Yeah, he's getting pretty amped up and talking a lot of smack (at least by his standards). His inner Sam Kinison is coming out. Maybe somebody peed in his Cheerios. It's also possible that he's feeling the urge to dabble in his former bar life of debauchery and liquor and is frustrated, which I totally understand. Sometimes a man needs debauchery and liquor, and that's especially true when Switzer enters the equation.
Dr. King defined an unjust law as follows: "An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal." Without having read the Australian law or policy, I ask you this: is the law applicable regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation etc? Or does it just target Serbs?
Can't a person speak out against an unjust law or bad action of a government, and at the same time respect national sovereignty? Foreigners definitely have no right to dictate what other countries do, but they (we) can still offer up criticism. It doesn't have any legal force. There is moral force though. Plus in Australia there are mass protests all over the country. The government of Australia isn't the people. To say that "Australia" wants to keep Djokovic isn't really true either. The government, maybe not even the whole government, but a judge wants to keep him out. This is in the context of Australia committing mass injustice and herding people in concentration camps against their will. So I think the government of Australia needs to be criticized, they are out of control. In light of all this, claiming national sovereignty is a misnomer.
I'm not against criticizing another country. I certainly have seriously negative feelings about Russia and China, two purported super powers and civilized countries. Then there's North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. Beyond that, we have Mexico... My point was only that they weren't picking on Djokovic. Whether the law is just or wise is another point. Whether their application of the law was consistent or by the book is another point.
You made a good point. I don't think this is an issue about treating him differently. In fact if they would have let him in that would be treating him differently than others traveling there. But the story highlights the fact that the Australian government is arbitrarily mandating things. They are illogical, unjust, and unscientific. They don't protect Australians in any meaningful way.
I disagree with Garmel on the importance of the sovereignty angle, but he's pretty much sack-slapping you on the merits. Australia's rule is dumb as dirt. No, they shouldn't give the tennis player a special pass, but there shouldn't be a need for such a pass. You're arguing that the vaccine is good and helps, and that's true. That's why I have it. However, openly discriminating against the unvaccinated can only be justified if not only the vaccine is good, but that not getting it is a major threat to others compared to the vaccinated. If it's not, then you're crossing the line from public health to rank busybody-ism and spite. It's pretty clear that the vaccines aren't doing much to slow the spread of the current variant, so there's little reason to screw with the unvaccinated other than political spitefulness. Instead of doing that and being a douche, encourage them to get it, and move on with your life. There's no reason to screw with them.
So By, sounds to me like Dr King was describing the Left of today - dead on. Laws for thee but not for me.
That's why a law for all is the best way to go. To carve out exceptions is politics... it's not that exceptions are always wrong, but my level of cynicism tells me that it will be abused.
It happens to me every time I get on a commercial flight. Basically the government and your bosses take turns dragging their big, sweaty nutsacks across my face. And I know I can fly first class, but all that means is that I've paid the airline enough not to get the full rim and taint in addition to the sack, but that doesn't save me from the government at all.
Jeff Zucker the head boss man at CNN has to quit due to fooling around with a co-worker. Between him, C Cuomo, and various producers fired for being child porn perverts, for want of a strip of black tape, Toobin could be running that show over there. But alas, he was:
As with all real comedy, not the "clapture" that chumps like Cuomo's salad tosser Cobert shills out (he called Cuomo "Your Excellency" during an interview), it's funny 'cuz it's true:
The Democrats are crumbling and even better liberalism is too. They are canceling each other. It’s been a good week for America. The idiocy of the left is failing.
Good for her, and smart to have her own team also filming the interview so any underhanded editing manipulations by the ABC people can be directly exposed and countered.
I laughed at one of the replies That Jeffrey Tobbin was the only one at CNN keeping his hands to himself
Yep, everyone, and I mean everyone here too, needs to always film or at least record an interview with a media outlet. If they say they won't consent then the interview is over. Selective editing, to include spilling an answer to another question, is a time honored tradition with the media - entertainment complex.
I hope she wins, but I mostly want New York Times v. Sullivan overturned. I love Gorsuch's description of it. He is absolutely right.
A bunch of inaccurate articles without malice about Supreme Court justices ought to do the trick. Just the poor Mr. Deez Times will have some high bills.
Chris Cuomo deserves no sympathy at all. He was a fraud and a clown who got what he deserved, as did his brother. However, ratting out his boss and exposing the personal sleaziness, unprofessionalism, dishonesty, and politically incestuous relationship CNN has with Andrew Cuomo was gold, and I'll give him credit for doing that. Frankly, it's the most relevant thing he has ever done. And they wonder why people trust Joe Rogan more than they trust CNN . . . Like I've said before, CNN should be taken about as seriously as Jim Bakker at this point.
