411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 39

Posted by Ryan Latimer on 04.16.2007

Please come in. There is only ONE question regarding Don Imus. Promise.

Good day, folks, and welcome to another edition of 411 Politics FOF. I'm your host Ryan Latimer, and I'm happy to announce I've kept my radio show job after making those terrible remarks about the basketball players. And to think, a week ago I didn't even know women's basketball existed.

Two of my favorites take each other on this week, as Mark Radulich and Ray Church collide on the issues of Nancy Pelosi's recent fly-arounds, Don Imus' mammoth gutter mouth (c'mon, how can I NOT have a question on that?), Mike Nifong and MySpace freedom of speech. I think there is a law somewhere that these two have to spar on something here, so my work is pretty much done. I knew there was a reason why I hire these guys.

So enough talky from me. The gloves are off and it's time to go…


1) Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was criticized by the Bush White House for meeting last week with Syrian President Bashar Assad, who the administration said has been involved in the politics and fomented violence in Iraq and Lebanon and is a state sponsor of terrorism. Now Pelosi is considering a diplomatic trip to open a dialog with Iran. Pelosi is making a big mistake by thumbing her nose at the administration and meeting with these countries.

Ray Church: FICTION - I think Pelosi made a mistake, but not by thumbing her nose at the administration. Someone needs to do something to undercut the administration and someone has to do something to try and fix the mess the administration has made. She certainly seems to have done no worse than the administration did and there is plenty of precedent for her doing so, as plenty of other members of Congress and the Senate have acted as defacto arms of the government without the prior consent, so what I am trying to say is not directed specifically at Pelosi.

The only thing... ONLY thing that I have against this is that the Constitution makes it clear that foreign policy is the purvue of the Executive branch, but as I said she is not the only one to do this so when the Bush Administration stamps their feet about it they look like impotent little school boys throwing a hissy fit about the food served in the school cafeteria. Can't say that I agree that foreign policy should be the purvue of the Executive, but that's what the constitution says, so I blame the American people for voting for an Executive Branch that knows sweet nothing about other countries.

Mark Radulich: FACT - Let's start with the basics. It's not the job of the Speaker of House to make diplomatic trips and overtures. That is the responsibility of the Secretary of State as well as the President. This obviously sets a terrible and dangerous precedent for several reasons. For one, the US government, to the world, needs to speak with one voice. The SOS or the President is both the face and the voice of this country where matters of state and foreign affairs are concerned. Once every Tom, Dick and Nancy decides to shout over that voice, said voice becomes less potent thus weakening our bargaining posture (the cornerstone of diplomacy).

For my money, this is not about San Fran Grand Nan and her San Francisco Liberal Quasi-Communist politics. I would be saying the same thing if this story was about Newt Gingrich 10 years ago. I will say the same thing if any of my fav politicians opt to go off the ranch and make diplomatic overtures with any country. It's bad form, unprofessional and dangerous for all involved. Finally, one must ask the question, if Nancy Pelosi can go to Syria, make promises and deals without the consent of the President, why can't Bill Gates do the same? Why can't George Soros do it as well? What's to stop any person with the dough and the clout stemming from ones capitalistic empire from deciding foreign policy and enacting it on their own? A policy or law is only as strong as its countries will to live by and enforce it thus the problem with speaking with more than one voice.

They both seem to agree that Pelosi is walking on thin ice, but it comes down to opinion of if it‘s for a good cause or not. One thing is for sure: she‘s certainly not making any friends in the White House or with GOPers. Not sure if that makes her happy or sad. 0 for 1


2) Radio shock-jock Don Imus has made national news for making racially insensitive comments on his program last week. He was fired from his radio show and drew the ire of many, most notably Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who were frontrunners in getting Imus canned. Imus deserved his firing.

Ray Church: FACT - Oh boy, of all the things that are taking up valuable airtime this week. Truly, I don't care... just like Mel Gibson, I don't care. Just like Michael Richards... I don't care. I'm just glad that it was over quickly so it didn't carry on like the final resting place of Anna Nicole Smith. Now, when are they going to fire Rush Limbaugh for saying stupid things?

Mark Radulich: FACT- Making provocative comments about race deserves protection though, in the marketplace it doesn't demand it. Making idiotic comments and insults that serve no purpose other than to be shocking deserve no protection at all. Race issues and sensitivity aside; let's deal with harsh reality for a second. Imus is a content provider. His entire purpose in life is to provide an arena for which companies can advertise their wares to a gathered, mass audience. Thus Imus performs a talk radio show that millions listen to providing an adequately sized audience available for companies to make overtures to about their products. If people stop listening because Imus is no longer entertaining (for whatever reason) then obviously they need to replace him with someone that is. The stupid remark isn't why he was fired per se. He was fired because advertisers pulled out of his show thus defeating the entire purpose of having him in that spot in the first place. Now why the advertisers pulled out of the show is a whole other story. However, Ryan wants to know if Imus should have been fired and simply because his yap caused the sponsors to flee from his brand of content, yes, it's a fact, he should have been fired.

Ray is right in that this issue took up a LOT of airtime in radio and TV, but I believe it was because this incident was quite significant in terms of how future issues of freedom of speech will be handled. It‘s already happening, really. It‘s Nipplegate 2.0. Thanks a lot, Imus. 1 for 2


3) The Indiana Court of Appeals has recently ruled that a judge violated a juvenile's free-speech rights when the judge placed the student on probation for posting a profanity-laced column on MySpace, blasting the school principal. In essence, MySpace postings are considered free speech. The Indiana Court of Appeals made the correct ruling.

Ray Church: FICTION - Boy, Ryan, you forced me to go and do some research on this one. If a student wants to make a profanity ridden piece on the Internet decrying school policy that, in itself, has nothing to do with the courts. I think the school has the right to take whatever corrective punishments they have within their power against the student, but I think it has nothing to do with the legal system.

Where this all goes wrong, however, is that the student was impersonating the Principal, and as such it places the reputation and the job of the Principal in jeopardy. It's not free speech if you're pretending to be someone else when you do it.

Mark Radulich: FACT- Not that I'm in agreement per se with the idea that a student should lambaste their principal and not suffer consequences for it, on the contrary, I think the principal should have sued the brat for libel. But I'm a letter of the law type of guy and I believe in following the correct grievance procedure in any venue across the US. Simply put, punish this idiot, but do it by the book. Do not invent new law or find new punishments simply because your feelings got hurt or you think these kids today with the MySpace and World of Warcraft are a bunch of lousy punk slackers.

Sorry for making you do research, Ray. But you should know by now that you do what I say without question. Now paint my house. Don‘t you give me that look. 1 for 3


4) As the sexual assault case against the three Duke lacrosse players ends, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong is now meeting with his own attorney to prepare for a possible defense of his own on ethics charges and even criminal charges. Mike Nifong deserves to be prosecuted for his behavior during the Duke case.

Ray Church: FACT - Again, in the huge number of things that should not have been a national media event. If you want to throw ethics charges at him for "prejudicing the trial" through his media comments, then you should throw them at Bill O'Reilly and Anne Coulter as well, but the guy withheld evidence and for that he should be thrown in jail.

Mark Radulich: FACT - Duh. Nifong needs to be prosecuted, stripped of his license to practice law and possibly deported to Russia – well, maybe not deported, but he should definitely face the maximum penalty for drumming up charges against innocent people and making a mockery of the judiciary system. For every Duke rape case or Tawana Brawley (Hello Al Sharpton!) there is the case of woman or child that really was raped (by a gang or otherwise) that is not being prosecuted. For every complete waste of time by some ambulance chasing dirt bag sleaze attorney like the disreputable Nifong, there's a girl or woman who will not receive the justice she duly deserves. It's cases like this, which remind me of the line spoken by Doc Brown from Back to the Future II, "The Justice systems moves more swiftly now that they've abolished all lawyers." With lawyers like Nifong out there, I think that a world without lawyers would be a lot a better off.

He‘s a criminal and a villain. I have nothing smart or witty to say here. I hope he gets what‘s coming for what he did. It‘s one thing to screw up (we all do in any job or life situation) but it‘s quite another to pull what Nifong pulled. Hope you enjoy a life of having eggs thrown at you, pal. 2 for 4


Half ‘n half. Not bad, although looking back the final question was probably a bit easy. Chalk it up to jetlag. Or me being an idiot. Either way.

Thanks again, folks, and always remember readers can contribute as well. Drop me a line and saddle up.

-rl