The Jimmy Dore Show 3-23-12
The Jimmy Dore Show march 23,2012
This Week:
In the Oh My God! segment we are treated to a sound bite of fear and sexual repression from “American Family Association” radio host and Fox News contributor Sandy Rios. She is certain that if you view pornography you will eventually have sex with children. She also connects the dots between porn and the election of a certain president, can you guess which one?
Makes great joke, immediately apologizes.
Robert DiNero told a very funny joke at an Obama fundraiser that he has already apologized for. He named the wives of the presidential contenders and asked “Is AMerica really ready for a white first lady?”. Yes that is the joke that he apologized for after Newt Gingrich was pretend offended for ALL of his wives over it. And yes, Newt points out that Robert Di Nero’s joke is EXACTLY LIKE WHAT RUSH DID! That didn’t take long, did it?
Rick Santorum says that the “economy” is the central issue in this campaign. Yeah sure it is Rick, right
Rick Santorum
after abortion, gay marriage, contraception, pornography and all those naughty thoughts about your penis. He even said that president “favors pornographers over children”. Candy Crowley incredulously asks him to explain that ridiculous statement and, god bless him, he repeats it.
Larry Flynt Supports SANTORUM!
Larry Flynt calls in to support the candidacy of Rick Santorum. Yes, I was shocked too. Turns out, It’s not that he likes Rick Santorum, its that sexual shame is the backbone of the porn industry and nobody throws around more of it than good ‘ole Rick.
Originating from KPFK 90.7 FM in Los Angeles, The Jimmy Dore Show is an irreverent and humorous take on today’s headlines and hypocrites. The program skewers politicians as well as the corporate mouthpieces which make up today’s mainstream “news media.” Each and every week, The Jimmy Dore Show provides the unvarnished truth with a twist of funny.
Don’t forget to subscribe, donate, and review the show on iTunes!
Have something to say? Leave a comment below and continue the conversation.
Comments
The subject of abortion has come up a few times in recent weeks, and I’ve been busting to write. It came up again this week, when you were discussing what a crazy place Florida is. It seems some loon is suggesting that women who seek abortion and claim to have been raped should have to prove it.
I need you guys to deal with this rape/abortion bullshit.
These ‘rape only’ pro-lifers claim to be all about defending the unborn. Bullshit. A child conceived from rape has as much right to life as any other. It is not the child’s fault how it was conceived! When pro-lifers say ‘no abortion except in the case of rape,’ they are BARE NAKED in what’s behind their philosophy: it’s about punishing women for having sex voluntarily. If you have sex voluntarily, and you end up with an unwanted pregnancy, you must be “punished”/shamed by carrying the child to term. (Got that? Pregnancy as punishment.) They’re saying when there’s been a rape, that fetus has no right to life and can be ‘killed.’ (Think about what how sick that is. What about rape victims who choose to carry their babies to term? What do the pro-lifers think about those children?!)
When they say ‘abortion only in the case of rape,’ their argument about sanctity of life collapses. It’s over. Period. Don’t entertain them for an instant longer. The very fact they’re perfectly happy to ‘kill’ a fetus conceived from rape ENDS IT.
The pro-lifers who make no exceptions (no abortions ever, period) are at least consistent. It’s these ‘except in the case of rape’ assholes who fry me. They need to shut the fuck up.
Makes me FREAKIN’ NUTS! Aaaargh!!
When you say George Zimmerman was not “arrested”, there’s a video of him on the night of the shooting in handcuffs at the police station.
What more needs to be done for Zimmerman to have been “arrested”?
I agree he wasn’t CHARGED with a crime, but he was clearly arrested when the cuffs were slapped on him and he was taken to a police station.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-blotter-idUS290836921920120330
The implication when people say Zimmerman wasn’t “arrested” is that the cops showed up, saw the dead guy on the ground, shrugged their shoulders and left without placing a finger on the shooter (presumably because the cops and shooter were white-hispanic and the deceased was black).
Todd: Good point, asians always get forgotten.
SHirley: I have tried to make that point before when we did the ROn Paul take down over abortion, but maybe I did not make it well. In either case, agree 100%.
ABC: I think you are correct, it appears he was arrested but not charged with a crime. But only after the District Attorney drove 50 miles at night to make sure Zimmerman was not charged. Can’t wait to see this one unfold.
Legally, he was NOT arrested, only detained. Huge difference. If he had actually been arrested he would have been booked and had a booking number with fingerprints and photo taken. Cops deatain people all the time then let them go without ever arresting them, which is what happened here.
In either case, I think Andy Borowitz summed it up best in a tweet: “Remember when that black guy killed that white kid and it took forever to arrest him? Me neither.”
Greg: thanks for clearing that up for us. I also thought it strange that they hadn’t released a mug shot from that night, but they did release a mug shot from 2005. So he wasn’t arrested after all.
Zimmerman was taken in handcuffs to the police station.
That’s a fact.
The law seems murky as whether whether it’s an “arrest” or “detention”. From the Reuters article:
“So was Zimmerman technically “under arrest” in the video? Is he even “in custody”?
The answer seems to be: It depends.
There are no absolute rules about when a person is considered to be “in custody.” In general, the test is whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave under the circumstances. Being handcuffed, or locked inside a police cruiser, can fit the bill.
Similarly, an “arrest” occurs when police take a person “into custody” in connection with a crime, and that person is no longer free to leave.
Sanford police, however, say Zimmerman was never formally under arrest, and he was released without charges. ”
Like a lot of this case, it’s unclear.
Which is why trying him in the media, and pronouncing him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, is extremely premature.
ABC: thanks for the info, much appreciated. I must call out your straw man argument though, nobody is outraged that he hasn’t been convicted yet, people are outraged that he hasn’t even been charged.
Everyone wants there to be a fair trial. Have you heard of anyone in the mainstream media who is calling for him to be convicted without a fair trial?
Is the Jimmy Dore Show mainstream media? You guys have basically said he’s guilty. You’ve called him a “crazed vigilante”, when, according to him, he was acting in self defense.
Whether he’s a “crazed vigilante” or a victim who defended himself is *precisely* what the trial will be about.
Here’s how we’ll tell if you are being at all evenhanded with this case….Will you discuss NBC’s atrocious and biased editing of the Zimmerman 911 tapes on your next show?
“That apology addresses the “Today” show’s failure to abridge accurately the conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher in this high-profile case. This is how the program portrayed a segment of that conversation:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
And here is how it actually went down:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black. “
ABC: With all due respect, you keep confusing and mixing issues.
Everyone wants this guy to have a fair trial, BUT HE HAS NOT EVEN BEEN ARRESTED YET OR CHARGED. So your concern about us “convicting” him in the media seems way off point and more than a little silly.
Calling him a “crazed vigilante” is an accurate depiction of Zimmerman based on the facts that are known.
You know, stuff like the fact that he had a history of violence, including assaulting police officers.
He carried a gun on his neighborhood watch, which is strictly forbidden under neighborhood watch rules and grounds for dismissal.
He also disobeyed police instructions and stalked trayvon martin, also forbidden against Neighborhood Watch rules and clear grounds for dismissal.
He called Trayvon a “Fucking Coon” before shooting him.
His spokespeople have been exposed as liars and charlatans who don’t even know him.
I feel very safe that our assessment of Zimmerman is grounded in reality and completely appropriate.
ABC wrote: “Whether he’s a “crazed vigilante” or a victim who defended himself is *precisely* what the trial will be about.”
Great point except for the pesky little fact that THERE IS NO TRIAL. HE HAS NOT BEEN ARRESTED NOR CHARGED SO THERE IS NO TRIAL. How can you know what the trial will be all about when as of right now, it does not exist?
So thanks for continuing your strawman argument, and for the rest of your easily debunkable arguments. And thanks for your opinion, I will stick with mine, its a little better thought out.
An intellectually honest person would say there’s not enough information to determine one way or another definitely what happened that night.
They would call for trial and stop at that.
But you have to smear the guy and convict him in the media, including bringing up old credit card debt(!), as if not making a payment to Capital One somehow means you’re a murderer.
Interesting that you gave no response about NBC’s fraudulently edited 911 tape. I hope that’s not the kind of “evidence” on which you relied in coming to your conclusion that Zimmerman was a crazed vigilante.
ABC: Thanks for you continuing exercise in missing the point. An intellectually honest person would acknowledge all the stuff they have been wrong about already on this thread: He was NOT arrested. There is NO trial.
Yes, everyone should just shut up about the Trayvon Martin case already! At least until all the facts have been swept under the rug!
Your mind is like a steal trap!
Interesting that you keep confusing my show with the NBC Nightly News. While it is always flattering to have my little show mistaken for a multimillion dollar corporate enterprise, it is also a little insulting, as the level of editorial content on my show is much higher.
FYI, You should probably direct your question about the NBC NIghtly News to NBC News, not to my show, that should help.
As to the “arrest” issue, even the legal experts quoted in the Reuters article said that’s a gray area of the law when a suspect has been handcuffed, placed in a squad car, and driven to the police station but not booked and/or charged. So I’ll admit that it’s not clear whether he was “formally” arrested or not.
However, way to miss my point about NBC.
Your show comments on the mainstream media’s lack of journalistic integrity all the time.
Are you going to do the same with NBC’s handling of the Martin case and the editing of the 911 tape? Are you going to call them out on it just like you call out Fox News or CNN or Rush Limbaugh when they are dishonest with the facts?
ABC: Thanks for not admitting that you completely confused the point about the media outrage and missed the point that there still is no trial nor even an arrest. Nice job, adds to your credibility.
And thanks for revealing you don’t listen to the show regularly. NBC news is my most frequent target of criticism.
Is there anything you aren’t completely wrong about?
Di Niro insulted through omission all the Asian-American women who might well become “first lady” after, say, Rupert Murdoch buys his way into Constitutionally-approved Presidency! (Don’t ask RM about rosebuds…or phone-hacking…or his attempt to buy PBS some years back…)