Bio
Blogger, comedian, artist, activist, attorney, Catholic, pretentious urbanite, Social Media strategist, libertarian, observer, Rockabilly. Haiku.
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

Of Google, Glenn Beck and Van Jones

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 33
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Let me start by saying that Glenn Beck drives me bananas. Just the sight of him makes me fly into the kind of rage I usually reserve for Joy Behar and people who wear leggings without an appropriately long shirt (they aren't pants. LEGGINGS ARE NOT PANTS). In fact, I often find myself, when I am at home, alone with a television and an individually-sized Jose Curevo bottled margarita, cursing his very existence and the negative contribution he makes to an already intellectually adrift party. And he needs a new wardrobe.

But what can I say. When the man's right, he's right. And he was right about Van Jones.

Van Jones, the special adviser for green jobs to President Obama,
resigned over the weekend after it was revealed that he signed a
petition stating that President Bush may have deliberately allowed 9/11
to happen as a pretext for war in the Middle East and his past
statements about Republicans.

Mr. Jones issued a statement blaming Republicans for a "vicious smear campaign" against him.

Since when is letting the truth come to light a campaign of vicious smears?

Now don't get me wrong, you know I'm not a Jack Donaghy-level defender of the Republican brand, so know that I'm leveling with you here. What Van Jones managed to put into his own record was worth looking at. I've seen it called "New McCarthyism" and a high-tech witch hunt, but there's something that Obama and his administration should recognize about the people who make up the politically involved in this country: they can use Google.

For what Van Jones is or was (I highly doubt he'll be scarred for life), his contribution to the area of "green jobs" was significant, and his departure has a deeper meaning for those concerned about environmental movement. Britt Bravo talked about how his book, the Green Collar Economy was an inspiration and a roadmap to a new economic future. He had an impressive resume when it came to what he was hired to do: come up with green jobs. Personally, the whole thing sounds fishy in a New Deal sort of way (creating jobs out of nothing to employ people to do something that may not be economically feasible doesn't seem like a great plan and certainly hasn't worked in the past, but hey, you got elected. Make my day).

I'm trying to say he is one smart cookie.

Which means, #1, he's not easily deceived. When he signed a petition asking the government to investigate deeper into the 9/11 events to see whether the government itself had a role in the tragedy, he knew what he was doing. When he advocated radical re-distribution of wealth, he knew what he was doing. When he stood up on camera and made derogatory statements about Republicans, he knew what he was doing. And like a lot of Obama's Czar selections, his contributions to society were well-known, widely-published and objectively weird. And they were accessible. In other words, it wouldn't take a highly-motivated genius to find them.

Enter Glenn Beck. Who found what Van Jones wasn't hiding.

So maybe the moral of this story is that the Obama administration, if it wants to avoid legitimate criticism he should heed the knight in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and choose wisely. Because, no matter what the current crop of administration lackeys like to think, if I disagree with your policies, I'm still allowed to criticize them. I swear I am. I can oppose them and everything. And I can make a big stink about you believing in them if they don't appeal to a majority of people. And that's what's happening with the Czars.

I don't honestly believe Obama is stupid enough to believe that no one will ever Google the men and women he appoints, or that whatever low-level staffer was in charge of printing out the Wikipedia pages on the Czar appointees was asleep at the wheel, as Real Clear Politics' Froma Harrop seems to suggest. In fact, I believe more closely in the idea that Nice Deb does: Obama knows exactly what he's doing.

This was no failure of the vetting process. Van Jones was exactly what
Obama had in mind for his green jobs Czar: a community activist cut
from the same cloth as himself.

This is just what Obama wants and believes. Its just...not exactly what people expected, and not exactly what America wants. Its no accident of not looking closely enough. Its an accident, perhaps, of coming too far too fast, before the

  • 33
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
NOfreelunch 5 pts

Princess, I think this is my favorite post of yours that I've ever read on this website.  I admire and appreciate your willingness to put yourself out there and voice an unpopular opinion full of difficult truths. I love how you emphasized that government control and the loss of individual rights that comes with it is an incremental process. People seem to think it's going to run over them like a truck if it appears. In fact, it happens so slowly that it's nearly imperceptable if you're not educated and alert. Much like the quote,

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

For those who believe that is false and fearmongering, I invite them to read as much as they can with a truly open mind. Study Marx. Study Communists. Study fascist dictatorships. Read historical accounts of other countries. Get familiar with the kind of tactics that their governments favored, and the vague, duplicitous language they used. To others who cannot see that Obama is an extremist with Marxist leanings who has largely surrounded himself with Marxists and other extremists, the responsibility is on them to educate themselves. If they read enough and are intellectually honest with themselves, they will eventually stumble upon the truth and be able to spot the patterns we are now seeing with this administration and with the far left in general. After all, if Obama happened to believe in Communism he wouldn't run for the office of U.S. President by saying "Hi, I'm digging on the Communist thing. Vote Obama y'all!" People seem to think that because he attempts to portray himself as a moderate that's what he is, while stubbornly ignoring his books, his background, his life-long friends and associations and now his Presidential staff.  In my opinion, the only people that support Obama who are truly well educated and politically astute are other radicals, Marxists and people who favor heavy socialism in government. Those who think he's a typical Democrat have not done their homework and are hopelessly naive. 

gsteinum 5 pts

there are several "organizations" working to have all of the advertisers of the glenn beck lunacy hour drop their sponsorship. not just color for change. also, mr. vanjones was not actively affiliated with color for change when he was in the obama administration. now, there are those that will argue that, just like "dictator" dick cheney, no affiliation on paper doesn't mean much. even so, working to have sponsorship removed from someone who spews lies on the public airwaves is not a conflict of interest, in any event. mr. vanjones was not connected with the fcc, while working for the obama administration. no conflict of interest. no law was broken. president obama chose to respond to some limited public pressure. i don't think that was wise, but apparently his administration did. popularity or the lack of it, didn't seem to hamper the bush administration. in a way, it's nice that the president is concerned about what the citizens think. refreshing change.  even if it leads to an occational hiccup. why isn't glenn lunatic clamoring for the removal of gov. sanford?

gsteinum 5 pts

oh, running out of insults?  it is not a lie because you say so. to say the truth is a lie, is a lie. it is an inaccurate accusation. there are many health care reform bills. have you read even one of them? don't lie now mr. buchanan. i happen to believe that the president and other members of congress have a better idea of what is (in fact) in or not in any given heath care reform bill than either you or i.  you assert that there is nothing in it that requires verification. that is an unsubstantiate assertion. not a fact. again, there are many (more than three) health care reform bills under consideration. none, i repeat, none have been completed. also, there are many available ways to ensure that access to health care is not abused. so, to give you an opportunity to prove what you claim, please provide a credible reference and or link.  i do not consider a blog site to be credible. but, in the absence of any significant proof, i say again: the president did not lie. the idiot repugnicant from s. carolina lied, by calling the president a liar. there should be serious consequences for his inflammatory remark. not because he doesn't have certain rights to free speech, but because he lied. he lied in the house of congress and attempted to devolve a joint session of congress into a disrupted town hall meeting. that is wrong. the idiot had no respect for the president and no respect for the house of congress that he should have shown some deference to. his rash, inaccurate outburst was beyond rude. again, there should be serious consequences for acting in such an irresponsible manner.

gsteinum 5 pts

sounding more like a libertarian/anarchist more and more.  i disagree with people i don't agree with. i see more clearly why you like the idiot(s) on faux news. glenn idiot is selling a product. he is selling his very skewed and ill-informed opinion and attempting to pass it off to gullable types as news. it is not news. it is not fact. at best it is a bad comical farce. a b movie portrayal of a drama queen.  he insights the impressionable to go off half-cocked and foaming at the mouth, they stumble out into the world spewing inainity and hatred.(or is that sean inainity?)(did i spell that to your liking?) that's his function/mission. he gets well paid for it too. you may well be very proud of our free-market propaganda system. you like that sort of drama - that's your choice. i hear some people like jerry springer too. you think that he has some right to spew lies, then you are mistaken. seriously mistaken. the problem rational people have with the idiot on fox, is that he attempts to pawn off repugnicant talking points as factual news. as such, it is a fraud, a lie.  you don't like my syntax? t.s. you want to believe the idiot on faux noise. that is your problem and everyone elses, that comes into contact with you. as a responsible citizen of this country it is my duty  and many others to correct the lunacy this moron is encouraging.  i , along with many others, have written several emails to the sponsors of the idiot on faux noise, and will continue to do so. i repeat, continue to do so.  thus far, there has been quite a bit of progress made - simply because there are more rational people than lunatics. yes, the idiots like to shout and spew their drivel, but in the end, that changes nothing. and my guess is that now you will criticize me for what your type resorts to at the drop of a hat. (see if you can guess what that is) because the president chose to respond to a bit ( a small bit of public pressure - completely unrepresentative of any majority ) does not convict mr. vanjones of anything. and it only proves that president ( i say again) president obama is responsive to the public.  faux noise is a shill for the repugnicant party. i say it again, beck is an idiot. a dangerous idiot because he spews lies in the public forum. if he were just spouting off on a street corner somewhere, there would be no problem. oh, and btw, if you really do want me to improve my grammar please dillineate each individual infraction, and substantiate it the proper authoritative english composition  source. other wise, get bit. just sayin.  not to get you off topic, of course. and your next bit of reflexive, ill-concieved drivel will be?

gsteinum 5 pts

yes,but. what you are saying, aside from your disclaimer(that you prove to be false) is that you are with the idiot on faux noise.  and that's fine. it's just ridiculous. it's odd that repugnicants love to portray president obama as such a radical. and now that he's elected - magically he's the status quo - when he's not being a socialist/fascist.  health care reform, by that twist of "logic" isn't what obama is working towards at all. oh, i see now. he's trying to protect the insurance companies "right" to cancel anyone at will, and not pay claims on what people pay for. yesss, of course. it's all soo clear now. glenn beck has been right all along. of coursssee.  not on this nor any other planet. glenn beck is a complete moron.

gsteinum 5 pts

i'm back, did you miss me??  here's a summary of my response(s) to you thus far: sez you. what have you got thus far? your opinion and another miscreant that feeds into your delusional system.  you travel in the realm of insult and heresay. since you have such a skewed concept of what free speech is, you should have no objections to my name-calling as opposed to yours. so your best shot is to criticize my grammar. oh, no!! i'm uterly(omg, i spelled it wrong) destroyed!!! how could i hope to express another thought until i check with the grammar police. again, your opinions are yours and if you can't speak for yourself with a least a smidgeon of rationality, then of course, your only recourse is to go for the insults.  fire away. look! i'm not using capitol (or is it capital) letters!!! oh my! how embarrassing,not. (like that syntax???)and since you need to be so technical, what you are criticizing is syntax. check with your brain norma on that, by all means.  check back on when i claimed to be what you like to pidgeon-hole me as.  for a site that purports to be about women, i sure seem to have stumbled upon a pat buchannan wanna be. pat?? is that you pat ??? come on mister buchannnannn, fess up you ole' sly dog.  and your pithy and well considered comment is?

Flightkeeper 5 pts

You didn't even know the difference between a lie vs an outburst vs an accusation vs. true and you didin't even think that the right to free speech existed.

Plus norma is right, your grammar is atrocious.  Just saying.

And your favorite word seems to be pithy, although you are not.

(My blogs are http://flightkeeper.blogspot.com and http://cutefuncool.blogspot.com)

Flightkeeper 5 pts

and I never said that free speech was an absolute although the fact that you now recognize free speech is confusing because you said at a post below there was no such thing.

Boycotting Beck was the wrong response because that acton silences him.  If they didn't want to silence him they should have contested his opinion and shown him how he was wrong.  But they didn't do that did they?

(My blogs are http://flightkeeper.blogspot.com and http://cutefuncool.blogspot.com)

gsteinum 5 pts

everyone should boycott beck's reactionary, over-emotional, lieing, hateful tirades.  just as people can choose to boycott products that are made in sweat shops. again, freespeech is no excuse to act irrationally and irresponsibly.  and just because sponsors of the show like to sell their products, that doesn't make them fascists. (heil on that for a moment) there is no absolute right to free speech. it doesn't exist.  there is a right, protected by the constitution, and several other amendments, to voice one's opinion, but there are also many ways that the law shapes that response - as i've stated. and which, if you can spare the time, can look up.  go ahead and disagree. try having an opinion without someone taking a counter point. disagree. shout it from the roof top if you must, or the caps lock equivalent. grist for the mill.  but, shouting louder and name-calling isn't going to change my conclusions. look up entrenchment, if you care to. and, as you've tacitly recognized, the consequence for beck's rash, ill-considered behavior is that others are calling his sponsors and they, much like the president, are responding to public pressure. and you perhaps would call the response from the s. carolinian's colleges censorship as well? perhaps i'm being too subtle. an example you may relate to: consider what happened after the dixie chicks expressed their opinions of mr. bush's(cheney's) policies. so, i'll leave you to bask in the courage of your convictions. i'm breaking for lunch, as i skipped breakfast ( a setup for you, free of charge). have a good life.

Norma156 5 pts

Framing the Van Jones issue in terms of free speech misses the point. Van Jones, et.al., all certainly free to join the communist party, demand investigations of Bush involvement in 9/11, etc. (Although I will say the "birthers" seem to have more evidence than "truthers" have ever adduced.) And, he can even call Republicans ***holes.  I don't have any problem with all of this although I've got to question a guy who is supposed to be so smart being a communist, what with all the success communism has achieved worldwide.

The problem is accountability...or the lack of it. Van Jones was set to distribute $30 billion in taxpayer money. In Obama terms, this probably isn't much, but I doubt most taxpayers would agree. Taxpayers should know who is managing their money. We've already got such stellar types as Timothy Geithner, an acknowledged tax cheat, presiding over Treasury which is appalling on its face.

Van Jones, a "czar," got a back door appointment. Without Glen Beck and the other loudmouthed radio and cable guys we wouldn't have known about his beliefs and affiliations. And given those beliefs and affiliations, I can only imagine where that money might have gone.

It's political accountability...not free speech that done him in.

BTW, gsteinum, if you punctuated your posts, they'd be easier to read. Just saying...

Flightkeeper 5 pts

since you are the one accusing me of "trite, repugnicant, reflexive ad hominem trash"

LOL!

(My blogs are http://flightkeeper.blogspot.com and http://cutefuncool.blogspot.com)

gsteinum 5 pts

who's organization encouraged others to email beck's sponsors, when?  you speak of personality and character, but seem ill-informed. it's nice that you have an opinion, ....everyone does. and your next pithy, well-considered comment would be?

gsteinum 5 pts

you confuse the cause you think i represent, with the one you are defending. i was wondering when you'd get around to the trite, repugnicant, reflexive ad hominem trash.  now i know. try looking up the term projection. if your tactics are akin to becks, i would imagine that capital letters are to follow. and your next pithy, well-considered comment would be? (try the socialist one, that always works)

Flightkeeper 5 pts

He accused Obama of being a liar.  That's an action.  People thought that was rude and I agree with that and they should be upset.

His accusation of Obama is true.  I agree with him.

Nothing in that current health care bill asks for verification of citizenship or permanent residence so how will the government know not to provide health services to an illegal?

(My blogs are http://flightkeeper.blogspot.com and http://cutefuncool.blogspot.com)

Flightkeeper 5 pts

is part of Obama's administrations as a czar and has more power over us than Glen Beck.  Do you not recognize this big difference?

Yes, organizing a boycott to punish someone for saying something they don't agree with is wrong.

Pithy enough for you?

(My blogs are http://flightkeeper.blogspot.com and http://cutefuncool.blogspot.com)

gsteinum 5 pts

to say that something which is true is a lie, is a lie. his outburst was exemplary of his rush to judgement. a common mistake made by several white, southern zealots. of which history has recorded the consequences. (try not to imply outlandish inferences - i dare you)loud, disrespectful, belligerant and ill-informed outbursts are not truth, they are attempts at manipulation. the opposite of free speech. given the specific context of the individual's reflexive behavior, it is totally irresponsible, immature and does nothing to further any cause - save to show repugnicants for what they are. and your next pithy, well-considered comment would be?

gsteinum 5 pts

so your arguement: vanjones' actions should, by rights, have a consequence, but beck's loudmouthed incitement are o.k. and a boycott/protest (akin to the teabagging he helped to incite) of beck's advertisers is wrong??? and your next pithy, well-considered comment would be?

gsteinum 5 pts

no lie. truth.  wilson lied. he can't tell a fact from a talking point. and your next pithy, insightful comment would be?

gsteinum 5 pts

never did. so called free speech isn't free. ask your grandfather, or try shouting fire in any crowded building. better yet, walk up to a police officer, shout loudly in his/her face and see what happens. and your next pithy, well-considered comment would be?

gsteinum 5 pts

to paraphrase a dry american humorist: i've never met a repugnicant that i liked.  if in fact, mr. vanjones said that all (repugnicants) are a--holes, then i have a new-found respect for the individual. all repugnicants, by limbaugh/hannity/gingrich/cheney/beck/baehner/palin definiton are a--holes. (add the other idiot from s. carolina to the list) although, i have reason to believe that hannity and beck are anarchists. the party line: shout loudly, split-off as many lazy, gullable people as possible and tell the biggest lies, while padding your bank account with your ill-gotten booty. walk the appalachian trail in my shoes fellow patriots, stomping loudly, waving flags proudly. to use the cheney/bush era phrase: blood and treasure. vanjones did nothing to be ashamed of. the courage to act on your political convictions is also admirable - provided your cause is just. (check the declaration of independance) what (insert name of oppressed minority here) doesn't have cause to work for change in this country??? he just happens to have worked for someone who is very sensitive to the loudest shouters in the forum; who chose a politically expedient solution. and now, he can get back to the business of pursueing what he believes in.

Flightkeeper 5 pts

He probably couldn't help the outburst considering that Obama lied in front of the entire country not to mention in front of the legislative body.

(My blogs are http://flightkeeper.blogspot.com and http://cutefuncool.blogspot.com)

Flightkeeper 5 pts

Jones is a smart guy, he signed a petition which accused the administration of carrying out 9/11 and he knew what he was doing.  No amount of dissembling will change that, whatever his purpose for signing it, that petition has his name is on it.

Coordinating a boycott of advertisers to the Glen Beck program is attempting to limit his free speech, especially a political one.  You know that programs depend on advertisers.  If no one advertises on his program of course it will go off the air.  It was an attempt to silence him.

And there was no pressure.  I laugh at the thought that Beck could apply pressure to the President of the United States.  If Obama felt that pressure and bucked under it, we are in trouble.

Either way, Jones is out of there and Beck is probably laughing his ass off.

I will continue to read posts attempting to deny something that can't be denied.  But I know people will do it anyway and I'll enjoy reading it.

(My blogs are http://flightkeeper.blogspot.com and http://cutefuncool.blogspot.com)

gsteinum 5 pts

free speech, which doesn't exist (check the laws on the consequences for irresponsible language) is no excuse for bad behavior. more detail: there are consequences both legal and "karmic" for foolish behavior. and speech, being an action, is a behavior - one that is both proscribed and regulated by the law. simply because all bad behavior doesn't recieve immediate and publicized consequences doesn't mean that others should use their unruly, fringe, and klannish behavior as a yardstick for their own. in fact, madmen are a good reverse barometer. we can learn from their mistakes. klannish, thuggish and mob behavior has been around for as long as civilization - actually before. rational thought and empirical evidence usually help to counter this trend. but keep in mind that just like it's never a good idea to argue with a drunk; the best way to counter a blowhard is to become more informed and deal rationally with others that don't operate on such an emotional and prejudicial level. here in the u.s., we have a reactionary, "english" form of law, which typically provides remedies after the fact. and as any less amped-up individual might agree, it is meated-out unevenly. simply because the skinhead mentality hasn't been dealt a public and resounding blow, (ala beckish public hangings/executions/tanks plowing through faux noise hq) doesn't mean that there still are and will be consequences for their acting out. just because in hanitty's "amerika", we all should wear brown shirts and think korrectly, while waving our big flags proudly - shouting loudly and bullying others who stand for human rights and the rule of law - does not mean there are not others who also work for what they believe in. it's best to look around a bit, before jumping off a cliff. perhaps, as a responsible, u.s. citizen you know the role that morality plays in a well-tuned representative republic. if not, then take some time to research valid, authoritative sources. try thomas jefferson's writtings or even ben franklin's for starters. there will always be causualties in any struggle, but that doesn't mean that lemming-like, we should all pay so much attention to the damage and forget the purpose(s) we pursue. stop gawking and push on.

The Drunch 5 pts

Van Jones didn't say all Republicans were @$$holes "in his youth" he said it just a few months ago because the question asked, was to the effect of "Now that Obama is president and Democrats are in power, why aren't we (democrats) pushing through our agenda like the Republicans did regardless of bipartisan support?" That's a paraphrase, but you get the idea. 

Van Jones was and is VERY qualified for his position. But while a pundit might get away with inappropriate phrasing (and I'm NOT a Glenn Beck watcher, so I don't know what the boycott was about and wasn't even aware of it before Van Jones resigned), a government official must behave with decorum toward the opposition. Just like the Glenn Beck's and the Rush Limbaugh's of the world eliminate dialogue with their red-faced, spitting diatribes, so did Van Jones' name-calling and finger pointing do nothing to foster a spirit of cooperation and support for such an important goal as greening the world.

By the same token, the SC Congressman who heckled the president deserves some serious censure. That sort of disrespect of the Office of the President has never been and will never be acceptable in our country. I hope it will be a wake up call to Republicans (and some haters on the other side of the aisle as well) that we all need to take a deep breath, calm down and focus on trying to accomplish something positive in Government. That would be a WONDERFUL change of pace, and one we would all be glad to see.

Jodi

www.thedrunch.com  ( http://www.thedrunch.com  )

Nordette Adams 6 pts

ColorofChange complained and took action b/c Beck injected hate speech (and I don't mean calling Obama a racist even though that is a lie) into the health care debate. The group has the right to object to what some idiotic racist pundit says. The intent of the right to freedom of speech is to protect ordinary citizens from the government stomping on free speech not private citizens objecting to a talk show host's language.  

Sadly, conservatives encourage the expression of hate speech more often than they object to it, and then wonder why they have the reputation they do in communities of color. Insulting an ethnic group is not the same as insulting a political party. Being suspicious of a government action is not treason. Neither is having communist or socialist beliefs in one's youth or old age either, for that matter.

Interestingly, people who declare Beck to have had his free speech rights violated in turn applaud Beck for pressuring the executive branch to pressure a man to give up his job for expressing his opinions. Jones apologized repeatedly for his language in the past, as have government officials who've made hurtful racist comments while also having the power to affect policy that would impact the very communities they insult. Their apologies are accepted. Jones, however, had to leave his position. In essence, he was accused of being a traitor. So much for free speech. The situation smacks of McCarthyism, but I've gathered the people who applaud Jones's departure don't have a problem with behaving like Joe McCarthy.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

Nordette Adams 6 pts

Van Jones, while a co-founder of ColorofChange, had nothing to do with the boycott. Glenn Beck went after him because of his past association. But I'm glad the right can at least acknowledge it was about revenge.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

dnlee5 5 pts

I disagree on the Van Jones issue.  He may raise some people's haunches - that's cool, but that doesn't make him unfit for the position he was assigned to do.  He is definitely qualified for it (his book The Green Collar Economy is his thesis).  And being both an enviornmentalist and a social justice advocate, I co-sign the creation of a Green Collar Economy and the Green For All movement (founded by Van Jones).  More over I don't regard the overall ideas of this or the other"czar" appointees as objectionably wierd.  Green Collar jobs, wierd?  That just seems an odd descriptor for it.  Challenging, advanced, novel, maybe even naive, but wierd, as in strange?

Moreover, signing a petition asking for an investigation into 9/11 doesn't automatically mean that the administration did do it or his suspicion of the administration. I've signed ballot initiative petitions for measures I was personally opposed to. I did so because I recognize the issue deserved discussion, vetting and for the public to vote on it, not just maintain my opinion of it.

I don't think a boycott of Glenn Jones is a limit of free speech.  Boycotting means people withhold patronage.  If successful, the targeted organization will suffer - usually financially- and will have to change it's policies/stances. And it wasn't arrogant at all.  In fact, the organization Color of Change (yes, co-founded by Jones) has successfully convinced sponsors to to pull advertising dollars from the Beck Show http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=... yay! That's called advocacy and activism - peaceful, patient, effective, and legal.

I am not happy to see Van Jones go and I wonder who will take his place.

DNLee

The Drunch 5 pts

I too am firmly outside of Camp Beck. The spewing of vitriol is not what I'm looking for in a news broadcast. But I'm with you on this. He was dead right about Jones. And yes, I'm still allowed to disagree with the status quo. I did it when Bush was in office, and Obama is getting exactly the same treatment. 

Jodi

www.thedrunch.com  ( http://www.thedrunch.com  )

Flightkeeper 5 pts

Jones shouldn't have let his organization organize a boycott against Glen Beck for expressing his opinion.  Or perhaps Jones was so arrogant as to think that he can get away with suppressing free speech.  Instead Jones lost his job and Glen Beck ended up with a bigger audience.

http://flightkeeper.blogspot.com ( http://flightkeeper.blogspot.com/ )

http://cutefuncool.blogspot.com ( http://cutefuncool.blogspot.com/ )