Skip to main content

Lawyers for Van Jones have taken a step that ought to have been taken long ago - by numerous people, for hundreds of offenses. Jones' representatives have notified Fox News that that he will no longer tolerate the lies and defamation that they have engaged in for the past couple of years. They have sent Fox a cease and desist letter and they appear to mean business.

Brought to you by...
News Corpse
The Internet's Chronicle Of Media Decay.

From the letter:

"For nearly two years, on programs broadcast on and by the Fox News Network, a series of sensational and inflammatory charges have been made against Mr. Jones. Each of these statements is demonstrably, unequivocally, and absolutely false, and each is clearly defamatory as set forth below."

The letter then proceeds to enumerate some of the instances wherein Fox maligned Jones by falsely asserting that he is a communist, a Marxist, etc. Additionally, Jones was accused of being a revolutionary, a convicted felon, a 9/11 Truther, a cop killer, and a racist. Just this morning, in a response to Jones' challenge to debate, Glenn Beck portrayed Jones as anti-American and an advocate of "The violent overthrow for a Marxist government."

All of these charges are false and injurious, and the letter gives Fox until June 24, to indicate their intention to "cease and desist from further dissemination" and to broadcast a retraction. Despite the documentary evidence to support an action against Fox, I do not expect them to comply. That's not their style. They will dodge and weave and resort to histrionic counterattacks.

In February of 2010, Jones assumed a forgiving stance, telling Beck that "I love you brother." I wrote at the time that I didn't approve because all Beck would do is continue to harass and lie about him. Now Jones knows what I knew then. He told Ed Schultz today that he has tried to be a "turn the other cheek" kind of guy, but that he only has four cheeks and he's running out. He noted that Beck has continued to stalk him even two years after he left the White House, and that he's had enough.



Glenn Beck Is Afraid To Debate Van Jones

Despite Beck's persistent harping, his act is a mask for his cowardice.

On Saturday at the Netroots Nation conference, keynote speaker Van Jones
spoke about the new movement to Rebuild the American Dream. In the course of his remarks he had a message for his old adversary, Glenn Beck:

Jones: "I issue a personal challenge to my beloved brother Glenn Beck. I will debate you anytime, anywhere, at any point. I'll give you an hour, you give me five minutes ... you got one week left before your show goes off. My phone is ringing. Call me! Call me, Glenn Beck!"

I hope Van is not waiting by the phone. There is about as much chance of this happening as there is of Michele Bachmann french kissing Rachel Maddow. Even though Beck is a relentless self-promoter and this debate could earn millions as a cable on-demand premium feature, Beck will decline. In fact, he already has:

Beck: "There's really not anything to talk about until you're honest and you say you want the overthrow of the government as you have in the past. The violent overthrow for a Marxist government. When you're honest, then people can have a debate."

That's like me saying that I won't debate Beck until he is honest and admits that he is a racist who would like to assassinate that ni**er in the White House. It's simply a dodge to insure that he will never debate Jones. It has nothing to do with whether Jones is honest (he is) or whether he's a communist (he's not). Beck's sole reason for dodging a debate is because he has a mortal fear of anyone who might engage him with intelligence, passion, and facts. That is Van Jones. And Beck is a quivering lump of cowardice who knows he would be taken apart were he to accept the challenge.

Jones is now escalating the challenge he delivered at Netroots. With the help of MoveOn.org, Jones has produced a commercial that he plans to place during Beck's show on Fox News.

I'm a little conflicted about whether he should actually pay Fox to air this ad. Ordinarily I would not even entertain the notion of contributing to Fox by purchasing ad time from them. However, in this case the ad would be placed on a show that has already been canceled, so it wouldn't be helping to advance the show's future prospects. And this might be the only way that Beck's viewers would ever learn that such a challenge has been issued, and that their frightened Messiah turned tail and ran away. Is this what Beck means by Restoring Courage?

Originally posted to Media Watch on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 07:24 AM PDT.

Also republished by Pink Clubhouse, ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement, DKOMA, and Progressive Hippie.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Hopefully... (275+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, marina, Fury, IL clb, soothsayer99, BlueDragon, blue aardvark, S C B, otto, Ashaman, BobSmith415, lineatus, codobus, myboo, zerelda, roadbear, istari5th, Vita Brevis, Rick Aucoin, dmhlt 66, tin woodswoman, Gustogirl, Eman, Deoliver47, revsue, kid funkadelic, Nica24, lunachickie, Lawrence, Nina Katarina, high uintas, Cenobyte, MadRuth, cotterperson, Pandoras Box, ban nock, yet another liberal, wader, Snud, amk for obama, Xapulin, Renee, eeff, dotsright, zeke7237, joedemocrat, TomP, Matt Z, Athenian, Dom9000, sleipner, leftykook, billlaurelMD, gatorcog, PsychoSavannah, Punditus Maximus, HeartlandLiberal, PBen, SneakySnu, TracieLynn, Railfan, OLinda, sawgrass727, Lefty Coaster, FrY10cK, Its a New Day, MKSinSA, pixxer, MKHector, progressivebadger, Adept2u, bronte17, AllanTBG, mikeconwell, tonyahky, Arahahex, leftynyc, worldlotus, jayden, tobendaro, Loudoun County Dem, LaFeminista, DruidQueen, p gorden lippy, fiddlingnero, smoothnmellow, maybeeso in michigan, SeaTurtle, Robobagpiper, gloriana, Lost Left Coaster, avsp, rasbobbo, alguien, TealTerror, shaharazade, willynel, Bluesee, greengemini, Amber6541, statsone, Emerson, expatjourno, Voodoo, ceebee7, ubertar, bluesheep, GeorgeXVIII, angry marmot, alrdouglas, Colorado is the Shiznit, SweetLittleOkie, lzachary, x, drmah, Brooke In Seattle, JaxDem, ExStr8, gooderservice, bleeding heart, Getreal1246, LefseBlue, Gemina13, 714day, Damnit Janet, vcmvo2, aerie star, mmacdDE, bablhous, Rumarhazzit, StonyB, yaque, Shadowmage36, Seamus D, rlharry, alkalinesky, real world chick, BlueInRedCincy, Prav duh, Lujane, trumpeter, davehouck, Miss Blue, Time Waits for no Woman, stevej, tegrat, rb608, qannabbos, Pinto Pony, CA Nana, Shockwave, roystah, Dude1701, dewtx, lams712, boran2, GenXangster, Shotput8, fallina7, Ditch Mitch KY, Ed in Montana, Unit Zero, 3goldens, RF, tomjones, ClutchCargo, redwagon, La Gitane, roses, not4morewars, Eddie L, BlackSheep1, not a cent, ccasas, Cloak of Darkness, sodalis, boatsie, ybruti, AnnieR, meagert, BlueInARedState, tiponeill, Sean Robertson, Subterranean, ctlrick, Black Max, princss6, dgb, Larsstephens, jennylind, DianeNYS, Cofcos, Sandino, wolverinethad, fhcec, spooks51, nellgwen, Jose Bidenio, Puddytat, linkage, eru, RagingGurrl, millwood, Turbonerd, Statusquomustgo, banjolele, ColoTim, dwahzon, defluxion10, JekyllnHyde, Meteor Blades, redlum jak, glitterscale, G2geek, fizziks, mofembot, Nowhere Man, OHdog, JayC, asterkitty, firemage, madgranny, peachcreek, Wino, Siri, jethrock, JimWilson, skohayes, lcs, koNko, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, poorbuster, Nespolo, ornerydad, a2nite, occams hatchet, monkeybrainpolitics, jnhobbs, RhymesWithUrple, Gowrie Gal, CoyoteMarti, liz dexic, nklein, bnasley, trueblueliberal, gizmo59, NotGeorgeWill, Simple, EdSF, quaoar, science nerd, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, jeannew, psnyder, carpunder, TomorrowsProgressives, Floja Roja, edwardssl, ATFILLINOIS, eXtina, emmasnacker, CanisMaximus, barkingcat, CTLiberal, emsprater, Empower Ink, bozepravde15, rapala, DiegoUK, Jeff Y, eigenlambda, davidkc, FarWestGirl, gharlane, evergreen2
    Hidden by:
    Limelite

    ...this gets the ball rolling and there will be more lawsuits filed against Fox News.

    Follow the DailyKos Media Watch Group. And follow News Corpse on Twitter and Facebook.

    "I am by no means alone within the family or the company in being ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes." ~ Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law.

    by News Corpse on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 01:48:27 AM PDT

  •  Better Get a Suit Against a Corporation Filed (116+ / 0-)

    while it's still Constitutional.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 07:28:57 AM PDT

    •  The whole idea of a corporation (4+ / 0-)

      is that a legally separate entity may sue and be sued, as opposed to the disparate owners.  So, the chances corporations will be immune from suit are about zero.  Doesn't mean the courts won't make it hard to win, but defamation law benefits and restricts many corps in equal measure.

      This might actually be "actual malice," or "knowing or reckless disregard for the truth" under the Sullivan standard for public figures, but Jones has an uphill battle.  I wouldn't actually mind if Fox won this one.  Not because I prefer their take but because libel suits by public figures should be discouraged at the margin.  

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 07:52:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How can you say you think Fox should win? (30+ / 0-)

        Even if you lean against libel suits by public figures, this is not a case where somebody said something intemperate and false. It is a case of constant, repeated deliberate lies over a period of years. If this isn't actionable, what is?

        "I am by no means alone within the family or the company in being ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes." ~ Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law.

        by News Corpse on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 07:57:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Reading comprehension 101 (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          yaque, Tier Nostro, NotGeorgeWill

          I said I think Jones probably does have a case -- Fox has some defenses but it's probably enough to survive a demurrer -- but it's the type of case I usually want to see lose.  "If this isn't actionable, what is?"  That question contains my response to libel law as an extension of politics.  In other words, I don't necessarily see Jones as suing to protect his reputation, but to score points against Fox.  That seems to be your interest in the case, at the very least.  

          Jones should only win his suit by showing what happened to him is qualitatively different from what Fox does to everyone on the left, that the statements about him weren't opinion or commentary, and there wasn't even the slightest grounding in fact (Fox will vigorously contest these points).  If that's so, Jones's victory is sufficiently limited as to be irrelevant.  Or, he somehow succeeds in putting Fox on trial and this case limits the opinion or commentary privilege to defamation actions.  That's "hard cases make bad law" territory.  So, the suit is either irrelevant to what Fox does as a business model or it comes to have implications applicable to all news media.  That's why I don't care who wins this one.

          "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

          by Loge on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:18:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Reading comprehension? (16+ / 0-)
            Loge: "I wouldn't actually mind if Fox won this one."

            Gee, did I misinterpret that?

            "I am by no means alone within the family or the company in being ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes." ~ Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law.

            by News Corpse on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:34:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'd be thrilled if Fox won this one (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tier Nostro

              Just to be clear.  If you're active in public life, you shouldn't have any recourse when it comes to characterizations of your public life.  If Beck said that Jones was beating his wife or that he once robbed a liquor store, that would be different.

              It's better to curse the darkness than light a candle. --Whoever invented blogs, c.1996

              by Rich in PA on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:56:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  None whatsoever? (21+ / 0-)
                Just to be clear.  If you're active in public life, you shouldn't have any recourse when it comes to characterizations of your public life.

                As an absolute statement, this is nonsense. There are limits, even for public figures.

                You shouldn't have any recourse when it comes to accurate--or even arguably accurate--characterizations of your public life.

                For demonstrably, provably false characterizations that are injurious to your reputation, you most definitely should--as should anyone.

                If Beck said that Jones was beating his wife or that he once robbed a liquor store, that would be different.

                How is this substantively different, from a libel standpoint, than the specific lies Van Jones articulates? Is falsely claiming that someone beat their wife or robbed a liquor store really any less provably dishonest and harmful than claiming that they are a cop killer, a convicted felon, or someone who has advocated for the overthrow the government?

                The question is valid: if this isn't actionable, what is? And on what basis do you differentiate this case from one that is actionable?

                Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense.

                by Catsy on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 09:51:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Here's the difference from a First Amendment (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tier Nostro, NotGeorgeWill, VClib

                  perspective.  Things like "he's a Marxist" or "he's anti-American" or other statements saying what he interprets Jones' position to be are not the kinds of things where a public figure can sue for libel or slander.  It's like the people on this site who say that certain right-wingers are fascists.  I personally think it's over the top and inappropriate, but public figures generally can't win a case over that kind of thing.  There's too much opinion built in. Something like, "He may SAY he's not a racist, but the other things he says and does convince me that he is a racist, so I'm saying he's a racist -- that's too much opinion to be actionable.  It needs to be a concrete, objective provable fact -- like "he didn't graduate from college like he says he did."  

                  Of all the statements I saw in the diary, the only one that might have a chance of succeeding is some action over the statement that he's a convicted felon. If Fox made the statement that he's a convicted felon, and there is no felony conviction in his past, that's the kind of statement that might be actionable.  

                  •  Actionable (15+ / 0-)
                    Things like "he's a Marxist" or "he's anti-American" or other statements saying what he interprets Jones' position to be are not the kinds of things where a public figure can sue for libel or slander.

                    Sure, and you'll notice that I didn't cite those lies--I pointed to three specific things, in decreasing order of severity, that I thought were over the line. You could make an argument about the allegation that Van Jones has advocated for the overthrow of the government--that's an extremely serious charge, it's one that ought to be falsifiable, and it's one where the reputation hit has direct relevance to his career. But that's the weakest of the three.

                    Alleging that he is a cop killer or a convicted felon, though--there is no ambiguity there. They are falsifiable statements of fact, and they are extremely damaging assertions. It's the sort of libel in which Fox and the Republican Party routinely traffic, and they do so because thus far there has been no penalty for crossing the line. That needs to change, and hopefully this is a start.

                    Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense.

                    by Catsy on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:10:19 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  You are the king of false equivalences. (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Black Max, OHdog, Siri, trueblueliberal

                    And uber defender of Republicans and Fox. You just compared people on a freaking blog website calling Republicans fascist to Foxs smearing of a guy for years. How are the two even comparable? Are you a progressive?
                    You defend Republicans, downplay Democratic successes, you have defended Clarence Thomas in multiple diaries, you claim the NLRB has no standing in its claim against Boeing etc. I don't think I have seen you even espouse a liberal or progressive position in any comment I've seen you make in months.

                    Democrats who enable implementation of Republican policies do more to destroy the Democratic Party than anyone. - Big River Bandido

                    by pot on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:35:26 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  "Queen" (0+ / 0-)

                      but other than that, you're spot-on.

                      Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

                      by Nowhere Man on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 02:21:54 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  pot - coffeetalk often gives a legal view (0+ / 0-)

                      Wearing her lawyer's hat, coffeetalk often gives a legal, rather than a political, perspective to issues we discuss here. On some other issues, such as Boeing and Clarence Thomas, she is also a fact checker bringing actual facts to our discussion. All political blogs, DKOS included, are echo chambers. One of the things I really admire here at DKOS is that facts, and alternative views, are always welcomed if presented in a respectful way. Many comments, diaries, and even front page stories, have factual errors. I think it is very useful when people are brave enough to correct the factual mistakes, even when those corrections do not support the political views of the majority of DKOS bloggers.  

                      "let's talk about that"

                      by VClib on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 11:21:06 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  There was no factual mistakes to correct. (0+ / 0-)

                        You are spinning by claiming she only corrects "factual mistakes". I have nothing personal against her, only talking about the content of her posts. There was no factual mistakes in the Boeing case to correct and no factual mistakes in the constant downplaying of Democrats while constantly defending Republicans. No factual mistakes in the post she made above, only false equivalences. Regular people calling a Republican a fascist on Dkos is NO WAY comparable to the most popular cable news channel smearing a guy for years, it is a false equivalence at its worst.

                        Democrats who enable implementation of Republican policies do more to destroy the Democratic Party than anyone. - Big River Bandido

                        by pot on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 07:15:32 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Calling someone a convicted felon . . . (0+ / 0-)

                I'd say it's on par with making a claim of wife beating or robbing a liquor store -- it's even worse than that though, because in the case of a conviction, they're no longer just allegations.  There's a binary choice since the claim is a factual in nature (e.g. whether a person is a "Marxist" or a "Nazi" can be a matter of opinion -- "convicted felon" is a matter that can be determined or refuted by actually looking at the historical record).  

                A number of those other claims are more in the realm of opinion, so Jones probably has less recourse.  At a minimum, any self-respecting news-opinion show/channel/network would provide an opportunity for rebuttal and correct the record on these factual issues.  If it doesn't -- then that becomes problematic -- and it might become easier to prove a claim of actual malice.

            •  you did misinterpret (3+ / 0-)

              because this is the third time I am saying Jones seems to have a case.  The reason I don't mind (synonymous with don't care in this context -- ooh, who else dispenses with that?) who wins is for the reasons you didn't bother to engage with:  

              As long as the suit is just about a few specific statements, it's not an indictment of Fox's modus operandi.  If that's so, I don't really care who wins because it wouldn't change anything.  But if the suit did try to change what Fox is through the vehicle of libel suits and the courts, I would absolutely want Fox to win because they'd be standing in the shoes of the New York Times, MSNBC, NPR, and so forth.  

              Glenn Beck regularly unfairly attacks one of my former law professors, Cass Sunstein, so I'm not exactly a fan of what it is he and Fox do.  

              "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

              by Loge on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 09:00:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  false equivalence alert! (0+ / 0-)

                Fox <---> NYT, MSNBC, NPR.

                Not!

              •  You just equated Fox News - and what they do - (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                News Corpse, HiKa

                with the New York Times, MSNBC, NPR, and what they do.

                This is a straw man, BTW:

                But if the suit did try to change what Fox is [my emphasis] through the vehicle of libel suits and the courts, I would absolutely want Fox to win because they'd be standing in the shoes of the New York Times, MSNBC, NPR, and so forth.

                Unless I'm mistaken, any potential suit would simply be trying to get Fox to cease and desist from committing acts of libel against Mr. Jones - as opposed to your characterization of "changing what Fox is" - unless, of course all that Fox is consists of making libelous statements, in which case your characterization is accurate. If the New York Times, MSNBC and NPR committed acts which met Sullivan's standards for libel against a public figure, I would want them to cease and desist those activities as well.

                There's a reason Sullivan has a standard (i.e., knowingly publishing false information, or showing a reckless disregard for the truth): it's so that news organizations will know what the bright line is. Pretty simple.

                Anyone is free to file a libel suit at any time against anyone. A ruling in any potential Van Jones case would not change that, just as the Sullivan ruling did not. Somehow, I don't think a win by Van Jones against Fox would have the New York Times, MSNBC or NPR quaking in their boots.

          •  I Don't Care Why Jones Files The Lawsuit Against (8+ / 0-)

            Fox - as long as it contributes to shutting down the lies and propaganda that Fox regularly spews.

            •  see, that's what concerns me (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              briefer

              I watched the first Countdown last night, and Keith's first guest, Michael Moore, made the claim that Bush affirmatively knew, in the sense of having metaphysical certitude, that there were no WMD's in Iraq.  I think he didn't make the case and he knew the case was weak, but I don't think the facts support the notion that Bush actually knew there were no WMDs.  Now, Keith's m.o. isn't to spread lies, deliberately, but it is to make aggressive commentary about people he doesn't like, and he's not particularly likely to correct Moore's statement.  I think that's where Fox is.  Sometimes lines get crossed, but that's an issue about the specific statements, not the whole purpose of the network.  Mostly, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

              "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

              by Loge on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 10:10:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're slicing it thin there. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ColoTim, Geiiga
                I think he didn't make the case and he knew the case was weak, but I don't think the facts support the notion that Bush actually knew there were no WMDs.

                But the facts do support the notion that Bush knew the WMD claim was made up, and thus that it could only be true by coincidence.

                Which is pretty much the same thing as Bush knowing there were no WMDs. I could just as well claim that France is harboring Jimmy Hoffa: I don't know for a fact that it's false.

              •  Sorry, the facts do support that notion (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                OHdog

                Check both Iraq threads at the History Commons. Extremely well documented and well sourced.

                The Bush tax cuts are more than twice as large as the Social Security shortfall. -- Ezra Klein

                by Black Max on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:58:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you're citing yourself? (0+ / 0-)

                  the behavior is just as consistent with the notion that the administration had a subjective belief there were WMDs in the face of contrary evidence.  "Knowledge" connotes that the top people subjectively believed there werent' WMDs.  Either way, we shouldn't have gone in and there's a massive intelligence failure, but one claim is a lot more succeptible of defamatory meaning than another.  

                  "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                  by Loge on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 12:10:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  keyword search Byron Williams and then.... (0+ / 0-)

                .... try saying that with a straight face.

                Keyword search Richard Poplawski while you're at it.

                Hint:  Cop shooters.  Beck fans.  

                And you won't find a single cop shooter among the fans of Van Jones, Keith, or Rachel.  

              •  Not much of a concern . . . (0+ / 0-)

                It's not enough to simply make a false statement about a factual issue -- the opinion when it comes to a public figure requires a demonstration of knowingly making false claims.  If Moore sincerely believes what he says -- and every indication is that he does -- it gives him cover.

                Additionally, there's a chance to take corrective action in the event of a false statement -- you can provide a forum for someone to contest the charges, or you can issue a correction.  Before making a defamation claim, you'd probably want to demonstrate that not only was a falsehood made about you, but that even after attempting to correct the error, you weren't given a chance to correct the record.  In that case, you might be able to begin to demonstrate malicious intent.

                Did Bush lose his job because of Moore's assertion?  Did he suffer some demonstrable financial loss because of Moore's claim?

                Another more fundamental point with regard to Moore's claim is that he's stating an opinion about a public controversy that is arguably true.  Truth is a defense in defamation claims.  

                In the case of a claim about someone being a "convicted felon" there's not much wiggle room.  Bush is a "war criminal" might sniff within that realm, but not by much.  Even if it did, you'd still have all of those other bars to jump through.  It's doubtful a suit against Fox would have any kind of chilling effect on other opinion shows unless those shows are engaged in similar practices -- it requires a lot more than just being a show that produces strong opinions.

            •  Ah, the progressive as Machiavellian (0+ / 0-)

              justification.  I just love this shit.  "as long as it results in the goals I want, who gives a fuck if it's justified?"

              lol

              •  finding the middle ground btw purist and Machiavel (0+ / 0-)

                li -between doctrinal and ultra moral Rigidity that cannot adapt to reality on the one hand or being a total chameleon/weathervane justifying and using virtually any and all options/means to achieve the desired end on the other is not easy when people are accused of being effectively one or the other. In real life few people truly approach the ultimate extremes... The choice is not Sociopath or Mother Theresa and straying too far towards   either extreme is self defeating. On the one  side the only allies tend to be those who compete to be the most doctrinally pure and in the other direction there is no firm ground at all and nobody can trust anybody since expediency can routinely undercut allies or complicate parallel efforts.   But bridges get burned at both extremes... Those on the Machiavelli side who will do anything often undercut longer term goals with the side effects of sort term clumsy success  and those who cast the impure away from them find they have few real allies and mostly acolytes and toadies...

                But most of the action is in the middle with people who are arguably a bit more expedient or doctrinaire in either direction accusing each other of being the extreme version of their approach... mild expediency vs. reluctant but prudent compromising mistaken for or being portrayed as either Machiavelli on steroids or immobile uber-moralist... Nazi or ultra Saint... The underlying truth is that both extremes can and do allow destructive corrections to society and fear of extremes leads to fingerpointing and suspicion of secretly harboring a more extreme identity. The uber moralist can begin to chose targets for blame and heretics or unbelievers may suffer when a society is led to far in that direction. While converstly the eggs broken by the Machiavellis may take "collateral damage" to horrific levels... and both approaches and mindsets can be found on the extremes of right and left... somethings become so important that almost anything become possible to defend them or bring them into being.

                And in the end who causes more damage?... Some bending and allows movement or progress and even improve life or save lives. But so too, knowing when to draw a line and say no can also keep the route to a greater good from irreparably degenerating or diverting away from ideals so much that the group espousing them becomes what it hates. And those who use restrained expediency when it makes sense are despised by those who gravitate towards the extremes and at least doubted by those who want more compromise and those who think principles are being at least watered down if not gravely wounded.

                Those in the middle of bar fight end up pummeled by the two combatants and their supporters... battered are the peacemakers/compromisers, too many cooks for most broths... there is always too much or too little salt and the middle way does not please many either...

                The goal of a specific great "soup" may be shared but the recipe for it... the means & methods allowed etc., well all too often there little common ground allowed for ostensible natural allies.

                Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

                by IreGyre on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 02:50:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Points for thoroughness (0+ / 0-)

                  But I'll just say in brief, I'll take the side of freedom and the 1st amendment.  It's not defending Fox qua Fox.  It's defending their rights, just like I'd defend the right of an accused murderer to an attorney.

          •  I've got to agree with Loge on this one. (0+ / 0-)

            From what I've seen, Fox's (specifically Beck's) attacks on Van Jones fall within the protection of New York Times v Sullivan.

            Van Jones would have to prove actual malice - which requires a showing of actual knowledge of falsity, or reckless lack of investigation.

            I imagine that Beck putting Van Jones' picture up on a black board, and connecting him with "prior associates" and movements he's been a part of is well within the bounds of Sullivan.

            All of the allegations of "socialist leanings" and the like are too subjective to be provable, or disprovable.  They're deplorable - but not actionable, IMHO.

            Join us at the Amateur Radio Group. Serving the Left Side of the Dial since 2011.

            by briefer on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 10:22:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Those might be (5+ / 0-)

              but saying he's a convicted felon or cop killer certainly AREN'T. Those are demonstrably false, easily verified, FACTS.

              If you lie about those and DO NOT retract them, it seems obvious that you are doing it maliciously, and I would think that qualifies as libel.

              •  the number of Beck-enablers around here.... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                OHdog

                .... is truly shocking.  

                And some of them at least, aren't Republican spies or trolls either.  

                We have an educational task on our hands.

                •  Yeah, I'm a Beck enabler because I'm protective (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  skohayes

                  of the First Amendment and the anti-libel interpretations in NYT v Sullivan.  You betcha.  And I luvs the terrorists too, and I hate the troops.

                  Join us at the Amateur Radio Group. Serving the Left Side of the Dial since 2011.

                  by briefer on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 02:33:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  so let's get really clear about this: (0+ / 0-)

                    You support Beck, Ailes, Limbaugh, Savage, and all the rest of them, hate-talk radio in general, hate-talk TV in general, stochastic terrorism, Citizens United, the US Chamber of Commerce, the latest SC decision whereby corporations can make overt campaign contributions, and all the rest of that, the moment any of them make a 1st Amendment claim?  

                    And do you expect any of them to support you or us the moment any of us make a 1st Amendment claim?  

                    There was recently a diary posted here describing the relationship between the plutocrats and religious fundamentalists, as the "false-believers" taking advantage of the true believers: the plutocrats don't believe all that fundamentalist nonsense, they're just playing the fundies as suckers in order to buy themselves a voter base that appears to be grassroots.  

                    Per the diarist, the plutocrats consider the fundies to be useful idiots.

                    Apparently those aren't the only ones the plutocrats are playing as suckers.  

                •  I don't agree with them (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  briefer, skohayes

                  but I wouldn't automatically call them all trolls or "enablers", either. "First Amendment absolutist" is a strong possibility, and a far more benign one at that.

                  Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

                  by Nowhere Man on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 02:34:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So now absolutism is benign? (0+ / 0-)

                    And fundamentalism is benign when it deals in non-falsifiable propositions?  

                    Hate-talk radio, Citizens United, stochastic terrorism, corporate campaign contributions as "speech," the US Chamber of Commerce, and more, all happily supported by "the left" the moment they make a 1st A claim?    

                    We're fighting a class war, a culture war, and a sustainability war, against enemies who have no such limits on their strategies or tactics.  Anyone who thinks the badguys are going to stand up for the 1st A in general, is asleep or hallucinating.

                    For example look at the bills, repeatedly introduced, to impose collective punishment for copyright violations by shutting down entire domains.  Copyright has become the New Marijuana: the boobytrap for suppressing dissent by selectively going after people who are even associated with those who commit the violations: just as the marijuana laws were used in the 1960s.  

                    And do you think Citizens United or the US COC, much less Faux Noize, is going to support us when we scream that our 1st A rights are violated when progressive domains are shut down because someone posted a link to a site where copyright violations are occurring?

                    Once again we are being played as suckers by the plutocrats, the same way they play the religious right: as their useful idiots.  Fundamentalisms make strange bedfellows, don't they?

                    •  Absolutism is certainly more benign (in intent) (0+ / 0-)

                      than simply being pro-Faux Noise. I have no problem saying that. You don't have to agree with the stance, and I don't agree with it either, but calling it equivalent to trolling or enabling is just wrong. Or should I say libelous?

                      Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

                      by Nowhere Man on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 01:00:36 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  G2, that's not fair (0+ / 0-)

                  They're discussing the merits of the case in the light of the first amendment, which we should support and encourage, whether we agree with it or not.
                  I agree with the diary that Van Jones certainly has good cause to sue,  but it's good to hear from lawyers who may have actually dealt with these issues in court.

                  How come the dove gets to be the peace symbol? How about the pillow? It has more feathers than the dove and doesn't have that dangerous beak. Jack Handey

                  by skohayes on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 03:56:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  legal opinions are one thing, political opinions.. (0+ / 0-)

                    .... are another.  Absolutisms are blind and rigid; meanwhile we are fighting a class war, a culture war, and a sustainability war, against enemies with no such limitations on their strategies or tactics.  That's a formula for losing it all.  

            •  I agree as well (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ColoTim, VClib

              As I said above, statements like "he's a socialist" or "he's a racist" are too subjective to be actionable.  They're inappropriate, over the top, wrong -- but not actionable under NYT v. Sullivan.

              The only statement I saw that might get some traction is the allegation that Fox said he's a convicted felon.  If that's what Fox actually said, that's the kind of provable/disprovable thing that could be actionable -- a conviction is a pretty provable thing.  

            •  To say he advocates the violent overthrow of the (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              News Corpse, ColoTim, skohayes

              government seems like it would take a tiny bit of evidence, n'est ce pas?  That sure sounds malicious.

              When the rose lies withered by the roadside don't try to negotiate the bloom.

              by Atilla the Honey Bunny on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 12:44:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, a very tiny bit, to get protection from (0+ / 0-)

                the Sullivan rule.

                How about this:  

                1)  The letter from his lawyer says he hasn't expressed any support for Communism "for many years."  A person could hold a belief, however misguided, that Communists advocate the overthrow of our government; and once a commie, always a commie.  You might think that's a stupid belief, but it's a belief and it's not an intentional falsehood.

                2)  The only incitement to violence thing I saw in the letter was Van Jones being referred to in the same sentence with some "violent anarchists" because, the speaker believes that those anarchists think the same way as those Marxists, communists and Islamists.  Now, that may be a stupid opinion, but it is an opinion.  It is neither provably right or wrong.  Further, it doesn't really say that Van Jones advocates the violent overthrow of the government (just that he's got a similar belief system as some violent people).

                "Malicious" under Sullivan does not mean "mean."

                Join us at the Amateur Radio Group. Serving the Left Side of the Dial since 2011.

                by briefer on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 02:31:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Horseshit, and your insult about the OP's (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            News Corpse, ColoTim

            reading comprehension skills doesn't make your case. Your basic argument is that public figures get no protection from defamation except in extreme circumstances. I think Jones could argue that he wasn't a public figure until Beck and Fox made him one. Secondly, you attribute a motive to Jones that you don't know is true: how do you know he is more interested in whacking Fox than he is protecting his reputation? Third, Fox engages in gross defamation of individuals and groups; that's not a defense, that's evidence of further malfeasance.

            The Bush tax cuts are more than twice as large as the Social Security shortfall. -- Ezra Klein

            by Black Max on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:53:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  wrong: (0+ / 0-)
              think Jones could argue that he wasn't a public figure until Beck and Fox made him one.

              Nope!  High profile political appointee.  

              Secondly, you attribute a motive to Jones that you don't know is true

              Nope!  I attributed a motive to the diarist's interest in the case.  I speculated as to Jones's motive.

              Fox engages in gross defamation of individuals and groups; that's not a defense, that's evidence of further malfeasance.

              Nope!  you're playing fast and loose with the definition of "defamation."  The only way Jones wins is if he shows Fox crossed the line from opinion and hyperbole, but if he does, it'll be by showing that he's a special case from what Fox generally does.

              "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

              by Loge on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 12:04:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  He is a special case. (0+ / 0-)

                What Fox does generally is pretty bad, but what they've done to Jones is extraordinary. There are other special cases as well (i.e. George Soros, Francis Fox Piven).

                And if Jones is successful in arguing that Fox was malicious and reckless in their defamation, it is likely that Fox's general bad behavior would be moderated to avoid further litigation. At least one can hope.

                "I am by no means alone within the family or the company in being ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes." ~ Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law.

                by News Corpse on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 12:54:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  in theory, that's a good argument (26+ / 0-)

        however, the practice is very different. I agree in principle that the bar should be high for public figures (and Van Jones is an ex-public figure, fwiw) because anything less discourages the free speech we hold dear. But Fox is not just pushing the envelope. They've gone deeply and often into deliberate falsehood and their hegemonic presence creates a real harm to the public's ability to know what is true about issues that affect our society.
        That is not "what the founders intended" as a legitimate exercise of free speech. In their time, a duel would often settle such a score.
        Accusations of murder by the Clintons were left unanswered. Many fox fans still believe there is truth to that heinous charge. Same with Obama's citizenship, the reality of climate change, Shirley Sherrod's integrity, the list is well known by now. There is a cumulative effect at work here, and it is extremely insidious in many, many ways.
        Enough is enough. Propaganda is a tool of despots. It can and should be excised from a free society without killing the patient.

        Obama's like Bush? No. He's more like Cheney. They both shoot people in the face.

        by kamarvt on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:06:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  at the time of the founders (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          briefer, mmacdDE, coffeetalk, Tier Nostro

          pretty much all newspapers were ideological, and the commentary in them would put Fox to shame.  The assumption at work is that Jones's suit rises or falls on Fox's entire raison d'etre, but it shouldn't.  Therefore it's either incredibly fact-specific as to be irrelevant to the business model or it threatens to chill even left-wing commentary.

          "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

          by Loge on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:22:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  At the time of the Founders (8+ / 0-)

            Outrageous insult and personal attack were answered by cold steel blades or hot lead bullets.

            Your way of thinking invites return to such barbarity!

            (No civilized means of redressing personal grievance invites uncivilized methods!)

            "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

            by leftykook on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:38:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I think it's the latter. (6+ / 0-)

            I think Fox's nature is to engage in libel, so it will, every so often, have to pay the price for that.  They'll have to decide if that's the cost of doing business or if they're gonna try to lie less.

            The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

            by Punditus Maximus on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:39:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly. (0+ / 0-)

              It will simply be a business decision, the same way that egregious polluters factor in fines, etc., as a cost of business. It will hardly have a chilling effect.

            •  Exactly. People have no perspective (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              I have seen political pamphlets in microfiche from the late 1800's that were AT LEAST as incendiary as the kind of crap Fox et al spews.  

              The idea that this shit hasn't been going on for... well... since before we even became a nation is just dismissive of reality.

              •  Well, sure. (0+ / 0-)

                But during that period, we also had chattel slavery and coverture, so we might have the thought that those were not the sorts of times we'd care to emulate.

                The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

                by Punditus Maximus on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 09:20:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Nobody is saying we should emulate them (0+ / 0-)

                  the point was that some people are alleging this kind of behavior wasn't what the founders intended etc. when they wrote the 1st amendment, and that's just laughable considering this shit was very common way back in the day (political pamphlets etc.)

                  I'm not saying it's good or bad.  I'm saying it's designed to be part of our process.

                  Probably the reason it mellowed out for a while was we only had 3 networks, with a mutual gentlemen's agreement of sorts to be nice and genteel and shit.  

                  Cable changed all that.

                  •  Also, the FCC. (0+ / 0-)

                    It was decided that radio and other mass communication devices were so much more evocative than print that slander and libel were that much more of a problem on those media.

                    And hey, they're right!

                    Anyways, the Founding Fathers had all kinds of opinions on what would be a good idea.  Hamilton, for example, died in a duel defending himself from some pretty awful libel, and Adams championed the Alien and Sedition Acts.  So saying that "they" had opinions on what the "1st Amendment" should cover is a lot like saying "Americans" have a singular opinion on the issue.

                    The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

                    by Punditus Maximus on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 08:48:04 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Newspapers and printers (16+ / 0-)

            were an integral part of the revolution, so of course they were ideological. They also printed the pamphlets that were  so important in creating the revolution.

            Another fact is, change is the only constant.

            We now have a real-time mass media owned by five corporations, and their boards of directors interlock with other transnational corporations (as of 2005):

            118 people comprise the membership on the boards of director of the ten big media giants. This is a small enough group to fit in a moderate size university classroom. These 118 individuals in turn sit on the corporate boards of 288 national and international corporations. In fact, eight out of ten big media giants share common memberships on boards of directors with each other.

            The founders knew that democracy required an informed electorate. We haven't had that since Reagan started and Clinton finished allowing this media consolidation.

            I'm glad someone is challenging one of the corporations that serve as the PR department for the corporatocracy. It can only survive by dividing the people -- the exact opposite of what the revolutionary press sought.

            •  But he's not supposed to be suing them (0+ / 0-)

              for "serv[ing] as the PR department for the corporatocracy," whatever that means.  Either he was defamed or he wasn't.  I didn't see these broadcasts and I have no vested interest in Jones' reputation (I feel somewhat differently about Cass Sunstein, though).  

              If Jones wants to bring an Antitrust suit, which you seem to favor, let him.  He'd have that one laughed out of court.  

              "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

              by Loge on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 09:04:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I understand. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                shaharazade

                You're looking at a tree, and I'm looking at a forest. No problem. They're both there ;)

                PS
                If you have time to read the link about the interlocking directorates, I think you'll understand what I'm saying about the PR department.

                •  my response to that is, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  briefer

                  it's the same type of argument that conservatives make w/r/t "liberal bias."  X number of reporters identify as liberal, and from that they make the inference that coverage is skewed.  Either content is biased or it isn't, but that's a question that's answered by looking at the content, itself.  I think there is some evidence of a bias against covering hard stories, which I guess benefits corps from the perspective of bread and circuses, but that's not a function of who sits on the board as it is of a general view that news departments are supposed to make money at the expense of serving the public interest.  Lazy consumers are also implicated in this.  Fox is a different animal, but the 1st Amendment protections apply to them.

                  Where there is a good arugment is that Justice Brennan assumed in Sullivan that public figures can access a single "news media" to vindicate or correct misstatements about them.  Instead of being too concentrated, news media in this country is too fractured.  People self-select news media that reflect their own biases, which, in turn, feeds into lazy coverage.  Even liberals might prefer news stories about GOP shenanigans on the margin instead of "hard" news.  

                  "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                  by Loge on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 10:05:00 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  No, you are looking at ends justify the means (0+ / 0-)

                  Iow, even if Jones case doesn't have legal merit, it's a good thing because it could slap Fox down and achieve a noble end

                  I don't buy that.   You counter bad speech (iow propaganda) with good speech.

          •  not commentary. Lies. Provable ones. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ivorybill, mmacdDE, 3goldens

            That is the issue here, and a big part of Fox's cover is its deliberate obfuscation and hiding behind a commentary shield, when its clear agenda is disinformation in the news it reports. As JS showed on Sunday, Fox goes to great lengths to gain a credibility it then cynically uses expressly to lie to the public about people and issues. That is a fundamentally dishonest practice, and it is SOP. (ex; remember the "millions" in damages wrought by the DFH union workers in the WI state capitol? that wasn't commentary - it was a lie, and it was repeated by Fox reporters long after it had been debunked.)
            That is NOT a news agency, but it is universally credited as one. It has sought, and so far won, the best of both worlds. Fox can amplify any crap typed by any blogger (obama's "billion dollar a day junket"), like the least credible internet site, but demands (and gets) a front row seat at presidential press conferences. No other organization enjoys the benefits of both extremes while shirking the responsibility to the people that is supposed to accompany its status. Fox is a special case, and it should not be. This lawsuit is a chip away at this hegemony.

            If it were only bill O, Beck and Hannity doing the network's dirty work, I would agree 100%, but it is not. Counterfactual information is routinely reported as fact by fox and it is always in support of RW causes. That is indefensible. If Jones can show a systematic defamation by the network, he should prevail. If he can only show that commentators said untrue things about him in an editorial context, he should not.

            Obama's like Bush? No. He's more like Cheney. They both shoot people in the face.

            by kamarvt on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 10:47:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Considering the delusional (19+ / 0-)

        make-up of the Fox viewership, I believe Van Jones' life is in jeopardy as a result of Beck's et al constant demonization of the man.

        Similar language should be in the suit, but I didn't see it.

        Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth - Abraham Lincoln

        by Gustogirl on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:12:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Agree that the bar should be high (16+ / 0-)

        But reading through the attorney's letter - what they are alleging is way over the top.  You can't have people like Glenn Beck broadcasting deliberate falsehoods intended to defame someone.

        I don't think Daily Kos should be sued for jokes about Rick Santorum - either his name or his excessive concerns about man-on-dog sex.  If a front-pager here wrote a diary claiming that Santorum actually engaged in sex with a dog, or went on TV and claimed "Oh yea, Santorum - you know he has a long history of f@cking dogs" - then yea, that would be over the top.

        Beck is trying to convince his followers that Van Jones is a dangerous communist who favors killing cops.  That's the clear meaning of his words, and the clear intent of the broadcast.  That has to be actionable.

        "Sedimentary people stay in one place. They only interact with other sedimentary people."

        by ivorybill on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:27:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is indeed a fact that longtime (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ivorybill

          Santorum observers believe he has fucked dogs.  

          "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

          by Subterranean on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:46:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This may be the case (0+ / 0-)

            but I'm not sure I would want to be your lawyer if you got up on MSNBC in front of a chalkboard, and drew diagrams, and told America: "Rick Santorum is a known serial rapist of Humane Society adoptees."  

            "Sedimentary people stay in one place. They only interact with other sedimentary people."

            by ivorybill on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 12:27:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Haha... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ColoTim

        What is legal is the vision of 5 members of SCOTUS.  And if their case rulings are any precedence, the original comment is not that far off of the mark.

        [F]undamentalists pretty much fall under the same banner ie. "we cant control our junk" - LaFeminista

        by RichM on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 09:04:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Next SCOTUS ruling (28+ / 0-)

      Corporations are people only when convenient.


      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

      by blue aardvark on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 07:53:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agree- With The RATS (Robertson, Alito, Thomas (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brooke In Seattle

      and Scalia) on the Supreme Court, it will just be a matter of time before all lawsuits against corporations are declared illegal - unless of course, you are a hypocrital Republican who has a beef with a corporation, and then, an exception will be granted.

  •  What did Maddow do to deserve being french kissed (15+ / 0-)

    by Michelle Bachmann?

    Yuck.

    We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

    by Samer on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 07:43:15 AM PDT

  •  Glenn Beck restores courage (8+ / 0-)

    like restoring furniture. You buy someone else's on the cheap after they've had an economic downturn, then you sand and varnish it and claim it as yours.


    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 07:52:03 AM PDT

  •  the guy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lams712

    the guy quit his job because a few blowhards from a crappy cable news network said some shit about him.

    This guy has no fight in him.  a cease and desist letter 2 years after the fact.. really?  that is all you got?

    sad really.  He should of never ever quit, he set a terrible precedent.

    Bad is never good until worse happens

    by dark daze on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 07:58:06 AM PDT

    •  Wow. (21+ / 0-)

      That is as shallow an analysis of the situation as I've ever heard.

      First of all, Jones is record saying that he left because he didn't want to distraction to the President's agenda. These people were using him to get to Obama and he wasn't going to allow it.

      Secondly, even the most cynical recognize that Jones didn't walk out the door without help. He was pushed, and he is not to blame for the pressure from the White House. If you want to complain about something, complain about that.

      "I am by no means alone within the family or the company in being ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes." ~ Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law.

      by News Corpse on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:01:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  lol (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        News Corpse, lams712
        First of all, Jones is record saying that he left because he didn't want to distraction to the President's agenda. These people were using him to get to Obama and he wasn't going to allow it.
         wow, so they have stopped going after Obama since he left?

        really?  LOL

        Bad is never good until worse happens

        by dark daze on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:16:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  true (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Punditus Maximus, lams712
        He was pushed, and he is not to blame for the pressure from the White House. If you want to complain about something, complain about that.
         I will,  but Jones has to be his own man,  we all know Obama has no fight in him, why follow that lead?

        Christ, if everyone followed this lead, people like Warren would of quit trying to fix things years ago.

        I have no respect for people who dont fight for themselves.

        Giving into bullies isnt a good idea at 5 or 45.

        Bad is never good until worse happens

        by dark daze on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:20:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's more than that! (12+ / 0-)

          Try to keep up!

          Jones said on teevee that the specific set of events that led to his departure occurred right in the middle of the health care kerfuffle and it was a serious distraction in the midst of, arguably, the most important piece of legislation on the President's agenda.

          On a different note, your characterization of Jones as having no fight in him is asinine and insulting, considering the number of times he literally risked his life in confrontations with the psychopathic Oakland Police Dept during his tenure at CopWatch, documenting their criminal behavior in public!

          "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

          by leftykook on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:51:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  given how the president's agenda (0+ / 0-)

        has fared, it might have been better to stay and fight. maybe it would have inspired his colleagues to stop ceding the debates and instead make assertive cases for liberal positions.

        "You try to vote or participate in the government/ and the muh'fuckin' Democrats is actin' like Republicans" ~ Kweli -8.00, -6.56

        by joey c on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 10:02:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Van Jones really was a 9/11 truther (0+ / 0-)

      And he was a marxist in the 90s. That was the reason he quit. Which makes sense because fixing the environment and fighting climate is change is completely incompatible with capitalism, no way around it, we're just tip toeing around that issue.

      •  oh (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lefty Coaster

        he actually wanted to fix the environment, and Obama couldnt have that?  makes more sense,  but Jones still should of fought.

        Bad is never good until worse happens

        by dark daze on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:31:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  OT: it is "should HAVE fought" (4+ / 0-)

          not "of fought".  Grammer quibble....dont' spell it like you say it.

        •  fought what? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens

          his boss's opinion that he was no longer a political asset as he was the real deal, a real fighter? The WH pretty much decides who goes and who stay's. They do not keep the fighting liberal types for long as they might interfere. If they do stay like Warren they are powerless and basically symbolic. This administration's policy regarding the environment is at odds with what Van Jones fights for. He can do more outside the administration it  is a two way street as he is now free to really fight not have to support the crap this administration calls an environmental policy. Like this lawsuit  that was rejected by the Supreme's. A 'victory' for the WH is at odds with what he advocates and fights for.

          http://www.rawstory.com/...

          WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a global warming lawsuit against five big power companies, its most important environmental ruling since 2007 and a victory for the utilities and the Obama administration..........

          Lawyers for the power companies, including an Obama administration attorney representing the government-owned Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), said the scope of the lawsuit was unprecedented, involving national and international issues outside the power of federal judges.      

      •  Van Jones WAS NOT a truther. (15+ / 0-)

        His name was added to the list without his knowledge or approval. The group admitted it and removed his name.

        As for his youthful radicalism, Fox is not calling Jones a former communist revolutionary, they are saying that is one now. That is provably false.

        "I am by no means alone within the family or the company in being ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes." ~ Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law.

        by News Corpse on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:51:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that sounds fishy (0+ / 0-)

          yeah he didn't know what he was signing sure. Ok forget it, I accept he never was a truther. He didn't deny it at first just said he didn't know what he was signing but whatever. He was a marxist and even if he's not one now just having it in your past is bad enough that yes Obama made him quit. I think he was one now and he is one now, he's a smart guy and has to know his green collar job idea will never happen with capitalism. Foxnews attacks him with this as if it's a bad thing but instead of denying it he should embrace it and explain it, that would be more helpful than trying to debate with an idiot.

      •  Citations please. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lefty Coaster

        I can make shit up too.

        Reaganomics: The belief that: 1) Unregulated capitalism can produce unlimited goods for unlimited people on a planet with finite resources; 2) We can increase revenue by decreasing revenue.

        by FrY10cK on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:54:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  van jones (0+ / 0-)

          After his White House appointment, Jones began receiving criticism from media sources such as WorldNetDaily and Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, who featured Jones on fourteen episodes of his show.[38][39] They criticized Jones for his past political activities, including his involvement with STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement) and his support for Mumia Abu-Jamal, a prisoner sentenced to death for murdering a police officer.[40][41] In July 2009 Color of Change, an organization that Jones founded in 2005 and left in 2007, launched a campaign urging advertisers on Beck's Fox News show to pull their ads, in response to comments by Beck stating President Obama has a "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture."[42] In September 2009, DefendGlenn.com, a website launched in response to the boycott campaign, posted a video on YouTube of a February 2009 event at which Jones called Congressional Republicans "assholes".[43][44] Jones responded by saying that the comments "were clearly inappropriate" and that "they do not reflect the experience I have had since I joined the [Obama] administration."[44]

          Several days later, Jones came under additional criticism for his name appearing on a 2004 petition from 911Truth.org that suggested the Bush Administration "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen".[45][46] Representative Mike Pence (R-Indiana), the chairman of the Republican Conference in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, publicly criticized Jones, while Senator Kit Bond (R-Missouri) urged Congress to investigate Jones' "fitness" for the position.[46][47] Bob Beckel, a Fox News political analyst who was formerly an official in the Carter administration, became the first prominent Democrat to call for Jones' resignation.[48] In response to the criticisms, Jones issued a statement that said, "In recent days some in the news media have reported on past statements I made before I joined the [Obama] administration — some of which were made years ago. If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize." Of the 9/11 petition specifically, he said, "I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever."[45][46]

           Wikinews has related news: Van Jones environmental jobs adviser to US President Barack Obama resigns

          After what Jones described as a "vicious smear campaign" by "opponents of reform [of health care and clean energy]",[49] he resigned on September 5, saying that he could not "in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future".[49] During an interview on ABC's This Week, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs thanked Jones "for his service to the country" and said that Obama "doesn't endorse" Jones' previous association with the 9/11 Truth movement, his comments regarding race relations and politics, and his support for Mumia Abu-Jamal.[50][41] Some liberal commentators expressed continued support for Jones, singling out the efforts of Glenn Beck to force his resignation.[51] Arianna Huffington predicted Beck's efforts would backfire by freeing Jones from being "tied to his desk with a sock in his mouth".[52] John McWhorter, in The New Republic, related his analysis to the Obama presidency in general, saying that allowing Jones to resign was "spineless".[53]

          In a post-resignation interview with The Washington Post, Jones said he did not have "any bitterness or anger about the situation" and expressed his "hope and belief" that people would judge him based on his work.[54] Later, in an op-ed about the resignation of another Obama administration official, Shirley Sherrod, Jones described the media as having "rushed to judgment" about him, and he denied having ever signed the 911Truth petition.[55] On July 27, 2010, the group 911truth.org released a statement that they had "researched the situation and were unable to produce electronic or written evidence that Van agreed to sign the Statement".[56] In 2009 when first questioned about it, Jones did not deny signing it, but said that he hadn't fully reviewed the statement before he signed [57] Janice Matthews, Director of 911Truth.org, stated that, "Following recent media-generated controversy over Obama appointee Van Jones' signature on this Statement, he and two other signatories have requested their names be removed. That has been done." [58]

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          •  Some Right Wingers Were Upset Because Jones (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pot

            dared to accuse George Bush of "deliberately allowing the 9/11 attacks"? Hell, the Rethugs have been acccusing FDR of "knowing about the bombing of Pearl Harbor and deliberately allowing it to happen to get the US into World War II" for the past 70 years!  Just more evidence that the cry baby Rethugs can dish it out, but they can't swallow their own medicine!!

          •  you seem to accepting the GOP lies (0+ / 0-)

            but are very doubtful about Jones explanations. What you posted doesn't in any way provide citations about the lies told about Jones, they're just rehasing of the controversy for the GOP point of view.

            America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

            by cacamp on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 10:31:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  we need to reverse mccarthyism (0+ / 0-)

              The truth is no one can read Van Jone's mind and tell if he is a marxist right now at this moment. My point is there is evidence he was in the past and I wish he was now. We need socialists in govt to fix the failure of capitalism. Instead of falling for Foxnews trap and kneejerk saying it's a lie you should stop for a minute and think about why you think marxism is "evil" and the real reason Van Jones got fired, or "resigned".

              •  you read me wrong (0+ / 0-)

                FOX et al lied about Jones constantly as the diary points out, being a marxist was only a small part of the stream of lies. While I don't think marxism is evil I do believe Karl Marx was missguided. Socialism on the other hand is very compatable with my views.

                America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

                by cacamp on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:21:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  right difference between those (0+ / 0-)

                  terms. I look at it as a way of thinking about things. I wouldn't mind pure capitalism if everyone played fair. We need some govt to regulate things but then you have corruption from the private sector messing up the govt. Can the two systems coexist, can it be improved, is this the best it can be?

      •  Prove your accusations. (0+ / 0-)

        From what I understand he never said he believed in 9/11 conspiracy theories, simply signed a petition asking for a new investigation.

        Democrats who enable implementation of Republican policies do more to destroy the Democratic Party than anyone. - Big River Bandido

        by pot on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:31:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  he changed his story a bit (0+ / 0-)

          at first he said he signed it without reading it by mistake. Anyway I take back the claim that he was a 9/11 truther, it doesn't really matter. That's even worse than being a socialist in DC. But being a socialist shouldn't get you fired, and it's worth discussing because I think some socialists are sorely needed in govt whether working for Obama or just more politicians like Bernie Sanders. Van Jones got fired for it which is a shame, it has and will act as a chilling effect for possible future socialists just like mcarthyism did in the 50s.

    •  They were trying to pass Health Care at the time. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      high uintas, News Corpse

      Now Van can get as can of whoop ass and get busy on Glenn.

      Think...It ain't illegal yet ! George Clinton

      by kid funkadelic on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:21:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  bwaahahahahahaha!! excellent snark. (0+ / 0-)

      "Wake the town and tell the people!" ~Ewart Beckford, O.D.

      by mallyroyal on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:58:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  T&R. Go, Van! (6+ / 0-)

    "Somehow our slogan 'We’ll protect YOUR Medicare, but your kids are screwed' never really caught on."

    by BobSmith415 on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 07:59:07 AM PDT

  •  He was on the Ed Show last night (8+ / 0-)

    Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

    While I would have liked him to hit back on this stuff earlier, better late than never.

    We view "The Handmaid's Tale" as cautionary. The GOP views it as an instruction book.

    by Vita Brevis on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:05:31 AM PDT

  •  four cheeks (12+ / 0-)

    heh. and if they offer to kiss and make up, he can tell them which two to kiss.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:09:02 AM PDT

  •  That ad ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    News Corpse, FlamingoGrrl

    backdrop is incredibly dry ... Why not with US flags behind him?

    And, that is the driest Van Jones video that I have ever seen and, well, I don't know if I ever seen Van like that in person. I am sure it was thought out ... calm, cool, collected, reserved rather than fiery.  Interesting, however ...

    And, well, it would be interesting to see a series of people (a class action) follow Van's lead.

    Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

    by A Siegel on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:09:51 AM PDT

  •  it's about time!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    libnewsie, drmah

    people should have been suing fox news for years! they are no different than the NE. i hope more follow suit

  •  Ehhh, I don't know (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens

    about this one.  

    Seriously, I'm way too cynical to put up much detail, plus I have to tear myself away from this for awhile (lol). But listen, NC--while I usually am behind you 1000%  on stuff like this, and while, goodness knows, Jones would be 1000% justified in taking these smear merchants to the cleaners--I smell a seriously big, fat, plump juicy rat of a Fluff Diversion here.

    That is surely not Jones' intent, absolutely not. But IMO, that's what'll happen to this if it gets off the ground, and FAKE News will lead the way...

    REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

    by lunachickie on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:15:35 AM PDT

    •  Actually, I sort of agree with you. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens, Helena Handbag

      I do think this is about PR - and I think it's Jones' intent.

      He is launching his American Dream Movement and this is great publicity. I don't think he believes he will win this suit, but it will surely bring the press. That's my opinion, Jones has not said any of that.

      "I am by no means alone within the family or the company in being ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes." ~ Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law.

      by News Corpse on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:58:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I saw this and wondered if this possibly could be (6+ / 0-)

    a big deal. I don't imagine Van Jones tilting at windmills. He must think there is a case. Notice Fox is reviewing it, not dismissing it out of hand.

    I like Van Jones under the general principals rule, it'lll be interesting to see how this goes and if the MSM bites.

    "Don't fall or we both go." Derek Hersey 1957-1993

    by ban nock on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:16:05 AM PDT

  •  sweet,...........nt (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not here to encourage you. I am here to offer unsolicited advice and criticism.

    by shel3364 on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:17:49 AM PDT

  •  Thanks News Corpse, this made my day (6+ / 0-)

    I hope that the Policemen from Pittsburgh and ACORN join in too. It's about time Fox got sued.

    Think...It ain't illegal yet ! George Clinton

    by kid funkadelic on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:18:49 AM PDT

  •  That suit should be thrown out. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coffeetalk

    I don't think there should be any truthfulness test to political speech.  Calling Jones a Marxist is no more false or defamatory than calling John McCain a fascist, or my calling Glenn Beck deranged in the absence of a medical finding to that effect.

    It's better to curse the darkness than light a candle. --Whoever invented blogs, c.1996

    by Rich in PA on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:53:23 AM PDT

  •  I thought politicians and the like (0+ / 0-)

    can't sue for libel, etc?

  •  Except... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Black Max
    That's like me saying that I won't debate Beck until he is honest and admits that he is a racist who would like to assassinate that ni**er in the White House.

    Beck really does believe this.  And his own words indicate that.

    [F]undamentalists pretty much fall under the same banner ie. "we cant control our junk" - LaFeminista

    by RichM on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 09:03:38 AM PDT

    •  To make an equivilent Beck challenge.. (0+ / 0-)

      IF you did not actually want to debate him...

      "I won't debate Beck until he admits he admires Hitler wants death camps for minorities and immigrants plus aspires to be emperor of America with a coronation and throne to match..." (or be the chief ass-kisser of someone else on the throne)

      More extreme versions of some things that Beck sort of does want or think... in a sense. Resonant with his core beliefs... kinda...

      But could and would not admit to them too... not true, so no debate...

      Or totally go the other way... and say only when he comes clean about his skunk bong hits & acid trips, his wish to live in a hippie commune in a tee-pee with free love and pagan rituals... will you debate him... he will never admit to these things.. obviously... so still no debate.

      Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

      by IreGyre on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 03:19:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  if van jones has the money to call foul on (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FlamingoGrrl

    beck by buying ad time on the program, more power to him. remember that for the fox audience (and for television watchers in general) almost anything that is broadcast is legitimate. it doesn't become poisonous until pundit-ized.

    bring your own petard.

  •  I can see.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    News Corpse, terabthia2

    ..how this will play out:

    Fixed News will claim Jones does not believe in freedom of speech, & Jones' lawsuit is proof liberals want to take away your freedoms.

    After all, hasn't Fixed News been telling you all along Obama has radical left wing operatives like Van Jones working for the Obama White House whose sole mission is to destroy the freedoms of real Americans?

    Then Fixed will conduct a character assassination against Jones (I mean a character assassination on Jones different from the character assassination they are carrying out against Jones currently).

    Meanwhile, no high level Democratic politician will back Jones' play.

    In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if high level Democratic politicians join Fixed News in their counterattack on Jones.

    Also keep this in mind:  This lawsuit sends out a clarion call to Andrew Breitbart:

    If Breitbart doesn't have dirt on Van Jones, he's about to invent it.

    When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in excess body fat and carrying a misspelled sign.

    by wyvern on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 09:22:13 AM PDT

  •  One reason its hard. (0+ / 0-)

    This is a megacorp who is actively trying to hide reality. They have spent every day Beck has been on the air operating at a loss, because to them, that loss is a pittance compared to the fear Beck can use to get people to clamor and beg the republicans to help them.

    Its a megacorp which has managed to get lying legalized when its done by rightwingers on TV in the US. Probably by cops too, they like when police hurt people.

    At least it proves my atheism to be right: No kind, loving god would let such a bastardization exist.

    I will thus consider this to be when everyone realised religions are liars who only want control by making you waste your life thinking about death. Cause thats what the religious parties want. And you don't agree with the rest of their bull, right?

    I wish we lived in a more logical world, cause yet again im forced to deal with people who think they are better. just more liars in reality, who want to waste their lives preparing for their deaths.

    And yes, this IS why the republicans win. YES IT IS. And anyone arguing against it (since you have no proof except in favor of my position) is an idiot too.

    Little boys shouldn't summon up the forces of eternal darkness unless they have an adult supervising. I know, I know. Normally, you need a witches coven, or a mages guild, or at least matching pillow case and sheets to invoke a prince of Oblivion.

    by kamrom on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 09:28:17 AM PDT

    •  ...Huh. (0+ / 0-)

      So, apparently, between waking up with a migraine and throwinng up from one, I become a jackass. Good to know for future ranting. Ill slink back to somewhere that has blackout shades, so as to not inflict my hell upon others.

      Little boys shouldn't summon up the forces of eternal darkness unless they have an adult supervising. I know, I know. Normally, you need a witches coven, or a mages guild, or at least matching pillow case and sheets to invoke a prince of Oblivion.

      by kamrom on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 10:10:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Where's the legal fund where I can donate? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ceebee7, News Corpse, Black Max

    Just asking. I have got a couple of bucks.

  •  I don't like the idea of Beck getting so much (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    News Corpse

    attention. One of the great things that has happened in the last few months is that Beck is rarely mentioned anymore. He is such a disgusting example of homo sapiens that I feel happy to have one less thing that raises my already high blood pressure.

    "They had fangs. They were biting people. They had this look in their eyes,totally cold, animal. I think they were young Republicans."

    by slouching on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 09:47:01 AM PDT

    •  Eww, eww, don't look, don't acknowledge (0+ / 0-)

      any of them! If we stay reeeeeely reeeeely quiet, the Flying Spaghetti Monster will make them all disappear!

      What does it take? We can't squeeze our eyes shut really tight and expect them to just go away. Why do so many libs still insist on trying?

      The Bush tax cuts are more than twice as large as the Social Security shortfall. -- Ezra Klein

      by Black Max on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 12:12:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  As I was thinking last night watching him (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Black Max, NotGeorgeWill

    on The Ed Show, Van Jones rocks. I, too, doubt Fox will comply, but good on him anyway.

    GOP: Pre-born, you're golden. Pre-school, you're screwed. -unknown Twitter user.

    by BlueInRedCincy on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 10:09:05 AM PDT

  •  I agree completely (if reluctantly) with (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, NotGeorgeWill

    Jones approach in emphasizing his love, because it is anathema to people like Beck who don't really understand the concept.  It's not about the infatuation that Beck has for people like Reagan and other conservative icons, it's about listening and respect for the humanity of the other person, even whenyou disagree with them.

  •  Didn't Beck used to find courage in a bottle? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Betty Pinson, NotGeorgeWill

    Perhaps that's what he means by Restoring Courage.

  •  The difference between your statement and Becks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Black Max, News Corpse
    Beck: "There's really not anything to talk about until you're honest and you say you want the overthrow of the government as you have in the past. The violent overthrow for a Marxist government. When you're honest, then people can have a debate."

    That's like me saying that I won't debate Beck until he is honest and admits that he is a racist who would like to assassinate that ni**er in the White House. It's simply a dodge to insure that he will never debate Jones.

    Is that I can believe that Beck thinks that...

    -6.25 -7.08 The glass is neither half-full nor half-empty. The glass is just twice as large as it needs to be.

    by Unit Zero on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 10:35:52 AM PDT

  •  "Interesting" to see the reaction to all this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    News Corpse, ColoTim, Nowhere Man

    over at Beck's "Blaze" website.

    Here's a sample comment:

    I wish I could just once meet him so can break his jaw.. Just so he can’t speak for a few months.. I can‘t understand why he doesn’t dress Ghetto.. ?? With saggy pants, baseball cap backwards to the side like, doo rag underneath and why doesn’t he talk with a “negro dialect” ( ala Harry mental case Reid) What, is he embarrassed of his culture ? Why does he try to act like a respectable white man ? I can’t stand this commie down to my very core.. If Glenn doesn’t atleast acknowledge his debate challenge then Glenn is a phony..

    Join us at the Amateur Radio Group. Serving the Left Side of the Dial since 2011.

    by briefer on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 10:47:08 AM PDT

  •  Obama must be so happy (0+ / 0-)

    about this.    Van Jones back in the news just as election season approaches.

    •  Good God. Here we go down the fucking (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jose Bidenio, News Corpse

      rabbit hole again. "Oooh, oooh, don't say anything controversial, the media might pick up on it and say something that will make us look bad! Just keep your head way, way down and lick crud off the sidewalk, that way no one will see us as we sneak our way back into power!"

      Man, damn. Stand up, be proud. Van Jones is no one we (or Obama) should run away from. I applaud his fortitude and wish you'd display some of the same.

      The Bush tax cuts are more than twice as large as the Social Security shortfall. -- Ezra Klein

      by Black Max on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 12:10:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's another one pushing the boundaries (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jose Bidenio

    http://is.gd/...

    The columnist calls Obama the Beast of the Book of Revelation, calls him a traitor to the nation, and suggests that only "violent civil unrest" will rid the country of him. Probably none of the writer's words are actionable, but I imagine that if she gets her wish and our constitutional government is overthrown by some amalgamation of far-right, Turner Diaries-inspired militia thugs, we'll wish we had had more legal recourse when it mattered.

    The Bush tax cuts are more than twice as large as the Social Security shortfall. -- Ezra Klein

    by Black Max on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 12:05:29 PM PDT

    •  Did you click through your link to the Renew (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Black Max

      America website where that Sher Zieve article is hosted?  Yikes!  What a cesspool.

      http://www.renewamerica.com/...

      And I am so tired of right-wing threats of violence and threats of civil unrest.  If I say what I really think about their threats, I will surely be banned.

      “Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." - Jesus

      by Jose Bidenio on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 12:53:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Remind me, why did Obama fire Van Jones? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Betty Pinson, NotGeorgeWill

    Didn't Obama fire Jones because of what Fox News was and is still saying about Jones?  They were lies then and lies now but Obama had no courage or integrity so he fired Jones at the behest of Beck and Limbaugh.

    Looking at A Siegal's diary about Obama failing his promise to put solar panels on the White House (Administration blows solar deadline ... pretends it never existed), one can see that Van Jones firing by Obama was not to make Beck or Limbaugh happy but to get the pesky "professional leftist" environmentalist Jones out of Obama's hair.

  •  Thanks nt (0+ / 0-)

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 03:49:39 PM PDT

  •  "Beloved brother"? (0+ / 0-)

    Really?

    Actually, Van, he's your enemy.

    "It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." George Carlin

    by psnyder on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 06:48:48 PM PDT

  •  A debate would be pointless. (0+ / 0-)

    There is not a single fan of Becks that could be swayed by anything Jones could say. When I listen to Beck he is clearly massively delusional, and if you cannot recognize that within minutes of hearing him you are an idiot. Anyone who is a fan of Beck will just brush off anything Jones says because they are delusional too; Jones would have to talk in their biblical end times code for them to even understand what he is saying.

  •  err on the side of free speech (0+ / 0-)

    i sympathize with van jones, and frances piven, the others who really are victims of the mob, but there are people out there who say publicly that cheney ordered 9-11. i hate the guy, but we are both americans, and i dont hate him that much to believe that.  limbaugh every day gets away with accusing obama of treason, "he is ruining the country on purpose."  ridicule, and offering to debate, and watching them squirm, is the only effective tool.

    the interview with piven on npr a few months ago was priceless and made beck look like the complete delusional fool he really is.

Meteor Blades, Thumb, JekyllnHyde, Ed in Montana, LeislerNYC, MadRuth, murphy, teacherken, glitterscale, Nina Katarina, Gooserock, tiponeill, newjeffct, Emerson, tommurphy, Shockwave, Eman, Wintermute, billlaurelMD, cotterperson, OLinda, rhubarb, eeff, x, Sandy on Signal, lzachary, jackspace, bronte17, 714day, TracieLynn, BlackSheep1, otto, farmerhunt, roses, JuliaAnn, CanisMaximus, ivote2004, Miss Blue, ornerydad, Iberian, antirove, Alna Dem, Chrisfs, wader, revsue, SneakySnu, Getreal1246, psnyder, liz dexic, Lawrence, yet another liberal, JimWilson, catfood, dwahzon, Chirons apprentice, defluxion10, rlharry, zerelda, ybruti, Curt Matlock, meagert, tomjones, poemworld, SadieB, Black Max, lyvwyr101, boran2, Sybil Liberty, Armand451, Limelite, wolverinethad, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, davidkc, libnewsie, vcmvo2, ExStr8, Bluesee, marina, 3goldens, Unit Zero, JanetT in MD, SherwoodB, OpherGopher, PBen, one of 8, ccasas, TN yellow dog, dewtx, Brooke In Seattle, Unforgiven, Laurence Lewis, eru, Fury, Burned, Kayakbiker, Ice Blue, BayAreaKen, Sandino, Savvy813, Shotput8, Aint Supposed to Die a Natural Death, Floja Roja, Unduna, kkjohnson, Alan Arizona, Snud, fhcec, begone, alrdouglas, occams hatchet, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, myboo, edwardssl, BlueInARedState, tobendaro, Themistoclea, mooshter, sleipner, Lefty Coaster, StrayCat, A Siegel, Ashaman, gpoutney, gooderservice, real world chick, CTLiberal, bleeding heart, boatsie, justiceputnam, Cenobyte, IL clb, CA Nana, zeke7237, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, fiddlingnero, shaharazade, Statusquomustgo, bstotts, Johnathan Ivan, AllanTBG, OHdog, ZenTrainer, AntKat, tegrat, ammasdarling, bluicebank, anotherdemocrat, Loudoun County Dem, Mr K, gloriana, EdSF, edsbrooklyn, HeartlandLiberal, Shadowmage36, joedemocrat, davehouck, bnasley, jayden, Oreo, SeaTurtle, jnhobbs, millwood, carpunder, Rumarhazzit, GeorgeXVIII, fallina7, trueblueliberal, TomP, Empower Ink, chicago minx, VA Breeze, JaxDem, NotGeorgeWill, ScottyUrb, skohayes, mikeconwell, monkeybrainpolitics, Lujane, Jeff Y, mofembot, Seamus D, Gemina13, LaEscapee, nklein, Robobagpiper, tristan57, briefer, dmhlt 66, statsone, LaFeminista, maggiejean, McGahee220, Rick Aucoin, ceebee7, greengemini, not a cent, juca, gharlane, Methinks They Lie, Partisan Progressive, jennylind, BlueInRedCincy, DefendOurConstitution, CaliSista, hyper, Denise Oliver Velez, Keith Pickering, sfarkash, Adept2u, Vita Brevis, Larsstephens, Railfan, Amber6541, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, smileycreek, RhymesWithUrple, p gorden lippy, roadbear, eXtina, amk for obama, princss6, jethrock, Taxmancometh, Polly Syllabic, alguien, TealTerror, Simple, ATFILLINOIS, Eddie L, ctlrick, Puddytat, DiegoUK, Betty Pinson, roystah, science nerd, mallyroyal, Colorado is the Shiznit, redlum jak, spooks51, ban nock, La Gitane, poorbuster, Jose Bidenio, soothsayer99, FarWestGirl, asterkitty, trumpeter, Ace Nelson, sethtriggs, smoothnmellow, me llamo sebas, nogo postal, worldlotus, yaque, poliwrangler, kid funkadelic, SweetLittleOkie, blue aardvark, leftykook, Nightshade Q, aerie star, PrometheusUnbound, Dom9000, BlueDragon, IowaBiologist, jacey, GenXangster, tomasyn, StonyB, bozepravde15, Siri, Poetic Mind, LefseBlue, nellgwen, oldcrow, barkingcat, AnnieR, a2nite, Darryl House, peachcreek, BobSmith415, radical simplicity, Arahahex, ClutchCargo, qannabbos, james321, BuzzLightyear235, avsp, dotdash2u, evergreen2, codobus

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site