Monthly Archives: April 2010

Posted on by

threatening violence over kenny and cartwright

South Park has outraged yet another religion. Coming on the heels of offending Scientologists, Catholics, Evangelicals and just about every ethnic group born to man, Matt Stone and Trey Parker are writers who make people squirm, laugh and think.

Nearly every interest group, public official and celebrity caught up in the day’s news has been used in South Park’s story line to make viewers laugh. The show is smart and thought-provoking while the jokes are crude and vulgar, and no one is immune from criticism.

I like South Park because it makes me laugh when I want to just laugh. It also makes me think when I want to just laugh. But truth be told, I, too, have been offended while watching (and laughing) at South Park’s depiction of Christians, conservatives or gays in any given episode. When South Park took on Christianity and mocked Jesus Christ, I found myself a bit uncomfortable and somewhat offended, yet I was still humored. I’ve even been so outraged by a stereotypical character or plotline that I’ve been moved to openly discuss it, analyze it with friends and bring it up in a later discussion. That is what makes it unique. Stone’s and Parker’s appeal is their ability to offend everyone. You know what you are getting when you watch South Park, so if you are upset by vulgar humor, it’s best not to watch it.

This week, however, one offended group is getting publicity for threatening violence on the show’s staff after being poked fun of in an episode. The U.S.-based group called Revolution Muslim has threatened violence on the creators for their depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, and it is clear from the group’s statements that they have never seen the show before. The group blames the injustices around the world on America’s pop culture and foreign policy and uses the latest South Park episode to make a stand:

“We seek to create an opportunity for correction of wrongs and the alteration of behavior that many may suggest is insignificant, but nevertheless is a behavior which we hold to be not only sacrilegious, but which we feel typifies a cancer which bites at the root of global injustice. The cancer we are referring to is that of American imperialism and its coincident culture of pagan hedonistic barbarism, a culture which drives to dehumanize the intrinsic morality of the rest of the world. As it stands today the vast majority of the world has witnessed the cloud of American debauchery, and those whom it has not hovered over have at the very least been affected by its dust.”

The group goes on to say:

“By placing the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in a bear suit, the creators of South Park sought to insult the sacred, and show their blatant and general disregard for religion. By insulting our beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) without the outright depicting of his image, the creators of South Park thought that they had found some loophole in the Muslim faith for them to mock. If you were to ask any American how many people had been killed in the Iraq war, then he would give you some number around 4,000. The reality is that many estimates put the complete death toll of this war at figures above 1,000,000. America is a country which murdered 500,000 Iraqi children in the decade before September 11th, 2001 under the Iraq sanctions….How can anyone possibly champion the values of such a people? In the last century only the Soviet regime and the Maoist regime murdered more innocent people than America. Not even the tyrant of the twentieth century, Adolf Hitler, beats out America on this list. However, for some reason the makers of South Park in their self-righteous obscenity feel compelled to impose upon Muslims the values of this regime.”

It is clear that the Revolution Muslim group isn’t really focused on South Park as much as it is focused on America, Hollywood and American foreign policy. The group hates the American way of life, Capitalism and freedom. The group is attacking people’s right to choose their religion, their soul mate, their movie and their political candidate with their terrorization. It is an assault on freedoms and therefore, everyone who loves this Country must speak out against the group’s threats of violence.

Muslim groups should be leading the way in condemning this group. Some of the funniest people I know are Muslims – and now is the time for them to stand up and push this radical group to the fringes of their religion. Muslims don’t have to defend the depiction of Muhammad any more than Catholics have to defend the gross portrayals of the Virgin Mary.  But we all have to defend the right to make a joke.

If religious Muslims are so offended by South Park’s depiction of Muhammad, then they have the right to boycott the media companies that create and distribute the show, just as Evangelical Christians have done when they were overly offended.  But violence and brutality is no laughing matter, and Muslims should speak out against Revolution Muslim’s threats.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

yahoo and google in china

cbsnews.com richard grenell on yahoo

Jerry Yang Should Follow Sergey Brin’s Lead in China

Jerry Yang spent the first eight years of his life experiencing China firsthand. Born Yáng Zhìyuǎn in 1968 Taiwan, Yang and his family personally knew the limits of their freedom. But Yang’s father presumably wanted more for his son. While China offered limited opportunities for a child from a lower-middle class family, the U.S. presented limitless options. But the co-founder of Yahoo, and one of the most successful and well-known Chinese-Americans, has missed an opportunity to speak out on behalf of the people in the country of his birth. In fact, as one of the modern day creators of electronic communications, Yang has recently disappointed thousands of Chinese seeking greater freedoms by not pushing the multi-million dollar company he created to follow Google’s lead and make the Internet more accessible — without censorship — to the people of China.

Around the same time Yang immigrated to the United States, a young man from Moscow also came with his family to a freer society, this time from Communist Russia. Sergey Brin, whose family, too, experienced firsthand the limits of a controlling government and the new freedoms of living in America, arrived in the United States in 1979 at the age of 6. Yang, by then, was 11. No one knew in the late 1970’s that a young Chinese-American in California and a young Russian-American in Maryland would forever change how the world communicated. Brin grew up to cofound Google and directly compete with Yang’s Yahoo.

But Brin, perhaps recalling his own youth or his parents’ stories of a controlling government, led Google to recently announce it would no longer allow the government of China to automatically censor Chinese Google searches. In an overdue but courageous move, Google has taken a stand against Communist China. Google stepped out and made a bold move in the country of Yang’s birth. And Yahoo didn’t follow.

Yang and Brin are millionaire competitors with more in common than just large bank accounts from search engines they created. They’ve both experienced the repression of dictatorial regimes. So it is perplexing, particularly to the Chinese people and to human rights activists, that Yahoo hasn’t followed Google’s lead. While Brin partnered with his chief executive to make a stand for freedom, Yang appears to be either silent or silenced in attempts to steer Yahoo’s current CEO, Carol Bartz, in the right direction.

The question being asked by many human rights activists is what will Yahoo do, if anything? There is no question that Google will surely lose customers and take a financial hit for standing up to the government censors in China. But will Yahoo take advantage of Google’s situation by aggressively marketing their products and services to the millions of Chinese worried about government interference in their lives? Will Yahoo increase their market share in China at the expense of Google’s brave human rights step?

There remains an incredible opportunity for Yahoo to follow Google and send a powerful one-two punch to the Chinese government. China understands economics more than most countries and is usually moved to increase freedoms when the Yuan is directly involved. Imagine if Yahoo followed Google’s lead and created a tidal wave of information that flowed over the tops of government censors in Beijing. Billions of people would be affected. Literally, billions.

For Yahoo and Yang there is much more at stake than just profits. Every once in awhile brave companies step out and act in ways that move customers and shareholders to also act in good faith. Altruism, especially involving basic freedoms, can be what share holder’s value most. Especially when their leaders know firsthand what it’s like to live without them.

Richard Grenell is a Yahoo shareholder and served as the United States Spokesman at the UN from 2001-2008.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

jessica yellin’s favorite “top law enforcement official”

Friday night, April 16th, 2010 Jessica Yellin got a chance to sit in for Campbell Brown on CNN’s show “Campbell Brown.” Yellin wasted no time in bringing her partisan political views front and center for the CNN audience to witness firsthand. Yellin brought on for a one-on-one interview the man running for Governor of California – Jerry Brown. In a live performance from the California Democratic Convention in Yellin’s hometown of Los Angeles, Yellin shockingly interviewed Brown and never told the viewers that Jerry Brown is running for Governor of her home state or that he was sitting at the California Democratic Convention in the town where she grew up.

In a cozy conversation, Yellin introduced Brown to CNN as “California’s top law enforcement official” – immediately positioning him as someone more interested in issues than politics even though Brown is in the middle of a hot campaign for Governor. Yellin threw Brown multiple softball questions throughout the interview with not a single follow-up question to Brown’s long diatribes and no interruptions to Brown’s soliloquies. Yellin, who is known for her liberal political views, even trumpeted the Brown campaign’s messages about the assumed Republican opponent, Meg Whitman.

Starting off the interview, Yellin warms up with asking Brown what he thought about the Goldman Sachs’ scandal. Brown quickly proclaimed “regulators let people get away with murder….this is a massive meltdown, the biggest around the world….we are being stymied by federal laws and rules that often block the Attorney Generals from enforcing anti-fraud statues based on state law…this was, you could say fairly, the biggest bank robbery in the history of America.” Yellin just smiled approvingly but didn’t ask a follow-up nor question Brown’s pandering answers. While unbiased journalists may think to question a man running for Governor about why he hasn’t done more to combat the Goldman Sachs type of problem in his current position as Attorney General, or why, as a Democrat, he thinks the Obama Administration has allowed this to happen, Yellin had nothing to say. She had no follow-up question nor did she bother to push back on anything Brown said.

Yellin’s next question was on Sarah Palin. And Yellin didn’t miss the chance to declare the Democrats talking point in her question: “You are investigating a California school that invited her to speak but then wouldn’t disclose the terms of her contract….why does this merit the attention of the AG?” As Brown went on and on about how “we want to make sure that charitable foundations do what the rules require” and wondered “is the foundation connected with this state college following the rules of charitable trusts?”, Yellin once again let Brown talk without interruption or a single follow-up question. While an unbiased journalist, interviewing a man running for Governor of California, may have wanted to ask Brown WHY he suddenly started his new campaign to rid charitable foundations of financial abuse just this week with a Republican star like Sarah Palin, Yellin just smiled and moved on to the next topic – Meg Whitman.

In a casual and flippant comment, Yellin referred to the man she first introduced as “the top law enforcement official in California” as having an interest in the Governor’s race when she oddly said, “Let me turn to another focus of your attention these days – the Governor’s race. Your likely Republican opponent…has already pumped a remarkable $59 million of her own money into this race, she’s vowing to spend so much more….How do you build momentum against her at this point?”

It was a moment that the Brown campaign couldn’t have orchestrated better. Yellin positioned Brown as the non-politician, asked him questions on easy topics, allowed him to speak without challenge, messaged Meg Whitman as a wealthy politician whose spending “so much” of her own money and characterized Brown as an underdog. Yellin went on to hammer home the Brown message that Whitman is “pumping” millions of dollars of her own money into the race and is “attacking” her opponents. It was a television moment that made all of Jessica Yellin’s friends at the Democratic State Convention in her home state of California cheer as they watched the interview from the Convention in LA.

Yellin gave Brown free air time to talk about…the importance of going to the people, and that the race is really dead-even, and how 1.9 million jobs were created the last time he was Governor, how strongly committed he is to getting our economy better, to protecting the environment and fixing our schools. Brown continued with a claim that Whitman is a billionaire trying to buy the race and that she’s never even voted. And Yellin sat quietly, pleased with her Governor’s answers. Not surprisingly, no follow up questions from Yellin.

Yellin wasn’t done yet. After playing some of the Whitman commercials which Yellin labeled “attack ads”, she asked, “how do you plan to go up against attacks like that when they come your way?” It was a question the Brown campaign had hoped she would ask by labeling Whitman an attacker and positioning Brown as the David to the oncoming Goliath. Brown said, “Making stuff up about the opponent is silly….” And there was no response from Yellin.

As they wrapped up their comfy chat and said good-bye, Yellin couldn’t help herself and blurted out, “Thanks Mr. Attorney General, I always enjoy talking with you….” Mr. Attorney General? For heaven’s sake, Jessica, he’s running for Governor and you are a journalist – can’t you even fake it?

It was an interview that the Whitman campaign should complain to CNN about and ask CNN to report to the FEC as an in-kind contribution to the Brown campaign. It was outrageous and Yellin should be barred from conducting her style of journalism on California political races ever again.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

bow WOW! obama’s physical deference is a manifestation of his policies

In a White House that craves to be the most popular country in the world and is willing to unilaterally give up much of the leverage we have to become well-liked and accepted by others, this bowing thing is the tip of the iceberg for understanding how far Obama will go to make us just another country among the many others. Obama’s physical deference is a manifestation of his policies. He wants to be popular, so he asks no tough questions or demands any action in return. Obama has already made clear that he doesn’t believe the United States is exceptional compared to other Nations and so he believes bowing is a polite gesture to an equal. Humility is a great quality when strength is a core value – but Obama has yet to show international strength. Nations aren’t humans and shouldn’t be expected to act with emotions; Obama’s bowing to foreign leaders not only makes him personally look foolish but it also emphasizes the United States’ weak international policies under the Obama Administration.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

scott brown’s nevada effect

Nevada Republicans are getting restless. John Ensign’s personal troubles have been well-documented and widely known for some time. And Harry Reid’s performance, voting record and liberal leadership is a different set of troubles for Nevada. Reid will face the voters this Fall, Ensign may never face voters again because he will either retire at the end of his term or resign early. Nevada will be looking to send two Republicans to Washington to represent the State in the Senate in the not too distant future.

Nevada Republicans are currently wrestling with the decision as to who is the best candidate to represent the party on the ballot against Reid in November. But with Ensign’s troubles, the Nevada Republican Party may be looking for two candidates in consecutive Senate elections. It’s even more important now for the Nevada Republican Party and Nevadans to think big and find a smart, capable and passionate conservative to send to Washington.

Today, voters across the country no longer feel compelled to vote for the candidate that has been around the longest or that has the highest name recognition. Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts empowers voters in Nevada to select the best conservative candidate regardless of name recognition or political status. John Chachas is clearly the sharpest and most capable conservative in the Nevada Republican Senate primary and is gaining ground with conservatives, independents and tea-party activists. Chachas was born and raised in Nevada and has enormous business experience having worked on Wall Street and main street. As Nevada looks to replace Reid and Ensign evaluates his future, the Nevada Republican Party should be looking to Massachusetts for some inspiration.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

ed schultz wants congress to regulate talk radio

Ed Schultz Wants Congress to Regulate Talk Radio

This week, Ed Schultz from MSNBC’s The Ed Show invoked the idea that Congress should use the Fairness Doctrine to regulate talk radio.

In a laughable attempt to control ratings through government manipulation of the radio airwaves, Schultz says that conservatives are “low information voters” and therefore, the government has a responsibility to break up the free market supply and demand system used by radio station owners. Schultz claims that because the 5 largest commercial talk radio station owners run a majority of conservative shows on their stations, the government should step in to balance the numbers out – a kind of liberal affirmative action program for talk radio.

But this was no April fool’s joke – it was March 31. Schultz was serious.

Let’s start by setting aside Schultz’s pathetic hypocrisy that talk radio should be regulated by the government but the main stream media’s 50 years of liberal bias goes without a mention. And let’s also set aside his ridiculous elitism that assumes conservatives blindly follow radio hosts by being easily manipulated and hood-winked with “low information”. And let’s also set aside the fact that Schultz is actually attacking America’s free-market system when he suggests that private companies should offer talk radio programs even though there are few listeners and advertisers to support it. If we set all that aside, the fact remains that liberal chatter doesn’t sell in America. It’s just not popular. It’s like Schultz didn’t know that Air America, the highly marketed liberal talk radio network, failed. Newsflash, Ed: Air America went bankrupt. Either the liberal owners of Air America were bad at business or there wasn’t a demand for their experiment. Schultz would like people to believe that conservative talk radio stations have little listenership, make no money but stay on the air anyway.

Schultz thinks the traditional supply and demand model for talk radio should be replaced with government intervention programs that “even out the playing field”. I guess taking over 1/6 of the Nation’s economy wasn’t enough for Schultz. With healthcare hijacked he’s moving on to talk radio.

The Ed Show asked viewers this week to respond to the question, “Should congress take action to balance talk radio?” And to “debate” the issue of imbalance on the airwaves, Schultz invited two liberals but no conservatives. The irony was brilliant! There they were; Holland Cooke and Bill Press, the pseudo-journalist, discussing fairness with Ed Schultz. Talk about low information…

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post