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 the 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.
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.
Try calligraphy. It really helps to break letter forms into individual strokes and then pull them into their customary shapes---magic! Plus cool pens and ink!
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.
Yes, Sandra Pinches; it's a terrible mistake. There is a terrific book called "The Hand: How Its Use Shapes the Brain, Language, and Human Culture" by Frank R. Wilson. Among the many insights is that we used to theorize that Man got smarter and then became more manually dexterous. It turns out to be the other way around. We started doing fine work with our hands, and that neural wiring went upward, making our brains "smarter."
So if you wonder why Johnny can't read, write, speak, listen, or think, it's because the only thing he does with his hands (thumbs) is text.
Our kids (24 & 23) learned it in early elementary school but weren't required to use it in their college prep high school. They can't read my writing and I say boo hoo. I'm not going to start printing for you!
About 10 years ago, one of my nephews (in high school at the time) formed a group of friends to teach themselves cursive. I was so impressed by that. Now that he's in college to become an oral surgeon, I'm wondering if he did it so he could have a cool Dr. signature...
This has been true for at least a decade. In fact, I'm surprised when anyone under 30 can read it. As a business owner, I have constantly had an influx of young people and by 2010 most of them had never even held a newspaper, much less purchased one. Cursive writing is a holdover from the quill pen and ink days and will almost certainly be a lost art once my generation dies off. My question is, what will happen to signatures?
The signatures are already gone to a major extent. The electronic ones are silly substitutes that reveal nothing about the unique writing style of the person who "signs" the contract or other important document. They are verified by multiple stages of text messages, emails, and the like, which could be executed without the "signature." I suppose that the signatory's identity will soon be determined by some other characteristic that is unique to each person. My fingerprints don't work on my computer because my old fingers don't have intact prints, they have worn off.
Children??? Also apply that to college students who are further down the track & the teachers who did NOT train them -- consider why that is so. Keyboard use does not accommodate that skill.
I bet you’re a fan of AI- Are people really that short of time that they need more time on the Internet instead of practicing an artistic thing that’s good for the brain? It’s a very telling thing that if you don’t learn cursive, you can’t read it —that means the process trains your brain to “see” An interpret visual stimulus- and complex patterns- It also can simply be fun- It also brings out any artistic talent a young person might have- Something I assume that you think of value-But maybe you were too lazy to think it through?
Amen, berlin! And these damn laptops and tablets no one can live without anymore in the educational setting. Socrates didn't have a Chromebook. Einstein didn't have an iPad. And they did okay.
And we've eliminated the Western Canon because of those horrible old dead white men. I took a tour through our high school library yesterday afternoon and I wanted to open a vein.
Every single book was written 15 minutes ago in a book mill specifically for the adolescent market. They all had the same cover: a sort of dark, goth, swirly, vampiry, manga/anime, all aimed at and about the hormonal adolescent. All the topics are depression, anxiety, being bullied, being fat, being gay, being trans, having an eating disorder, dressing in drag for the prom...
I'm serious. Go check out your local high school's library. You're a taxpayer. Demand a tour.
No Twain, Dickens, Bronte, Austen, even Salinger.
Our kids barely read anymore, but when they do, we're teaching them to read depressing books about... themselves.
It's amazing to me why anyone wonders why kids are suffering a mental health crisis. Lots of bad books and no good books will works its magic pretty quick. Most of the stuff they are reading (those that read at all) is real trash.
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.
Your son has one significant advantage over his peers, you! Your son is your responsibility not your friend. There'll be time for friendship after he is inculturated. He will be your legacy. Stay strong.
I’m thinking it’s the run away welfare system. Multiple generations of children raised by one or no parent . Work ethics are learned and not innate. Welfare was meant as a crutch, not a way of life. It fosters resentment and envy rather than a desire to achieve
Good point, however, if the education system were mechanics that you keep letting work on your car and it doesn't work, at what point do you stop overpaying the mechanics and fire them?
Maybe find something he is interested in and start small ie: let's find out together how this happened. Choosing and repeating achievable tasks that teach and re-enforce the business of inquiry will prepare him well for more challenging topics. Arguing about why to study something can be fun, or not.
The only society, btw, that counts for our kids is inside our homes, especially when they're young. You know that I'm sure.
I didn’t like school either but I excelled in certain classes, history was one of them, because of my teacher. And Spanish class too because of my teacher. Got As in both, lived class
History of Pyrates with illustrations; Mary Rowlandson, some copies are illustrated (scary!); Mary Frith - mental illness and theatre in London; John Hawkins, Queen Elizabeth's slaver -
Parents read the stories, summarize for kids, and then together produce an illustrated hand-made "book" with select text, maps, and illustrations, and comments - obviously scaled to age. Great way to introduce modern social issues, geography, and provide deep cultural knowledge free of the filters of know-nothing "experts."
Understanding efficient shapes (circle or sphere being optimum) for energy and material efficiency (I would never know this if I hadn't taken calculus), calculating the output of moving variables (common in my field of science). Of course all this can be done by chat GPT or computer programs. But how do you know if the program is actually correct??
I used algebra to find that a sphere uses the least material to make a fuel tank and once used trig to calculate metes and bounds for a property deed. Calculus always seemed like a way to weed out science and engineering majors.
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.
09/18/25: I had an excellent English teacher (a native of Wales). And yet, somehow, I didn't find out about Cider With Rosie, by Laurie Lee (from England) until 45 years later. This would be like not being told about the existence of The Great Gatsby in America. So even decent systems with dedicated teachers can fail to deliver.
The system is bent toward other people making money off your efforts. This is fine with me, but you need to understand this and not get sucked into it and fleeced.
Your son and that school sound like the exception that proves the rule. School choice needs to be mandatory and the market can choose which schools are successes and which ones are failures which need to close and their teachers get fired.
I'm more concerned about people who can solve calculus problems but still believe the mother of Jesus was a virgin. It's amusing to hear Christians complaining about people who believe there are many genders when they believe their godman had no human father and ascended into the sky when he died.
Parthenogenesis is fairly common in lizards, not such a stretch for a super-rare virgin birth in humans.
All religions have their myths: the oil burning much longer the basis for Channukah is physically impossible, but you just have to have faith in your rulers.
Don’t mix your bias view about christians to what is discussed here. Religion is not the core curriculum nowadays.
Issac Newton was religious and is considered one of greatest Scientific minds in the history. His contribution to mankind greater than some feeble minds can imagine. Real educated people and rational thinker can separate their religious faiths or spiritual lives from their scientific reasoning and empirical evidences.
Your concerns might be valid for uneducated. Having degrees is not the same as educated. People without degrees can be highly educated as well. You are implying anyone but atheists is a concern to you? including all scientists, doctors and engineers who are Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.? Since every religion has some kind of stories that people without faith won’t accept?
we should be more concerned about nurturing indoctrinated amoral people who don’t care about right or wrong but Political Left or Right and what is or isn’t conformed to their view. Eg Maoist red guards, Khmer Rouge’s teen soldiers, Nazi Youth.
I didn't say anything about "religion" in general.
Most specifically I referred to the belief that Jesus had a mother who was a virgin. That is more biologically absurd than the notion of binary sexuality. And certainly, people can show great intelligence in some context, but still believe stupid things. Such as Newton.
Compartmentalizing "religious faith" from "scientific reasoning" and "empirical evidences" is not a high mark for a "rational thinker." Such cognitive behavior is a substantial reason why a big chunk of the U.S. population supports Israel's genocidal conquest of Palestine.
I didn't say anything about atheists or theists. You are making unwarranted inferences about my beliefs. Some faith is much more rational than other faith. And some faith is not worthy of respect.
And I didn't say anything about people with or without degrees. I am a professional software engineer and I do not have a formal degree in computer science or software engineering. I don't judge peoples' knowledge or intelligence based on credentials.
The "indoctrinated" people you refer to are mostly not "amoral", they just have morals that you don't like. Those red guards, teen soldiers, and nazi youth all probably had moral sense. It was just perverted. And compartmentalized reasoning probably contributed significantly to it; they had some "faith" shielded away from rational thinking.
But speaking to curriculum explicitly: there are much better things to ensure students learn than calculus; that should definitely remain "optional." More religious literacy, history, logic, philosophy, and economics would all be better to include in the curriculum than calculus. Students have a finite amount of time in "16 years" and calculus should not be on the list of things we should expect them to have learned. In isolation, it is just a particular math that the vast majority of people will never use nor benefit in any way from understanding, nor would society in general benefit.
Absolutely fascinating! Many thanks! - Tasso's Jerusalem Delivered (en français) two versions; some of Milton's political writings, but no Paradise Lost, (it seems. Swift, yes - Fielding no. A Schiller history, no Romances - Scott, Shelley, etc., but Spenser's Fairy Queene. Marvelous glimpse into his imagination - did he share the library with his wife, I wonder? Lots of Tacitus as we might expect. No Mungo Park?!?
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!
UPDATE - If you want a laugh, the British press gate-keepers are having fits over King Charles and the royals making the Trumps welcome! Just watched the one of the royal bands play YMCA with a fly-over. The haters will just shit! Love it!
Of course. That’s how it works. No one is guaranteed a job for life nor are they off the hook for the consequences of their behavior and speech. I’m free to not listen and decry their behavior. I have a very good system of scrolling by some here because I don’t want to listen to them. But Kimmel is a creep who wished for my death and others during the vax crazy. I don’t give a damn what happens to him but a good dose of what comes around and karmas a bitch. Bye jimmy. I sure won’t miss ya.
The FCC used threatening language but the syndicate pulled the plug. He flat out lied to the American people. And as a Nazi, piece of shit MAGA I’m sick of these people. I’m glad he’s canceled. I’ve been canceled since 2016!
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.
The McCullough book is excellent. Most people don't realize how radical, and dare I say leftist, many of the founders were - it was revolution after all. Jefferson edited out what he called "mythology" out of the new testament. Jefferson bible still in print today. They read Greek philosophers in Attic Greek and Tacitus in Latin. There is a line in the movie 1776 by Adams: "the people have read Mr. Payne's 'Common Sense' - I very much doubt Congress has." Which is how I feel about the entirety of congress today.
Leftist? I see them much more of the liberal democracy/anti authoritarian mindset. Probably my 2025 bias of reacting to what leftism has done to where I live.
I kind of agree with Kath. I think Jefferson is only as good as his contemporary moderating forces. He was far to idealistic for my taste, but was effective enough to prevent the very likely federalist takeover.
I'm much more of a student of Adams who I find to be a terrible politician but abysmally underrated political genius who did a wonderful job carrying the torch from Washington despite his mistakes.
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.
while I usually try to read comments bto see if someone responded with my answer I am pressed for time so much apologies if already said but:
THEY WERE EDUCATED MEN. They were educated in the classics; with a commonality to that education. These were young men mind you who had studied when their minds were forming and growing. They had to memorize. They had to recite. They had to write WITH THEIR OWN HANDS which sparks so many other things. They communed with other like minds educated in a similar way giving them a base from which to work. When you can't understand what a person is referencing or why they would think x or y then your communication is immediately so much more difficult.
The revolution was not about democracy William and Mary abrogated their rights as monarchs to parliament in 1689. The revolution was about the rights of Roman Catholics that were granted in 1774 that countered the Toleration Act of 1689 that gave Roman Catholics in Quebec the same rights as English Catholics and non-conforming Protestants like Calvinists in New York, Puritans in Massachusetts and Quakers in Pennsylvania. Georges one and two couldn't even speak English and George III spent his entire life partying with Jeffery Epsteins and Donald Trumps. It also ended the English Civil War that was the bloodiest war in English History and was totally a religious war between English Catholics (Anglicans and non-conforming protestants. ) It was the reason for the American Civil War and the end of America in 2024.
Jefferson , Franklin, and Paine were not CHRISTIANS and UNITARIANS are not PROTESTANTS and UNITARIANS believe all men are created equal not just God's Chosen.
They say Washington was a Freemason as in the pyramid with the all seeing eye on what is for moment the world's leading currency.
The American Revolution was about participation in democracy and being represented. Colonists were treated as second class citizens. For example, the English army could demand housing in people's homes. England came down hard on dissent. Prior religious conflicts in America had led to cruel and unusual behavior. The Revolution was about people's rights and the Constitution codified liberty and limits on government power.
Noam Your colonists belonged to the landlords just like in England in 1776 and in America in 2025.. Paul Revere photoshopped the attack on police that you call the Boston Massacre. Fifteen per cent could read and write and 8% of them, were chattel called women and Ben Franklin never went to school but wrote a guideline for safe in home abortions so people could afford to send their children to school unlike Ben who started full time work at 10. Your head is filled with shit why don't you read before you write. There IS too much NONSENSE GARBAGE IGNORANCE AND CRAP I don't know where to begin. A colony is socialism and Charlie Kirk was a National Socialist and calling him a Nazi is what he called himself. How is that disparaging?
Scalia USED Samuel jOHNSON'S Dictionary to pervert original intent because originally in Johnson's dictionary 1789 Roman Catholicism wasn't religion only English Catholicism and non-conforming Protestantism were religion and everything else was error. You don't know shit at least Moe Knows knuckleheads when he meets them. In 1535 Henry executed Thomas More and made himself King and Pope in 2024 you shit for brains made a fetal alcohol disordered sociopath the most powerful man on the planet Cromwell allowed Jews back into England as Lord Protector he had to slaughter Roman Catholics in Scotland and Ireland to become Lord Protector there were no Jews to burn in Clifford's Tower in York after the Edict of Expulsion in 1290. Cromwell representing the Roundheads or non-conforming non-Quaker Protestants. The second amendment was written for Pennsylvania and its Quakers who would not serve in the militias,
I am 77 and I live in Quebec where we had a Democratic revolution during my lifetime and I witnessed many revolutions and I am AUTISTIC feeble in mind and body and see only with one all seeing eye since my retinal detachment put an end to my portrait photography days. I was born a damn Jew under the padlock laws of Quebec in 1948 and my mother was born a second class dirty Jew in 1916.
Bergeron is a cheese we put on patates frit with gravy and call poutine or Putin. We have a Poutine Festival in February Poutine Day is Valentine's day and it is Poutine week and February is POUTINE MONTH and anyone who says don't eat poutine in the middle of February when your nuts are freezing and you need calories not nutrition is a loonie. Spot the loonie is a favourite Tv show and God damnit the world is full of Loonies.
I am looking forward to the Pogo Poutine. "We have met the enemy and we had him for Breakfast."Moe
Today I am autistic with my own depaRTMENT BUT IN 2025 THERE ARE NO Jews, Protestants conforming or non-conforming like Calvinists. There are no Catholics English or Roman OR Holy Modal Rounders IN Quebec ONLY HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS.
WE ACKNOWLEDGE OUR GUILT IN EATING ALL OUR COUSINS LIKE Neanderthals' FOR BREAKFAST AFTER WE SCREWED THEIR WOMEN AND CHILDREN. we HAVE NO BINARY GENDER WE ARE ALL ANALOG AND RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN POLITICS AS Thomas THE PAINE IN THE ASS truthteller EXPLAINED IN HIS common sense treatise Common Sense in a land where common sense is totally uncommon.
Thank you Harrison There are no facts in science only religion offers facts science offers only skepticism and theories like gravity.
Our earliest leaders experienced a war that established the new experience as a nation. Most important, they were not professional politicians. Their leadership was not tainted by the temptation of lobbyists.
Possibly because Washington has become the place to go to get rich without having to be very bright or the have to work for it. Just sell yourself to the highest bidder, go on the take and remain there for life. It's a great gig that attracts dishonest people. The motivation has changed from a sincere desire to make a difference to a selfish desire to enrich themselves
I can answer your question, Guerino, only by speculation. The nation's founders lived during a time before cellphones, texting, word processing, keyboards, an internet, and hard drives with terabytes of memory. In fact, they didn't have photocopiers, typewriters, ballpoint pens, or paper mills. Their words, when written, had to be painstakingly memorialized on expensive parchment using quill pens dipped in ink. Therefore, they chose their words carefully, and instilled them with more meaning.
Because they were well read. They wrote in beautiful penmanship and if you read the federalist papers made arguments using facts or ideas they culminated through experience and what they saw. Granted the population wasn’t what it is today so getting the pulse of the people was easier per se but they were educated to look at both sides and they gleaned information from it.
1- Earlier leaders were much wiser and more virtuous (with a minute number of exceptions among current leaders). Today's leaders' primary concerns are, first, maintaining power, and second, accumulating wealth while maintaining power.
2- I accidentally answered # 2 in # 1. Congress is worthless. Unless you consider "net worth."
I dunno about virtuous. I mean there was Jefferson's "extended" family, Franklin slept with everyone's wife here and in Europe. There was the whole slavery thing. Many were in it for the money they couldn't get otherwise -- but they had an idea of what democracy could be, and for a lot of diverse reasons came together out of enlightenment educations.
I was thinking of civic life, personal lives had not crossed my mind. The founders were very explicit about liberty, free speech, etc. Generally, today's leaders could not care less about these things.
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.
💯 it’s a business. They employ him either directly or indirectly through a contract. They can fire him. if he wants immunity, then he can have his own network. Good luck, Jimmy, and good riddance.
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.
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?
And your kids will ask you: “Wait, you spoke up for a guy who appeared in Black Face, harassed women for laughs and made them jump up and down on a trampoline on The Manshow? Dad, did you also have a white sheet and hood as well as wear a swastika???”
If they want to keep their broadcast license, they can't employ people who knowingly spread lies in order to foment disorder and violence. To hell with that old school libertarianism.
Short answer: they read lots of books; biographies, which lead to other interesting sources, etc etc
I'm not being snarky and hope I don't appear so. Reading is the best kind of rabbit-hole to go down. This is a tired rant I have spent a long time subjecting the six children I read to from the time they were in utero to at least age 10 or as long as I could keep their attention (Harry Potter, anyone?) three of whom need some arm-twisting/berating/encouragement to keep up the habit.
My meandering point is, a little reading can lead to a lot more reading and many interesting bits of information.
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.
No, they were not religious. They were deists. And they recognized that freedom of religion meant that NO religion would hold a primary place in the state government.
I know that some were deists. But deism is not atheism. It is the acknowledgement of
god as the 'watchmaker'- something that set the universe into action, but not something that directly interceded in earthly matters. My own Esoteric beliefs draw quite a bit on this philosophy.
Minority view? Did you happen to see the land acknowledgement shit at the most recent DNC event? Go ask Rob Schneider and Sasha Stone about how crazy the left has become...
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.
NOOOOOOO. They assumed it would be a nation where religion of any kind informed personal ethics but in which, actively religion did not intrude. A lot of original immigrants here came for freedom from religious tyrrany of Europe.
No that's wrong. Completely wrong. Jefferson may have felt that way. But he was in France and had nothing to do with the drafting of the First Amendment. Religion was important even vital and very much in the public sphere. Some of the states actually had established churches. The framers didnt want a government approved Church and they didn't want government to interfere. But they expected and knew religion would be a very public and important institution.
It's not so much that this country was founded as a Christian nation that is important, but that it was founded and happened to be a homogenously Christian and European people. Aristotle *arguably said that rule by the many only worked in homogeneous societies.
If it had been founded by a 99% educated, wealthy, Muslim people then it would have been much different, sure, but would certainly be much less cohesive and easy to govern after 250 years of consistently "mixing the pot"
I am in no way advocating for any policy stance with this observation, but I do believe this to be true no matter how bad it reflects on the liberal consensus.
Another specific thing to keep in mind on this topic, is that the framers made a system that would allow local and state governments to implement rules on their specific homogeneous citizens that would in no way be allowed at the federal level. Many were only liberal on the national level (because it was more heterogeneous) and what would be called authoritarian today with what they allowed at the local level. Why should a conservative administration ban abortion in Portland and progressive administration legalize it up to birth in Arkansas???
You'd be amazed how many Christians believe (and have always believed) that Jesus Christ is the only one, true path to God, because He IS God, and The Son of God. It's complicated: See "The Holy Trinity."
You are uneducated and I admire anyone who aspires to use words to communicate. I am AUTISTIC. I was reading Shakespeare as a toddler and I failed kindergarten. I married a Doctor of Philosophy who was a master of science education from yhe University of Chicago. I was fifty when she asked me why I had no degrees when everyone at the University of Chicago mistook me for a vising scholar and I confessed to being unable to write. I had the best teachers on the planet to teach me how to write and I love writingdespite being old and feeble in mind and body.
Daniel Defoe is creditted with the first English Novel. Robinson Crusoe was written as a diary also known as a journal. Daniel Defoe was a spy and spies write journals not Romans or as we call them romances.
Calvinists are non-conforming Protestants they are definitely not UNITARIANS.
Unitarians are not Christians or Jews they are MONTHEISTS.
Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were UNITARIANS they did not believe in Adam and Eve or Noah they were SOCRATIC. We chose to believe and "take these truths to be self evident that ALL MEN arte created equal." Jefferson in 1806 began to reject slavery as he Eli Whitney Cotton Gin made slavery no longer an economic necessity when cotton was king. Franklin freed his slaves and became a virulent abolitionist and was banned in Boston.
The say Washington was a Free-Mason. Why not? The Magic Flute is my favourite opera. SaDLY Antonin Scalia LOVED THE Spanish Inquisition.
Jews AT LEAST BEFORE THE Russian invasion OF Ukraine IN THE 18TH CENTURY WERE MONOLOTROUS.
Orthodox Jews ARE NOT REALLY Jews THEY ARE REALLY FUCKED UP AND HAVE BECOME National Socialists LIKE McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt , Woodrow Wilson, Joseph Goebbels Ronald Reagan, Vladimir Putin, Bibi Philadelphia Netanyahu AND Stephen Miller.
"JESUS WAS A SAILOR WHEN HE WALKED upon the water." Leonard Cohen who l;ed the country band at Kamala's only High School. It was an English Anglican and non conforming Protestant school when Kamala and Leonard attended and now it is only the best Public High School north of the Rio Grande.
Irving Layton wrote For My Brother Jesus. He was Leonard's mentor and he said there is no freedom without free speech. Kamala lived 10 minutes away by foot in 1976 when Layton gave this speech at the Jewish Public Library
Thank you for the inspiration you are always welcome at my door. The Rabbi and his wife delivered the honey, grape juice and pomegranate yesterday and I gave the rabbi a big hug but his wife really needed a hug and their God won't permit me doing what is right but isn't kosher.
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.
No, our form of government is only effective when it's people are grounded in the ethics of brotherhood. And any moral faith is based in lifting up those that need it most without distinction.
Thomas Jefferson did not confess a Christian faith, he was a Deist who did not believe in many of the basic tenets of Christianity. Many people claim that the United States was founded on Christian beliefs, but some of our early leaders held religious beliefs that were relatively "personal" and nonconformist.
I would add Jefferson rejected the dogma and doctrine of the church, as well as the mythology of the new testament (virgin birth etc) He did consider the teachings of Jesus to be very important as a high moral guide to personal life., which imo it very much is. Sadly the more organized the religion, the more lost the message becomes. A note to the believing: The christian covenant is "love your brother as yourself and god with all your heart". That is what we all need right now, and understand there is one god and one humanity, not just the half you happen to agree with. Also remember "...a house divided..."
James Madison, who was the primary author of the First Amendment, also rejected all religious dogma, and he held beliefs similar to Jefferson's. Madison was emphatic about spirituality being both personal and private to himself and other individuals. Both men took very strong positions about keeping the government out of the practice of religion, and essentially believed that religion was none of the government's business. We should interpret the meaning of the religion clause in the First A in the light of what these men intended.
Benjamin Franklin was another of our Founders who rejected traditional religious beliefs. He had been raised as a Puritan, did use more religious language than did Jefferson and Madison, but did not support dogmatic belief systems.
That's all true. It's also true that the New England radical Protestantism of which his beliefs were a part gave birth to the progressive movement, with some of its results being the John Brown craziness, the imperialist fervor that led to the Spanish American War and US involvement in the First World War, Prohibition, and the current insanity of the American Left. History is complicated.
In terms of a citizenry governed by the Constitution as anticipated by Adams there needs to be widespread acceptance of common values. That existed at the time of the founding of the nation. It is under assault now. While I understand the disdain for theology as a basis for governance, certainly modern governance, I think it naive to disavow the historical underpinning of religion in western civilization. IMO too many people, wa-a-a-ay too many people dismiss very valid concepts because they are affiliated with a system.of religious beliefs. The Ten Commandments being an illustration thereof. Other than the I am the Lord one, the rest are marvelous foundation for a moral people. And it seems to me that the I am Lord one probably was necessary back in the day for the rest to gain traction because those commandments were handed down in a time when a civilization was evolving to form the foundation of western civilization. Are we seeing something similar now? Maybe. Maybe that is why the nation has such a wild west feel to it. But even if we are moving to a new understanding of morality the transition will be unstable and with every gain there is a loss.
Well put. Again though, the ten commandments remain as an underpinning to morals in the west. It was superceded by love your brother as yourself and god with all your heart. One nation under god is also one humanity under god. And to force conformity denies both. Most of the founders were well versed in the bible, many learned to read with that as a primer. But they then read Greek philosophers and chose a path of personal faith that was very syncretic, very individually tailored. The higher christian ethic is agape: tolerance, inclusion, acceptance, love. If the OP commenter has opened with that, I probably would have left this post alone. Trans people are not the enemy, nor are immigrants legal or not. The Right is not evil fascism and the Left is not immoral degenerates. Factionalist hatred is the enemy, the evil. Cut it the fuck out (edit to say, a general statement of frustration nothing to do with anyone specifically on this thread). Practice your morals, left and right, don't weaponize them.
I agree. And to be clear I appreciated your original input. I only responded because I am wary of the folk who take every statement literally and do not recognize context. I think that is the problem with a lot of people celebrating Charlie Kirk's assassination. I would see or read criticisms containing things he supposedly said. But every single one I looked at was not as represented. I fear that may result in a chill of dialogue.
Answer to first question; it is the opposite of a devotional approach in which logic is suspended by adherence to doctrine. The second, there are 2500 years of thought on that I will let you investigate on your own. I will say, it is entirely a rational and even secular argument to state that it s necessary to treat others as you would have them treat you.
So then I would say based on your definition that followers of mainstream religious churches would fit your "rational approach" description. You could surely tell me where I'm wrong and give examples of where "logic is suspended by adherence to doctrine".
And if you think there are only rational reasons to treat people as you would have them treat you then you have a very limited and childlike understanding of the world, and also no imagination.
Aldo I am including a rational view of how to treat others WITH a devotioinal approach. Read carefully hon. I am a scholar of religion, not one opposed to it.
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.
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.
CNN report: "FCC chair Brendan Carr ... suggested his FCC could move to revoke ABC affiliate licenses as a way to force Disney to punish Kimmel." Is that not threat? Glad to know you and all other "freedom lovers" are cool with a Democratic FCC completely shutting down Fox and confiscating Nexstar's licenses when they are back in power.
No problem - we'll just denaturalize Rupert Murdoch and his kids, and Melania, and "investigate" every Fox employee and their dog for "mortgage fraud." Problem solved. That's the American way now, isn't it? Can't wait for it.
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.
"Attacked" them for trying to exploit his murder for political gain and to excuse fascists acts against "left wing radical lunatics" as your Prez calls them. Fact check:true. He also said, the day before these texts from the suspect came out, that MAGATs were desperately trying to show the suspect is not one of them. Also 100% T-R-U-E. ABC did nothing until the FCC fascist had threatened their licenses. I assume you're cool with that happening to conservatives when Dems are back in. Good to know. Looking forward to your support of that effort.
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.
minor correction. American citizens of Japanese descent. But a good point.
Your main point is also pretty reflective of a lot of people. I am not comfortable with this but its hard to shed tears. Just seeing the comments from the other side it sounds more like a war. No one is looking for the middle ground. The unfortunate result of 2020 when we were told we could not be silent (its violence) and we had to pick aside. we did
It took 40 years and Japanese-Americans never got back all that was stolen from them. The least we could do is learn from history but that doesn't seem possible especially with Cheetolini censoring what historical sites say now.
Were you comfortable with Kimmel fomenting rage against an innocent group of people who had nothing to do with a horrible crime while averting attention from the true culprit and his ideology? That is incitement to violence especially in light of the insanity in the armed trans movement. Please refer to today's reporting on DW+.
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.
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.
I too have (had?) respect for Matt. My trust in him though has been shaken. Just to provide some background , I’m a boomer & until the 2024 election, was a registered Rep forever, but have since changed to Independent. I’m not educated or informed enough to discuss or dispute our country’s history so I’ll not address that. My replying to you was bc you said you trusted Matt as an honest journalist, as did I. I’m not so sure anymore. For the first time ever today, I listened to the “Due Diligence” podcast & the discussion was Matt’s avoidance of discussing Israel & genocide in particular. Matt claimed his discomfort with the topic & his lack of expertise as the reason for his not addressing it. How is that an explanation for a journalist? Uncomfortable? Uninformed ? Sounds so “Un- Matt” to me.
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?
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.
Hello, Mr. Pinella! I'm old enough to remember that in 1964, it was still safe to hop on a subway in the Bronx at the start of the #1 line, go south and hook up with the subway going north to Yankee stadium, spend $0.50 on a bleacher seat, be content with a soda and a bag of peanuts, and then go home the same way without a concern about personal safety. Those days vanished very shortly afterwards.
Ah, you antedate this senior citizen! I even married a Llew (for Llewellyn, which was homophonic of his nickname and my name, unless you pronounced his in the Welsh manner).
I fell in love with Ron Guidry's pitching one day I was dragged to Yankee Stadium, and was blown away with the players generally. Bob Watson, Oscar Gamble, Greg Nettles, the great Willie Randolph, Goose Gossage, et. cie. And, of course, the legendary Lou. I just missed Thurman Munson, but recall Rick Cerone.
No longer following the sport, but the memories are gold. I was in Yankee Stadium on July 4, 1983, when Dave Righetti pitched the first Yankee no-hitter of my lifetime. It was also Lou Gherig Day.
Your fond childhood memories come at the expense of my childhood misery. I was a die hard Red Sox fan, and went through my entire childhood being taunted by my sister and others for never making it to the top of the pile. The Yanks had unbelievable teams back then…..I just hated them. And then Bucky Dent(!) hit that home run and that was the pinnacle of humiliation for me. I never recovered from that. I packed my bags and left home…..
1. I never liked Bucky Dent, something about him just irritated me, and it was with great relief that I saw him replaced by Roy Smalley.
2. Seeing Curt Schilling pitch a winning game wearing a sock red with his own blood will go down as one of the great iconic images of baseball history.
I can only offer that, in 2004, when I saw that commercial for whatever it was, with Curt Schilling hitching his way to Boston "to break an 86-year-old curse," I honestly cringed at the kibosh such hubris often puts on aspirations, and prayed very hard that the Red Sox would win the title that year.
When they went, in the playoffs, to New York down 0-2, my late husband despaired. I told him not to, as the same happened in I think 1994, with the Braves having taken the first two Yankee home games. The Yankees, I said, had won every game after that, and so might the Sox, if they remembered to play the baseball game. Treat it as business and the Yankees would beat them, but if they "cowboyed up," to channel dear Kevin Millar, they had the upper hand.
And so it was, the team which had crowed, "Who's your daddy?" found themselves saddled with a Papi, and won no more.
I was from then on, so long as the games and my husband lasted, a Red Sox fan. I no longer follow the sport, but they still have my heart.
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.
Whatever. I think of all people presidents have a duty to protect the country from enemies without and from within. You mention soldiers are for war but when there are conspirators undermining the nation from within, they must be dealt with, too, or risk losing the country especially a young one as ours was. The US was young, in debt from the revolution, immature as to its legal options, and since Jefferson and his party were the actual opposing conspirators, I don't see how the fact that the law was an all-Federalist action can be held against them. I lose patience with those who attribute selfish motives when there are perfectly plausible unselfish motives available, such as love of country, the desire to continue living under the current form of government rather than having it overturned into something like the French bloodbath. Really, can you not be fair and non-partisan about these things? You need not answer.
So, you’re saying Adams didn’t lock up publishers and journalists supporting Jefferson and speaking out against Adams? It happened. I’m not saying Adams did not do anything good or that there wasn’t a threat from the French (although what to do about it is another subject). What I’m saying in that particular incident, Adams was self serving - as all humans are - and it just goes to show that ANY politician will be self-serving which is why ALL governments will ultimately become corrupt. As Charlie Kirk said, BIG Government SUCKS!
Both houses were federalist along with Adams so of course Congress voted for it. Jefferson had different ideas on what freedom means – and he dissented, and his views and his supporters were shut down – a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
Justice Louis D. Brandeis in his classic concurring opinion in Whitney v. California (1927), wrote: “If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
So, why didn’t Adams respond with – let’s debate, Mr. Jefferson. Instead, he shut him down because he had the power to do so.
Remember Colin Powell telling Congress that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? How did that fear mongering work out?
Maybe I have an invisible gorilla viewpoint, but I would have voted for Jefferson over Adams who, with Hamilton, wanted BIG government, including standing armies. Did you know that Hamilton said that a bill of rights was not only unnecessary, but…dangerous! It’s in Federalist # 84.
he should have been impeached, removed, demolished publicly with nationwide censure. Of the Founding Fathers jefferson is by far the least, a coward, liar, adulterer, cheat, and treacherous scoundrel.
i’m surprised that someone who is clearly literate would get this so completely wrong.
jefferson as vice president was working with france against Adams, the president. It was outrageous behavior, directly undermining the president for jefferson’s political benefit. Many nation leaders would have had him hung for it.
This tore the heart out me. Did not know he was a Unitarian. All the more impressive how God has interceded on behalf of America when in reality all we did was barely give Him a nod and His Son none at all. God had and has a plan for America - like it or not! Just look at the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's assassination. God meant it for good regardless of what anyone else meant it for. You can make a joke out of them if you do choose, but the efficacious prayers of the Puritan pilgrims (our true founders) are still reverberating in the Lord's ears. Praise God for faithful people.
Not sure I understand your point. You're saying Kimmel deserved this because he isn't "moral"? Or he's on the receiving end of the stick from less than "moral" people?
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.
Yes, good one. And let these judgments be rendered only thru ratings and on how we’re measured on Judgment Day. As obnoxious as these late night ‘hosts’ are, the FCC has no business getting involved.
And, oh by the way, what Kimmel said was not wrong.
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.
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.
I remember that too. They'd do an emergency practice every night at the end and then you'd get that weird color graphic thing that ended the channel's programing for the day. I remember when it all became infomercials at night at some point and thought that was such a huge change haha.
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.
I would also add that these are all sophisticated parties who are not going to be cowed just by some blunt words by Carr. They all have good lawyers if they feel the need to consult. And of course I agree he is accountable for his public statements, but the way this is playing out, I don't think he's going to have to walk anything back. The free market is taking care of this little problem.
I agree with you Matt, but they can fine too. Remember the Super Bowl boob? That comment could have meant a fine only. We shouldn’t read into this. The bigger reason, a very large distributor pulled his show. FCC didn’t do that. His lies finally caught up with him, just like my mama always taught me .
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”
Who cares about optics! But thank you for at least stating the fact that the affiliates held sway. Finally someone with an ounce of sense and good taste - I mean the affiliates.
If the public doesn't have SOMEONE on its side, ie, the FCC, then we're all sitting ducks for any totalitarian philosophy that comes along. Contrary to popular belief none of us are the brightest bulbs in the box while lounging in bed, half asleep at 11:30 at night. We imbibe that stuff by osmosis at that point which is fine if the deliverer is Johnny Carson being merely somewhat crude and hedonistic, but when they're pouring indoctrination and disenfranchisement by the gallon down our gullet as we doze before we turn out the lights, THAT is exactly what the FCC is for.
Soooo...the government should censor speech to make sure that the mouth-breathers among us don't get hoodwinked by those who might promulgate a "totalitarian philosophy"? I haven't read something so catastrophically stupid in ages. Would the FCC determine what constitutes a "totalitarian philosophy"? By what criteria would it do this?
Corporate at Disney couldn’t find its shoes in 38 minutes, much less make the decision to do this. Something tells me someone leaked the decision to this guy and told him it’d make him look powerful if he said this with the intention of using it as a claim of first amendment interference or it’s just bad timing. Definitely a bad look but doubtful that the government’s hypothetical threat had anything to do with it. It likely took Disney more than 38 minutes to craft their statement on this…
Look on the bright side.... This extra time will allow Jimbo to do as much black face as he wants! Maybe he and justin Trudeau can have a tea party and invite all of their enlightened, fully boosted friends over. Maybe even invite lurch/John Kerry. That'd be a real barn burner.
Perception is reality, as the old saying goes. They could have waited for his contract to run out, which it was due to anyway, but that wouldn't have scored any points with Trump's FCC while ABC affiliates go for a merger.
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.
Well, I read a report in the NY Post that Kimmel was "f'ing livid" when he left the studio yesterday so I don't think he was planning this. Great gotcha, 2x4-upside-the-head moment. Love it! And I really hope Matt isn't feeling at all sympathetic towards the creep. He's been a stain on our culture for years!
If his ratings and earnings were huge he would have fallen under the “too big to fail” doctrine. Obviously that wasn’t the case. While I totally agree that the optics look terrible I also believe the axe was going to fall and this just gave them the push to do it.
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...
So is the evolution of computers….I laugh when young people think that I couldn’t possibly understand computers….I was in my 30s when IBM Selectric 3s got one line memory….whoohoo…and then three line memory…I was there for the main frame/ PC war…I laugh….I have been with computers since they were babies….Any person, young or old, who doesn’t understand how to use their phone as other than a phone has made a conscious choice….and I know people in their 40s, with young children, who I lecture all the time about what’s out there and how they cannot continue to not know how to monitor what their kids are in to on the internet.
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.
Most people get that. The problem is the collusion between government agencies, main stream media, and social media to deplatform and silence conservative voices….with emphasis on “collusion between government..” The government is abridging 1A rights when it tells social media to silence people for their expressing their legal views.
They didn’t order. ABC could have called Carr’s bluff and challenged but they obviously decided Kimmel is already dead meat stinking up the place and not worth the effort. If Kimmel had high ratings and attractive to advertisers ABC might have decided to ignore Carr, but as things are Carr gave them a good excuse to get rid of Kimmel. The only “crime” here is that Kimmel was so bad and still got $20 million/year.
And twitter could've "called the bluff of GEC" instead of booting people off for telling the truth about covid which ran counter to the official narrative, right?
You may be referring to the FCC rule or policy about broadcast news distorting or misrepresenting the truth. I haven't finished the article yet, so I don't know if this only applies to news programs as opposed to late night comedians. There are citations of court cases over the years.
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.
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.
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.
Defend our principles = yes, but in this case that would've been ABC's choice and they chose not to. Kimmell's shitmouth finally wrote a check that ABC won't cash.
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.
I've been given to understand that, by FCC regulation, you are not allowed to lie about crimes on broadcast TV.
In any event, the network took him down for a whole slew of excellent reasons. I am not going to cry because the FCC gave them a reminder that they were on thin ice.
29. Diversity of viewpoint, ownership, and employment have long been and continue to be a fundamental public policy goal in broadcasting.
AI synopsis: Diverse Voices: Programming should reflect the diversity of the country and provide access to a wide range of voices and views.
Giving Jimmy Kimmel's an hour a day to bash conservatives, whether lying or not, would require them to give some other voice an hour a day to bash progressives.
09/18/25: I'm sorry. It was a mischievous pun. In other news, Kimmel is distraught: "I can't believe this! Now if I want to work, I have to learn how to be a comedian!" (said the very, very unfunny Hollywood pudge ball).
"No, the Fox broadcast license is not similar to ABC, CBS, and NBC because the FCC doesn't license the networks themselves, but rather individual local broadcast stations. Both Fox Networks and the other major networks own and operate some local stations, and these individual stations require an FCC broadcast license, which is subject to renewal and regulatory oversight. Fox News, however, is a cable channel and does not require an FCC license."
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
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.
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.
Yeah, to a certain extent, FCC license red tape can be seen as dollar bills flying away. Not worth it for a Kimmel if you’re in Disney’s shoes, I feel. Talk shows are a zombie format.
WHY? Cuz FCC license renewals can be easy or a pain. And when they’re a pain, you have to pay lawyers to get it all resolved. But such legitimate federal power can still be misused. It’s a fine line.
I won’t weep for Kimmel. He’s done well. Just 30 years ago he was another minor L.A. radio personality reading sports highlights in between the DJs blabbering nonsense. But I don’t want any government agency to punish “objectionable” expression because it can. Even if entire elites did the same in the private sector during the Woke Golden Age of Obama’s second term.
I completely disagree. Broadcast networks pay nothing for licenses worth billions upon billions of dollars. These are staggering benefits granted by the public on only one condition, and that condition could scarcely be easier to comply with.
Do you really think the standard should be even lower? That it should be lawful to threaten this largesse only in response to actual CRIMES? Consider how rare criminal charges against corporations are - to say nothing of convictions, and to say even less about criminal charges for speech.
For what it's worth, I thought PB should be fired for what she said - horrifying stuff that, like you said, is a verbatim echo of every major figure Trump ran against. I hope Vance has lunch with her or something.
Two last points. First - logistically, the FCC does not grant one giant license to ABC - it grants individual licenses to local network affiliates, some of which are owned by ABC, but many (most?) of which are not. Kimmel's show was first pulled by a company that owns a large number of affiliates. It doesn't change the core point but I think it's still an important note.
Second - I don't know what the specific best structure is for enforcing FCC rules, but I am very much open to the idea of selling these rights instead of giving them away. The FCC already runs auctions for different bands of the EM spectrum so I don't see why they couldn't do it for TV too.
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.
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?
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.
Then let it rip. Personally, I have no reason to interact. but invade my space and I will send up some kind of signal to my kind, past that, well there is alway the next fish in the sea and if there is any kickback here...
In the meantimes, I would like to join in on making the apologists question their life choices, I do so wish to know who is spreading the virus..
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….
It will take a year. Substack's default is to auto-renew. So you sub to something and bang in a year get renewal the bill on a credit card. The only way I've found to avoid this is to sub, pay, then cancel. You still get the year you paid for for it won't renew automatically. By then you will have a year to decide if the subscription is worth it. There were a few I subbed to of people whose work I like but they posted very little and it seemed wasteful to keep the sub going when I could use the $$ to support a more prolific writer or simply buy the book of the less prolific writer.
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.
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.
Totally disagree. He can say what he wants to say if he sees networks stepping out of line. Thats his job. You’re against his so called censorship by censoring him. He can’t actually take away their broadcast rights with a magic wand
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.
The whole idea that the Kirk shooter was a Trump supporter and that Trump was covering this up was pushed very very early and very very hard by the exact same people who were celebrating Kirk's death and the assassination attempts on Trump.
Kimmel's statement was not some random utterance, it was a very public validation of a whole pro-violence and pro-assassination narrative being pushed on reddit and other social media.
None of is new--and this has been a building crescendo.
If you don't understand the social memes and shibboleths at play, I recommend you spend some time on reedit. You will quickly see why Kimmel's statement got such a strong reaction from Trump. There is no ambiguity about what he was saying.
But be psychologically prepared for reddit. It is not pretty. Don't eat first.
Honestly I have no desire to go there. Nor am I on social media. I have a life, I have kids, I have a house and a wife. Even a cat. I have no time for the gutter that is Reddit. Every second I waste there is one I lose with my kids and they grow up fast. When my time comes I hope I’ve gotten them ready for life and that I have some memories to hold onto when everything else slips away and it’s over, and likewise my kids have memories that they can hold onto when I’m no longer here. I’m not going to achieve that on Reddit or shit posting on Twitter. Commenting on matt’s articles is as close as I will get to social media of any kind and I usually feel guilty doing that. But I feel the need to support him as he’s been through a lot and he’s done it without letting it change him and his style, which I’ve appreciated for quite some time. If he’s willing to keep writing, I’m willing to keep talking about the things he’s writing about. That’s as far as I’m willing to go. I’ll just have to take your word for what happens on Reddit. That doesn’t really change the fact that Kimmel wasn’t specifically calling for violence. No doubt he was lying. They often do and they do it shamelessly. It’s gross. But it’s not illegal. It’s important that there isn’t an appearance that the administration is punishing for being a prick. He has the right to be a prick.
I get the distinct impression that the vast majority of of Matt's hip Gen X and Boomer subscribers are not hip to Reddit or some of the other weird gamer platforms like Discord and Steam where the dissident youth of today hang out. There are some dark things going on down there, of which the normal human mind cannot conceive.
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.
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 not. Which is why I'm here reading Matt's article. But I still brows through my news feed each morning in order to, as Walter Kirn once said, find out what the state wants from me today.
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.
That's fine. Where you going to go? Bondi hasn't done anything (yet), Carr didn't drop the hammer--the affiliates did. They are killing us. You want to worry about the appearances; I worry about blood on the stage.
Yeah, that's a hard question. Clearly the Reps are 10,000% better than the Dems. But if we don't fight like hell to protect free speech, we're headed down the same path as the UK. Doesn't matter who the prime minister is; they're still imprisoning people for mean tweets.
She retracted and after his murder I said some pretty bone headed things too . I obviously don’t have her platform but the politicians in there now keep telling me to go F myself. That I’m a Nazi freak, scum. We are citizens of this country and they don’t even know me
The ones who introduced the tools will use them again once back in power anyway.
Also, the tools can't be smelted back to non-existence right now, since the deep state wants them for inauguration day 2029.
So maybe the tools should be embraced and amplified to the point where the consequences are seen on both sides instead of just one, and the possibility arises thay everyone agrees that the tools should be destroyed soon.
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.
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 would 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.
Marie, if someone says to you "you can do this the easy way or the hard way," when they hold the power to effectively cancel your business, does that feel threatening to you?
Yes, it tells me to get my act together. But describe to me just exactly the FCCs role..,they fined for the Super Bowl boob incident, are they not to be watch dogs? Part of their job description is promoting public safety. Flat out lying to the American public about the murder of a public figure that was getting a lot of traction I believe warranted a comment from them. Jimmy has said some pretty inflammatory comments. He was well overdue for a thrashing. H the way, the affiliate owner Sinclair will hold a memorial for Kirk instead of airing Kimmel show. I suspect, because of that, they weee appalled by Kimmel remarks.
I don't want the government determining what is a lie and what is truth.
When Pontius Pilate asked, "what is truth" the mob freed Barrabas, and Pilate crucified Jesus. I think that tells us to be suspicious of governments mandating what we should believe is or is not true.
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.
Perhaps. Unfortunately this may be what came first, the chicken or the egg. These things happened at the same time so who knows. But Kimmel’s ratings were going down, particularly with the coveted 18-49 demographic, and his days were numbered anyway. This incident may have been the final straw. We just don’t know.
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.”
This is awful. I didn't vote for this. I voted for the opposite of this. I voted for letting bigots, morons, fools and idiots out themselves. I voted for ABC tanking viewership to suffer under its own weight and their idiotic parent company to suffer under the marketplace tiring of the woke idiocy.
Let imbeciles out themselves. They can't help it. Don't silence them. Let them tell you who they are.
it is not a bad thing. Jimmy Kimmel along with his comrades in the far left wing of DNC slandered people who hold different but valid opinions about COVID vaccine and lockdown and advocating taking away people’s insurance and denying treatments if they didn’t want to take vaccine - without a slightest understanding of how vaccines work.
He and those who actively censored dissent need to get a taste of his own medicine. Tit-for-tat is the best strategy proven in game theory to keep both sides from cheating in the long run.
Btw, do you remember Parler was completely de-platformed by Apple, Google and Amazon under the pressure from
Biden Administration? Those who in the left have no moral standing on free speech at all. In fact, some in the Democratic Party and NYT was trying to get rid of the 1st amendment when they were in power.
who says about “abandon” 1st amendment? what I said was that some in Democratic Party was trying to subvert 1st amendment when they were in power. There were several articles in the NYT and New Yorkers hinting about subverting the US constitution for it stands in the way of their agenda. If they don’t understand they also need its protection, they will do it next time they are in power. A system needs to be in place to protect constitution otherwise it is just words on parchment.
What does free speech mean if only you have the right to determine who can speak or what is said? Jimmy Kimmel is a vile pissant, a mental midget filled with hatred and an imbecile and his defenders are slack jawed beta cucks who enjoy watching their wives at $5 Tijuana donkey shows. None of that impedes his 1st amendment rights, nor does it give the government the ability to pressure abc to fire him.
that point to tit-for-tat strategy. you need to read about it. if cheating does not go unpunished, both sides will try cheating. it is strategy to keep both sides realize cheating does not go unpunished so the free speech will be protected.
Curiously, did you show your outrage when Parler was de-platformed? or this is a selective outrage?
100% agree with you on the Government official on Covid. it is also another reason that I am glad to see the demise of Kimmel who spewed such vitriol, false accusation and hatred on people who have doubt about vaccine. I had vaccine (though regret taking them) and I don’t watch TV. But his comments show up on social media and what he said demonstrates that he is just vile and amoral human being and is paid millions for being vile. it is good not to see him anywhere.
I'm with you, Kimmel is an anal wart. I truly hope he and Colbert suffer some kind of vaccine side effect for the damage they did. I want irony and karma to have their way with those two.
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 the 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
When is the last time you had a public debate?
It's been awhile, but at least I had training in it back in the day. But cancelling people for wrongthink is pretty far from debate of any kind.
I heard a chilling thing from a random stranger today- Their children are unable to read cursive- let alone write it.
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.
Try calligraphy. It really helps to break letter forms into individual strokes and then pull them into their customary shapes---magic! Plus cool pens and ink!
I love doing lettering by hand- I still do it on my comic book card- I fucking hate fonts.
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.
Yes, Sandra Pinches; it's a terrible mistake. There is a terrific book called "The Hand: How Its Use Shapes the Brain, Language, and Human Culture" by Frank R. Wilson. Among the many insights is that we used to theorize that Man got smarter and then became more manually dexterous. It turns out to be the other way around. We started doing fine work with our hands, and that neural wiring went upward, making our brains "smarter."
So if you wonder why Johnny can't read, write, speak, listen, or think, it's because the only thing he does with his hands (thumbs) is text.
The next casualty will be handwriting itself. The proliferation of keyboards has already led to its decay.
Our kids (24 & 23) learned it in early elementary school but weren't required to use it in their college prep high school. They can't read my writing and I say boo hoo. I'm not going to start printing for you!
About 10 years ago, one of my nephews (in high school at the time) formed a group of friends to teach themselves cursive. I was so impressed by that. Now that he's in college to become an oral surgeon, I'm wondering if he did it so he could have a cool Dr. signature...
Haha....that's great! And good for him for wanting to learn and brings friends along to learn.
This has been true for at least a decade. In fact, I'm surprised when anyone under 30 can read it. As a business owner, I have constantly had an influx of young people and by 2010 most of them had never even held a newspaper, much less purchased one. Cursive writing is a holdover from the quill pen and ink days and will almost certainly be a lost art once my generation dies off. My question is, what will happen to signatures?
The signatures are already gone to a major extent. The electronic ones are silly substitutes that reveal nothing about the unique writing style of the person who "signs" the contract or other important document. They are verified by multiple stages of text messages, emails, and the like, which could be executed without the "signature." I suppose that the signatory's identity will soon be determined by some other characteristic that is unique to each person. My fingerprints don't work on my computer because my old fingers don't have intact prints, they have worn off.
Sadly, that has been true for about a decade that I know of.
Not just children, I'd guess most people under - oh, maybe 40? - either didn't learn cursive writing or have lost the skill from disuse.
Children??? Also apply that to college students who are further down the track & the teachers who did NOT train them -- consider why that is so. Keyboard use does not accommodate that skill.
Emojis - when I noted the emoji key on my keyboard I knew we were doomed. Have never used one, never will.
Or tell time with an analog clock. Don't even mention rotary telephones.
learning cursive is a waste of time. Was when I was a kid. Is now. There are better things for a child to spend their time with. Pretty much anything.
I bet you’re a fan of AI- Are people really that short of time that they need more time on the Internet instead of practicing an artistic thing that’s good for the brain? It’s a very telling thing that if you don’t learn cursive, you can’t read it —that means the process trains your brain to “see” An interpret visual stimulus- and complex patterns- It also can simply be fun- It also brings out any artistic talent a young person might have- Something I assume that you think of value-But maybe you were too lazy to think it through?
Amen, berlin! And these damn laptops and tablets no one can live without anymore in the educational setting. Socrates didn't have a Chromebook. Einstein didn't have an iPad. And they did okay.
And we've eliminated the Western Canon because of those horrible old dead white men. I took a tour through our high school library yesterday afternoon and I wanted to open a vein.
Every single book was written 15 minutes ago in a book mill specifically for the adolescent market. They all had the same cover: a sort of dark, goth, swirly, vampiry, manga/anime, all aimed at and about the hormonal adolescent. All the topics are depression, anxiety, being bullied, being fat, being gay, being trans, having an eating disorder, dressing in drag for the prom...
I'm serious. Go check out your local high school's library. You're a taxpayer. Demand a tour.
No Twain, Dickens, Bronte, Austen, even Salinger.
Our kids barely read anymore, but when they do, we're teaching them to read depressing books about... themselves.
It's amazing to me why anyone wonders why kids are suffering a mental health crisis. Lots of bad books and no good books will works its magic pretty quick. Most of the stuff they are reading (those that read at all) is real trash.
At least they aren't reading the bible. That thing is horrible.
Or the Quran?
LOL, Jeffrey Peoples! If they knew how much violence and how much "begetting" there is in the Bible, they'd snap it up! %-)
It's fascinating actually. A good teacher/scholarly reading is helpful, as well as interpretive skills and moral imagination.
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.
Your son has one significant advantage over his peers, you! Your son is your responsibility not your friend. There'll be time for friendship after he is inculturated. He will be your legacy. Stay strong.
I’m thinking it’s the run away welfare system. Multiple generations of children raised by one or no parent . Work ethics are learned and not innate. Welfare was meant as a crutch, not a way of life. It fosters resentment and envy rather than a desire to achieve
And, as far as I can see, severe depression and lack of pride, self control, impulse control.
Even subsistence farming requires hard work and self discipline, working with others to survive.
You have to begin history nearer the beginning for 7-years-olds. Dinosaurs!
Good point, however, if the education system were mechanics that you keep letting work on your car and it doesn't work, at what point do you stop overpaying the mechanics and fire them?
Maybe find something he is interested in and start small ie: let's find out together how this happened. Choosing and repeating achievable tasks that teach and re-enforce the business of inquiry will prepare him well for more challenging topics. Arguing about why to study something can be fun, or not.
The only society, btw, that counts for our kids is inside our homes, especially when they're young. You know that I'm sure.
I didn’t like school either but I excelled in certain classes, history was one of them, because of my teacher. And Spanish class too because of my teacher. Got As in both, lived class
He’ll care more when he’s older
Or he might get excited about another historical era, or astronomy, geology, or literature. Different subjects resonate with different people.
Home School History Resources: Have to be tweaked by parents.
All my first-year students started their English reading and writing classes with these in chronological order.
1/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_General_History_of_the_Pyrates
2/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Narrative_of_the_Captivity_and_Restoration_of_Mrs._Mary_Rowlandson
3/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Frith
4/https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1475-1640_a-true-declaration-of-th_hawkins-sir-john_1569
History of Pyrates with illustrations; Mary Rowlandson, some copies are illustrated (scary!); Mary Frith - mental illness and theatre in London; John Hawkins, Queen Elizabeth's slaver -
Parents read the stories, summarize for kids, and then together produce an illustrated hand-made "book" with select text, maps, and illustrations, and comments - obviously scaled to age. Great way to introduce modern social issues, geography, and provide deep cultural knowledge free of the filters of know-nothing "experts."
Just curious, what do you use simple calculus for?
Understanding efficient shapes (circle or sphere being optimum) for energy and material efficiency (I would never know this if I hadn't taken calculus), calculating the output of moving variables (common in my field of science). Of course all this can be done by chat GPT or computer programs. But how do you know if the program is actually correct??
I used algebra to find that a sphere uses the least material to make a fuel tank and once used trig to calculate metes and bounds for a property deed. Calculus always seemed like a way to weed out science and engineering majors.
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.
What is a "low-funded" public school in CA -- have you seen the per-pupil spending for that state??
Lower than national average. Most kids on free lunch program. California could do better w ed spending sure but like most things it varies locally.
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.
09/18/25: I had an excellent English teacher (a native of Wales). And yet, somehow, I didn't find out about Cider With Rosie, by Laurie Lee (from England) until 45 years later. This would be like not being told about the existence of The Great Gatsby in America. So even decent systems with dedicated teachers can fail to deliver.
The system is bent toward other people making money off your efforts. This is fine with me, but you need to understand this and not get sucked into it and fleeced.
Your son and that school sound like the exception that proves the rule. School choice needs to be mandatory and the market can choose which schools are successes and which ones are failures which need to close and their teachers get fired.
In the case of that saying, "proves" means "tests", not "supports". If there are exceptions they cannot support a rule!
They had to fend for themselves or starve.
I'm more concerned about people who can solve calculus problems but still believe the mother of Jesus was a virgin. It's amusing to hear Christians complaining about people who believe there are many genders when they believe their godman had no human father and ascended into the sky when he died.
Parthenogenesis is fairly common in lizards, not such a stretch for a super-rare virgin birth in humans.
All religions have their myths: the oil burning much longer the basis for Channukah is physically impossible, but you just have to have faith in your rulers.
Don’t mix your bias view about christians to what is discussed here. Religion is not the core curriculum nowadays.
Issac Newton was religious and is considered one of greatest Scientific minds in the history. His contribution to mankind greater than some feeble minds can imagine. Real educated people and rational thinker can separate their religious faiths or spiritual lives from their scientific reasoning and empirical evidences.
Your concerns might be valid for uneducated. Having degrees is not the same as educated. People without degrees can be highly educated as well. You are implying anyone but atheists is a concern to you? including all scientists, doctors and engineers who are Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.? Since every religion has some kind of stories that people without faith won’t accept?
we should be more concerned about nurturing indoctrinated amoral people who don’t care about right or wrong but Political Left or Right and what is or isn’t conformed to their view. Eg Maoist red guards, Khmer Rouge’s teen soldiers, Nazi Youth.
I didn't say anything about "religion" in general.
Most specifically I referred to the belief that Jesus had a mother who was a virgin. That is more biologically absurd than the notion of binary sexuality. And certainly, people can show great intelligence in some context, but still believe stupid things. Such as Newton.
Compartmentalizing "religious faith" from "scientific reasoning" and "empirical evidences" is not a high mark for a "rational thinker." Such cognitive behavior is a substantial reason why a big chunk of the U.S. population supports Israel's genocidal conquest of Palestine.
I didn't say anything about atheists or theists. You are making unwarranted inferences about my beliefs. Some faith is much more rational than other faith. And some faith is not worthy of respect.
And I didn't say anything about people with or without degrees. I am a professional software engineer and I do not have a formal degree in computer science or software engineering. I don't judge peoples' knowledge or intelligence based on credentials.
The "indoctrinated" people you refer to are mostly not "amoral", they just have morals that you don't like. Those red guards, teen soldiers, and nazi youth all probably had moral sense. It was just perverted. And compartmentalized reasoning probably contributed significantly to it; they had some "faith" shielded away from rational thinking.
But speaking to curriculum explicitly: there are much better things to ensure students learn than calculus; that should definitely remain "optional." More religious literacy, history, logic, philosophy, and economics would all be better to include in the curriculum than calculus. Students have a finite amount of time in "16 years" and calculus should not be on the list of things we should expect them to have learned. In isolation, it is just a particular math that the vast majority of people will never use nor benefit in any way from understanding, nor would society in general benefit.
Here are the books that were in his library.
https://www.librarything.com/legacylibraries/profile/JohnAdams
Absolutely fascinating! Many thanks! - Tasso's Jerusalem Delivered (en français) two versions; some of Milton's political writings, but no Paradise Lost, (it seems. Swift, yes - Fielding no. A Schiller history, no Romances - Scott, Shelley, etc., but Spenser's Fairy Queene. Marvelous glimpse into his imagination - did he share the library with his wife, I wonder? Lots of Tacitus as we might expect. No Mungo Park?!?
Yes
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.
Funny too.
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 cash........or firearms? :)
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!
UPDATE - If you want a laugh, the British press gate-keepers are having fits over King Charles and the royals making the Trumps welcome! Just watched the one of the royal bands play YMCA with a fly-over. The haters will just shit! Love it!
Of course. That’s how it works. No one is guaranteed a job for life nor are they off the hook for the consequences of their behavior and speech. I’m free to not listen and decry their behavior. I have a very good system of scrolling by some here because I don’t want to listen to them. But Kimmel is a creep who wished for my death and others during the vax crazy. I don’t give a damn what happens to him but a good dose of what comes around and karmas a bitch. Bye jimmy. I sure won’t miss ya.
Couldn't agree more! Must watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhsu053ji48 Emily and Batya nail the issue 56:00 minute mark.
The FCC used threatening language but the syndicate pulled the plug. He flat out lied to the American people. And as a Nazi, piece of shit MAGA I’m sick of these people. I’m glad he’s canceled. I’ve been canceled since 2016!
It deeply depends on what those books are.
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.
The McCullough book is excellent. Most people don't realize how radical, and dare I say leftist, many of the founders were - it was revolution after all. Jefferson edited out what he called "mythology" out of the new testament. Jefferson bible still in print today. They read Greek philosophers in Attic Greek and Tacitus in Latin. There is a line in the movie 1776 by Adams: "the people have read Mr. Payne's 'Common Sense' - I very much doubt Congress has." Which is how I feel about the entirety of congress today.
Leftist? I see them much more of the liberal democracy/anti authoritarian mindset. Probably my 2025 bias of reacting to what leftism has done to where I live.
I kind of agree with Kath. I think Jefferson is only as good as his contemporary moderating forces. He was far to idealistic for my taste, but was effective enough to prevent the very likely federalist takeover.
I'm much more of a student of Adams who I find to be a terrible politician but abysmally underrated political genius who did a wonderful job carrying the torch from Washington despite his mistakes.
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
The original quote was "Dope gets you through times of no money, better than money gets you through times of no dope."
Fat Freddie?
while I usually try to read comments bto see if someone responded with my answer I am pressed for time so much apologies if already said but:
THEY WERE EDUCATED MEN. They were educated in the classics; with a commonality to that education. These were young men mind you who had studied when their minds were forming and growing. They had to memorize. They had to recite. They had to write WITH THEIR OWN HANDS which sparks so many other things. They communed with other like minds educated in a similar way giving them a base from which to work. When you can't understand what a person is referencing or why they would think x or y then your communication is immediately so much more difficult.
I could go on but I'm very late.
Happy Thursday all!
*Edited to remove an extra "from".
https://fromagesbergeron.com/products/bergeron-classique
The revolution was not about democracy William and Mary abrogated their rights as monarchs to parliament in 1689. The revolution was about the rights of Roman Catholics that were granted in 1774 that countered the Toleration Act of 1689 that gave Roman Catholics in Quebec the same rights as English Catholics and non-conforming Protestants like Calvinists in New York, Puritans in Massachusetts and Quakers in Pennsylvania. Georges one and two couldn't even speak English and George III spent his entire life partying with Jeffery Epsteins and Donald Trumps. It also ended the English Civil War that was the bloodiest war in English History and was totally a religious war between English Catholics (Anglicans and non-conforming protestants. ) It was the reason for the American Civil War and the end of America in 2024.
Just sign me Epstein's Mother
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toleration_Act_1688
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/quebec-act
https://raisedbytv.com/2011/05/07/signed-epstein%E2%80%99s-mother/
Jefferson , Franklin, and Paine were not CHRISTIANS and UNITARIANS are not PROTESTANTS and UNITARIANS believe all men are created equal not just God's Chosen.
They say Washington was a Freemason as in the pyramid with the all seeing eye on what is for moment the world's leading currency.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Freemasonry
The American Revolution was about participation in democracy and being represented. Colonists were treated as second class citizens. For example, the English army could demand housing in people's homes. England came down hard on dissent. Prior religious conflicts in America had led to cruel and unusual behavior. The Revolution was about people's rights and the Constitution codified liberty and limits on government power.
Noam Your colonists belonged to the landlords just like in England in 1776 and in America in 2025.. Paul Revere photoshopped the attack on police that you call the Boston Massacre. Fifteen per cent could read and write and 8% of them, were chattel called women and Ben Franklin never went to school but wrote a guideline for safe in home abortions so people could afford to send their children to school unlike Ben who started full time work at 10. Your head is filled with shit why don't you read before you write. There IS too much NONSENSE GARBAGE IGNORANCE AND CRAP I don't know where to begin. A colony is socialism and Charlie Kirk was a National Socialist and calling him a Nazi is what he called himself. How is that disparaging?
Scalia USED Samuel jOHNSON'S Dictionary to pervert original intent because originally in Johnson's dictionary 1789 Roman Catholicism wasn't religion only English Catholicism and non-conforming Protestantism were religion and everything else was error. You don't know shit at least Moe Knows knuckleheads when he meets them. In 1535 Henry executed Thomas More and made himself King and Pope in 2024 you shit for brains made a fetal alcohol disordered sociopath the most powerful man on the planet Cromwell allowed Jews back into England as Lord Protector he had to slaughter Roman Catholics in Scotland and Ireland to become Lord Protector there were no Jews to burn in Clifford's Tower in York after the Edict of Expulsion in 1290. Cromwell representing the Roundheads or non-conforming non-Quaker Protestants. The second amendment was written for Pennsylvania and its Quakers who would not serve in the militias,
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Religious_views_of_Samuel_Johnson
https://anglicancompass.com/what-is-anglo-catholicism/
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Nonconformist_(Protestantism)
https://www.britannica.com/event/Intolerable-Acts
Cabal was A secret society of Hebrew Rabbins even in 1789 Hebrew Rabbins couldn't keep secret gossip is their stock and trade.
Ok Mr Berger Thank you thank you thank you
but where to begin.
I am 77 and I live in Quebec where we had a Democratic revolution during my lifetime and I witnessed many revolutions and I am AUTISTIC feeble in mind and body and see only with one all seeing eye since my retinal detachment put an end to my portrait photography days. I was born a damn Jew under the padlock laws of Quebec in 1948 and my mother was born a second class dirty Jew in 1916.
https://historyofrights.ca/encyclopaedia/main-events/1937-padlock-act/
Bergeron is a cheese we put on patates frit with gravy and call poutine or Putin. We have a Poutine Festival in February Poutine Day is Valentine's day and it is Poutine week and February is POUTINE MONTH and anyone who says don't eat poutine in the middle of February when your nuts are freezing and you need calories not nutrition is a loonie. Spot the loonie is a favourite Tv show and God damnit the world is full of Loonies.
I am looking forward to the Pogo Poutine. "We have met the enemy and we had him for Breakfast."Moe
https://legrandpoutinefest.ca/pages/le-menu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQmFMXkhXPY&t=2s
Today I am autistic with my own depaRTMENT BUT IN 2025 THERE ARE NO Jews, Protestants conforming or non-conforming like Calvinists. There are no Catholics English or Roman OR Holy Modal Rounders IN Quebec ONLY HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vmvmxpDp-Q&list=RD_vmvmxpDp-Q&start_radio=1
WE ACKNOWLEDGE OUR GUILT IN EATING ALL OUR COUSINS LIKE Neanderthals' FOR BREAKFAST AFTER WE SCREWED THEIR WOMEN AND CHILDREN. we HAVE NO BINARY GENDER WE ARE ALL ANALOG AND RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN POLITICS AS Thomas THE PAINE IN THE ASS truthteller EXPLAINED IN HIS common sense treatise Common Sense in a land where common sense is totally uncommon.
Thank you Harrison There are no facts in science only religion offers facts science offers only skepticism and theories like gravity.
Vive les Montagnes Vert Libre.
Because the dumbest people in society are somehow rising to the top.
The shadiest and most ruthless lawyers serve them.
We must be letting them..?
Our earliest leaders experienced a war that established the new experience as a nation. Most important, they were not professional politicians. Their leadership was not tainted by the temptation of lobbyists.
Possibly because Washington has become the place to go to get rich without having to be very bright or the have to work for it. Just sell yourself to the highest bidder, go on the take and remain there for life. It's a great gig that attracts dishonest people. The motivation has changed from a sincere desire to make a difference to a selfish desire to enrich themselves
Oligarchy, most likely. They were the cream of the crop.
I can answer your question, Guerino, only by speculation. The nation's founders lived during a time before cellphones, texting, word processing, keyboards, an internet, and hard drives with terabytes of memory. In fact, they didn't have photocopiers, typewriters, ballpoint pens, or paper mills. Their words, when written, had to be painstakingly memorialized on expensive parchment using quill pens dipped in ink. Therefore, they chose their words carefully, and instilled them with more meaning.
Because they were well read. They wrote in beautiful penmanship and if you read the federalist papers made arguments using facts or ideas they culminated through experience and what they saw. Granted the population wasn’t what it is today so getting the pulse of the people was easier per se but they were educated to look at both sides and they gleaned information from it.
Answers to your two questions:
1- Earlier leaders were much wiser and more virtuous (with a minute number of exceptions among current leaders). Today's leaders' primary concerns are, first, maintaining power, and second, accumulating wealth while maintaining power.
2- I accidentally answered # 2 in # 1. Congress is worthless. Unless you consider "net worth."
I dunno about virtuous. I mean there was Jefferson's "extended" family, Franklin slept with everyone's wife here and in Europe. There was the whole slavery thing. Many were in it for the money they couldn't get otherwise -- but they had an idea of what democracy could be, and for a lot of diverse reasons came together out of enlightenment educations.
I was thinking of civic life, personal lives had not crossed my mind. The founders were very explicit about liberty, free speech, etc. Generally, today's leaders could not care less about these things.
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.
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!
💯 it’s a business. They employ him either directly or indirectly through a contract. They can fire him. if he wants immunity, then he can have his own network. Good luck, Jimmy, and good riddance.
So much for free speech, so long as the boss declares otherwise. Such is capitalism.
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.
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.
And your kids will ask you: “Wait, you spoke up for a guy who appeared in Black Face, harassed women for laughs and made them jump up and down on a trampoline on The Manshow? Dad, did you also have a white sheet and hood as well as wear a swastika???”
If they want to keep their broadcast license, they can't employ people who knowingly spread lies in order to foment disorder and violence. To hell with that old school libertarianism.
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.
Yes, and it may as well be said that Samuel Adams noted there was no better guide to human conduct than the Bible.
You do know he was the lesser Adams.
Well, until he formed that beer company.
😂
He wasn't nearly the censor John was, though.
interesting, what do you people study/ do who know this stuff? lol
Huh?? Could you clarify, please??
Short answer: they read lots of books; biographies, which lead to other interesting sources, etc etc
I'm not being snarky and hope I don't appear so. Reading is the best kind of rabbit-hole to go down. This is a tired rant I have spent a long time subjecting the six children I read to from the time they were in utero to at least age 10 or as long as I could keep their attention (Harry Potter, anyone?) three of whom need some arm-twisting/berating/encouragement to keep up the habit.
My meandering point is, a little reading can lead to a lot more reading and many interesting bits of information.
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 . . .
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.
No, they were not religious. They were deists. And they recognized that freedom of religion meant that NO religion would hold a primary place in the state government.
I know that some were deists. But deism is not atheism. It is the acknowledgement of
god as the 'watchmaker'- something that set the universe into action, but not something that directly interceded in earthly matters. My own Esoteric beliefs draw quite a bit on this philosophy.
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
Minority view? Did you happen to see the land acknowledgement shit at the most recent DNC event? Go ask Rob Schneider and Sasha Stone about how crazy the left has become...
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.
NOOOOOOO. They assumed it would be a nation where religion of any kind informed personal ethics but in which, actively religion did not intrude. A lot of original immigrants here came for freedom from religious tyrrany of Europe.
No that's wrong. Completely wrong. Jefferson may have felt that way. But he was in France and had nothing to do with the drafting of the First Amendment. Religion was important even vital and very much in the public sphere. Some of the states actually had established churches. The framers didnt want a government approved Church and they didn't want government to interfere. But they expected and knew religion would be a very public and important institution.
As was very clear to me growing up. When did we lose this bit of American history?
It's not so much that this country was founded as a Christian nation that is important, but that it was founded and happened to be a homogenously Christian and European people. Aristotle *arguably said that rule by the many only worked in homogeneous societies.
If it had been founded by a 99% educated, wealthy, Muslim people then it would have been much different, sure, but would certainly be much less cohesive and easy to govern after 250 years of consistently "mixing the pot"
I am in no way advocating for any policy stance with this observation, but I do believe this to be true no matter how bad it reflects on the liberal consensus.
Another specific thing to keep in mind on this topic, is that the framers made a system that would allow local and state governments to implement rules on their specific homogeneous citizens that would in no way be allowed at the federal level. Many were only liberal on the national level (because it was more heterogeneous) and what would be called authoritarian today with what they allowed at the local level. Why should a conservative administration ban abortion in Portland and progressive administration legalize it up to birth in Arkansas???
You'd be amazed how many Christians believe (and have always believed) that Jesus Christ is the only one, true path to God, because He IS God, and The Son of God. It's complicated: See "The Holy Trinity."
hank you Kath.
You are uneducated and I admire anyone who aspires to use words to communicate. I am AUTISTIC. I was reading Shakespeare as a toddler and I failed kindergarten. I married a Doctor of Philosophy who was a master of science education from yhe University of Chicago. I was fifty when she asked me why I had no degrees when everyone at the University of Chicago mistook me for a vising scholar and I confessed to being unable to write. I had the best teachers on the planet to teach me how to write and I love writingdespite being old and feeble in mind and body.
Daniel Defoe is creditted with the first English Novel. Robinson Crusoe was written as a diary also known as a journal. Daniel Defoe was a spy and spies write journals not Romans or as we call them romances.
Calvinists are non-conforming Protestants they are definitely not UNITARIANS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonconformist_(Protestantism)
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nonconformist
Anglicans are not Protestants they are English Catholics (Episcopalians)
https://www.learnreligions.com/anglicanism-vs-catholicism-542550
Unitarians are not Christians or Jews they are MONTHEISTS.
Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were UNITARIANS they did not believe in Adam and Eve or Noah they were SOCRATIC. We chose to believe and "take these truths to be self evident that ALL MEN arte created equal." Jefferson in 1806 began to reject slavery as he Eli Whitney Cotton Gin made slavery no longer an economic necessity when cotton was king. Franklin freed his slaves and became a virulent abolitionist and was banned in Boston.
The say Washington was a Free-Mason. Why not? The Magic Flute is my favourite opera. SaDLY Antonin Scalia LOVED THE Spanish Inquisition.
Jews AT LEAST BEFORE THE Russian invasion OF Ukraine IN THE 18TH CENTURY WERE MONOLOTROUS.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Monolatrism
https://www.britannica.com/topic/monolatry
Orthodox Jews ARE NOT REALLY Jews THEY ARE REALLY FUCKED UP AND HAVE BECOME National Socialists LIKE McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt , Woodrow Wilson, Joseph Goebbels Ronald Reagan, Vladimir Putin, Bibi Philadelphia Netanyahu AND Stephen Miller.
"JESUS WAS A SAILOR WHEN HE WALKED upon the water." Leonard Cohen who l;ed the country band at Kamala's only High School. It was an English Anglican and non conforming Protestant school when Kamala and Leonard attended and now it is only the best Public High School north of the Rio Grande.
https://westmount.emsb.qc.ca/whs
Irving Layton wrote For My Brother Jesus. He was Leonard's mentor and he said there is no freedom without free speech. Kamala lived 10 minutes away by foot in 1976 when Layton gave this speech at the Jewish Public Library
https://archive.org/details/ybc-fbr-513_4512/01-513.wav
Thank you for the inspiration you are always welcome at my door. The Rabbi and his wife delivered the honey, grape juice and pomegranate yesterday and I gave the rabbi a big hug but his wife really needed a hug and their God won't permit me doing what is right but isn't kosher.
Hi moe! Just gonna hug you here. {{{{moe}}}}}
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 ^
No, our form of government is only effective when it's people are grounded in the ethics of brotherhood. And any moral faith is based in lifting up those that need it most without distinction.
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
Thomas Jefferson did not confess a Christian faith, he was a Deist who did not believe in many of the basic tenets of Christianity. Many people claim that the United States was founded on Christian beliefs, but some of our early leaders held religious beliefs that were relatively "personal" and nonconformist.
I would add Jefferson rejected the dogma and doctrine of the church, as well as the mythology of the new testament (virgin birth etc) He did consider the teachings of Jesus to be very important as a high moral guide to personal life., which imo it very much is. Sadly the more organized the religion, the more lost the message becomes. A note to the believing: The christian covenant is "love your brother as yourself and god with all your heart". That is what we all need right now, and understand there is one god and one humanity, not just the half you happen to agree with. Also remember "...a house divided..."
Good comment, Kath.
James Madison, who was the primary author of the First Amendment, also rejected all religious dogma, and he held beliefs similar to Jefferson's. Madison was emphatic about spirituality being both personal and private to himself and other individuals. Both men took very strong positions about keeping the government out of the practice of religion, and essentially believed that religion was none of the government's business. We should interpret the meaning of the religion clause in the First A in the light of what these men intended.
Benjamin Franklin was another of our Founders who rejected traditional religious beliefs. He had been raised as a Puritan, did use more religious language than did Jefferson and Madison, but did not support dogmatic belief systems.
Most of the founders were Deists who believes God created the universe and man but does not interfere with man on earth.
This it a good religion for politicians since they stay out of specific points of dogma that could lose them votes.
I don't think Mr. Adams would understand the fury world nor be very accepting.
There was a huge divide between a New England lawyer and a North Carolina Tobacco farmer in 1776.
That's all true. It's also true that the New England radical Protestantism of which his beliefs were a part gave birth to the progressive movement, with some of its results being the John Brown craziness, the imperialist fervor that led to the Spanish American War and US involvement in the First World War, Prohibition, and the current insanity of the American Left. History is complicated.
and you just simplified it into banality.
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.
and what do you think a "moral" people would be?
In terms of a citizenry governed by the Constitution as anticipated by Adams there needs to be widespread acceptance of common values. That existed at the time of the founding of the nation. It is under assault now. While I understand the disdain for theology as a basis for governance, certainly modern governance, I think it naive to disavow the historical underpinning of religion in western civilization. IMO too many people, wa-a-a-ay too many people dismiss very valid concepts because they are affiliated with a system.of religious beliefs. The Ten Commandments being an illustration thereof. Other than the I am the Lord one, the rest are marvelous foundation for a moral people. And it seems to me that the I am Lord one probably was necessary back in the day for the rest to gain traction because those commandments were handed down in a time when a civilization was evolving to form the foundation of western civilization. Are we seeing something similar now? Maybe. Maybe that is why the nation has such a wild west feel to it. But even if we are moving to a new understanding of morality the transition will be unstable and with every gain there is a loss.
Well put. Again though, the ten commandments remain as an underpinning to morals in the west. It was superceded by love your brother as yourself and god with all your heart. One nation under god is also one humanity under god. And to force conformity denies both. Most of the founders were well versed in the bible, many learned to read with that as a primer. But they then read Greek philosophers and chose a path of personal faith that was very syncretic, very individually tailored. The higher christian ethic is agape: tolerance, inclusion, acceptance, love. If the OP commenter has opened with that, I probably would have left this post alone. Trans people are not the enemy, nor are immigrants legal or not. The Right is not evil fascism and the Left is not immoral degenerates. Factionalist hatred is the enemy, the evil. Cut it the fuck out (edit to say, a general statement of frustration nothing to do with anyone specifically on this thread). Practice your morals, left and right, don't weaponize them.
I agree. And to be clear I appreciated your original input. I only responded because I am wary of the folk who take every statement literally and do not recognize context. I think that is the problem with a lot of people celebrating Charlie Kirk's assassination. I would see or read criticisms containing things he supposedly said. But every single one I looked at was not as represented. I fear that may result in a chill of dialogue.
"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?
Answer to first question; it is the opposite of a devotional approach in which logic is suspended by adherence to doctrine. The second, there are 2500 years of thought on that I will let you investigate on your own. I will say, it is entirely a rational and even secular argument to state that it s necessary to treat others as you would have them treat you.
So then I would say based on your definition that followers of mainstream religious churches would fit your "rational approach" description. You could surely tell me where I'm wrong and give examples of where "logic is suspended by adherence to doctrine".
And if you think there are only rational reasons to treat people as you would have them treat you then you have a very limited and childlike understanding of the world, and also no imagination.
A Virgin Birth, resurection, etc.
Aldo I am including a rational view of how to treat others WITH a devotioinal approach. Read carefully hon. I am a scholar of religion, not one opposed to it.
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.
LOL. I dont understand you but breathtaking and i defend your right to say it!
Adams was a Congregationalist. Jefferson was a Deist.
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.
CNN report: "FCC chair Brendan Carr ... suggested his FCC could move to revoke ABC affiliate licenses as a way to force Disney to punish Kimmel." Is that not threat? Glad to know you and all other "freedom lovers" are cool with a Democratic FCC completely shutting down Fox and confiscating Nexstar's licenses when they are back in power.
One thing to consider, Fox News is not OTA so not subject to FCC "airwave" regulations.
No problem - we'll just denaturalize Rupert Murdoch and his kids, and Melania, and "investigate" every Fox employee and their dog for "mortgage fraud." Problem solved. That's the American way now, isn't it? Can't wait for it.
The Dems invented Lawfare. Squirm!
Scare tactics will not work after Charlie Kirk's murder!
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.
Fortunately, Democrats will never be back in power.
Last time Rs wrecked the country they were out of power for sixty years. cf: the great depression.
Said Lee Atwater. Said Karl Roce. LMAO!
I do hope (and trust) that the FBI et al is listening. Hahahaha
Shifty Schiff hawt AF.
Correct your typo please so we can know what the heck you just said!
"Attacked" them for trying to exploit his murder for political gain and to excuse fascists acts against "left wing radical lunatics" as your Prez calls them. Fact check:true. He also said, the day before these texts from the suspect came out, that MAGATs were desperately trying to show the suspect is not one of them. Also 100% T-R-U-E. ABC did nothing until the FCC fascist had threatened their licenses. I assume you're cool with that happening to conservatives when Dems are back in. Good to know. Looking forward to your support of that effort.
Just like. you were objecting really loudly about Biden's White
House DIRECTLY instructing Twitter to throw people like Bereneson and Jay Battachara off of Twitter during Covid.
Right?
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.
That’s fair , but the mainstream certainly was democrat adjacent, but that is falling apart as we speak
Only the beginning under the Trump Administration:
https://x.com/WeAreSinclair/status/1968471160359645658
minor correction. American citizens of Japanese descent. But a good point.
Your main point is also pretty reflective of a lot of people. I am not comfortable with this but its hard to shed tears. Just seeing the comments from the other side it sounds more like a war. No one is looking for the middle ground. The unfortunate result of 2020 when we were told we could not be silent (its violence) and we had to pick aside. we did
It took 40 years and Japanese-Americans never got back all that was stolen from them. The least we could do is learn from history but that doesn't seem possible especially with Cheetolini censoring what historical sites say now.
Were you comfortable with Kimmel fomenting rage against an innocent group of people who had nothing to do with a horrible crime while averting attention from the true culprit and his ideology? That is incitement to violence especially in light of the insanity in the armed trans movement. Please refer to today's reporting on DW+.
John Adams was also behind the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 by which the government threw political enemies of the Federalists in prison.
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.
The open support for France which had gone crazy at the time is often ignored, doesn’t justify the acts but it helps to under the other perspective
"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.
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.
I too have (had?) respect for Matt. My trust in him though has been shaken. Just to provide some background , I’m a boomer & until the 2024 election, was a registered Rep forever, but have since changed to Independent. I’m not educated or informed enough to discuss or dispute our country’s history so I’ll not address that. My replying to you was bc you said you trusted Matt as an honest journalist, as did I. I’m not so sure anymore. For the first time ever today, I listened to the “Due Diligence” podcast & the discussion was Matt’s avoidance of discussing Israel & genocide in particular. Matt claimed his discomfort with the topic & his lack of expertise as the reason for his not addressing it. How is that an explanation for a journalist? Uncomfortable? Uninformed ? Sounds so “Un- Matt” to me.
Don't ruin their ennobling narrative with facts.
lol
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.
He also rolled it back. I think he's the first and last President to roll back any increased government powers.
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.
Hello, Mr. Pinella! I'm old enough to remember that in 1964, it was still safe to hop on a subway in the Bronx at the start of the #1 line, go south and hook up with the subway going north to Yankee stadium, spend $0.50 on a bleacher seat, be content with a soda and a bag of peanuts, and then go home the same way without a concern about personal safety. Those days vanished very shortly afterwards.
Ah, you antedate this senior citizen! I even married a Llew (for Llewellyn, which was homophonic of his nickname and my name, unless you pronounced his in the Welsh manner).
I fell in love with Ron Guidry's pitching one day I was dragged to Yankee Stadium, and was blown away with the players generally. Bob Watson, Oscar Gamble, Greg Nettles, the great Willie Randolph, Goose Gossage, et. cie. And, of course, the legendary Lou. I just missed Thurman Munson, but recall Rick Cerone.
No longer following the sport, but the memories are gold. I was in Yankee Stadium on July 4, 1983, when Dave Righetti pitched the first Yankee no-hitter of my lifetime. It was also Lou Gherig Day.
Your fond childhood memories come at the expense of my childhood misery. I was a die hard Red Sox fan, and went through my entire childhood being taunted by my sister and others for never making it to the top of the pile. The Yanks had unbelievable teams back then…..I just hated them. And then Bucky Dent(!) hit that home run and that was the pinnacle of humiliation for me. I never recovered from that. I packed my bags and left home…..
Two things I should have mentioned:
1. I never liked Bucky Dent, something about him just irritated me, and it was with great relief that I saw him replaced by Roy Smalley.
2. Seeing Curt Schilling pitch a winning game wearing a sock red with his own blood will go down as one of the great iconic images of baseball history.
I can only offer that, in 2004, when I saw that commercial for whatever it was, with Curt Schilling hitching his way to Boston "to break an 86-year-old curse," I honestly cringed at the kibosh such hubris often puts on aspirations, and prayed very hard that the Red Sox would win the title that year.
When they went, in the playoffs, to New York down 0-2, my late husband despaired. I told him not to, as the same happened in I think 1994, with the Braves having taken the first two Yankee home games. The Yankees, I said, had won every game after that, and so might the Sox, if they remembered to play the baseball game. Treat it as business and the Yankees would beat them, but if they "cowboyed up," to channel dear Kevin Millar, they had the upper hand.
And so it was, the team which had crowed, "Who's your daddy?" found themselves saddled with a Papi, and won no more.
I was from then on, so long as the games and my husband lasted, a Red Sox fan. I no longer follow the sport, but they still have my heart.
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.
Dang! How can you start out so agreeably and end so disagreeably?
Real life?
Whatever. I think of all people presidents have a duty to protect the country from enemies without and from within. You mention soldiers are for war but when there are conspirators undermining the nation from within, they must be dealt with, too, or risk losing the country especially a young one as ours was. The US was young, in debt from the revolution, immature as to its legal options, and since Jefferson and his party were the actual opposing conspirators, I don't see how the fact that the law was an all-Federalist action can be held against them. I lose patience with those who attribute selfish motives when there are perfectly plausible unselfish motives available, such as love of country, the desire to continue living under the current form of government rather than having it overturned into something like the French bloodbath. Really, can you not be fair and non-partisan about these things? You need not answer.
Good intentions are subject to the law of unintended consequences, especially given the human fondness for power.
I don’t disagree with Adams or the act.
I will say in our time using the laws and police in the war on terror ™️ was a mistake, it should have been war and the military from top to bottom.
The powers of war including intelligence-a military function- should not be Law, not police soldiers.
Like everything else about war - war should not touch peaceful ways.
Exactly. He is not one of my favorites.
what were the French doing? what was the XYZ Affair?
why are you trying to turn the narrative into something different from the facts?
So, you’re saying Adams didn’t lock up publishers and journalists supporting Jefferson and speaking out against Adams? It happened. I’m not saying Adams did not do anything good or that there wasn’t a threat from the French (although what to do about it is another subject). What I’m saying in that particular incident, Adams was self serving - as all humans are - and it just goes to show that ANY politician will be self-serving which is why ALL governments will ultimately become corrupt. As Charlie Kirk said, BIG Government SUCKS!
both houses of congress passed those acts for Adams to sign. He was working in the mainstream in time of danger.
jefferson was acting just like sally yates did in Trump1. Full unvarnished treachery at the worst possible levels.
Both houses were federalist along with Adams so of course Congress voted for it. Jefferson had different ideas on what freedom means – and he dissented, and his views and his supporters were shut down – a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
Justice Louis D. Brandeis in his classic concurring opinion in Whitney v. California (1927), wrote: “If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
So, why didn’t Adams respond with – let’s debate, Mr. Jefferson. Instead, he shut him down because he had the power to do so.
Remember Colin Powell telling Congress that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? How did that fear mongering work out?
Maybe I have an invisible gorilla viewpoint, but I would have voted for Jefferson over Adams who, with Hamilton, wanted BIG government, including standing armies. Did you know that Hamilton said that a bill of rights was not only unnecessary, but…dangerous! It’s in Federalist # 84.
he should have been impeached, removed, demolished publicly with nationwide censure. Of the Founding Fathers jefferson is by far the least, a coward, liar, adulterer, cheat, and treacherous scoundrel.
i’m surprised that someone who is clearly literate would get this so completely wrong.
jefferson as vice president was working with france against Adams, the president. It was outrageous behavior, directly undermining the president for jefferson’s political benefit. Many nation leaders would have had him hung for it.
I believe those are the facts at the time of the Alien and Sedition act.
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
He’ll always have his exile-in-waiting in Italy. Arrivaderci, motherfucker.
lg&m for the bitter weeds
lg&m has taken snark to new levels of sublime.
ya it’s fine i’m just used to commenters on here having some body to their posts… wine you know? instead of vinegar like lg&m comments.
but, vinegar is good for cleaning floors so
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?
sounds super aristocratic - very Tory, not befitting a republic at all.
This tore the heart out me. Did not know he was a Unitarian. All the more impressive how God has interceded on behalf of America when in reality all we did was barely give Him a nod and His Son none at all. God had and has a plan for America - like it or not! Just look at the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's assassination. God meant it for good regardless of what anyone else meant it for. You can make a joke out of them if you do choose, but the efficacious prayers of the Puritan pilgrims (our true founders) are still reverberating in the Lord's ears. Praise God for faithful people.
Not sure I understand your point. You're saying Kimmel deserved this because he isn't "moral"? Or he's on the receiving end of the stick from less than "moral" people?
On this board, prolly the left is not moral because (insert reason for moral superiority).
Precisely! It is when morality and community break down that laws have to be passed and enforced upon people.
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
Kimmel's a Catholic, you idiot, and Colbert's a devout Catholic (who would occasionally defend his faith on air).
and look at some teachers.
https://youtube.com/shorts/P_I23ZlE_aQ?si=ZF0lFBaSkQdJbaIj
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.”
It’s always fun to kick the shit out of someone like olbermann . Don’t take that away from us.
Keef is working himself in the shrubs into a frothy mess peepping into Rosie O'Donnell's hope chest.
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.
Not surprised; we have one we rescued. Sweet little old gal 99% of the time, but a real bitch the other 1%.
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
That would be one ugly chihuahua.
Do a side by side with him and Rosie O'Donnell. It's like a fun house mirror.
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. :) :) :)
I agree. Hilarious!!
Yes, good one. And let these judgments be rendered only thru ratings and on how we’re measured on Judgment Day. As obnoxious as these late night ‘hosts’ are, the FCC has no business getting involved.
And, oh by the way, what Kimmel said was not wrong.
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.
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?
People don’t watch him, but they took his monologue and ran with it over social media
Poor Jimmy and his millions will be just fine. Unfortunately.
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.
He can go to his country house and dry his tears on all his bucks and not have to do this tapdance anymore. Sounds like a win to me.
But the affiliates are airing a tribute to Charlie Kirk on Friday night so maybe it had to do with a little bit more than just money.
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.
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.
I remember that too. They'd do an emergency practice every night at the end and then you'd get that weird color graphic thing that ended the channel's programing for the day. I remember when it all became infomercials at night at some point and thought that was such a huge change haha.
The Test Pattern. Fun fact: it used to be an Indian head in the days of B&W.
I was just going to mention the Indian head.
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.
He's a federal official. He has responsibility for what he says.
I would also add that these are all sophisticated parties who are not going to be cowed just by some blunt words by Carr. They all have good lawyers if they feel the need to consult. And of course I agree he is accountable for his public statements, but the way this is playing out, I don't think he's going to have to walk anything back. The free market is taking care of this little problem.
It wasn't the FCC. It was the head of a local affiliate. See how narrative departs from the facts so easily?
What part of the FCC commissioner making an implied threat did you miss?
I agree with you Matt, but they can fine too. Remember the Super Bowl boob? That comment could have meant a fine only. We shouldn’t read into this. The bigger reason, a very large distributor pulled his show. FCC didn’t do that. His lies finally caught up with him, just like my mama always taught me .
The narrative I shifting and Kimmel didn’t see it coming - not even when his ratings dropped.
But didn’t he apply for Italien citizenship? Ironic choice of land to flee to, as that is one of the only conservative countries in Europe.
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.
Who cares about optics! But thank you for at least stating the fact that the affiliates held sway. Finally someone with an ounce of sense and good taste - I mean the affiliates.
If the public doesn't have SOMEONE on its side, ie, the FCC, then we're all sitting ducks for any totalitarian philosophy that comes along. Contrary to popular belief none of us are the brightest bulbs in the box while lounging in bed, half asleep at 11:30 at night. We imbibe that stuff by osmosis at that point which is fine if the deliverer is Johnny Carson being merely somewhat crude and hedonistic, but when they're pouring indoctrination and disenfranchisement by the gallon down our gullet as we doze before we turn out the lights, THAT is exactly what the FCC is for.
Soooo...the government should censor speech to make sure that the mouth-breathers among us don't get hoodwinked by those who might promulgate a "totalitarian philosophy"? I haven't read something so catastrophically stupid in ages. Would the FCC determine what constitutes a "totalitarian philosophy"? By what criteria would it do this?
Corporate at Disney couldn’t find its shoes in 38 minutes, much less make the decision to do this. Something tells me someone leaked the decision to this guy and told him it’d make him look powerful if he said this with the intention of using it as a claim of first amendment interference or it’s just bad timing. Definitely a bad look but doubtful that the government’s hypothetical threat had anything to do with it. It likely took Disney more than 38 minutes to craft their statement on this…
Look on the bright side.... This extra time will allow Jimbo to do as much black face as he wants! Maybe he and justin Trudeau can have a tea party and invite all of their enlightened, fully boosted friends over. Maybe even invite lurch/John Kerry. That'd be a real barn burner.
Perception is reality, as the old saying goes. They could have waited for his contract to run out, which it was due to anyway, but that wouldn't have scored any points with Trump's FCC while ABC affiliates go for a merger.
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.
Well, I read a report in the NY Post that Kimmel was "f'ing livid" when he left the studio yesterday so I don't think he was planning this. Great gotcha, 2x4-upside-the-head moment. Love it! And I really hope Matt isn't feeling at all sympathetic towards the creep. He's been a stain on our culture for years!
Hadn’t heard that. Does make it sound like Kimmel’s FAFO moment. Even better.
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?
If his ratings and earnings were huge he would have fallen under the “too big to fail” doctrine. Obviously that wasn’t the case. While I totally agree that the optics look terrible I also believe the axe was going to fall and this just gave them the push to do it.
Another clown of clapter bites the dust. Sooooo sad.
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.
So is the evolution of computers….I laugh when young people think that I couldn’t possibly understand computers….I was in my 30s when IBM Selectric 3s got one line memory….whoohoo…and then three line memory…I was there for the main frame/ PC war…I laugh….I have been with computers since they were babies….Any person, young or old, who doesn’t understand how to use their phone as other than a phone has made a conscious choice….and I know people in their 40s, with young children, who I lecture all the time about what’s out there and how they cannot continue to not know how to monitor what their kids are in to on the internet.
I remember paying $100 for an add-on card so that my Apple ][ could display descending descenders* on the screen.
* letters like g and y with their tails going below the baseline.
And look how easily these school board meetings can take individual rights away with zero consequences
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.
Twitter is a private company. They can remove, deplatform and stifle the speech of whomever they want. Business decision.
You see how that works?
Most people get that. The problem is the collusion between government agencies, main stream media, and social media to deplatform and silence conservative voices….with emphasis on “collusion between government..” The government is abridging 1A rights when it tells social media to silence people for their expressing their legal views.
And, the government is also abridging 1A rights by ordering ABC to sideline Kimmel for his failing to be properly reverential towards CK, right?
They didn’t order. ABC could have called Carr’s bluff and challenged but they obviously decided Kimmel is already dead meat stinking up the place and not worth the effort. If Kimmel had high ratings and attractive to advertisers ABC might have decided to ignore Carr, but as things are Carr gave them a good excuse to get rid of Kimmel. The only “crime” here is that Kimmel was so bad and still got $20 million/year.
And twitter could've "called the bluff of GEC" instead of booting people off for telling the truth about covid which ran counter to the official narrative, right?
Well, that never happened, so there's that.
Employers can fire people, but it was the FCC commissioner threatening censorship that made me take notice.
Is censorship the same thing as enforcing FCC rules?
Matt Taibbi discusses this very thing in his latest article, https://www.racket.news/p/the-ultimate-reason-not-to-censor
You may be referring to the FCC rule or policy about broadcast news distorting or misrepresenting the truth. I haven't finished the article yet, so I don't know if this only applies to news programs as opposed to late night comedians. There are citations of court cases over the years.
It might though.
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…
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.
And win a Pulitzer
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.
Defend our principles = yes, but in this case that would've been ABC's choice and they chose not to. Kimmell's shitmouth finally wrote a check that ABC won't cash.
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.
I’m not condoning or condemning this, or even saying it’s the most important factor. But it is a factor. Networks need viewers.
Love the astronomical imagery.
09/19/25: Thank you. There's no substitute for vivid and original writing, which makes it a simple task to ignore most of what remains to be seen.
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.
I've been given to understand that, by FCC regulation, you are not allowed to lie about crimes on broadcast TV.
In any event, the network took him down for a whole slew of excellent reasons. I am not going to cry because the FCC gave them a reminder that they were on thin ice.
Yes. It was a blatant lie, not an opinion
Federal Register :: Public Interest Obligations of Television Broadcast Licensees https://share.google/UwvF5wzaw2XBKD9E7
...
2. Diversity
29. Diversity of viewpoint, ownership, and employment have long been and continue to be a fundamental public policy goal in broadcasting.
AI synopsis: Diverse Voices: Programming should reflect the diversity of the country and provide access to a wide range of voices and views.
Giving Jimmy Kimmel's an hour a day to bash conservatives, whether lying or not, would require them to give some other voice an hour a day to bash progressives.
had the least intention of following the law
As If
Yeah stephanopoulos as the straight man!
09/18/25: Pardon, but in this respect, aren't you referring to Anderson Cooper?
I can’t translate over internet, Kimmel as funny elite stephanopolus as the stiff but professional, a comedy team
09/18/25: I'm sorry. It was a mischievous pun. In other news, Kimmel is distraught: "I can't believe this! Now if I want to work, I have to learn how to be a comedian!" (said the very, very unfunny Hollywood pudge ball).
Pretty sure there's thing called Fox News, if you think MAGA is public opinion.
"No, the Fox broadcast license is not similar to ABC, CBS, and NBC because the FCC doesn't license the networks themselves, but rather individual local broadcast stations. Both Fox Networks and the other major networks own and operate some local stations, and these individual stations require an FCC broadcast license, which is subject to renewal and regulatory oversight. Fox News, however, is a cable channel and does not require an FCC license."
Which puts them (ABC, NBC, CBS) under different public interest obligations than Fox.
Archaic, but fact.
If you think maga and adjacent views are confined to Fox News, you really should get out more
I never said that. Next.
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
Which he said was stupid
And where was that
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.
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.
That gives you a clue that the cancellation was market driven. The FCC just gave them an excuse.
Yeah, to a certain extent, FCC license red tape can be seen as dollar bills flying away. Not worth it for a Kimmel if you’re in Disney’s shoes, I feel. Talk shows are a zombie format.
WHY? Cuz FCC license renewals can be easy or a pain. And when they’re a pain, you have to pay lawyers to get it all resolved. But such legitimate federal power can still be misused. It’s a fine line.
I won’t weep for Kimmel. He’s done well. Just 30 years ago he was another minor L.A. radio personality reading sports highlights in between the DJs blabbering nonsense. But I don’t want any government agency to punish “objectionable” expression because it can. Even if entire elites did the same in the private sector during the Woke Golden Age of Obama’s second term.
An informative & thought-out response to the matter! Thanks!
> limited to criminal offenses
I completely disagree. Broadcast networks pay nothing for licenses worth billions upon billions of dollars. These are staggering benefits granted by the public on only one condition, and that condition could scarcely be easier to comply with.
Do you really think the standard should be even lower? That it should be lawful to threaten this largesse only in response to actual CRIMES? Consider how rare criminal charges against corporations are - to say nothing of convictions, and to say even less about criminal charges for speech.
For what it's worth, I thought PB should be fired for what she said - horrifying stuff that, like you said, is a verbatim echo of every major figure Trump ran against. I hope Vance has lunch with her or something.
Two last points. First - logistically, the FCC does not grant one giant license to ABC - it grants individual licenses to local network affiliates, some of which are owned by ABC, but many (most?) of which are not. Kimmel's show was first pulled by a company that owns a large number of affiliates. It doesn't change the core point but I think it's still an important note.
Second - I don't know what the specific best structure is for enforcing FCC rules, but I am very much open to the idea of selling these rights instead of giving them away. The FCC already runs auctions for different bands of the EM spectrum so I don't see why they couldn't do it for TV too.
Yes
And where exactly was that threat of “pulling your license”
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.
It’s true. Twin beds dick Van Dyke
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.
Agreed. Kimmel is an asshole. The answer is just turn him off and don't listen.
Yeah, on YouTube.
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?
Can’t because what he said was a lie. Lies are probably protected speech but it wouldn’t make for a good case
Let him try. He lose because he’s a lying POS
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.
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.
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
Then let it rip. Personally, I have no reason to interact. but invade my space and I will send up some kind of signal to my kind, past that, well there is alway the next fish in the sea and if there is any kickback here...
In the meantimes, I would like to join in on making the apologists question their life choices, I do so wish to know who is spreading the virus..
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.
Exactly. I’ve got a media budget too. We can now reward with our dollars wherever we see fit.
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….
It will take a year. Substack's default is to auto-renew. So you sub to something and bang in a year get renewal the bill on a credit card. The only way I've found to avoid this is to sub, pay, then cancel. You still get the year you paid for for it won't renew automatically. By then you will have a year to decide if the subscription is worth it. There were a few I subbed to of people whose work I like but they posted very little and it seemed wasteful to keep the sub going when I could use the $$ to support a more prolific writer or simply buy the book of the less prolific writer.
It's strange how their interaction levels are well below Matt's and Jeff Childers' for example.
Yeah,Kimmel/Colbert weren't funny with 30 writers.
They are all in the same bubble.
Yeah, but we won’t be seeing them on the TVs in the airport gate area. That’s something.
So be it. We can then tell them directly to their substacks what we think of them.
And Lemon whose desperately trying to find his people mock Charlie’s death but to no avail
Human centipede, did they know what they wrought when they made that movie?
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.
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.
Totally disagree. He can say what he wants to say if he sees networks stepping out of line. Thats his job. You’re against his so called censorship by censoring him. He can’t actually take away their broadcast rights with a magic wand
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.
The whole idea that the Kirk shooter was a Trump supporter and that Trump was covering this up was pushed very very early and very very hard by the exact same people who were celebrating Kirk's death and the assassination attempts on Trump.
Kimmel's statement was not some random utterance, it was a very public validation of a whole pro-violence and pro-assassination narrative being pushed on reddit and other social media.
None of is new--and this has been a building crescendo.
If you don't understand the social memes and shibboleths at play, I recommend you spend some time on reedit. You will quickly see why Kimmel's statement got such a strong reaction from Trump. There is no ambiguity about what he was saying.
But be psychologically prepared for reddit. It is not pretty. Don't eat first.
Honestly I have no desire to go there. Nor am I on social media. I have a life, I have kids, I have a house and a wife. Even a cat. I have no time for the gutter that is Reddit. Every second I waste there is one I lose with my kids and they grow up fast. When my time comes I hope I’ve gotten them ready for life and that I have some memories to hold onto when everything else slips away and it’s over, and likewise my kids have memories that they can hold onto when I’m no longer here. I’m not going to achieve that on Reddit or shit posting on Twitter. Commenting on matt’s articles is as close as I will get to social media of any kind and I usually feel guilty doing that. But I feel the need to support him as he’s been through a lot and he’s done it without letting it change him and his style, which I’ve appreciated for quite some time. If he’s willing to keep writing, I’m willing to keep talking about the things he’s writing about. That’s as far as I’m willing to go. I’ll just have to take your word for what happens on Reddit. That doesn’t really change the fact that Kimmel wasn’t specifically calling for violence. No doubt he was lying. They often do and they do it shamelessly. It’s gross. But it’s not illegal. It’s important that there isn’t an appearance that the administration is punishing for being a prick. He has the right to be a prick.
I get the distinct impression that the vast majority of of Matt's hip Gen X and Boomer subscribers are not hip to Reddit or some of the other weird gamer platforms like Discord and Steam where the dissident youth of today hang out. There are some dark things going on down there, of which the normal human mind cannot conceive.
The left arguing for free speech! Now I really needed that laugh today. Thanks
Points well made…
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.
I remember an msm article maybe times during the first Trump administration that he missed the moment by not being resistance
Interesting
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.
Exactly
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
Why are you letting the algorithm decide what you see?
Because I’m a bot
I'm not. Which is why I'm here reading Matt's article. But I still brows through my news feed each morning in order to, as Walter Kirn once said, find out what the state wants from me today.
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.
That's fine. Where you going to go? Bondi hasn't done anything (yet), Carr didn't drop the hammer--the affiliates did. They are killing us. You want to worry about the appearances; I worry about blood on the stage.
>Where you going to go?
Yeah, that's a hard question. Clearly the Reps are 10,000% better than the Dems. But if we don't fight like hell to protect free speech, we're headed down the same path as the UK. Doesn't matter who the prime minister is; they're still imprisoning people for mean tweets.
She retracted and after his murder I said some pretty bone headed things too . I obviously don’t have her platform but the politicians in there now keep telling me to go F myself. That I’m a Nazi freak, scum. We are citizens of this country and they don’t even know me
>She retracted
I wasn't aware; this is encouraging. Thanks.
Devil's Advocate:
The ones who introduced the tools will use them again once back in power anyway.
Also, the tools can't be smelted back to non-existence right now, since the deep state wants them for inauguration day 2029.
So maybe the tools should be embraced and amplified to the point where the consequences are seen on both sides instead of just one, and the possibility arises thay everyone agrees that the tools should be destroyed soon.
It’s not an If it’s a when
OfCom— is that what they really call it? They must’ve taken Orwell’s “1984” literally.
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....
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 would 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.
There was NO decision by the FCC. Let’s get our facts right
Marie, if someone says to you "you can do this the easy way or the hard way," when they hold the power to effectively cancel your business, does that feel threatening to you?
Yes, it tells me to get my act together. But describe to me just exactly the FCCs role..,they fined for the Super Bowl boob incident, are they not to be watch dogs? Part of their job description is promoting public safety. Flat out lying to the American public about the murder of a public figure that was getting a lot of traction I believe warranted a comment from them. Jimmy has said some pretty inflammatory comments. He was well overdue for a thrashing. H the way, the affiliate owner Sinclair will hold a memorial for Kirk instead of airing Kimmel show. I suspect, because of that, they weee appalled by Kimmel remarks.
I don't want the government determining what is a lie and what is truth.
When Pontius Pilate asked, "what is truth" the mob freed Barrabas, and Pilate crucified Jesus. I think that tells us to be suspicious of governments mandating what we should believe is or is not true.
It wasn’t the government, it was the attorney general reading the text messages.
Don’t think any decision has been made except for a few misplaced words by the FCC head.
If you don't think this pressure came from Miller and co, you are fooling yourself
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.
Perhaps. Unfortunately this may be what came first, the chicken or the egg. These things happened at the same time so who knows. But Kimmel’s ratings were going down, particularly with the coveted 18-49 demographic, and his days were numbered anyway. This incident may have been the final straw. We just don’t know.
Betting you are right on that …..
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.”
This is awful. I didn't vote for this. I voted for the opposite of this. I voted for letting bigots, morons, fools and idiots out themselves. I voted for ABC tanking viewership to suffer under its own weight and their idiotic parent company to suffer under the marketplace tiring of the woke idiocy.
Let imbeciles out themselves. They can't help it. Don't silence them. Let them tell you who they are.
it is not a bad thing. Jimmy Kimmel along with his comrades in the far left wing of DNC slandered people who hold different but valid opinions about COVID vaccine and lockdown and advocating taking away people’s insurance and denying treatments if they didn’t want to take vaccine - without a slightest understanding of how vaccines work.
He and those who actively censored dissent need to get a taste of his own medicine. Tit-for-tat is the best strategy proven in game theory to keep both sides from cheating in the long run.
Btw, do you remember Parler was completely de-platformed by Apple, Google and Amazon under the pressure from
Biden Administration? Those who in the left have no moral standing on free speech at all. In fact, some in the Democratic Party and NYT was trying to get rid of the 1st amendment when they were in power.
This is sounding a lot like a "we must destroy Democracy to protect it" argument. The same shit the Dems have been doing.
We have a hard fight ahead of us -- because FUCK the Dems. But if we win it by abandoning the 1st Amendment, what have we won?
who says about “abandon” 1st amendment? what I said was that some in Democratic Party was trying to subvert 1st amendment when they were in power. There were several articles in the NYT and New Yorkers hinting about subverting the US constitution for it stands in the way of their agenda. If they don’t understand they also need its protection, they will do it next time they are in power. A system needs to be in place to protect constitution otherwise it is just words on parchment.
see Antony Scalia’s testimony.
https://youtu.be/Ggz_gd--UO0?si=YkSSz6iK-UHz7BF2
What does free speech mean if only you have the right to determine who can speak or what is said? Jimmy Kimmel is a vile pissant, a mental midget filled with hatred and an imbecile and his defenders are slack jawed beta cucks who enjoy watching their wives at $5 Tijuana donkey shows. None of that impedes his 1st amendment rights, nor does it give the government the ability to pressure abc to fire him.
that point to tit-for-tat strategy. you need to read about it. if cheating does not go unpunished, both sides will try cheating. it is strategy to keep both sides realize cheating does not go unpunished so the free speech will be protected.
Curiously, did you show your outrage when Parler was de-platformed? or this is a selective outrage?
I saved my rage for what happened during COVID and Twitter files. Government officials should be on trial for what they did.
100% agree with you on the Government official on Covid. it is also another reason that I am glad to see the demise of Kimmel who spewed such vitriol, false accusation and hatred on people who have doubt about vaccine. I had vaccine (though regret taking them) and I don’t watch TV. But his comments show up on social media and what he said demonstrates that he is just vile and amoral human being and is paid millions for being vile. it is good not to see him anywhere.
I'm with you, Kimmel is an anal wart. I truly hope he and Colbert suffer some kind of vaccine side effect for the damage they did. I want irony and karma to have their way with those two.