded only in swelling their own egos.
totally agree
That Arpaio was given a public platform to justify his position, is what was idiotic. He deserved to be "interrupted".
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
It is hilarious to hear people defend Arpaio.
He is A FUCKING CRIMINAL. My God, use Google.
I don't type 'crooksandliars' into my browser to hear people launch pathetic defenses of Sheriff Joe. How many people whining about his first amendment rights actually live in Arizona and/or are intimately familiar with all the rights he has silenced?
Sheriff Joe can run Arizona but yet he can't run an auditorium.................strange....
you don't get it, man, you don't have an Arpaio in your county
Sheriff Joe is known to be a criminal. He has admitted his crimes and they are on paper with his signature. If the university is going to invite a criminal to speak, what legitimacy does it give the U, or Sheriff Joe? It shows the students that the only thing that pays as far as their school, is in fact, crimes.
I am sure a student at one of these schools could do some research and place Sheriff Joe under arrest with civilian powers. Either under local, state, federal, or international law.
Can somebody work on this?
Next time, rather than interrupt him, calmly and seriously arrest him.
that mofo sherriff Joe getting some of his own back. The man's contempt for anyone but himself is appalling! To hell with him!
It is beginning to look to me like Arizona is a strange state or at least parts of it are strange. The guy is a goon, but he was invited to speak and I suppose he should have been able to do so. Whoever invited him knew what he was all about. Hopefully he wasn't being paid to be a guest. That would have been stupid!
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
... so where the students.
What is the deal? And were did "freedom of speech" morph into "having to listen to some idiot talk without any response?"
The only problem with this was Arpaio's inability to deal with a non-submissive audience. For such a "tough upright kind of guy" he displayed a wafer thin skin on this one. And that was just when confronted with a song, can you imagine the meltdown that would ensue if anyone were to talk candidly to his face about his "particular" interpretation of the law?
I think that meltdown you describe would have been more revealing than the fact that the students shut him down.
I sympathize with the students (were they students?) but their strategy in this case would work better for shutting down a lecture than for shutting down an opportunity to get him on record answering tough questions.
FWIW, I loathe this man, and he's simply infantile.
... at least the f*cking DID something. All this quarterback armchairing is rather silly. Maybe some of you can teach those kids how it is done then?
The students were within their rights, but I don't think that is the point. It's about civil discourse. Are we for or against tea-bagger tactics? We need to be consistent one way or the other.
I found the tea baggers asinine. I disagree with them politically probably in just about every respect. Now, simply because I agree with the students' opinion of Arpaio, should I look on their disruption of a public meeting any differently. I do not dispute their right to protest in whatever manner they see fit, I just do not think it is for our society's betterment in this case. (And whether or not Arpaio provides the crowd with a "Frost/Nixon moment" is a strawman argument.)
Now, having people arrested for applauding one's opponent, that IS (sorry for the capitalization) an issue of freedom of speech. Government officials have no right to do that. That is why Arpaio is worthy of contempt either way. My sympathies are not with him.
We've spent the last decade turning the right's delusional and paranoid psychosis into a viable political philosophy. The less time we spend treating people like Apaio like they're sane, the less we succumb to their insanity.
if we start sanctioning thugish tactics we are no better than the tea baggers, the people who go to healthcare debates just to shout and disrupt them. This was cleverer than that but it still amounts to the same thing.
I would say he's far beneath contempt, but if contempt is all we can give him right now we should dish it out by the truckload. To call him scum is an insult to scum.
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
for the people we disagree with most. I realize this isn't a government free speech issue but you can't denounce people who act like thugs at healthcare meetings and then endorse the same tactics by people you agree with.
And we can't ignore the fact that the singers were exercising their free speech rights too. It's long been said that the proper way to deal with free speech is with more free speech.
The fact that this is no different than the tea-baggers is kind of the point isn't it? It sends a message: 'if you think this tactic is OK, then it's OK for both sides.' It's too bad that that message needs to be sent, but how else do you propose bringing the discourse back from the brink of chaos? It's not like we're dealing with people that can be reasoned with or anything.
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
is just what the people who sponsor the tea baggers want. Do you seriously think that anyone from the right will look at this and think "gee I never realized how anoying it was to do that we had better stop" More chaos and rudeness leads to more chaos and rudeness, the next step is to where people start fighting in the street. All that is what the tea bag sponsors want. They are getting ignorant people to fight against their own interests. They know they can't possibly win debates on healthcare using facts and reason so destroying the debate is the only option they have left and we play right into their hands when we start doing the same thing. It reminds me of the 60's where those on the left who were the most provocative and advocated senseless violence turned out in many cases to be agent provacauters planted by the feds.
The war was stopped. I don't want to hear any revisionist history now about the cost of that war being the deciding factor.
As all the non-confrontational liberals take the high road, the yahoos are running past you on the low road. They are still kicking your asses. You really don't know how to fight, do you? Well, at least you still have your dignity. Oh, wait--no you don't.
The point is that violence is something that the government wanted to encourage not discourage. That it took away the moral argument the protesters had and marginalized them so that the majority of americans would not agree with them.
And I'm not non-confrontational. I was arrested for sitting in the street to protest the beginning of the second iraq war and have been in several protests and civil disobediance actions. But those were principled actions. This wasn't, it was just being rude and denied the people who actually could have confronted this guy the chance to do that.
the time, but I disagree with it here. Arpaio would never have responded to any questions that challenged him. Never. Whoever invited this individual to speak had to know that controversy would arise from this. If that person didn't realize this, they are not competent to work at any school.
The students were exercising their free speech right, and if it conflicted with that of a vicious bigot who is a legend in his own mind, then too bad. He got less than he deserved in my opinion.
I don't mind passive people doing their silly kumbaya stuff. Because I understand the end and results is not really what it is important to them, it is the process. It is like praying, or going to church, it is useless and no results are expected... because in the end that was never the point.
Oh, yeah: Fight fire with fire.
It's not OK , no different than the tea baggers disrupting and turning town hall meetings into chaos .
It is absolutely different... They were interrupting with lies, falsehoods and with a definite political agenda.
These kids were humorously mocking someone because he is a horrible excuse for a human being. They did it for the lulz.
"I could give a flying crap about the political process.... We're an entertainment company."
- Glenn Beck - Forbes interview; April 26, 2010
No, it is NOT different.
Don't you see how short sighted you're being? It's OK to do when the message is one you agree with, but if it's something you don't want to hear you're against it.
Shouting people down is a mob tactic and it's wrong all the time, period.
People saying 'I'm not losing any sleep over Sheriff Joe getting harassed' sound just like the people who say 'I'm not losing any sleep over a known terrorist being waterboarded'.
The point is that it's wrong, even when done to bad people.
just compare singing at someone to waterboarding?
looks like he did to me.
LOL
What he said is that there is a moral equivalence here X is wrong but its ok if you do it to someone that I don't like. That's the argument being used by people who support water boarding and its the argument being used to support these students.
did he not just compare it to the teabagger's shout-downs?
that would have at least made sense.
A false equivalence is still false, and his "argument" is based in emotion.
Liberals are supposed to be quiet and passive.
Do you really want to live in a country where fascist a**holes can't spew their bullsh*t without the uttermost comfort and compliance?
Some of the strongest people I've known never raise their voice or are rude. If you listen to people like Chomsky, who is about as far from being passive or quiet (of course he's not even a liberal) he never raises his voice, never indulges in personal attacks, even when his opponents do, but the strength and passion of his beliefs and arguments comes out vividly.
So we're supposed to act, walk and quack like Chomsky now? Wouldn't that be the wet dream of the right in this country? A bunch of ineffective, polite, quiet, submissive eggheads as their opposition.
Chomsky is a fantastic intellectual, and that should be his context. Interesting that you do not go around requesting the right exhibits the same level of discourse as the one sported by Chomsky.
You are trying to equate entitlement obedience and respect, with freedom of speech. The way it happened, there were 2 parties exercising their freedom of expression: Arpaio, and some of the students. It seems some of you are having a problem with the student's exercising theirs, while completely ignoring the litany of bullsh*t Arpaio was spouting.
And BTW, the equating what these students did with the tea baggers... kind of points out that some of you are scrapping at the bottom of the intellectually dishonest barrel trying to justify yet another round of misplaced "concern."
Taking the high road is what has led to a virtual extinction of the left and a complete reign of the right for the better part of 4 decades in this country. I take you like to keep that way, right? Because that is the only logic conclusion I can reach when I see yet another "concerned" person rushing to point out another detour, for an even higher path for liberals to take...
I used Chomsky as an example because he is someone that I admire quite a bit. But I was originally thinking about people that I've known in a personal and political context. When I go to meetings I find the people that are most effective are also the ones that don't yell and scream at the top of their lungs.
Also, its interesting the way you characterize Chomsky, it sounds very much like what tea baggers say when they talk about those "liberal intellectuals". You didn't quite say effete but you were almost there. And if you think Chomsky is ineffectual you don't know him very well. He has reshaped opinions for several decades but he also is involved with labor leaders and social justice networks and does a lot to help them.
And I'm not arguing that the left should lie down or be passive. I've been in the streets plenty of time yelling at the top of my lungs and got arrested before the second gulf war laying down in front of cars on market street in San Francisco. But that was a principled stand, it had a point and a purpose. Shouting someone down (or singing them down) is just posturing and putting the left on the same moral level as the right. One of the things that we have going for us is that we do have the moral high ground and we need to get better at exploiting that.
of trying to exalt passivity as a virtue. That does nothing for liberal causes, and only further conservative interests.
As much as you try to spin it, these protestors did nothing wrong. And not only that, but they faced Arpaio. They used the same freedom of expression (in a harmless and creative way, a fairly civilized approach really) that some of you are so adamant to cry for Arpaio. So what, only fascist sociopathic power hungry bigots are able to speak at any given time?
Chomksy is an intellectual, and as I said a fairly good one at that. What these kids did was do something that most of you are too chicken sh*t to do.
The only reason I can think why some of you are so adamant to blame these kids for anything, is to make Arpaio the victim. Kind of sad really...
Do you consider Dr. King to have been too passive as well? He also advocated a principled approach when many around him were advocating more confrontation and violence.
As for the claim that those of us who don't agree with this tactic are too chicken sh*t how do you square that with the fact that I've been arrested for sitting down in the street to protest the Iraq war? Although name calling when you are out of arguments is consistent with my original criticism that this is more about machismo and people getting out their frustrations than actually wanting to accomplish something.
And its just absurd to claim that I or most of the other people commenting here want to make Arpaio out to be a victim. I think he is scum. I also believe in principles though and one of the real tests of principles is that you apply them to people you dislike as well as those you like.
I assume 40 years ago you would have complained about that negro and how divisive and counter-productive it was for him not to shut up when told to.
At least, when I got my a** kicked by the police, the union I was representing ended up getting a better contract.
I think some of you wear your ineffectiveness as a badge of honor, and feel threatened by those who actually get something done. Ergo the desperate attempts at undermine them. Frankly if some of you had spent the same energy you seem to waste defending the feelings of the common wingnuts, and instead use it defending actual liberal interests/platforms.... a much better place this would be.
Again, these were a bunch of college kids all the way in the back, singing off key. Sad that these are the people who you find threatening, LOL.
There are better analogies, but he's referring to moral equivalencies.
YEAH, I sure did. They're clearly exactly the same.
Yes it is different. Teabagger morons are protesting for evil based on lies and their inability to think critically - they are stupid.
These kids on the other hand, were confronting evil. We have been ignoring the evil too long in this country.
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
but the argument that "we are confronting evil so we can do whatever we want" IS EXACTLY the same argument the tea baggers use. Now they are wrong because in their case they aren't even confronting evil but the point is the argument itself is flawed. Even when you ARE confronting evil that doesn't justify doing whatever you want. In fact if you look at people like Dr. King he was rigorous about not using violent tactics (and I don't think you can deny that HE was confronting evil). Yet he still thought it was essential to remain moral in his fight precisely to highlight the difference between him and his opponents.
Nor do they require a held belief to actually be true. People are free to state their beliefs, regardless.
Again, this is about civil discourse and the appropriate place and time for protests. This is not about laying down for anybody. As for confronting evil, it seems to me that those people in the audience armed with actual questions were denied their chance to "confront evil."
So you're saying it's different because THEIR side is WRONG.
I've got news for you, tea baggers think their side is right.
There's really no difference between this and the tea-baggers. It's not the means of interruption that matters, it's the interruption itself.
Your douchbag is another person's hero. Let him have his say and challenge him on that. Shouting someone down is the coward's way of debating.
... so long as you ignore the context, the facts, and reality as a whole, sure... these sort of false dichotomies work like a charm.
I am getting quite a hoot to watch the concern platoon trying to equate the actions of a bunch of students singing off key with the actions of psychotic a**holes. Not everyone would be up to the task, so congratulations I guess...
whatever that is. What you call context I call hypocrisy. If you have principles you have to apply them the same REGARDLESS of the context. If its wrong to shout down someone who is explaining the facts of healthcare than its also wrong to shout (or sing) down someone who is spreading a bunch of lies. The best way to deal with such a person is through reason and facts.
shutting someone down forcefully, and singing off key modified lyrics to the Bohemian Rhapsody. Unless, as I pointed out, you manage to ignore context, facts and reality in a wholesale fashion.
Both parties were exercising their freedom of speech, I find it ironic some of you take exception with the protesters exercising theirs. I don't...
I think you are trying to equate "freedom of speech" with "due respect." Which are not the same, and we all know respect is earned... not granted.
on some parts of your argument I have to disagree that you can deal with such a person or any dedicated right winger with reason and facts.
this shouting down is no good. If arpaio was just spouting off stuff in a lecture like he knew something, sing away. But he was here to be questioned and the singers interrupted the examination and exposure of this guy's idiocy.
Yes, I equate it to teabaggers shouting down and shutting down conversation. Let angry people confront him with their hard questions. Let him answer those students.
that Arpaio talked for a while, that the "protesters" were a bunch of students all the way in the back, that the one Mr. Arpaio could have continued his spiel, and that not a single of the signers was either intimidating anyone else in the public nor openly carrying weapons to further their intimidation.
Freedom of expression and entitlement to comfort are two very different things.
So basically: liberals attack other people's freedom of expression, and wingnuts simply "exercise" their constitutional rights when they pull far worse stunts. Right?
By the way, weren't you the one complaining about false dichotomies a couple of posts back? Why, yes, it was you.
I tell you what, let's forget any tea-baggers / Bohemian Rhapsody comparisons, and just address the idea of shouting someone down. So tell us, when is it OK to shout someone down, and what is the proper way to do it?
Of course right wingers say the same thing about us.
"I just don't understand why you don't want reporters to do their job"
Let's consider this statement in the context of the last 10 years.
I know there are good diligent reporters out there but really.
You can't blame people for being fed up.
Everyone deserves freedom of speech and this spore mold is no exception.
Having said that,if someone manages to disrupt his bigoted ass from time to time,I won't lose any sleep.
"To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And,
at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between,
plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big "thing."
This is truth, to me. "
-Jack Handy
How intense was the questioning if they were just getting to the subject about him and the ACLU? I would imagine that it was a lot of softball B.S.
Hm, that post dated from November 24th. As such, I think the most recent example would be this. After a court security officer (one of Arpaio's men) swiped a defence attorney's privileged documents on camera, he was (eventually) found in contempt and sentenced to a slap on the wrist; he had to give a press conference to apologise by December 1st or report to jail. Boss-man Arpaio insisted that he refuse to apologise and declared that he wouldn't uphold the court's sentence. He failed to give the press conference, he reported to jail, and Arpaio refused to book him, citing unspecified "errors" in the judge's orders. The officer in question is now in jail willingly, of his own accord (and against the advice of his attorney); throughout the entire debacle, Arpaio has been essentially declaring that his position as a sheriff gives him absolute veto power over the judge's sentence.
"his position as a sheriff gives him absolute veto power over the judge's sentence."
He might be able to PO a judge or two and get away with it but it is never a smart move to PO a judge. It could be trouble for the law man.
I hope he end up in cuffs - that would be poetic justice.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
what are you talking about, that good chap stealing the defense's documents was simply exercising his freedom of information rights!
Why do you hate democracy and America? Are you with those fascist singing goons interfering with the work of the good sheriff and his freedom of expression?
Yeah but I can't sing worth a darn so nothing to worry about.
:)
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
lest someone accuse you of trying to squash freedom of expression with your shower ballads ;-)
It must be nice to have people in the audience who can stop the questioning if it gets too tough.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
The problem with this tactic is that it gives Joe's supporters a reason to support him even more. He's under attack! He needs to be grilled in an open forum, repeatedly, so that everybody can hear his own twisted words and realize what a dick he truly is.
... Arpaio's supporters would support him through thick and thin. Might as well have some fun with it, I think.
He was "grilled" for 45 minutes. That's enough.
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
i sit next to joe on a plane ride
he is the perfect example of what is wrong with this country
arrogance and self righteousness
enough said
Some people are not suited well to have authority or power. Arpaio alwas seems childish and petty. That isn't something the younger people miss these days. I wish more of our leaders would be "calm assertive" and take a lesson from Cesar Millan. Maybe Pelosi will try it on the colored canines?
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
...back of the room were Arpaio plants instructed to start disrupting the event when the questions started getting too tough, thereby giving him an excuse to leave without answering them.
Is Dean Callahan upset because his rim job on Arpaio was cut short?
and Callahan decided to take it on the crowd. The dynamics in these circle jerks are rather chaotic sometimes...
As if he hasn't been made to answer for his questionable policing practices already and proudly stood by them. I'm not shedding a tear for this guy and I really couldn't care less that he wasn't given an opportunity to lie and dodge questions. Eh....I'd say score one for the pissed off students/spectators. This POS will have plenty of opportunities to slime his way out of difficult questions in the future so that opportunity is not lost. I only wish someone had arrested him as he was trying to exercise his FA rights.
when Arpaio told his wife he was going to a forum at ASU his wife must have said something that sounded a lot like: "Wear the fox hat."
Hasa Diga Eebowai
"mad as a fox" or "mad as a hatter," so he decided to play it safe with the "mad hatter fox" stuff?
Where the f*ck's that?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
... it sure was f*cking weird.
like some students were just fed up hearing 45 min of typical BS from Arpaio, and made a point that this was again not 2 sided honest dialogue - So who cares? I don't think there was going a be a real Frost/Nixon moment there, this guy makes a living being blatantly dishonest. This isn't the teabaggers, they gave him plenty of time to make a case, and they weren't satisfied. He's their public servant, and it's their tuition that's paying for the auditorium. If they aren't satisfied, they have a right to be vocal.
Nobody forces the Sheriff to stop, lol. Have fun in Tent City, Joe.
their job? Can you believe he said that? Can you show me a time in the last 10 years without interference from the public when they were doing their job?
On the one hand, yes it's rude and non-productive to shout someone down who is trying to speak. On the other hand, as any stand up comic will tell you, if you want to get out there in the spotlight, you'd better be able to hold your crowd, otherwise, get off the stage.
How convenient for Arpaio...
A little off key.
I don't know why you would give a dirt bag a podium to speak from. Would you sit quietly by and listen to any piece of shit spout his hate while reporters threw him softball questions?
I with the white house press corps had done the same thing for the last 9 years.
like the tactic, but it was well deserved, and at least they aren't just sitting around while Latinos' civil rights are repeatedly and blatantly violated.
Nothing gets done if all people do is sit around because someone who doesn't have a dog in the race thinks it's impolite or it might hurt an oppressor's feelings. Have none of you heard the song Mississippi Goddamn by Nina Simone? Some of the spirit applies to how people who have a dog in this race feel about being told to wait around.
I am a mixed Latina and I worry about my relatives who live in Maricopa County all the time, and I am glad someone is doing something for crying out loud.
I've never seen change without a fire
No it isn't a First Amendment issue. But if you shout someone down you're taking away their free speech. It's true of the teabaggers when they do it us and it's true of liberals when we do the same thing to them. If we don't respect the right's right to free speech then there's no reason why they should respect ours. Period.
The right is in severe disrepute these days. Why interfere with a bunch of opponents who are passionately committing suicide by behaving like a-holes too?
Joe Arpaio is a fucking Nazi. The stories of ordinary people who have run afoul of him over there in Phoenix are legion. That is why I stay over here in California. Why take the chance? But those idiots keep electing him.
Is freedom of speech like when D. Kucinich got arbitrarily drummed out of the primary debates because they were being run by the major corporate news conglomerates, gee tough luck ... I think the president has been set. He who controls the medium, controls the medium.
Stupid, childish, and counterproductive.
I'm sure that many people saw this had not made up their minds. This is not effective in convincing those people. It would have been far more effective if someone asked him about forcing a mother to give birth while shackled, then have the baby taken away immediately, or other such questions. Or if he had slipped and produced some suicidal soundbite.
Then again, I'm not sure the event would have gotten much publicity if it weren't for this terrible Queen cover, which could prompt many people to look into why the event was disrupted...
Is it better to let a fool spout his foolishness and be treated to the staging of an intellectual setting, or is it better to laugh him off the stage in the first place? I think we are all damn sick of the way the Mainstream Media frames fools as respected critics so it isn't surprising that a fool would get dissed in a forum where there actually is public feedback available.
Then you have to acknowledge the right of people who consider your individual of choice a fool to publicly shout him or her down as well.
Comments are closed on this entry