Comments on: TRANSPARENCY, HYPOCRISY AND THE OBOT

By: Catron

Catron — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:53:16 +0000

Mr. Cooper, you evidently have a gift for missing the point. Perhaps you sustained a head injury on that sloppy parachute jump from which you never recovered.

Even if “trials are always public,” which they manifestly are not, Sullivan’s double standard remains. Neither he nor anyone else can credibly claim to be an advocate of transparency while remaining silent on the S-SPAN thing.

It’s hypocrisy in its purist form.

By: DB Cooper

DB Cooper — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:39:09 +0000

You and Malkin do realize that trials are always public, and witnesses are (almost) always identified, right?

Who are these secret, delicate flower witnesses, anyway?

Here are the witness lists:

Supporters of Prop 8: https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/292.pdf

Every single witness (other than the plainfiffs themselves) are experts – public figures who’ve already staked out a public position on the issue.

Plaintiff’s list:
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/284.pdf

Again, the plaintiffs, experts, and the proponents of the Proposition. These are people who were active in the (successful) campaign to influence voters. These aren’t people pulled from obscurity.

And ECM, you are incorrect. It’s not a live feed. Every story makes it clear that a tape will be

By: ECM

ECM — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:04:09 +0000

Actually, no, you are incorrect: it will be fed onto YouTube, which is really the big problem so, no, it will not be “the same in kind and proportion” especially after the loons on the ‘Tube start slicing and dicing the testimony to get the desired result, i.e. the people testifying come across as knuckle-dragging ogres hell-bent on ‘keeping people down.’ (Which is why those people will likely choose not to testify: who the hell wants to subject oneself to the abuse that people in Cali and beyond have already been only amplified to a tremendous degree.)

By: AG

AG — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:16:42 +0000

The prop 8 trial is not a live feed. It will not be “televised” as such, but it will be taped by court cameras and excerpts given to the public. The full transcript of the trial will be documented and available after the trial, as such things usually are.

With regard to fears of “retribution,” the names and businesses of those who donated to Yes on 8 have long been available to the public (as are the No on 8 donors). You can probably expect the level of retribution to be about the same in kind and proportion.

By: PB

PB — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:12:46 +0000

Calling people who disagree with you “loons” is really convincing. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone should fear “retribution.” There is as much to be gained from televising the trial as from televising the healthcare negotiations, and a hypocrite is someone who thinks opposing one is “dead on,” while opposing the other is wrong.

By: ECM

ECM — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:58:07 +0000

Actually, it is a show trial: the judge knows that the plaintiffs will lose the testimony of a great many of their witnesses if it is, indeed, televised, which will, inevitably, sink their case. (And why would they lose that testimony? Because of the lunatic actions of the anti-8 crowd in the wake of its passing and how, if they are put on camera, activists will make their lives a living hell, if not subject them to potential, physical, ‘retribution.’)

I also have to add, again, that it’s amazing that every time Sullivan gets a mention here, the loons come crawling out of his festering hole to defend his noxious and logically-unsound positions–do you guys sit by your computers, googling Sully’s name 24/7??

By: Foggg

Foggg — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:47:16 +0000

Exactly, DP. A “show trial” is one in which the outcome is a foregone conclusion, and used for propaganda purposes.
Merely televising a trial doesn’t make it a “show trial”. Malkin flailing, yet again.

By: Catron

Catron — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:30:14 +0000

Of course it’s right that the prop 8 trial be televised.

What you’re not getting here, DP, is that TV would add value to the health reform “negotiatations,” by keeping the Dems relatively honest (admittedly a stretch for them).

On the other hand, in a courtroom (where evidence should rule), they can’t add any substance. Surely the OJ circus proved that, in a court of law, they only serve as a means of intimidation.

But the main point involves Sullivan’s double standard. His position on the Prop 8 cameras would be palatable if he were also talking about C-SPAN. His silence about the latter, however, shows him to be a hypocrite of the first order.

By: Derek Pearce

Derek Pearce — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 05:44:15 +0000

his agenda, your agenda, blah blah blah. Of course Obama should be televising the health care negotiations on CSPAN. And of course it’s right that the prop 8 trial be televised. Malkin’s characterization is not “dead on,” any more than shining CSPAN light on HC negotiations would make it a “show negotiation.” Goose meet gander.

By: Catron

Catron — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 05:40:29 +0000

He has highlighted views from both sides of the C-SPAN/health care coverage debate.

Actually, Chad, I have read that post, and it’s main thrust is not about the lack of transparency. It suggests that the primary problem with shutting out C-SPAN is that it robs us of videos showing the “final chapter” of this “historic” process. It ducks the real problem here (i.e. that Obama is a pathological liar).