Why do political figures from the early days of American history always sound so much wiser and more virtuous than current leaders in DC? Has western civilization decayed so much that we’ve lost all our morals chasing the fiat money printer ?
the failure of public education system. in the early days, the people were self learned and they independent thinkers rather than bing spoon fed with ideologies, and sound bites from the schools, mass media and social media. Eg Issac Newton invented Calculus because he needed a tool to solve problem k. physics. Now, many people with 16 years of education can’t do simple calculus and understand fundamental physics or biology, but believe men can become woman (though it is apparent that chromosomes cannot be changed) and there are many gender and that they could solve their perceived “climate” issue by gluing hands to public roads or throwing soup on paintings in museums.
I got through a year of college without textbooks back in the 80's I winged it and wrote essays over all the stuff I found out by library research stimulated by references in lectures.
I just recently learned that kids are no longer taught to write cursive script. I learned it from a young bank teller, who informed me that his class was the last to be taught cursive, and he hasn't used it since he graduated from high school.
I was shocked to find that out. It's like all of our letters and notebooks and old family recipes are going to be like the Voynich Manuscript they're trying to decode.
You have to actively teach it to your kids yourself. I homeschool and was going to teach my son cursive anyway but he wanted to learn cursive this year in second grade instead of third grade.
And actually his love for cursive has made me decide to get my own adult cursive practice book. My print is great but my cursive still looks like I'm stuck in 3rd grade. His appreciation for cursive has made me want to appreciate it more myself.
I hate this nonsense of blaming everything on the education system. I went to the same schools that everyone else did in my cohort. There were SO MANY kids at school that didn't pay attention at all. It's really what you want to get out of school and most people didn't want to pay attention or learn.
No one ever brings up that part of schooling. It's always the school's fault, education system's fault, or teacher's fault. But maybe it's because our society doesn't actually care what you learn in school. All they care about is the grade that you get. They could give zero shits about what you learn.
That's where the problem truly is. No one applies what they learned in school to their own life. There's zero reflection on what any of it means. They never actually internalize what they've learned.
I have to deal with this and my 7-year old who hates learning history. I tell him that history is important because it teaches you about the progress of the human mind, how we've gotten to this point, which civilizations have shaped Western and American culture, and what not to repeat in history. And he's just like meh... I don't care. I try to show him how parts of history are reflected in pop culture like Michael Jackson's "Remember the Time" Egyptian theme. And still... just meh.
My point being: some people just don't care. They don't care about learning. It doesn't matter how engaging or interesting or relevant you try to make the education. Some people just do not give a shit about what they are being taught at school.
My hope is that my son is only 7 and he will snap out of it at some point.
I am not sure what your experience has been, but my son graduated from a low funded public school in California with an IB program just last year. I was surprised by how hard everyone worked both at the school and the families who sent their kids there, how far they made resources stretch, how much more difficult everything was than my experience growing up going to private schools in Houston - and still the kids thrived and the self-motivated ones soared. These digital natives are smart, they have had the answer to any question at their fingertips since they were born, any concept explained with a video, support from Kahn Academy, etc. You underestimate this generation of American youth at your peril, and they are the very last generation you can accuse of minimizing the actual hard work that needs to be done to adapt to climate change conditions, whatever the cause.
You get what you want out of school. People keep blaming everything on the system and not wondering why society itself doesn't care about being properly educated.
There's that. Once more Matt gets sloppy conflating two different events - the private sector has the right to decide what to air - that's what happened with Jimmy.
The FCC stuff revolves around the same topic, but is about government interference.
Fuck Jimmy, and fuck everybody who figures that actions with our mouths are immune from consequence. Jimmy is free to say what he likes and those who pay for his spew are free to pull the plug. Win-win!
It's hardly original, but one cannot at the same time worship God and mammon. You can seek the treasures of this world, or those of the next. Not today there's anything unGodly in working, earning a living, supporting a family, amassing wealth, but if that's top priority, you're not likely to be much good to other people or the world, except for the inheritance and estate taxes paid out.
If you get a chance to read the David McCullough book on Adams, do it. Great insight into who Adams was. Id say there was a greater or more clear sense of purpose in that time. Definitely more community. They had to have that for survival.
Because they were the elites of their time. So they were expected to be well-educated and they were. They went to the finest schools and also believed in hard work and God. Modern government representatives are selected by uneducated and ill-informed voters that are told to vote even if they don't know who they're voting for. So we get whomever spent the most money aka was bought.
Geurino: Yes. The banking system set up in the early 20th Century, the establishment of the Federal Reserve, the Sixteenth Amendment, and a compliant Congress began the race to the bottom for working folks and the consolidation of capital we see today. A national bank, such as Hamilton gave us ,(North Dakota has a similar state bank today, and Jackson destroyed ,would have been good for all. Instead the Federal Reserve is an entirely private bank, but has an outsize influence on public policy. The progressive movement was the worst thing to have happened in the early days of the 20th Century, and the social policies of FDR, and later, LBJ, further degraded our social fabric. While I am disgusted with the Democrats, and lots of Republicans, I think we should be very, very concerned about the coming witch-hunt and crackdown on free speech.
But what JD Free quoted still holds true - that Adams said our system only works for a “moral and religious people.” Adams was both moral and religious though perhaps not in the traditional Christian sense.
I don't think that's the objectionable part of the statement. It is: "Jimmy Kimmel is showing us what happens when we don’t have that [ a moral and religious people]." If I understand correctly, the commenter is suggesting that Jimmy Kimmel is himself a immoral and irreligious person - and presumably, in the light of the comment on this post, deserved to be fired. How can anyone paying for a subscription to Racket News think it's okay for the FTC to essentially ORDER the conglomerate network to fire a long-standing talk show host for his speech.
Maybe it's not really okay, but since he really is an obnoxious dirtbag, so right now, I don't care. If we got 5 more in the same vein in the near future, then yea, raise an alarm. For now, Jimmy Kimmel...don't care.
I see. "Then they came for Jimmy Kimmel, but I did not speak out, because I personally find him to be an obnoxious dirtbag." That's what you'll tell your kids?
Because he spread demonstrably false information related to an ongoing criminal prosecution. That impacts potential jury selection. Ironically might rise to criminal conduct of interfering g with or influencing potential.jurors or witnesses. Plus ABC may well have been reacting to the demands of its local stations who did not want to be boycotted.
I was raised on this. I have skin in the game like relatives who had something to do with that Declaration and Constitution thingy. That the enlighetenment is stiill controversial blows my mind.
This is correct, and brings up my main beef with a lot of evangelical Christians who claim America was founded as a Christian nation. If, by the doctrines of one’s own church/denomination, a person is NOT saved/going to heaven, how can you claim with a straight face that they founded a nation that explicitly endorses your religious pov.
Did the Founding Fathers believe in a higher power? Absolutely
Did the Founding Fathers idealize a virtuous citizenry? Yes.
Did the Founding Fathers believe Jesus Christ was the only true path to God-like Franklin Graham said when commenting on Charlie Kirk’s assassination-or design a government to promote said assumption? Absolutely not-and it annoys me to no end when evangelicals imply otherwise.
As a Christian and a conservative, I agree that this was never a "Christian" nation, but it was founded on Judeo-Christian values. I cannot say if it's the greatest country ever; I can only say I'm thankful I live here and that I love my country and her ideals, despite her flaws.
I’d say every European country prior to the French Revolution was founded on Judeo-Christian values. There is nothing inherently Judeo-Christian about the Bill of Rights, or a representative republic. Belief in a higher power is not inherently Judeo-Christian-just ask the Native Americans. Were Judeo- Christian values protected by the BoR-absolutely. But the same could be said of Czarist Russia or Francoist Spain, in my opinion.
The framers assumed this would be a religious nation as all nations at the time were religious and didn't want the government deciding one was preferable to others or interfere with any.
Does this include Islam? I suspect Eisenhower was referencing Christian religions that were most prevalent in the US since it’s inception. I doubt the remark included any non -Christian religions. I do not think Eisenhower would find much in common with the Politico-religious beliefs of Islam.
Yes, please elaborate. Eisenhower actually had some sane and urgent things to say that were lost to the winds. If you have insight, I would like to hear more.
John AdaMS WAS A Trinitarian AND challenged Jefferson's RIGHT TO HOLD OFFICE. Aaron Burr WAS jEFFERSON'S vice president AND SHOT Alexander HAMILTON TO DEATH.
John Adams was a Calvinist one chosen by God like Donald the Fetal Alcohol, disordered Messiah.
Jefferson wrote The Jefferson Bible in 1820 and rejected Jesus's divinity and Adams was a FEDERALIST AND Jefferson WAS AN EVOLUTIONARY BOTANIST. Science HAS NO FACTS IT IS A PERPETUAL SEARCH FOR TRUTH ONLY RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS LIKE Charlie THE National Socialist Kirk KNOW THE ONLY TRUTH THAT COUNTS IS THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER.
Adams was a Calvinist like Betsy the Anti educational Secretary and a Prince and sister of Eric the mercenary butcher and piece of human excrement.
Peter Thiel and Elon the Musk man grew up in Calvinist South Afrikkka and Peter the morality CHALLENGED Hoekstra is a Calvinist FROM Grand Rapids AND Ambassador TO Ottawa and IS ANOTHER PIECE OF CRAP. Amway IS THE American way AND A PYRAMID SCHEME WHERE YOU STEAL FROM EVERYONE AND KEEP EVERYTHING.
I love Grand Rapids and Calvin College but Calvin College is not Liberty University where you must check your brain when you enter the building. and bees are a local industry here north of Vermont and New Hampshire and we know all about the Beehive State where you will be assimilated. Captain Kirk was a Montreal Canadian Jew but Russell Kirk and William F Buckley Jr were Nazis not conservatives.
Do you know anything about John Adam’s or history? Look up The Boston Massacre and Adam’s principled defense of the Redcoats at great personal and professional risk. The man lived his moral and religious code of justice and respect for each individual. You and Kath have the darkness in your souls with your knee jerk reactions to denigrate beacons of morality with your brainwashed insanity
Scary learning history and realizing throwing dissidents in prison is an American tradition unlike the fairytale we learned in government school.
Imo once I realized how easy humanity flips into this mode of governing that even our enlightened forefathers indulged, I understood the uncomfortable truth that liberty must be won in a new battle every generation. That’s why I have so much respect for people like Taibbi.
That law was a mistake but it was a bit more nianced than that. First, it was passed because the Democrat-Republicans were openly cavorting with the revolutionairies of the Jacobin French Revolutionary Regime. The ones that were beheading everybody they didn't like. The French diplomats were going around the United States openly fometing dissent in favor of the D-R's who supported them. Still not appropriate or constitutional ( the diplomats should have been and were expelled). And in fact no one was jailed or even prosecuted under the law which was repealed. A mistake but it scarcely taints Adams' record as a principled and vital cog in the founding of the United States.
"And in fact no one was jailed or even prosecuted under the law which was repealed."
Not true. Legal scholars say that there were ten verified prosecutions under the Sedition Act. They even sent a Democratic-Republican congressman, Matthew Lyon, to jail for four months.
The Sedition Act, the one with which the Adams administration was suppressing criticism and throwing journalists in jail, expired in 1800. What Supreme Court cases are you talking about?
I'm not comfortable with an administration that threatens the networks but I can't shed any tears for Kimmel or ABC. The mainstream media is an open partner of the democratic party. Isn't there a problem with that? We put innocent Japanese citizens in camps during world war 2 and came back to sanity.
Wrong. The FCC chair said he would fuck ABC id they didn't dump him. Not to worry because Dems are going to fight fire with fire. That network's licenses are toast when we're back in. I would dump my 'Nexstar stock. No more Merrick Garlands. AG Adam Schiff will be on the job.
No he didn't. You literally made that up. Just like Kimmel made up lies about Kirk's murderer and attacked Trump supporters (yet again). And the remarks made by Kirk were not why the show was pulled. It was because a major affiliate announced it would not air the show and ABC decided to cut its losses. And your latter comments demonstrate that you and those like you are big part of the reason this country is falling apart. It figures you like Adam Schiff, one of the darkest nastiest liars who ever disgraced Congress which is really saying something.
The mainstream media does include Fox News, Newsmax and Sinclair Media Group, not to mention the religious channels. They are all open partners of the Democratic Party? If a Democratic Administration had shut down the Fox Empire for its many crimes that were always settled with a plea bargain would that have been okay? I know a lot of people who wouldn't have shed any tears if the Murdoch carpetbaggers had been sent back to Australia where they came from.
Mainstream includes Fox and Newsmax? What universe do you live in? The democrats/mainstream media thought so much of their bretheren at fox they tried to have them removed from the white house briefing room during the biden administration.
FOX is in a weird position-they are definitely old, mainstream media, even if their editorial viewpoint is obviously right leaning. Tucker Carlson went off the rez, and no one is making an effort to bring him back.
Well probably not the same one you do. I avoid mainstream media as much as possible. Democrats/Mainstream Media didn't succeed in getting Fox brethren removed, did they? However, Trump did remove a number of mainstream journalists from the White House.
Stopped in at the local tavern for lunch. Lou The Wrench was there.
I asked him how his reconstructed knee was. "Fine. I'm going back to work next Monday." Two guys next to Lou, big Yankee fans, keeping up a stream of chatter about Rao's etc. All that one of them needed was the cue about artificial knees:
"Me too!"
And with that, he swung his visible right knee (wearing shorts) out from under the counter. It had a surgical scar line that started in a straight line from below his knee, continued up and over the knee cap (we're now in a steeplechase race), and ended above us in the Hayden Planetarium ceiling.
I said to him, "I'm glad we're not discussing vasectomies."
***
Fact: 46 different pitchers have been on the mound for the NY Mets in 2025.
... #47 (also his uniform number), D. J. Trump, is now coming in for the Mets in relief.
Was John Adams being moral when he signed the Sedition Act of 1798, when the ink was barely dry on the Bill of Rights, ignoring the 1st Amendment and began locking up/canceling publishers/reporters who were pro Thomas Jefferson and against his administration?
Sedition Act; What was the political situation in 1798, with the young nation on the very brink of a French style revolution and at the same time war with France? The rest of the Western world plunged into the world war of the French Revolution and dawning Napoleonic wars?
As it happened war with England later instead as part of the same world war?
Did Adams deal with a real existential danger ?
Certainly close.
62 years later Lincoln had to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War.
It’s easy to criticize from safety, I recall some instances in our own lives where laws and constitution be damned, we want to be SAFE and RIGHT NOW! 😱 The Alien and Sedition Act was passed in response to French Revolutionary Aliens stirring up Sedition in America. The response to the grievous blow of 9/11 was far more severe and worse lasting.
The Alien and Sedition act was hardly used and shortly repealed , as crisis legislation should be… if passed at all.
Again, I don’t think Laws belong in war or that police should be soldiers.
Take your laws to war, lose war and laws (we just did this). It is better to use soldiers for war, or mercenaries, or Privateers, or Filibusters, or anyone but lawyers and police, for THEN it is an institution.
He is a very cunning linguist. The man is so bright and can turn a hell of a phrase. I wish I saw proportionate outrage to the 1A transgressions, glad he's calling this out though.
Olberman would outpace Kimmel due to the fact that he runs on sheer hatred and spite while Kimmel’s fuel is canned laughter, which I assume would be comparatively limited in media hell.
09/17/25: There hasn't been a TV network (non-cable) that has had that as a business principle since about 2008. The pendulum swung out so far, it just missed colliding with Pluto in its orbit, and has now returned.
One thing for the public and the network to take him down, another for the government to pressure them to do so under spurious pretexts. Then again it's hard to see that Jimmy Kimmel is serving the public interest, unless the ABC is representing a suitable range of diverse views.
There's really not much difference between cable and regular TV these days. Also, it's okay to call for the murder of homeless people because it's on cable TV? You've got to be kidding me
I despise Jimmy Kimmel as much as any human being alive. And when he speaks blatant lies on the air... yeah, *something* should be done. I have no idea what - maybe some kind of civil or regulatory fine in the $ millions? I don't know.
But this latest turn by the Trump admin is deeply troubling. The threat to pull a broadcast license should be limited to criminal offenses like inciting violence. And then there's Pam Bondi drawing a distinction between "hate speech" and free speech. SAY WHAT? That is THE opening gambit to erode 1st Amendment rights. The last US politician I can recall saying hate speech was illegal was Tim motherfucking Walz.
FCC has an overarching "public interest" mandate. It is very broad and as vague as it sounds. That actually allows them to not renew licenses very easily. But they don't pull them just like that. That move is subject to due process. And no reputable judge would allow it for "non-approved" speech.
For decades, the government mandated that married men and women had to have separate beds. Not saying that was good, but to act like this is a new thing is ludicrous.
I do too, but it didn't involve separate beds. In fact, people in my recent experience are often nervous about letting other know that they and their partners sleep separately. Turns out that a lot of people sleep better in their own bed, but feel like they have to be in the closet about it.
I have no idea. But watch any TV show from I Love Lucy to bewitched and you will see. If I remember correctly, Mike and Carol Brady were some of the first to be in the same bed.
MSM networks are losing so much audience and ratings they can't afford to offend any viewers they have still have. Kimmel can say whatever he wants, but not necessarily on the network's time and dime.
Here’s the thing - we don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes at ABC. They may have been looking for a reason to drop Kimmel. This might have been his third strike. Or his tenth. It probably wasn’t his first. If ABC wanted to keep him and thought he was worth it, they might have gone to the mat for him. They didn’t.
Exactly what I was thinking about writing! Thanks for doing it so I didn’t have to! Rats off a sinking ship of the legacy media. They’re trying to become relevant again and become profitable somehow.
Does Kimmel have recourse to sue due to the involvement of FTC chief.....I understand he was involved in this.....to sue the US govt on 1st amendment grounds?
Well, if the FCC commissioner says “this can go easy or hard” and Disney drops the ax 38 minutes later, there’s no question what it looks like. Even though I suspect this was much more about stemming an affiliate revolt than censorship, the optics are what they are.
If someone told me they were taking my daughter “the easy way or the hard way”, one of us would be dead. If they said the same about the quarter in my pocket, they’d have the quarter and we’d both be on our merry way. Kimmel is the quarter. He obviously has no value anymore.
Good comparison. Of course, you’re not legally accountable to anyone for your daughter (that accountability is to your wife and daughter) like a publicly-traded CEO is. And you love your daughter a country mile more than Iger loves Kimmel. Easy call for Iger, as Kimmel’s likely losing Colbert kind of money for Disney anyway.
People like Pelosi and Newsom will be pissed at him, but he ain’t accountable to them.
I’m guessing horrible ratings had more to do with the affiliate revolt than his Kirk comments-that was just a convenient excuse. And I’m guessing Disney was more than happy to respond with canning him. The optics definitely aren’t great, but it’s probably a win for everyone except Kimmel
Disney’s brand used to stand for good ole American wholesomeness back in the day. Over the years they simply changed to meet the decadence demand in our culture and their investors dividends. Let the consumer choose. No one is forced to have a television and watch, except 1984’s Winston Smith.
Yah I think this is the case too. It's sort of like what Matt and Walter said on Monday about how people are likely getting fired because the company wants an excuse to lower headcount. So they'll use whatever excuse they can get.
38 minutes was too quick I agree. The affiliate pulling the plug on the show was the real reason. Like you said it just muddled the waters AND gave the left the narrative that the authoritarian government of Trump was the real reason.
I don’t completely agree with your analogy to European censorship. At least not yet. His statement reminds me of Bondi on hate speech. Not well thought out and will not be implemented as policy.
Maybe making it look like government overreach was part of Iger’s plan. For a decision he would have made for financial reasons sooner or later anyway.
Yea -- I would wait a bit before judging Carr. He's been in office for 6 mos (approx) and hasn't done anything rash or stupid. I don't see him violating fundamental speech rights. A little harsh rhetoric now from Carr is not going to hurt anyone. He has some speech rights also.
When you and Walter go over this issue Friday it would be helpful to the audience if you did a little primer on cable v. non-cable channels and the regulatory role of the FCC. I remember when the huge box in the corner of our living room only had 4 channels and signed off with the national anthem each night, but some readers/listeners might not.
not any different from what they did to the phone companies 2003-2004 when they said “install our PATRIOT ACT software so we can do wireless tapping or we start fining you”
I look forward to having you and Walter wrestle this to the ground. I’m kinda wondering if Kimmel and his handlers chose this moment to morph Kimmel’s growing unpopularity into a 1A issue.
At any rate, I won’t be surprised if Kimmel shows up on a Substack podcast with an instant million subs.
I can see from the comments on this that most people are too young to know the difference between broadcast channels and cable channels....also that people do not understand about private enterprise...Cable was created for people like Kimmel and the rest of them...where you had the freedom to say whatever vile thing you wanted...people paid for the privilege of hearing it....broadcast channels are exactly that....licensed selected airwaves and broadcast...in fact, there should be no charge by cable companies for having those broadcast channels in their lineup...I resent having to have a "provider" to listen to a broadcast channel for ABC, CBS, or NBC. They are broadcast channels...over the airwaves...
And a key thing here is the supreme court rulings related to laws giving the FCC power to regulate **broadcast** media.
I personally believe that these laws and rulings are evil and obvious first amendment violations, but I am not on the supreme court or in congress so my opinion doesn't hold much sway--but the current state of the law and the constitution is that congress has the power to regulate content sent over certain broadcast frequencies.
No dirty words and no boobies, no promotion of crime or terrorism, a ton of rules written and unwritten--and the power to revoke broadcast licenses. And this brutal censorship happens every second of every day.
It's been this way forever at this point. Tons of opportunities for congress and the courts to revisit this issue, so everyone is happy with the current state of affairs.
So this is just another story of "It's a horrific constitutional violation for Trump to use the democratic levers of powers as elected president."
It's the exact same shtick over and over and over.
Of course Trump does all of this out in the open, instead of behind the standard closed doors (because it would leak anyway)--which makes this somehow even more of a sin.
It's the exact same shtick over and over and over.
If Kimmel was selling Holocaust denial (almost) everyone would demand the FCC enforce the responsibilities of the current laws and court rulings.
There is an old joke that America only learns geography through war. Trump is how we learn about the constitution.
09/17/25: Well, he's a man, a middle-aged man, and they tend to run to fat at about that age, so he'll be the one on the trampoline in his new show on Public Access Channel #59 (vacation relief programming for Sideshow Bob).
Sitting on the couch as his sidekick was originally going to be Karen Bass, but the fire insurance rates soared when that was announced and now she's going back to her job of driving Miss Daisy Kamala around in bumper-to-bumper LA rush-hour traffic at 3 m.p.h.
He can go to cable or podcasts...but he is (was) on a broadcast channel which is an entirely different kettle of fish...Read the history of why cable came about...Clue: It wasn't because the broadcast channels couldn't be picked up in rural areas.
I am a free speech absolutist. However, I think we need more lawsuits when the press/media puts out obvious demonstrable lies. Sullivan vs NY Times. I just don’t understand the logic behind it. It seems the ruling could not fathom that the press would lie and bullshit. It assumed the press is honest. Big assumption. What if say you wanted to make up a some bullshit about a candidate or president was a Russian asset to delegitimize a Pres.
Kimmel and Colbert will launch Substacks before the end of 2025. They will go on Substack live interviews with Jim Acosta, Jen Rubin, and Heather Cox Richardson. The human centipede of slop marches on.
But they don't have the plot armor they had elsewhere.
Been enjoying pushing the buttons of the kiddos getting in the convo and insisting that the recent shooter beyond all evidence is really a straight white male.
They don't stand a chance when speech is free and you got the sauce.
That's the real issue, isn't it? If they repeat each other and don't have the masthead or the network paying they will fade on their own. I only have several Substacks on auto-renew. I keep the same budget I had when I subbed to newspapers. Most of the people coming to Substack from MSM had staff and writers for them to read. Without that support they will be repetitive as they don't have their own voices.
Let the purity tests and denunciations begin! This is going to be fascinating to watch. My money's on Heather Cox Richardson, but Joy Reid could be a challenge.
Well, the current trends seem to indicate the lefties are a whole lot better than our side, subscriber wise. Just saw an analysis of the top subscription magnets. Wish I could find it….
100% sure this was going to happen anyways. Carr needs to learn to shut up and see what happens. You’re right - it looks terrible. Not that I feel bad for Kimmel. He’s alive, he can spend more time with his family and he has a bunch of money. He’ll be fine. If he was a smart man, which he clearly is not, this would have been a golden opportunity to entertain everyone and help them forget the weight of this last week. Opportunity missed.
I suppose reasonable people can differ on that point, but if you’re a chess player you are always thinking about the next three moves. I’m not that smart, so I can only really see the next move and I see the whole left narrative complex claiming this was the government forcing Disney to get rid of Kimmel. Somebody has to not be the party that silences people and I’d prefer to be on that side, but more so it will hurt electorally if enough people believe it. All we can do is try to counter that with the reality that things are changing and this is an opportunity for organizations to remove their cancerous leftists activists. Not because they really care, but because the culture is changing, or rather it didn’t change when they anticipated it would, and they want growth. Because growth is the measure of success and lefty activists will take a healthy host and use it for their own purposes, which is exactly what Kimmel, his writers and his producers are doing. Clearly. This was never going to end well for them and they managed to speed up the inevitable.
Yes. That’s what “muddies the water” means. It’s means it complicates it because the other side can reasonably claim interference, whether that is truly the reason he was pulled or not. It looks bad. An unforced error by Carr. Patience and shutting up is often the best course.
Whether you buy the argument or not, the argument is that what Kimmel said was a purposeful lie with the goal of instigating more political violence.
And you don't sit down and shut up and wait it out under those circumstances.
I think a key to understanding things right now is that the Kirk assassination made the assassination attempts on Trump become real.
There was (and still is) a lot of psychological resistance to coming to terms with what multiple assassination attempts on Trump and the subsequent reactions by media, and politicians of both parties--actually means for this country.
The Kirk assassination made all that psychological resistance disappear instantly--and the implications are not good.
You don't sit down and shut up and wait it out under those circumstances.
It sounds like you are playing political strategy here but Trump isn't up for reelection, so I'm not sure who you are trying to protect.
Trump's legacy? Party interests? Who is the strategy for?
Someone has to uphold our traditions, such as free speech. Kimmel was not telling the truth, but he was not calling for violence. Not at all. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t get canned for that. Matt’s point, which I agree with, is that now it isn’t so clean. Now the lefties can claim state action led to his firing and that would be a violation of his right to free speech. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have happened without Carr saying anything. It would have. Kimmel was on his way out. His ratings suck and he’s whittled down his viewers to the hard leftists and it’s obvious at this point that’s not going to fly with the networks. That’s too small a viewing audience. Kimmel knows this and he’s going out swinging. Now with Kirk’s murder the spotlight was on him and he blew it big time. He was going to get dealt with sooner than later. Carr didn’t need to involve himself at all. Now they can say it wasn’t Kimmel who sunk himself but the administration threatening the network.
Just because Trump isn’t running again doesn’t mean we are not going to have any more elections. After Trump is gone we still have to win those elections. So yes, in a democracy you have to constantly work towards winning the next election. You have to earn every vote you can. And it’s personal to me too. I was a democrat for most of my life. I turned away from the party because of its stance on basic civil rights, like free speech. The lefts bread and butter used to be civil rights and the republicans have snatched that away from them because the democrats went a different direction. Now it is time to hold that position at least for citizens. We can’t make it appear that we are shutting down peoples speech unless they are calling for violence. And there are people out there calling for violence. But Kimmel was not. So it’s important that it doesn’t appear that the government is punishing him for his legal speech. Especially when this problem is sorting itself out anyways.
2 things can be true simultaneously . The government can vastly over step their powers in terms of thwarting free speech and Kimmel can deserve to be relieved of his position by his employer
Isn't the law that changed the Smith - Mundt act? Which I believe congress passed so I suppose Trump should push the current congress to put it back.
Look I don't particularly care for Kimmel or other awful things on tv like say The View , which is often ugly discourse but on the other hand I believe Matt is correct in the sense this is a 1st amendment overstep(which as we all know of a very slippery slope) and I think by allowing the Kimmels and other horrible humans to speak we are speeding up the end of mainstream media.
Lastly, one thing I know for sure is Charlie Kirk (who I personally had a lot of respect for) believed that speech and discourse (even unpleasant speech) was the only way we can all co exist.
09/17/25: Kimmel's happy. He made millions of dollars; he's been liberated from the media rat race; and now he can play the "Free Speech" Martyr (after cheering on the Left-ing Cancel Culture political purges since about 2018).
Not a bad strategy these days. He's the kind of silly guy who really would rather just talk to celebrities and laugh and smile a lot, and leave all the politics alone.
Similar to all of the recent firings because of the celebration of Kirk’s assassination, people have their first amendment rights but it doesn’t give them the right to keep their jobs. People on the right got fired for far less (ie. Speaking the truth)….. you reap what you sow.
Yes this simple explanation makes the most sense to me. Like most things in media and government, plans are ready in advance waiting for the right catalyst.
"What Carr described would reimagine the FCC as a press regulator in a full-on truth-arbiter role, in the spirit of Britain’s hated OfCom. That feels like a big jump from where the Administration was in February, when J.D. Vance lambasted Europeans in Munich for losing sight of basic tenets of democracy, including the “freedom… to make mistakes.” "
As you noted on your other recent piece:
"It will be the mother of all disasters if Republicans take the cheese and try to appropriate this machinery for themselves. The political gains will be temporary, but the tools for a crackdown will become permanent. "
I'm with you, brother. I'm still reeling with the heartbreak and rage of Charlie Kirk's assassination, and then fucking Pam Bondi says some shit about hate speech not being free speech. You wanna lose a fiercely loyal Trump supporter like me? That's a damn good start.
So a lot of the considerations Matt is bringing up are weighty… but I am having to bite my tongue to keep from saying “Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.”
I can't say I watch late night TV but regarding the news, I have never seen an article on my news feed that's been positive about Trump. Never. He banned testing on beagles one day (fucking beagles!) and there still wasn't a single positive piece. If he's censoring people who speak poorly of him, why do I only keep hearing from people who speak poorly of him?
I’m sorry, I understand your point. HOWEVER, this is less a free speech or censorship issue (to me obviously) than an issue of a corporation protecting it’s interests. Not good business to piss off half of your market. And I believe Kimmel made the comment about the assassin being from the “MAGA gang” AFTER it had been revealed the assassin was demonstrably of the left. In any event, his sacking may have been in the works before Kimmel displayed his lack of judgement. Ratings rule.
I suppose there is a chance that all this pressure starts forcing the legacy media to try something genuinely different and updated, with different sensibilities??
You writing "The means here are not great, that is true, but, umm, I think the culture will be okay without Jimmy Kimmel…."
Is perilously close to those on the Left saying "well, maybe assassination isn't great, but we're better off without Charlie Kirk."
Not exactly the same, and yes, Kimmel wasn't physically harmed, but the mindset that the ends justify the means is too similar to the smug nihilistic jackals who celebrated Kirk's murder.
I am sickened by the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and by those who celebrate it. And Jimmy Kimmel's pathetic assertion that the assassin was Right-wing is just grasping at straws.
But even *the appearance* of the FCC censoring opinions its political masters don't like, is a far larger threat to our democracy. Charlie Kirk died to uphold the right of people to say unpopular things, not to become an excuse for more government censorship. And I shudder to imagine how the prior Administration would have abused this power in its zeal to bury truths that made it uncomfortable.
Those who understand that freedom of speech is essential to functioning democracy, now must hold our noses and call for the reinstatement of the odious Kimmel, before more damage is done to American liberties.
Even if there were business reasons beyond "we're afraid of punitive regulatory action by body that controls our broadcast licenses,"
shutting Kimmel down, at the behest of a government official, is censorship and is unconstitutional.
And you know damn well if the Biden Administration had threatened a broadcaster to shut down Charlie Kirk, we world rightly (no pun intended) see that as a threat to American freedom.
If you're not opposed to this on principle, at least be opposed to it because eventually the Democrats will once again be in charge, and you don't want to given them a precedent to take the Right off the air.
Exactly. Free speech applies to all of us. Kirk and I parted ways on many opinions, but I fully supported his right to speak and was horrified that he was murdered. This decision by the FCC is literally the antithesis of what he stood for.
John Adams said that our system only worked for a “moral and religious people”. Jimmy Kimmel is showing us what happens when we don’t have that.
just as an addendum:
To understand John Adams' religious beliefs, consider the following points:
*John Adams identified as a Unitarian, rejecting traditional Christian doctrines like the Trinity.
*He believed in a rational approach to religion, emphasizing reason and morality.
*Adams often expressed skepticism about organized religion and its influence on politics.
*He valued personal faith and the importance of virtue in governance.
*His writings reflect a belief in a Creator but were critical of dogma and fanaticism.
*Adams maintained a complex relationship with religion, often blending personal belief with Enlightenment ideals.
Why do political figures from the early days of American history always sound so much wiser and more virtuous than current leaders in DC? Has western civilization decayed so much that we’ve lost all our morals chasing the fiat money printer ?
the failure of public education system. in the early days, the people were self learned and they independent thinkers rather than bing spoon fed with ideologies, and sound bites from the schools, mass media and social media. Eg Issac Newton invented Calculus because he needed a tool to solve problem k. physics. Now, many people with 16 years of education can’t do simple calculus and understand fundamental physics or biology, but believe men can become woman (though it is apparent that chromosomes cannot be changed) and there are many gender and that they could solve their perceived “climate” issue by gluing hands to public roads or throwing soup on paintings in museums.
Also once, people had to actually write essays, etc to be considered for higher learning. Nowadays, it just takes basal temperature.
No wonder these people fear debate.
And nowadays people argue that essays should be generated, lest students accidentally learn from the act of composing thoughts.
Their loss.
I got through a year of college without textbooks back in the 80's I winged it and wrote essays over all the stuff I found out by library research stimulated by references in lectures.
But That was then and this is now
I heard a chilling thing from a random stranger today- Their children are unable to read cursive- let alone write it.
I just recently learned that kids are no longer taught to write cursive script. I learned it from a young bank teller, who informed me that his class was the last to be taught cursive, and he hasn't used it since he graduated from high school.
I was shocked to find that out. It's like all of our letters and notebooks and old family recipes are going to be like the Voynich Manuscript they're trying to decode.
My kids were taught cursive in (pvt) middle school 3 ya. No idea about public schools in OH.
You have to actively teach it to your kids yourself. I homeschool and was going to teach my son cursive anyway but he wanted to learn cursive this year in second grade instead of third grade.
And actually his love for cursive has made me decide to get my own adult cursive practice book. My print is great but my cursive still looks like I'm stuck in 3rd grade. His appreciation for cursive has made me want to appreciate it more myself.
Just curious, what do you use simple calculus for?
I hate this nonsense of blaming everything on the education system. I went to the same schools that everyone else did in my cohort. There were SO MANY kids at school that didn't pay attention at all. It's really what you want to get out of school and most people didn't want to pay attention or learn.
No one ever brings up that part of schooling. It's always the school's fault, education system's fault, or teacher's fault. But maybe it's because our society doesn't actually care what you learn in school. All they care about is the grade that you get. They could give zero shits about what you learn.
That's where the problem truly is. No one applies what they learned in school to their own life. There's zero reflection on what any of it means. They never actually internalize what they've learned.
I have to deal with this and my 7-year old who hates learning history. I tell him that history is important because it teaches you about the progress of the human mind, how we've gotten to this point, which civilizations have shaped Western and American culture, and what not to repeat in history. And he's just like meh... I don't care. I try to show him how parts of history are reflected in pop culture like Michael Jackson's "Remember the Time" Egyptian theme. And still... just meh.
My point being: some people just don't care. They don't care about learning. It doesn't matter how engaging or interesting or relevant you try to make the education. Some people just do not give a shit about what they are being taught at school.
My hope is that my son is only 7 and he will snap out of it at some point.
I am not sure what your experience has been, but my son graduated from a low funded public school in California with an IB program just last year. I was surprised by how hard everyone worked both at the school and the families who sent their kids there, how far they made resources stretch, how much more difficult everything was than my experience growing up going to private schools in Houston - and still the kids thrived and the self-motivated ones soared. These digital natives are smart, they have had the answer to any question at their fingertips since they were born, any concept explained with a video, support from Kahn Academy, etc. You underestimate this generation of American youth at your peril, and they are the very last generation you can accuse of minimizing the actual hard work that needs to be done to adapt to climate change conditions, whatever the cause.
You get what you want out of school. People keep blaming everything on the system and not wondering why society itself doesn't care about being properly educated.
Yes
Here are the books that were in his library.
https://www.librarything.com/legacylibraries/profile/JohnAdams
Yes. I’d write more, but I’d have to charge you for it.
I don't always agree with you, but I find your posts well thought out and thought-provoking. Keep writing.
ok. whatever you say. you can publish on substack and see if anyone pays. free market.
😂
Some of you folks need to learn to recognize irony.
Will you be accepting your payment in money........or guns? :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2HH7J-Sx80&list=RDF2HH7J-Sx80&start_radio=1
nobody would pay a nickel for that.
Are you still pissed at me? 😕
never was. it wasn’t me that was ranting pointlessly!
Well, for one thing they actually read books.
There's that. Once more Matt gets sloppy conflating two different events - the private sector has the right to decide what to air - that's what happened with Jimmy.
The FCC stuff revolves around the same topic, but is about government interference.
Fuck Jimmy, and fuck everybody who figures that actions with our mouths are immune from consequence. Jimmy is free to say what he likes and those who pay for his spew are free to pull the plug. Win-win!
just look at music 1725 - 2025.
It's hardly original, but one cannot at the same time worship God and mammon. You can seek the treasures of this world, or those of the next. Not today there's anything unGodly in working, earning a living, supporting a family, amassing wealth, but if that's top priority, you're not likely to be much good to other people or the world, except for the inheritance and estate taxes paid out.
"Money gets you through times of no God better than God gets you through times of no money." - not the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers
Oligarchy, most likely. They were the cream of the crop.
yes
Yes
If you get a chance to read the David McCullough book on Adams, do it. Great insight into who Adams was. Id say there was a greater or more clear sense of purpose in that time. Definitely more community. They had to have that for survival.
Because they were the elites of their time. So they were expected to be well-educated and they were. They went to the finest schools and also believed in hard work and God. Modern government representatives are selected by uneducated and ill-informed voters that are told to vote even if they don't know who they're voting for. So we get whomever spent the most money aka was bought.
Yes
short answer: yes
Maybe it is us, the electorate LOL? Because, as we have been told ad nauseam, we get the government we deserve (originally Joseph de Maistre).
Geurino: Yes. The banking system set up in the early 20th Century, the establishment of the Federal Reserve, the Sixteenth Amendment, and a compliant Congress began the race to the bottom for working folks and the consolidation of capital we see today. A national bank, such as Hamilton gave us ,(North Dakota has a similar state bank today, and Jackson destroyed ,would have been good for all. Instead the Federal Reserve is an entirely private bank, but has an outsize influence on public policy. The progressive movement was the worst thing to have happened in the early days of the 20th Century, and the social policies of FDR, and later, LBJ, further degraded our social fabric. While I am disgusted with the Democrats, and lots of Republicans, I think we should be very, very concerned about the coming witch-hunt and crackdown on free speech.
But what JD Free quoted still holds true - that Adams said our system only works for a “moral and religious people.” Adams was both moral and religious though perhaps not in the traditional Christian sense.
Yes, and it may as well be said that Samuel Adams noted there was no better guide to human conduct than the Bible.
interesting, what do you people study/ do who know this stuff? lol
Oh, goodness, I just read a lot. And I think, too.
But the beer is good…..
Oh, yes, there's that. If beer is one's drink. I have it on fairly good authority his and John's was hard cider . . .
I don't think that's the objectionable part of the statement. It is: "Jimmy Kimmel is showing us what happens when we don’t have that [ a moral and religious people]." If I understand correctly, the commenter is suggesting that Jimmy Kimmel is himself a immoral and irreligious person - and presumably, in the light of the comment on this post, deserved to be fired. How can anyone paying for a subscription to Racket News think it's okay for the FTC to essentially ORDER the conglomerate network to fire a long-standing talk show host for his speech.
They are the bosses. Eff religion and morality, they can fire him for being a Dick and losing them advertising.
It's show business, baby!
Maybe it's not really okay, but since he really is an obnoxious dirtbag, so right now, I don't care. If we got 5 more in the same vein in the near future, then yea, raise an alarm. For now, Jimmy Kimmel...don't care.
I see. "Then they came for Jimmy Kimmel, but I did not speak out, because I personally find him to be an obnoxious dirtbag." That's what you'll tell your kids?
Yep. If that's how it turns out. I'll also tell them I held the line when my society was under attack.
Because he spread demonstrably false information related to an ongoing criminal prosecution. That impacts potential jury selection. Ironically might rise to criminal conduct of interfering g with or influencing potential.jurors or witnesses. Plus ABC may well have been reacting to the demands of its local stations who did not want to be boycotted.
LOL. It's the new morality at Racket news. Haven't you noticed? Check out the latest ATW podcast.
Take a walk Brucie
I am at midnight, a-hole.
Thank you.
I respect the founders so much because they were religious, yet thoughtful and not swept up in dogma.
I find that to be exemplary.
The US was founded during the age of enlightenment. Had much to do with their thinking and insight into humanity.
I was raised on this. I have skin in the game like relatives who had something to do with that Declaration and Constitution thingy. That the enlighetenment is stiill controversial blows my mind.
This is correct, and brings up my main beef with a lot of evangelical Christians who claim America was founded as a Christian nation. If, by the doctrines of one’s own church/denomination, a person is NOT saved/going to heaven, how can you claim with a straight face that they founded a nation that explicitly endorses your religious pov.
Did the Founding Fathers believe in a higher power? Absolutely
Did the Founding Fathers idealize a virtuous citizenry? Yes.
Did the Founding Fathers believe Jesus Christ was the only true path to God-like Franklin Graham said when commenting on Charlie Kirk’s assassination-or design a government to promote said assumption? Absolutely not-and it annoys me to no end when evangelicals imply otherwise.
As a Christian and a conservative, I agree that this was never a "Christian" nation, but it was founded on Judeo-Christian values. I cannot say if it's the greatest country ever; I can only say I'm thankful I live here and that I love my country and her ideals, despite her flaws.
I’d say every European country prior to the French Revolution was founded on Judeo-Christian values. There is nothing inherently Judeo-Christian about the Bill of Rights, or a representative republic. Belief in a higher power is not inherently Judeo-Christian-just ask the Native Americans. Were Judeo- Christian values protected by the BoR-absolutely. But the same could be said of Czarist Russia or Francoist Spain, in my opinion.
The framers assumed this would be a religious nation as all nations at the time were religious and didn't want the government deciding one was preferable to others or interfere with any.
As was very clear to me growing up. When did we lose this bit of American history?
Which still makes him an ultra-far-right-extremist to today's left. Oh, and he was a founding father, too. Which makes him a racist to them as well.
you are parroting a minority view of the left
Perhaps the point meant self government requires men be self governing… Eisenhower said the same thing then added
“I don’t care what it was” meaning what religion.
Religio just means bonds.
Does this include Islam? I suspect Eisenhower was referencing Christian religions that were most prevalent in the US since it’s inception. I doubt the remark included any non -Christian religions. I do not think Eisenhower would find much in common with the Politico-religious beliefs of Islam.
he pointed out several times the value of Britain’s bulwark of military power in those regions to keep Islam’s alliances with Germany at a standstill
No rational Westerner would.
james bonds?
Yes, please elaborate. Eisenhower actually had some sane and urgent things to say that were lost to the winds. If you have insight, I would like to hear more.
“In other words, our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is.” 
⸻
When / Where He Said It:
He made this remark in a speech at the Freedoms Foundation, Waldorf-Astoria, New York City, on December 22, 1952.
https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/eisenhowers/quotes
> scroll to Religion ^
Thank you for elucidating.
The more sauce on the ground, the stronger we are. Eisenhower was a great general. I appreciate his thoughts.
not sure I'm following but curious
I don't think Mr. Adams would understand the fury world nor be very accepting.
That is true. And you state it well. But that does not refute JDFs point that Adams said our system.eas designed for a moral people.
"He believed in a rational approach to religion, emphasizing reason and morality."
Sorry, what? What exactly is a "rational approach to religion", and how exactly are reason and morality related?
Ok
Thank you Kath Kath,
Bullshit!!!!!!!!!
John AdaMS WAS A Trinitarian AND challenged Jefferson's RIGHT TO HOLD OFFICE. Aaron Burr WAS jEFFERSON'S vice president AND SHOT Alexander HAMILTON TO DEATH.
John Adams was a Calvinist one chosen by God like Donald the Fetal Alcohol, disordered Messiah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregationalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams
Jefferson wrote The Jefferson Bible in 1820 and rejected Jesus's divinity and Adams was a FEDERALIST AND Jefferson WAS AN EVOLUTIONARY BOTANIST. Science HAS NO FACTS IT IS A PERPETUAL SEARCH FOR TRUTH ONLY RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS LIKE Charlie THE National Socialist Kirk KNOW THE ONLY TRUTH THAT COUNTS IS THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER.
Adams was a Calvinist like Betsy the Anti educational Secretary and a Prince and sister of Eric the mercenary butcher and piece of human excrement.
https://blackwaterworldwide.com/erik/
Peter Thiel and Elon the Musk man grew up in Calvinist South Afrikkka and Peter the morality CHALLENGED Hoekstra is a Calvinist FROM Grand Rapids AND Ambassador TO Ottawa and IS ANOTHER PIECE OF CRAP. Amway IS THE American way AND A PYRAMID SCHEME WHERE YOU STEAL FROM EVERYONE AND KEEP EVERYTHING.
I love Grand Rapids and Calvin College but Calvin College is not Liberty University where you must check your brain when you enter the building. and bees are a local industry here north of Vermont and New Hampshire and we know all about the Beehive State where you will be assimilated. Captain Kirk was a Montreal Canadian Jew but Russell Kirk and William F Buckley Jr were Nazis not conservatives.
Adams was a Congregationalist. Jefferson was a Deist.
If correct I assume he was a control the masses type of religionist.
Do you know anything about John Adam’s or history? Look up The Boston Massacre and Adam’s principled defense of the Redcoats at great personal and professional risk. The man lived his moral and religious code of justice and respect for each individual. You and Kath have the darkness in your souls with your knee jerk reactions to denigrate beacons of morality with your brainwashed insanity
john adams??? nooo that’s not it friend
Control the masses is 20th century, and certainly not Adams.
gee whiz
John Adams was also behind the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 by which the government threw political enemies of the Federalists in prison.
Scary learning history and realizing throwing dissidents in prison is an American tradition unlike the fairytale we learned in government school.
Imo once I realized how easy humanity flips into this mode of governing that even our enlightened forefathers indulged, I understood the uncomfortable truth that liberty must be won in a new battle every generation. That’s why I have so much respect for people like Taibbi.
Don't ruin their ennobling narrative with facts.
lol
That law was a mistake but it was a bit more nianced than that. First, it was passed because the Democrat-Republicans were openly cavorting with the revolutionairies of the Jacobin French Revolutionary Regime. The ones that were beheading everybody they didn't like. The French diplomats were going around the United States openly fometing dissent in favor of the D-R's who supported them. Still not appropriate or constitutional ( the diplomats should have been and were expelled). And in fact no one was jailed or even prosecuted under the law which was repealed. A mistake but it scarcely taints Adams' record as a principled and vital cog in the founding of the United States.
"And in fact no one was jailed or even prosecuted under the law which was repealed."
Not true. Legal scholars say that there were ten verified prosecutions under the Sedition Act. They even sent a Democratic-Republican congressman, Matthew Lyon, to jail for four months.
it’s been upheld by a dozen Supreme Courts, including the current court
The Sedition Act, the one with which the Adams administration was suppressing criticism and throwing journalists in jail, expired in 1800. What Supreme Court cases are you talking about?
i was thinking of Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Pardon me.
At least it expired. I'm still waiting for Congress to let the Patriot Act expire. I won't hold my breath.
I'm not comfortable with an administration that threatens the networks but I can't shed any tears for Kimmel or ABC. The mainstream media is an open partner of the democratic party. Isn't there a problem with that? We put innocent Japanese citizens in camps during world war 2 and came back to sanity.
The government didn't threaten the network. A local affiliate threatened the network.
Wrong. The FCC chair said he would fuck ABC id they didn't dump him. Not to worry because Dems are going to fight fire with fire. That network's licenses are toast when we're back in. I would dump my 'Nexstar stock. No more Merrick Garlands. AG Adam Schiff will be on the job.
No he didn't. You literally made that up. Just like Kimmel made up lies about Kirk's murderer and attacked Trump supporters (yet again). And the remarks made by Kirk were not why the show was pulled. It was because a major affiliate announced it would not air the show and ABC decided to cut its losses. And your latter comments demonstrate that you and those like you are big part of the reason this country is falling apart. It figures you like Adam Schiff, one of the darkest nastiest liars who ever disgraced Congress which is really saying something.
The mainstream media does include Fox News, Newsmax and Sinclair Media Group, not to mention the religious channels. They are all open partners of the Democratic Party? If a Democratic Administration had shut down the Fox Empire for its many crimes that were always settled with a plea bargain would that have been okay? I know a lot of people who wouldn't have shed any tears if the Murdoch carpetbaggers had been sent back to Australia where they came from.
Mainstream includes Fox and Newsmax? What universe do you live in? The democrats/mainstream media thought so much of their bretheren at fox they tried to have them removed from the white house briefing room during the biden administration.
FOX is in a weird position-they are definitely old, mainstream media, even if their editorial viewpoint is obviously right leaning. Tucker Carlson went off the rez, and no one is making an effort to bring him back.
Well probably not the same one you do. I avoid mainstream media as much as possible. Democrats/Mainstream Media didn't succeed in getting Fox brethren removed, did they? However, Trump did remove a number of mainstream journalists from the White House.
Only the beginning under the Trump Administration:
https://x.com/WeAreSinclair/status/1968471160359645658
Amazing he [Kimmel] lasted this long...
Comic Relief!
Stopped in at the local tavern for lunch. Lou The Wrench was there.
I asked him how his reconstructed knee was. "Fine. I'm going back to work next Monday." Two guys next to Lou, big Yankee fans, keeping up a stream of chatter about Rao's etc. All that one of them needed was the cue about artificial knees:
"Me too!"
And with that, he swung his visible right knee (wearing shorts) out from under the counter. It had a surgical scar line that started in a straight line from below his knee, continued up and over the knee cap (we're now in a steeplechase race), and ended above us in the Hayden Planetarium ceiling.
I said to him, "I'm glad we're not discussing vasectomies."
***
Fact: 46 different pitchers have been on the mound for the NY Mets in 2025.
... #47 (also his uniform number), D. J. Trump, is now coming in for the Mets in relief.
That was a fun moment's read. Thanks. I am old enough to have chorused "Looouuu!" In Yankee Stadium. Riddle me that.
Was John Adams being moral when he signed the Sedition Act of 1798, when the ink was barely dry on the Bill of Rights, ignoring the 1st Amendment and began locking up/canceling publishers/reporters who were pro Thomas Jefferson and against his administration?
Sedition Act; What was the political situation in 1798, with the young nation on the very brink of a French style revolution and at the same time war with France? The rest of the Western world plunged into the world war of the French Revolution and dawning Napoleonic wars?
As it happened war with England later instead as part of the same world war?
Did Adams deal with a real existential danger ?
Certainly close.
62 years later Lincoln had to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War.
It’s easy to criticize from safety, I recall some instances in our own lives where laws and constitution be damned, we want to be SAFE and RIGHT NOW! 😱 The Alien and Sedition Act was passed in response to French Revolutionary Aliens stirring up Sedition in America. The response to the grievous blow of 9/11 was far more severe and worse lasting.
The Alien and Sedition act was hardly used and shortly repealed , as crisis legislation should be… if passed at all.
Again, I don’t think Laws belong in war or that police should be soldiers.
Take your laws to war, lose war and laws (we just did this). It is better to use soldiers for war, or mercenaries, or Privateers, or Filibusters, or anyone but lawyers and police, for THEN it is an institution.
This is folly.
Well put.
Exactly. He is not one of my favorites.
so interesting did not know that
It is interesting- the links are here: https://open.substack.com/pub/lizlasorte/p/get-in-the-ring-thomas-jefferson?r=76q58&utm_medium=ios
what were the French doing? what was the XYZ Affair?
why are you trying to turn the narrative into something different from the facts?
I believe those are the facts at the time of the Alien and Sedition act.
Perhaps truth, ir perhaps knowingly lying, in public is the true point of Adams statement.
Isn't there a responsibility to not lie in public?
Did Adams note any specific religion?
09/17/25: Yes. He was the first Boston Brahmin Buddhist.
I guess that explains his child-like fascination with fireworks.
No
Precisely! It is when morality and community break down that laws have to be passed and enforced upon people.
He’ll always have his exile-in-waiting in Italy. Arrivaderci, motherfucker.
lg&m for the bitter weeds
And the award for best visual of the year goes to;
"Doing laps in media helll with Keith Olberman."
Out of the park greatness, Matt.
Matt never disappoints
Yeah, great line Matt!
He is a very cunning linguist. The man is so bright and can turn a hell of a phrase. I wish I saw proportionate outrage to the 1A transgressions, glad he's calling this out though.
I think Olbermann is too beaten down and irrelevant to make fun of now. I'd feel like i was kicking a chihuahua or something.
Totally agree! Many of these clowns just need to be ignored, and in the words of the Great Sage Mike Tyson, just let them “pass away into bolivion.”
I got bit by a chihuahua once…
They can be nasty!! Untrained little dogs can do damage!
If you kicked him i don't want to know about it.
But, I’ll bet you didn’t get bit only once by that little turd.
bet you $10 you can’t kick it through that second story window
I'll just give you the $10 and spare the pooch.
humorless. and worse, no fun. i don’t want it
It’s always fun to kick the shit out of someone like olbermann . Don’t take that away from us.
Olberman would outpace Kimmel due to the fact that he runs on sheer hatred and spite while Kimmel’s fuel is canned laughter, which I assume would be comparatively limited in media hell.
Totally worth my subscription fee!!!
His metaphors are next level.
hee hee. this is the part of the chatroom that i want to hang out in. :) :) :)
Indeed my favorite line lol.
Offhand, the only thing worse I could think of is being stuck in hell with Walter Kirn.
Being stuck ANYWHERE with Walter Kirn would be heaven
Don’t pick on our boy…
He's all yours for eternity. Don't forget to bring your psychedelics.
Not a fan -- but if Kimmel wants to run his mouth, let him.
The point is the networks need a mouth that runs with public opinion. I think we all see where the public is on this one
09/17/25: There hasn't been a TV network (non-cable) that has had that as a business principle since about 2008. The pendulum swung out so far, it just missed colliding with Pluto in its orbit, and has now returned.
One thing for the public and the network to take him down, another for the government to pressure them to do so under spurious pretexts. Then again it's hard to see that Jimmy Kimmel is serving the public interest, unless the ABC is representing a suitable range of diverse views.
Pretty sure there's thing called Fox News, if you think MAGA is public opinion.
Fox News is cable. What’s your point?
There's really not much difference between cable and regular TV these days. Also, it's okay to call for the murder of homeless people because it's on cable TV? You've got to be kidding me
But not on our broadcast waves. They use them st our pleasure and it’s time to crack down on the lies and manipulation.
I despise Jimmy Kimmel as much as any human being alive. And when he speaks blatant lies on the air... yeah, *something* should be done. I have no idea what - maybe some kind of civil or regulatory fine in the $ millions? I don't know.
But this latest turn by the Trump admin is deeply troubling. The threat to pull a broadcast license should be limited to criminal offenses like inciting violence. And then there's Pam Bondi drawing a distinction between "hate speech" and free speech. SAY WHAT? That is THE opening gambit to erode 1st Amendment rights. The last US politician I can recall saying hate speech was illegal was Tim motherfucking Walz.
FCC has an overarching "public interest" mandate. It is very broad and as vague as it sounds. That actually allows them to not renew licenses very easily. But they don't pull them just like that. That move is subject to due process. And no reputable judge would allow it for "non-approved" speech.
So you want the government to tell us which lies and manipulation? Not good.
For decades, the government mandated that married men and women had to have separate beds. Not saying that was good, but to act like this is a new thing is ludicrous.
What was the rationale for that?
Traditional morality. I think I remember it somewhere in the distant past….
I do too, but it didn't involve separate beds. In fact, people in my recent experience are often nervous about letting other know that they and their partners sleep separately. Turns out that a lot of people sleep better in their own bed, but feel like they have to be in the closet about it.
I have no idea. But watch any TV show from I Love Lucy to bewitched and you will see. If I remember correctly, Mike and Carol Brady were some of the first to be in the same bed.
That wasn't the government.
LOL!
MSM networks are losing so much audience and ratings they can't afford to offend any viewers they have still have. Kimmel can say whatever he wants, but not necessarily on the network's time and dime.
Yeah, on YouTube.
Here’s the thing - we don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes at ABC. They may have been looking for a reason to drop Kimmel. This might have been his third strike. Or his tenth. It probably wasn’t his first. If ABC wanted to keep him and thought he was worth it, they might have gone to the mat for him. They didn’t.
Exactly what I was thinking about writing! Thanks for doing it so I didn’t have to! Rats off a sinking ship of the legacy media. They’re trying to become relevant again and become profitable somehow.
Does Kimmel have recourse to sue due to the involvement of FTC chief.....I understand he was involved in this.....to sue the US govt on 1st amendment grounds?
Agreed. Kimmel is an asshole. The answer is just turn him off and don't listen.
Appreciate your policing of the Trump administration on freedom of speech and Government overreach.
I detest Kimmel. A disgusting human but we must always defend our principles.
What principles? That employers can't fire people? This has nothing to do with the government.
Well, if the FCC commissioner says “this can go easy or hard” and Disney drops the ax 38 minutes later, there’s no question what it looks like. Even though I suspect this was much more about stemming an affiliate revolt than censorship, the optics are what they are.
If someone told me they were taking my daughter “the easy way or the hard way”, one of us would be dead. If they said the same about the quarter in my pocket, they’d have the quarter and we’d both be on our merry way. Kimmel is the quarter. He obviously has no value anymore.
Negative value judging by Cobert's cost.
Good comparison. Of course, you’re not legally accountable to anyone for your daughter (that accountability is to your wife and daughter) like a publicly-traded CEO is. And you love your daughter a country mile more than Iger loves Kimmel. Easy call for Iger, as Kimmel’s likely losing Colbert kind of money for Disney anyway.
People like Pelosi and Newsom will be pissed at him, but he ain’t accountable to them.
I’m guessing horrible ratings had more to do with the affiliate revolt than his Kirk comments-that was just a convenient excuse. And I’m guessing Disney was more than happy to respond with canning him. The optics definitely aren’t great, but it’s probably a win for everyone except Kimmel
Disney’s brand used to stand for good ole American wholesomeness back in the day. Over the years they simply changed to meet the decadence demand in our culture and their investors dividends. Let the consumer choose. No one is forced to have a television and watch, except 1984’s Winston Smith.
Why does anyone watch that crap anyway?
To put more crap in their brains so when someone says they’re full of crap, it’ll be true?
Yah I think this is the case too. It's sort of like what Matt and Walter said on Monday about how people are likely getting fired because the company wants an excuse to lower headcount. So they'll use whatever excuse they can get.
38 minutes was too quick I agree. The affiliate pulling the plug on the show was the real reason. Like you said it just muddled the waters AND gave the left the narrative that the authoritarian government of Trump was the real reason.
I don’t completely agree with your analogy to European censorship. At least not yet. His statement reminds me of Bondi on hate speech. Not well thought out and will not be implemented as policy.
Time will tell though
Maybe making it look like government overreach was part of Iger’s plan. For a decision he would have made for financial reasons sooner or later anyway.
Yea -- I would wait a bit before judging Carr. He's been in office for 6 mos (approx) and hasn't done anything rash or stupid. I don't see him violating fundamental speech rights. A little harsh rhetoric now from Carr is not going to hurt anyone. He has some speech rights also.
When you and Walter go over this issue Friday it would be helpful to the audience if you did a little primer on cable v. non-cable channels and the regulatory role of the FCC. I remember when the huge box in the corner of our living room only had 4 channels and signed off with the national anthem each night, but some readers/listeners might not.
not any different from what they did to the phone companies 2003-2004 when they said “install our PATRIOT ACT software so we can do wireless tapping or we start fining you”
or fdr using the IRS to destroy his opponents.
Appalling but un-new.
The optics look like Disney did in fact respond to the FCC threat, but I doubt not. Maybe they are tired of losing share.
It wasn't the FCC. It was the head of a local affiliate. See how narrative departs from the facts so easily?
I look forward to having you and Walter wrestle this to the ground. I’m kinda wondering if Kimmel and his handlers chose this moment to morph Kimmel’s growing unpopularity into a 1A issue.
At any rate, I won’t be surprised if Kimmel shows up on a Substack podcast with an instant million subs.
kinda like brian stelter or cnn+ ?
How many are bots and will substackers with senority be allowed to enter his comments and tell him he's wrong?
I can see from the comments on this that most people are too young to know the difference between broadcast channels and cable channels....also that people do not understand about private enterprise...Cable was created for people like Kimmel and the rest of them...where you had the freedom to say whatever vile thing you wanted...people paid for the privilege of hearing it....broadcast channels are exactly that....licensed selected airwaves and broadcast...in fact, there should be no charge by cable companies for having those broadcast channels in their lineup...I resent having to have a "provider" to listen to a broadcast channel for ABC, CBS, or NBC. They are broadcast channels...over the airwaves...
The evolution of early cable is kind of forgotten now, but it was exciting. School Boards, county commissions, even library board meetings.
Yep, lol. Forgot about all of that..
Yes.
And a key thing here is the supreme court rulings related to laws giving the FCC power to regulate **broadcast** media.
I personally believe that these laws and rulings are evil and obvious first amendment violations, but I am not on the supreme court or in congress so my opinion doesn't hold much sway--but the current state of the law and the constitution is that congress has the power to regulate content sent over certain broadcast frequencies.
No dirty words and no boobies, no promotion of crime or terrorism, a ton of rules written and unwritten--and the power to revoke broadcast licenses. And this brutal censorship happens every second of every day.
It's been this way forever at this point. Tons of opportunities for congress and the courts to revisit this issue, so everyone is happy with the current state of affairs.
So this is just another story of "It's a horrific constitutional violation for Trump to use the democratic levers of powers as elected president."
It's the exact same shtick over and over and over.
Of course Trump does all of this out in the open, instead of behind the standard closed doors (because it would leak anyway)--which makes this somehow even more of a sin.
It's the exact same shtick over and over and over.
If Kimmel was selling Holocaust denial (almost) everyone would demand the FCC enforce the responsibilities of the current laws and court rulings.
There is an old joke that America only learns geography through war. Trump is how we learn about the constitution.
Maybe now he can go back to making videos of big-breasted girls on trampolines like he did on The Man Show…
Being with giantboobsis where he belongs, after all…
09/17/25: Well, he's a man, a middle-aged man, and they tend to run to fat at about that age, so he'll be the one on the trampoline in his new show on Public Access Channel #59 (vacation relief programming for Sideshow Bob).
Sitting on the couch as his sidekick was originally going to be Karen Bass, but the fire insurance rates soared when that was announced and now she's going back to her job of driving Miss Daisy Kamala around in bumper-to-bumper LA rush-hour traffic at 3 m.p.h.
Don't forget the blackface.
Finally, some socially redeeming content…
He can go to cable or podcasts...but he is (was) on a broadcast channel which is an entirely different kettle of fish...Read the history of why cable came about...Clue: It wasn't because the broadcast channels couldn't be picked up in rural areas.
I am a free speech absolutist. However, I think we need more lawsuits when the press/media puts out obvious demonstrable lies. Sullivan vs NY Times. I just don’t understand the logic behind it. It seems the ruling could not fathom that the press would lie and bullshit. It assumed the press is honest. Big assumption. What if say you wanted to make up a some bullshit about a candidate or president was a Russian asset to delegitimize a Pres.
Kimmel and Colbert will launch Substacks before the end of 2025. They will go on Substack live interviews with Jim Acosta, Jen Rubin, and Heather Cox Richardson. The human centipede of slop marches on.
There goes the neighborhood.
Amen. Substack is where we came when those fuckers booted people off of their media.
Yep, let us not let them forget it.
I think the top five or six sub stackers are liberals
Substack’s already infested with them.
Major infestation
But they don't have the plot armor they had elsewhere.
Been enjoying pushing the buttons of the kiddos getting in the convo and insisting that the recent shooter beyond all evidence is really a straight white male.
They don't stand a chance when speech is free and you got the sauce.
Can't wait to see them fight over the same pile of dollars. Especially if it keeps shrinking.
That's the real issue, isn't it? If they repeat each other and don't have the masthead or the network paying they will fade on their own. I only have several Substacks on auto-renew. I keep the same budget I had when I subbed to newspapers. Most of the people coming to Substack from MSM had staff and writers for them to read. Without that support they will be repetitive as they don't have their own voices.
Let the purity tests and denunciations begin! This is going to be fascinating to watch. My money's on Heather Cox Richardson, but Joy Reid could be a challenge.
Well, the current trends seem to indicate the lefties are a whole lot better than our side, subscriber wise. Just saw an analysis of the top subscription magnets. Wish I could find it….
Yeah, but we won’t be seeing them on the TVs in the airport gate area. That’s something.
100% sure this was going to happen anyways. Carr needs to learn to shut up and see what happens. You’re right - it looks terrible. Not that I feel bad for Kimmel. He’s alive, he can spend more time with his family and he has a bunch of money. He’ll be fine. If he was a smart man, which he clearly is not, this would have been a golden opportunity to entertain everyone and help them forget the weight of this last week. Opportunity missed.
It doesn’t look terrible. He’s doing his job.
I suppose reasonable people can differ on that point, but if you’re a chess player you are always thinking about the next three moves. I’m not that smart, so I can only really see the next move and I see the whole left narrative complex claiming this was the government forcing Disney to get rid of Kimmel. Somebody has to not be the party that silences people and I’d prefer to be on that side, but more so it will hurt electorally if enough people believe it. All we can do is try to counter that with the reality that things are changing and this is an opportunity for organizations to remove their cancerous leftists activists. Not because they really care, but because the culture is changing, or rather it didn’t change when they anticipated it would, and they want growth. Because growth is the measure of success and lefty activists will take a healthy host and use it for their own purposes, which is exactly what Kimmel, his writers and his producers are doing. Clearly. This was never going to end well for them and they managed to speed up the inevitable.
Did Matt say it looked bad?
Yes. That’s what “muddies the water” means. It’s means it complicates it because the other side can reasonably claim interference, whether that is truly the reason he was pulled or not. It looks bad. An unforced error by Carr. Patience and shutting up is often the best course.
Whether you buy the argument or not, the argument is that what Kimmel said was a purposeful lie with the goal of instigating more political violence.
And you don't sit down and shut up and wait it out under those circumstances.
I think a key to understanding things right now is that the Kirk assassination made the assassination attempts on Trump become real.
There was (and still is) a lot of psychological resistance to coming to terms with what multiple assassination attempts on Trump and the subsequent reactions by media, and politicians of both parties--actually means for this country.
The Kirk assassination made all that psychological resistance disappear instantly--and the implications are not good.
You don't sit down and shut up and wait it out under those circumstances.
It sounds like you are playing political strategy here but Trump isn't up for reelection, so I'm not sure who you are trying to protect.
Trump's legacy? Party interests? Who is the strategy for?
Someone has to uphold our traditions, such as free speech. Kimmel was not telling the truth, but he was not calling for violence. Not at all. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t get canned for that. Matt’s point, which I agree with, is that now it isn’t so clean. Now the lefties can claim state action led to his firing and that would be a violation of his right to free speech. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have happened without Carr saying anything. It would have. Kimmel was on his way out. His ratings suck and he’s whittled down his viewers to the hard leftists and it’s obvious at this point that’s not going to fly with the networks. That’s too small a viewing audience. Kimmel knows this and he’s going out swinging. Now with Kirk’s murder the spotlight was on him and he blew it big time. He was going to get dealt with sooner than later. Carr didn’t need to involve himself at all. Now they can say it wasn’t Kimmel who sunk himself but the administration threatening the network.
Just because Trump isn’t running again doesn’t mean we are not going to have any more elections. After Trump is gone we still have to win those elections. So yes, in a democracy you have to constantly work towards winning the next election. You have to earn every vote you can. And it’s personal to me too. I was a democrat for most of my life. I turned away from the party because of its stance on basic civil rights, like free speech. The lefts bread and butter used to be civil rights and the republicans have snatched that away from them because the democrats went a different direction. Now it is time to hold that position at least for citizens. We can’t make it appear that we are shutting down peoples speech unless they are calling for violence. And there are people out there calling for violence. But Kimmel was not. So it’s important that it doesn’t appear that the government is punishing him for his legal speech. Especially when this problem is sorting itself out anyways.
2 things can be true simultaneously . The government can vastly over step their powers in terms of thwarting free speech and Kimmel can deserve to be relieved of his position by his employer
If the law currently exists and was in play until Obama (2008) how is it overstepping?
Isn't the law that changed the Smith - Mundt act? Which I believe congress passed so I suppose Trump should push the current congress to put it back.
Look I don't particularly care for Kimmel or other awful things on tv like say The View , which is often ugly discourse but on the other hand I believe Matt is correct in the sense this is a 1st amendment overstep(which as we all know of a very slippery slope) and I think by allowing the Kimmels and other horrible humans to speak we are speeding up the end of mainstream media.
Lastly, one thing I know for sure is Charlie Kirk (who I personally had a lot of respect for) believed that speech and discourse (even unpleasant speech) was the only way we can all co exist.
A well-reasoned, reasonable perspective. Probably explains the paucity of Likes.
Right.
Well, well.....if it isn't the consequences of my very own actions....
I'm really beginning to believe some of these douchebags are genuinely masochists who enjoy the view from their own petards.
09/17/25: Kimmel's happy. He made millions of dollars; he's been liberated from the media rat race; and now he can play the "Free Speech" Martyr (after cheering on the Left-ing Cancel Culture political purges since about 2018).
I don't know much about him, but he does have a punchably smug face. I get the vibe that he was at the back of the pack they were all in.
Which says something to why Carolla and Rogan are still independent and he had to find an umbilical..
How nervous is Fallon? He probably bought himself some time by daring to “platform” Gutfield.
I think Fallon blows with the wind.
Not a bad strategy these days. He's the kind of silly guy who really would rather just talk to celebrities and laugh and smile a lot, and leave all the politics alone.
Similar to all of the recent firings because of the celebration of Kirk’s assassination, people have their first amendment rights but it doesn’t give them the right to keep their jobs. People on the right got fired for far less (ie. Speaking the truth)….. you reap what you sow.
Some not even 'on the right', but just disagreeing with teh crazy....
Disney was grateful for the excuse.
Yes this simple explanation makes the most sense to me. Like most things in media and government, plans are ready in advance waiting for the right catalyst.
Everyone in the industry knew that Kimmel was next (after Colbert), they were only wondering how and when, not if.
"What Carr described would reimagine the FCC as a press regulator in a full-on truth-arbiter role, in the spirit of Britain’s hated OfCom. That feels like a big jump from where the Administration was in February, when J.D. Vance lambasted Europeans in Munich for losing sight of basic tenets of democracy, including the “freedom… to make mistakes.” "
As you noted on your other recent piece:
"It will be the mother of all disasters if Republicans take the cheese and try to appropriate this machinery for themselves. The political gains will be temporary, but the tools for a crackdown will become permanent. "
I'm with you, brother. I'm still reeling with the heartbreak and rage of Charlie Kirk's assassination, and then fucking Pam Bondi says some shit about hate speech not being free speech. You wanna lose a fiercely loyal Trump supporter like me? That's a damn good start.
OfCom— is that what they really call it? They must’ve taken Orwell’s “1984” literally.
So a lot of the considerations Matt is bringing up are weighty… but I am having to bite my tongue to keep from saying “Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.”
I can't say I watch late night TV but regarding the news, I have never seen an article on my news feed that's been positive about Trump. Never. He banned testing on beagles one day (fucking beagles!) and there still wasn't a single positive piece. If he's censoring people who speak poorly of him, why do I only keep hearing from people who speak poorly of him?
Damn good point
I’m sorry, I understand your point. HOWEVER, this is less a free speech or censorship issue (to me obviously) than an issue of a corporation protecting it’s interests. Not good business to piss off half of your market. And I believe Kimmel made the comment about the assassin being from the “MAGA gang” AFTER it had been revealed the assassin was demonstrably of the left. In any event, his sacking may have been in the works before Kimmel displayed his lack of judgement. Ratings rule.
Protecting its interests from state suppression a lot different from maximizing profit. Don't muddle these two things.
Betting you are right on that …..
The means here are not great
that is true
but
umm
I think the culture will be okay without Jimmy Kimmel….
(that said, I hear you on your larger point)
I suppose there is a chance that all this pressure starts forcing the legacy media to try something genuinely different and updated, with different sensibilities??
My dude.
You writing "The means here are not great, that is true, but, umm, I think the culture will be okay without Jimmy Kimmel…."
Is perilously close to those on the Left saying "well, maybe assassination isn't great, but we're better off without Charlie Kirk."
Not exactly the same, and yes, Kimmel wasn't physically harmed, but the mindset that the ends justify the means is too similar to the smug nihilistic jackals who celebrated Kirk's murder.
Excellent point. What it boils down to is a totalitarian outlook can wear a “left” or “right” shroud, it doesn’t matter.
It’s really not
It’s two statements:
The state silencing a performer sucks
and
that performer sucks
both things can be true
i dont condone what the admin did
but I also won’t miss Kimmell
If I had to guess this is a win for Kimmel because he was gonna be on the chopping block anyway
the late night shows are all doomed
this gives him a way to go out a hero to his tribe
but the means are not good — I don’t like the trend
Oh, in that case we are in agreement, my brother!
I am sickened by the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and by those who celebrate it. And Jimmy Kimmel's pathetic assertion that the assassin was Right-wing is just grasping at straws.
But even *the appearance* of the FCC censoring opinions its political masters don't like, is a far larger threat to our democracy. Charlie Kirk died to uphold the right of people to say unpopular things, not to become an excuse for more government censorship. And I shudder to imagine how the prior Administration would have abused this power in its zeal to bury truths that made it uncomfortable.
Those who understand that freedom of speech is essential to functioning democracy, now must hold our noses and call for the reinstatement of the odious Kimmel, before more damage is done to American liberties.
Even if there were business reasons beyond "we're afraid of punitive regulatory action by body that controls our broadcast licenses,"
shutting Kimmel down, at the behest of a government official, is censorship and is unconstitutional.
And you know damn well if the Biden Administration had threatened a broadcaster to shut down Charlie Kirk, we world rightly (no pun intended) see that as a threat to American freedom.
If you're not opposed to this on principle, at least be opposed to it because eventually the Democrats will once again be in charge, and you don't want to given them a precedent to take the Right off the air.
Exactly. Free speech applies to all of us. Kirk and I parted ways on many opinions, but I fully supported his right to speak and was horrified that he was murdered. This decision by the FCC is literally the antithesis of what he stood for.