I am a "good" liberal, whatever that means...

First of all, to Andrew: Perhaps you should look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary.  Slander is most certainly a case of falsehood *OR* defamation.  This is probably most clear in definition #2, but definition #1 states it as well.

Also, the Legal Dictionary at Lawyers.com mentions "slander" as being "false OR malicious" statements several times.

But I didn't need dictionaries to know this, alright?  I go to Indiana University, one of the best schools for journalism on the globe, and I trust that they won't teach us improper meanings of terms.  These people are professors, so who am I going to trust?  You and a few dictionaries, or professionals AND some dictionaries?  Besides, it's pretty childish to keep arguing a technicality when the more important question is of morality, not law.

And we liberals DO have morals, you know.  We're out to benefit ALL people, from the dregs of society to the political masters who rule us all.

Also, you're allowed to voice your dislike for a public figure.  Michael Savage is a public figure, so calling HIM an idiot isn't technically "malicious speech."

On to the issue of me being a "good" liberal or not.  Am I in any way a hypocrite because of my stance on Michael Savage's hate speech?  Let's ask THIS question instead.  Which is worse: An angry man putting down Muslims, blacks, children with autism, gays, and sometimes even women? Or telling him he can't be PAID to scream nonsense over the radio?  Which form of freedom would a "good" liberal support?  Because you can't have both.  Only one.  I choose the less damaging of the two.

Fire Savage.

Now!  If it'll ever be allowed to be DROPPED (my goodness, I hadn't intended to make my "Fire Savage" rants a theme, but that's how the comments ended up flowing, so hey...), I'd like to continue with the current events.

Okay, so we all know that the nearly-trillion-dollar stimulus package has been cut down significantly, but which areas took the biggest hits?  Some things were thrown out entirely, and some were merely reduced.  Personally, I agree with some of the cuts, and disagree with some others that I think could have helped create jobs in America.

For example, I can understand cutting out the $300 million for federal prisons.  I don't see how that would add jobs, you know?  It'd just make prisons "nicer," and in my opinion, prisons are homey enough for lawbreakers.  I understand the cuts from NASA, a few wildlife preservation organizations, and some scientific research.

And I'm GLAD that $600 million was cut from No Child Left Behind.  Personally, I have no idea why that ridiculous act hasn't been repealed yet.  It's such a misnomer!  It HARMS quality education.

But on the other hand, funding for construction of new high schools and institutions of higher education has been eliminated, and I think that's a bad idea.  Manual labour jobs are in pretty high demand right now, with the masses of factory workers being laid off, and I really think that building schools would have been an awesome way to pull an FDR on this recession.  

$40 billion is also being cut from state aid that would help prevent worsening recession on a more local level.  I'm not sure whether or not I even understand how that part works, so I can't really make a decision.  But that part seems to be the biggest controversy.

Overall, though, I guess I'm okay with the stimulus package as it is right now.  Maybe when the most vital things are taken care of, other organizations can receive the money they deserve later on down the road.  I mean, I'm all about the science, nature, and outer space stuff...but maybe they should be separate.  A lot of that stuff wouldn't create too many new jobs, anyway.

But we'll see where it goes.  Currently, the House favours a bill that works primarily on the state and local levels, whereas the Senate is really liking the bit about cutting taxes.  And Obama's getting pretty pissed, it seems, that no one can agree on anything so we can just get this show on the road.

I'm getting pretty impatient too.  This recession had better be over by the time Ashley and I are out of this buffer that is college, because we're big fans of money, and actually having it...

Monday Musings

Like the alliteration?  Yeah.

FIRST on the agenda.  Someone said that my open distain for Michael Savage is hypocritical, since I support the first amendment's social liberties.  It's VERY common for people to make this argument; in fact, Savage himself has a "donate money to me and keep the first amendment protected," which, to me, translates to "donate money to me so that my lawsuits are covered whenever I take it too far."

Don't get me wrong.  I'm all about the free speech.  I mean, I'm totally appreciative of the fact that we can have this blog and say what we think without having to worry about getting thrown in jail or shot or something.

But I truly don't believe that the things Savage says should be protected.  In a journalism class I took last semester, we learned that there are actually different levels of protection for various kinds of speech.  Obscenity is the least protected.  I mean, Savage once took a gay caller, didn't let the man get two words in, and yelled at him for being a "pig" and a "sodomite."  A private citizen.  Technically, isn't that slander?  Yeah, folks, it is.

And there's where the line is drawn.  Freedom of speech is limited when it violates others' rights or is considered slander.

The man is a hypocrite himself, anyway.  He's always yelling about how people shouldn't be gay, or that Muslims are all terrorists, or that autistic children are "brats."  And yet things like religion are protected under the same amendment that he so brazenly abuses.  He makes me sick.

Here's a sample of him being ridiculous:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpmTivdGl54

Okay!  On to the news.

People.  I can't believe this is still an issue.  If President Obama doesn't want to wear his suit jacket, he doesn't have to.  People do their best work while they're comfortable.  Give it a rest.  It's not even that big of a deal.

There's a lot of debate recently about whether or not Obama is giving Republican senators higher offices so that their positions in the Senate can be filled with Democrats, giving them a filibuster-proof majority.  I don't know if that's true, necessarily, but I know that I wouldn't MIND it if that were one of Obama's motives.

Filibusters are cheap and completely illegitimate.  I'm not even going to go into it.  If you've got any sense about you, you understand that talking a bill to death is absurd.

A lot of people criticized Obama for having a Superbowl shindig.  McCain ditched, for whatever reason, but was on the invite list.  I don't see any problems with him taking a few hours away from his job to participate in one of the biggest events in American culture of the year.  I, personally, don't follow sports or anything, but I think it's great that Americans make a day of Superbowl Sunday.

Women are starting to take a stand in Iraq, running for council seats in regional elections.  I'm pretty excited about that.  Hopefully these women won't be murdered, like so many have for doing similar things.  Oh, gender.

Well, that's Monday.

Some news, and a little anti-Savage message!

About this Kirsten Gillibrand woman...

If you haven't been following, she's going to replace Hillary in the Senate.  Personally, I think it's a little weird to have an upstate person representing New York, since MOST of the people in her state are from the city...  And I just don't know how well someone like that can adequately represent them.

She apparently marks herself as a "fiscally conservative" Democrat.  So, it's good that she's got the social ideas of a Lefty, but I'm not too sure the people from New York City are going to be quite on board with someone with a conservative view of the economy.

I'm really only worried, though, because calling herself "fiscally conservative" AND being from upstate NY could be a bad combination.  Upstate people  are wealthy types, stereotypically speaking.  Born wealthy, raised wealthy, sometimes can't understand people who WEREN'T raised the same way.

Even so, she says she wants to "follow in her footsteps," speaking of Hillary (take that as you will), so maybe she'll put her own lifestyle aside in favour of appealing to her state.  I guess we'll see.

Republicans: No more of this complaining about Gitmo without at least admitting that your guy, McCain, says he backs Obama.  

I admit that I stopped paying attention to all the Blagojevich news after it all started to be the same.  Blago, with his hands up in an "I'm innocent!" pose, saying that he did nothing wrong, lying through his teeth, while his hair wiggles.  I guess I don't BLAME him for wanting newspapers to print stories that defend him...I mean....if I were a greedy nutjob who was forced to stick to his own obvious lie out of pride and fear, I guess I'D be asking the same thing...?

He's proof that Democrats DO go "bad" sometimes...when they become greedy and ignorant, like people on the Far Right.  :D

Speaking of the Far Right, I've been getting fed up with Michael Savage again recently.  Claiming to support the first amendment, and then saying horrible things about other races, religions, and lifestyles...which are ALSO protected under the first amendment?  Not cool.  FIRE SAVAGE!

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Enjoy your Friday afternoon!  The weather has been GORGEOUS here in Indiana!