IS IT TIME TO CHALLENGE THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

About a year ago in his standup act, comedian Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a “cunt.” There it is. In black and white. It is a word that our culture has deemed about as ugly as any word in the language. In common usage it reduces a woman to nothing more than her genitalia. It negates her intellect, her emotions, her purpose in the world. It is, at this point in the evolution of the English language, about as insulting as one word can be.

This week, in light of the prolonged controversy surrounding radio entertainer Rush Limbaugh calling a Georgetown University student a “slut” and a “prostitute,” Mahar has come under some criticism for his misogynistic language. In an interview with ABS’s Jake Tapper, Mahar defended his unfortunate choice of words this way: “I'm a comedian - not just a guy who says he is, like Rush, but someone who - well, you saw me do stand-up last year in D.C. There's a big difference between just saying you're a comedian and going out and getting thousands of people to laugh hard for 90 minutes. And the one I'm compared to most is Carlin, who also had these kind of problems.”

To paraphrase 1988 vice-presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen, let me just say this to Bill Mahar: Bill, you’re no George Carlin. You see, Carlin, from his earliest days on stage and on television, was a cultural commentator disguised as a comedian. Bill, you’re a comedian, disguised as a cultural commentator. There is a huge difference.

Here is how Mahar (left) rationalized his Palin (left) insult to Tapper: “Because it was a routine where that word came in at just the right moment. Context is very important, and it's also important to remember that stand-up comedy is the final frontier of free speech.”

Really? I think not. There will probably never be a “final frontier” of free speech. In fact, what we are witnessing in our culture right now is a real struggle to figure out if there are, or should be, boundaries to free speech. And if boundaries do or should exist for this historical American freedom, do we want them to be federalized or moralized? In a true democracy, who decides if it’s okay or not okay to call a college student a slut over the national airwaves? And if it’s not okay, what do we do? Should we take away Rush Limbaugh’s right to speak over the airwaves, or should the free market do its thing and naturally decide if he belongs in his high tech public forum?

There are many more questions than answers in our struggle to figure out what to do with the Rush Limbaughs (right) and Bill Mahars of the world. Chief among them is this: Is it time for us to challenge the limits of the first amendment? If that sounds revolutionary, it is not. The first amendment was notably challenged twice, in 1992 and 1993. Both times, the cases revolved around incendiary or hate speech. Decades earlier, the Supreme Court decided that such speech was not protected under the First Amendment. So, perhaps now would be an appropriate time for the amendment to be scrutinized further. This time, perhaps it would make sense for the U.S. government to consider the issue of civility. And for those who would question how we would define civility or incivility, remember there were those who strongly questioned what constituted hate speech when the amendment was challenged two decades ago.

Why is it implicitly acceptable in America to call a candidate for the vice-presidency a cunt? Why is it implicitly acceptable in America to denigrate private citizens on a radio talk show? It is time for us to find some consistency in the acceptable communication mores in our culture. Don Imus,(left) the radio talk host, managed to stay on the air for a very long time before finally being released by CBS radio in 2007 after referring to black women on Rutgers University’s basketball team as “nappy headed hos.” However, long before that he made repeated defamatory remarks, including one prior to the Rutgers debacle when he said one of his co-hosts was “hired to do nigger jokes.” He routinely referred to gay men as “faggots.” He was able to stay on the air because there is no consistency in FCC policy related to slander based on race, gender or sexuality. That lack of consistency runs parallel with the vague nature of the First Amendment.

So now it seems time to once again challenge the amendment to exclude defamatory speech, just as it excludes hate speech. Consider this: When the Constitution was written, there was no way for its authors to foresee the emergence of digital communication centuries later. Digital communication easily allows one individual to reach a majority of Americans instantly. That suggests that freedom of speech then bore very little resemblance to freedom of speech in 2012. That being the case, shouldn’t we Americans be taking a second look at the amendment to determine if it adequately speaks to contemporary cultural and technological shifts? I think so.

Unnecessary Headlines: Couples Edition

Hands down, the couple of the moment is Sarah Palin and Levi Johnston. Johnston, 19, has decided to unleash holy hell on the Palin clan, starting with his assertion on CBS This Morning that the then-Governor used to refer to her downs syndrome child as “retarded.” Oy. This, just days before he stretches out for his full frontal nudity photoshoot for Playgirl Magazine. Meanwhile, this week, in between her public denials of Johnston’s probable truths, it was revealed that Sarah received $1.5 million in advance for her memoirs, before she resigned. I can’t help wondering whatever happened to Bristol. After he had Levi’s baby, she appeared on morning talk shows promoting abstinence for teens. Then she disappeared. Those zany Palins. It’s always something, isn’t it?

Coming in second in our couples of the week are Lou Dobb and Geraldo Rivera (below, right). CNN’s Dobbs (left) has been sounding crazier and crazier lately. Who knew? Until recently, Dobbs sort of blended in with the wallpaper. Lately he keeps making odd headlines. Much of it has to do with verbal jabs from Rivera, who essentially called Dobbs out for racism, when he said Dobbs demeaned all Hispanics by his negative comments regarding immigration. Calling Dobbs a “hatemonger,” Rivera believes Dobbs has painted young Latin men trying to get into this country as “a profoundly negative icon.” Later in the week, for his part, Dobbs responded, “"My house has been shot and hit . . . and you know what, I'm not in the mood to put up with little fools like Geraldo Rivera.” Dobbs claims someone shot at his house, while his wife was standing outside, implying that he is now a target since Rivera made his claims. Police later took the winds out of his paranoid sails when they said the shot was from a hunter in the area.

You think the claws are out on cable? They’re nothing next to recent bride Ivanka Trump (below, left) and longtime New York Post gossip columnist Cindy Adams (below, right). Adams published a column the other day in which she went into great detail about Trump’s wedding to Jared Kushner. The column went so far as to describe the chandeliers in the reception tent. No big whoop, the readers reasoned. Adams is always going to high profile events with celebrities. But then, Trump comes forward with a public statement: Not only wasn’t Adams at her wedding, she wasn’t even invited. Adams claimed that Trump had included a marketing flyer for Trump properties in her wedding invitations. Trump says it never happened. Adams says it’s true she didn’t attend, but that many of the guests talked to her afterwards, and several confirmed story about the flyer. The moral of this story is, do not look for Cindy Adams to be a contestant on next season’s “Celebrity “Apprentice.”

And you thought Jon and Kate Gosselin were the couple du jour. Hey, we’ve moved on, right?

MRS. PALIN'S INEVITABLE GOODBYE

Sarah Palin is a small town American girl with ambition to spare, energy to burn and naiveté unlike anything Americans have seen in a long time. From the time she burst onto the national scene with her cheerleader-like enthusiasm and her sometimes ill-informed public statements, Palin has always underestimated the electorate. That is condescending at best, and extremely poor judgment at worst. I never really saw Palin as a having political longevity, but I did worry that a certain segment of the population would feel distantly comfy with those folksy winks into the camera and down-home “you betchas” and “say it ain’t so Joes.” In a moment in America when comfort is at a premium, I was concerned that too many voters would opt for comfort over substance and ability. My concerns were fully allayed on July 3, when Sarah Palin delivered a rambling, topic-hopping speech, resigning her post as Governor of Alaska. I will not call it incoherent – but I will go so far as to say her hastily-called press conference was alternately breathless, disjointed, and slightly bitter. Watch:


Palin’s disdain for the American media is palpable. The near-combative relationship she has established with media organizations and even individual reporters is unprecedented in recent American politics. By Sunday, she was even talking of suing a Huffington Post blogger for slander. Who among us will ever forget Palin’s verbal tennis match with CBS anchor Katie Couric? Not only couldn’t she name the newspapers or magazines she reads, but she could not come up with any U.S. Supreme Court decisions that she questioned. Here we had a woman who conceivably could end up being President of the U.S. if aging, cancer-survivor John McCain were to die, and as head of the executive branch of government, she is evidently fully unfamiliar with the decisions of the judicial branch. That should have been our first clue as to Palin’s lack of preparedness for the job, and for her distinct lack of media savvy. By that point, Palin had not only underestimated us, the voters – but she had most definitely underestimated the power, influence and persistence of the American media. Big mistake.

Citing media pressures as part of her decision to step down, Palin sent the worst possible message to voters – When the going gets tough, I just quit. (My first reaction was, If only George Bush had had the same escapist strategy). The truth is that Sarah Palin does not like anyone snooping, investigating, questioning or even wondering about her motives, her behavior or her decisions. Sarah has a secret. No, make that many secrets. Let’s not forget that well into her pregnancy with her youngest child, not one person on her staff knew she was pregnant until her last trimester. And let’s not forget that her husband was a member of an Alaskan secessionist party while she was Governor of one of the United States. Just a gentle reminder that while she was decent enough to let John McCain know her teenage daughter was five months pregnant before signing on to the GOP ticket, she was not forthcoming to the American public about Bristol’s pregnancy until a week after the GOP convention. There have always been rumblings about Palin awarding state jobs to certain individuals for questionable reasons, as well as the high profile “troopergate” scandal in which Alaska’s public safety commissioner claimed he was forced to resign when he refused to fire Palin’s ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper.

Palin has too many secrets. Reportedly, her own father-in-law did not know of the content of Palin’s press conference until he heard it through media reports. If Palin is this withholding in her own family, why on earth would we, the American voters, believe she would be any more forthcoming with us? I, for one, am waiting for the other shoe to drop. My reporter’s gut tells me there is lots more to the Palin resignation story than her frustration with the media, her desire to save Alaskans the cost of more ethics investigations, and her fear of becoming a sitting duck governor. If she were that fearful of becoming a sitting duck, why did she not simply keep plugging away, and then run for re-election so she could fulfill her agenda? In her breathy resignation schpiel, she more than once reiterated her disdain for “politics as usual.” Yet, by not being fully honest about her reasons for resigning and her plans for the future, she simply played politics, as usual. If she truly sees the American media as the enemy, then why did her husband agree to a full length feature story in a recent issue of Esquire magazine? Why did she allow her daughter, Bristol, to do a media blitz this Spring touting the dangers of teenage sex? It appears Palin will use media when it suits her, and condemn media when we get a little too close to truths that she would prefer to keep…secret.

There are almost 4,000 miles between Wasilla, AK and Washington, D.C. It was way too far, literally and figuratively for a girl from Wasilla, population 7,000, to travel in one broad jump. Sarah Palin made the critical error of trying to go too far too fast without enough information, education and experience. She tried to skip some critical steps in the climb from ambitious local politician to major player on the national stage. Most significantly, Sarah Palin tried to buck a system with deep roots in the American culture. She should have taken a page out of the mid-20th century civil rights movement playbook: The key players learned that if you want to change the world, you do so by working within the existing system. Inventing or even suggesting a whole new system takes up precious time, shakes the foundations that Americans count on and simply paints one in the most unfavorable light possible – that of “rogue.”

So long, Sarah. It feels like we hardly knew you. But then -- you wouldn't have it any other way, right?

THE 3 REPUBLICAN GOOFBALLS WHO NEED TO BE QUIET

Let’s just get this out of the way first – the goofballs alluded to in the above headline are consummate whack-job Michele Bachmann, the neocon congresswoman from Minnesota; the man without a verbal filter of any kind, RNC Chairman Michael Steele; and of course, the true face and voice of the current Republican party, entertainer Rush Limbaugh. (Bachmann and Steele are pictured at right. We've all seen enough of Rush, haven't we?)

You know everything you need to know about Rush. I’m not wasting bandwith on him. Let’s look at Michele, and I will now write the longest sentence I have ever written, a summary of Michele’s unfortunate views and positions: Michele Bachmann claims pedophiles are all gay; insists God told her (through her husband) to get a post-doctoral degree in tax law and then to run for elected office, and ultimately labels herself a “fool for Christ” and says she’s “hot for God” ; claims the current H1N1 virus is “interesting” since it happened under the watch of a Democratic president, just as it did in 1976 (although all historical records still agree the President of the U.S. in 1976 was Gerald Ford, a Republican); believes many members of Congress are anti-American; fears that the U.S. is “running out of rich people”; said in a speech on the Senate floor that carbon dioxide is a harmless gas; believes the government is trying to establish “re-education” camps for young people, to train them in the philosophy of the Democratic party; publicly referred to the late Terry Schiavo as “healthy”.

Can we all just agree that Michele Bachmann is indeed a nut? Unfortunately for the Republican party, she never stops talking. She is rapidly becoming a high profile face of the party. Aside from the time she said two lesbians blocked her from leaving a public restroom (I promise), here is one of my favorite Bachmann appearances. On Hardball with Chris Matthews Congresswoman Whackadoodle showed her full paranoia, naming Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Michelle Pelosi as “anti-American”:

One time, appearing together, Bachmann praised (?) RNC Chairman Michael Steele by declaring, “Michael Steele, you be da man.” Yes, she said that. And in fairness, Steele has almost courted that unfortunate image. Here’s a typical Steele response to a reporter’s question – this time it had to do with Republicans voting against money for a potential flu pandemic. Steele’s logic? We didn’t have any way of knowing there would be a flu pandemic, so why would we allot money for it? Evidently, Steele believes we generally know in advance when there will be a pandemic, or other national crisis:

Steele is what we call a “loose cannon.” The Republican royalty apparently did not expect Steele to be quite so controversial when they chose him, but he’s trouble. He spends a lot of time talking about things that have nothing to do with….well, with anything. Here is what he said about Michelle Obama’s inaugural gown: "I wasn't feelin' that. Didn't like the cut. All the little puff things on it -- what was that all about? She could have done a Valentino." Huh? And then there was this, in an interview with GQ Magazine: "I love to party. I love hanging out with women, sometimes more than men. You know, sit back and let your hair down type thing?" So 50 Cent,right? All of this, just as he said on CNN that he is the “de facto leader of the Republican party.” Seriously, does he believe that?

At a minimum, Steele does not display much of a sense of decorum. At the extreme, he is overtly partisan, prone to hair-trigger responses to reporters’ queries, and generally not a good team player. Some typical Steel-isms: One time, speaking to a Jewish group, he compared stem-cell research to Nazi medical experiments on Jews during the holocaust years. Oy. Another time, speaking of pending healthcare reform legislation, Steele actually joked about Senator Ted Kennedy’s brain cancer, saying the bill should probably be called the "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Bill." Ouch. There is more: In a party that does not pride itself on social change, particularly when it concerns gay issues, Steele has publicly stated that homosexuality is not a choice. On the other hand, Steele calls himself a pro-lifer, but has made comments that sound distinctly pro-choice.

The problem? Steele is not a politician, and in the Republican party’s current precarious position, they need a politician. The further problem? Steele is more focused on promoting himself than the party. He was a bad choice for the job. Nobody in the party wants to come out and say it emphatically, but in a year of particularly bad choices (Read: Sarah Palin) Steele may be among the worst.

We need at least a two party system. The competition and the ideological tug of war is a healthy construct for the democracy. People like crazy Michele Bachmann and Michael Steele should become Republican party reorganizational road kill.

And of course, I mean that in the nicest way possible. Uh huh.

5 REASONS SARAH PALIN CANNOT BE PRESIDENT

Nobody seems willing or ready to say it, so I have decided to break the ice: Sarah Palin cannot be President of the United States – in 2012 or any other year. Too much baggage, bad blood, bad press – take your pick. I think we knew this as soon as we saw the Katie Couric interviews, but we were all still willing to lend an ear and hear her out. We have heard her now, and we’ve witnessed the intense drama that seems to naturally surround her. Sarah can’t be the chief. No way. Here are my top five reasons:

1. Senator John McCain is unwilling to commit to giving her his full support. That is probably because he wants to see how things play out in her life, and right now there are a number of sideshows (political and familial) that seem to be distracting her. And the distractions are growing and multiplying. McCain emerged from the 2008 election as a statesman. Statesmen work a lifetime for that status, and why on earth would he compromise his image for Mrs. Palin?

2. Americans do not elect extremists to the office of President. Palin is increasingly revealing a disturbingly radical bent. Most recently she supported Wayne Anthony Ross for Alaska Attorney General. Good old boy Wayne Anthony – National Director of the National Rifle Association and lifelong right to lifer who calls abortion “killing kids" – is one of those off the map right wingers that sort of scare more moderate conservatives. He’s flamboyant. He’s arrogant. His Alaska license plate shows simply his initials – WAR. In the end, Americans prefer order over conflict. In our legislators, we’ll take reason over rancor any day of the week. From what is reported so far of Wayne Anthony, I see nothing more or less than Tom Delay in warmer clothes and snow boots. More significantly, he is the prototype Palin appointee. Mrs. P. cannot rule because we, the people, don’t want reckless fringe types driving the national bus.

3. Remember Troopergate? That was the case of Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, Palin’s brother-in-law – the one Mrs. P. tried and failed to have fired. As time goes by, Palin’s initial firm denials of any involvement in the case have become more tepid. The Alaska State Legislature publicly rebuked her. At best, Palin was dishonest. At worst, she abused her power to settle a personal, family score. Either way, Mrs. P. cannot be President because Americans saw her play fast and loose with the truth, and we would prefer someone more truthful as our leader. Moreover, we witnessed how devious she can be in her quest for public survival. We did not like it.

4. Mrs. Palin has family issues, and by issues I mean catastrophes, and by catastrophes I mean insurmountable image problems from all directions. Her own mother-in-law would not even commit to supporting her candidacy. Her husband’s sister was recently arrested for breaking and entering the same house twice. Oh, and did I mention she did so with her four-year-old daughter in tow, as the homeowner hid in the bathroom with a loaded gun. It’s all so trashy, is it not? And then there’s Sherry Johnston, Palin’s “was gonna be son-in-law’s” mother, recently arrested for felony possession and sales of OxyContin. Oh Sarah, Sarah, the company you keep. We can’t have all that riff raff in the White House. We had our Billy Carters way back in the disco era. Never again.

5. Mrs. Palin has issues with the issues, and this time, by issues I mean those elements of our culture which are critical to all of us. Palin, you will recall, charged rape victims for rape kits. She also vetoed a bill that would ban gay marriage, only to turn around and suggest the same ban should be the subject of a constitutional amendment. As it relates to young people and sex, only abstinence is up for discussion in Palin’s world. After the father of her daughter’s child appeared on the Tyra Banks show, Palin publicly accused him of “flat out lies and gross exaggeration:”



The response came so quickly to the press that one is inclined to believe it was nothing more than sheer damage control. And even then, it seemed tardy and disingenuous. The boy also claims he was living in the Palin home, sleeping with Bristol, at the same time her mother was out campaigning for abstinence. Even in the above-mentioned public statement, Palin claims, "Bristol's focus will remain on raising Tripp, completing her education, and advocating abstinence.” As late as last week Bristol Palin said abstinence is “not realistic at all.” Mrs. Palin’s stands on the issues seem a bit muddled even in her own home. Throughout the 2008 campaign we never were really clear on where Palin stood on anything other than her opposition to Barack Obama becoming President. A significant segment of the population was left feeling shaky about Sarah Palin’s knowledge of the issues.

Further, for better or for worse, Palin’s down home folksiness – which often felt contrived and unauthentic – simply does not play well in 2009 Washington – even among her fellow Republicans. This week the Senate GOP committee un-invited Palin to be the keynote speaker at a June dinner in Washington, and promptly replaced her – with Newt Gingrich. And McCain’s daughter, Meghan McCain said Thursday, “I really don’t know. I’d have to see who else is on the table,” in response to a question about whether she would support Palin in 2012.

Sarah Palin is only 45 years old. She most likely has decades worth of career years before her and she may achieve some success in the public arena. But Sarah Palin brings way too much baggage to the national table to ever run the whole show.

SARAH PALIN'S GOSH DARN MAD!

Come on. Did you really think Miss Sarah was going to go gently into that cold, snowy Alaska night? Did you truly believe her 15 minutes wouldn't be strategically extended? Recently, Mrs. Palin sat down with documentary filmmaker John Ziegler, to discuss everything from Tina Fey to Bristol and Levi to Katie Couric. And as it turns out, Mrs. P. is mad. Real mad.

My favorite part of this entire piece is this quote from Miss Sarah:
"What is it that drives people to believe the worst and perpetuate the worst, in terms of gossip and lies?"
In the classic cartoon sense, a lightbulb went off in my head. I remembered how Mrs. Palin used one of her campaign stump speeches to badmouth Barack Obama, and to exaggerate his relationship with individuals she referred to as "domestic terrorists." In case you missed it, here's a reminder:



Sarah, Sarah, Sarah. The issues that confront us in America are what Americans care about. We are not interested in how mad you are at everybody. We care about credit card finance charges of up to 30 percent. We care about mortgage companies that refuse to exhaust any other alternatives before foreclosures. We really care about not having health insurance simply because many of us have to choose between food on the table and a possible medical emergency. It is important to us that more than 4,000 Americans are dead because of an administration that could not wait to get all the facts before invading a country that did not merit our aggression. We are scared of a national unemployment rate that appears to be approaching eight percent, the highest level since 1945. Perhaps the next time you feel like pontificating, it could be about something....anything other than how mean and nasty the media are, and how unfairly you were portrayed to the public. Perhaps this could be your last meaningless exchange with an interviewer: