-------------------------------------------
Question 10 - Gareth Hughes to the Minister of Energy and Resources - Duration: 3:22.
For more infomation >> Question 10 - Gareth Hughes to the Minister of Energy and Resources - Duration: 3:22. -------------------------------------------
Question 11 - Hon David Parker to the Minister for the Environment - Duration: 7:04.
For more infomation >> Question 11 - Hon David Parker to the Minister for the Environment - Duration: 7:04. -------------------------------------------
Honda CR-V 2.0i VTEC 4WD EXECUTIVE AUTOMAAT, ADVANCE Driving Assist Pakket - Duration: 1:05.
For more infomation >> Honda CR-V 2.0i VTEC 4WD EXECUTIVE AUTOMAAT, ADVANCE Driving Assist Pakket - Duration: 1:05. -------------------------------------------
Question 12- Hon Matt Doocey to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector - Duration: 1:44.
For more infomation >> Question 12- Hon Matt Doocey to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector - Duration: 1:44. -------------------------------------------
Honda CR-V 2.0I VTEC 4WD ELEGANCE EDITION AUTOMAAT - Duration: 1:06.
For more infomation >> Honda CR-V 2.0I VTEC 4WD ELEGANCE EDITION AUTOMAAT - Duration: 1:06. -------------------------------------------
Tax increases on the horizon to pay for rail - Duration: 1:17.
MAYOR KIRK CALDWELL SAYS HE'S
THANKFUL
THE STATE IS READY TO GIVE
ANOTHER G-E-T
SURCHARGE EXTENSION. BUT HE SAYS
TWO YEARS OF FUNDING IS
NOT ENOUGH...THE CITY NEEDED A
TEN YEAR
EXTENSION TO COMPLETE THE RAIL
TO
ALA MOANA CENTER.
DOLLARS IN ADDITIONAL REVENUE
FOR RAIL.
BUT THAT STILL LEAVES A SHORTAGE
OF NEARLY
2 BILLION DOLLARS FOR THE ENTIRE
PROJECT.
THE MAYOR SAYS THE NEXT OPTION
TO CLOSE
THE GAP IS TO RAISE THE PROPERTY
TAX
RATE BETWEEN 8 AND 14
PERCENT...AND HE SAYS
IT WOULD HAVE TO START THIS
FISCAL
surcharge than to say taxpayers
of honolulu you
are going to pay the half
percent and you're going to
pay more to complete the project
all the way to ala
moana shopping center
SARA:
MAYOR CALDWELL SAYS THE HIKE
WOULD BE
EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS ALL
PROPERTY
TAX RATE CLASSES.
BUT THE CITY COUNCIL COULD
CHANGE THAT
AND REDUCE THE BURDEN ON
SARA:
THE CITY IS UNDER A TIGHT
DEADLINE TO
FIGURE OUT HOW TO PAY FOR THE
REMAINING
PLAN TO
WE'LL LET YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS.
-------------------------------------------
Aloft Hotel helps adopt over 30 dogs to their forever home - Duration: 1:52.
I CAME WITH THE THOUGHT OF
GETTING A MARTINI AND ENDED UP
TWO WEEKS LATER WITH A DOG
IT WAS LOVE AT FIRST SIG
BETWEEN DIANE JARECKY AND MISHA
A CHIHUAHUA MI
DIANE JARECKY DOG OWNER I'VE GOT
THE LOVE IN MY HEART FOR ANOTHER
DOG AND IT'S JUST, I'M CREATING
A FAMILY
FILLED THE ALOFT HOTEL LOBBY
TONIGHT CELEBRATING OVER 30 DO
FINDING THEIR FOREVER HOME
>> JONATHAN BRASHIER ALOFT
GENERAL MANAGER THEY LIVE IN THE
LOBBY, THEY ARE ON DISPLAY OUT
THERE GUESTS GET A CHANCE TO
WALK THEM, PLAY WITH THEM, TAKE
THEM TO THEIR ROOM FOR A LITTLE
BONDING SESSION IF THEY WANT TO
SEE IF THE DOG IS A GOOD FIT FOR
THEIR FAMILY
JOHN: ANNIE HERE IS A REAL LAP
DOG, SHE'S SWEET AND LOVES TO
CUDDLE, THE HOTEL WANTS TO ADO
52 DOGS IN THE COMING YEAR,
THAT'S ONE A WEEK.
TO PEOPLE LIKE 92-YEAR-OLD
LUTHER CRANFORD WHO GOT RINGO A
TOY FOX TERRIER 3 MONTHS AGO
>> LUTHER CRANFORD DOG OWNER HE
ALWAYS LAYS RIGHT BY ME AND
TAKES A NAP ALONG WITH M
>> IT'S STORIES OF COMPANIONSHIP
AND CARING THAT FILLS THIS ROOM
ALONG WITH THE POTENTIAL OF DOGS
HERE LOOKING FOR A FAMILY AN
MAYBE A FAMILY LOOKING FOR THE
>> IT'S SO VERY WARMING TO SEE
THE ANIMALS THAT HAVE BEEN
PULLED OFF THE STREETS, MAYBE
HAD SEVERE INJURIES OR ABUSE IN
THEIR PREVIOUS LIFE, AND TO CO
IN AND SEE THEM IN LOVING HOMES
WHERE THEY ARE HAPPY AND HEALT
>> THE HOTEL HAS SIZES AND
SHAPES FOR EVERYBODY PROVING
LOVE COMES IN ALL KINDS OF
PACKAGES
>> SHE'S JUST SUCH A HAPPY DOG,
AND WHEN YOU WAKE UP EVERY
MORNING SHE DOES HER LITTLE
HAPPY DANCE AND IT JUST PUTS YOU
IN JUST THE RIGHT MOOD TO START
YOUR DAY.
-------------------------------------------
PowerDVD - Play to Extended Monitor - Duration: 0:44.
Play to an Extended Monitor
You can watch media in PowerDVD on a second display that is connected to your PC or Laptop.
Right-click on the Movie, Video or Photo you want to watch.
Go to "Play To" and select your second display.
Be sure your display setting are set to "Extend".
If your PC does not automatically prompt you, you can set this manually by holding the "Windows key" and pressing "P".
Your video will start playing automatically on the second display.
You can control playback from PowerDVD on your main display.
-------------------------------------------
ISIS 'nasheed' video with child terrorists - Duration: 1:35.
For more infomation >> ISIS 'nasheed' video with child terrorists - Duration: 1:35. -------------------------------------------
MPP MacLeod Speaks to Bill 84 - Duration: 19:11.
For more infomation >> MPP MacLeod Speaks to Bill 84 - Duration: 19:11. -------------------------------------------
| ''Thunderstruck'' | College Football Pump Up 2017-18 | HD | - Duration: 4:28.
Not intending Copyright... Check out AC/DC In the description Below : ::: ))
-------------------------------------------
Тебя Со Мною Нет, Грустная #Песня о Любви, Максим Куст - Duration: 5:33.
Do not Play In Love, Song of Love
-------------------------------------------
Chăn Giá Rẻ TPHCM | Chăn Ga Gối Đệm Màu Hồng Hoạ Tiết Lá Phong Cotton Poly T-771 - Duration: 2:36.
For more infomation >> Chăn Giá Rẻ TPHCM | Chăn Ga Gối Đệm Màu Hồng Hoạ Tiết Lá Phong Cotton Poly T-771 - Duration: 2:36. -------------------------------------------
Empathie lernen 💙 5 Tipps empathischer zu werden 💙 - Duration: 12:44.
For more infomation >> Empathie lernen 💙 5 Tipps empathischer zu werden 💙 - Duration: 12:44. -------------------------------------------
Melike Yasar: Libertando a Vida - A Revolução das Mulheres - Duration: 1:12:12.
For more infomation >> Melike Yasar: Libertando a Vida - A Revolução das Mulheres - Duration: 1:12:12. -------------------------------------------
MG B 1.8 Roadster - Duration: 0:55.
For more infomation >> MG B 1.8 Roadster - Duration: 0:55. -------------------------------------------
The First Amendment and "Speech" on Campus - Duration: 1:05:11.
Susan Poser: Good afternoon.
While the panel is still chatting a little bit, I'm going to get us started because we
just have an hour.
Welcome to today's campus conversation.
This is the sixth and final conversation for this academic year.
By the way, my name is Susan Poser.
I'm the provost here.
These conversations have given us the opportunity to come together.
I don't think they realize their mic is live.
To come together and learn about and consider the issues of the day that are impacting our
lives.
Today's panel: What's going on and why?
The First Amendment and speech on campus will be followed next Wednesday, April 12th at
noon by an open forum on the same issue also held here at Student Center West.
The question of what limits there are on free speech on a college campus have been around
for a long time and surface in different ways and for different reasons over time.
In just the one year that I have been at UIC, these issues have arisen several times, including
last March when then candidate, Donald Trump, was scheduled to speak on our campus and more
recently just a couple of weeks ago, when anti-Semitic posters, which also implicated
other groups, were found on campus.
It seems then that the time is ripe here at UIC to engage in a discussion about these
issues with the goal of respecting and encouraging the free and open exchange of ideas while
maintaining the diverse and inclusive community that UIC prides itself on.
This is no small task when there is so much to talk about and so many different views
on some very difficult issues, but it is critical that we continue to figure out how to make
it work.
Today we have a panel of members of the UIC community who are going to engage in a discussion
with Professor Sheldon Nahmod is a distinguished professor of law at the Chicago-Kent School
of Law at the Illinois Institute of Technology.
Professor Nahmod is an expert in constitutional law and civil rights.
He has authored several books and numerous articles and has argued cases in front of
the United States Supreme Court.
There is more, but I am making this short for everybody.
Our panel members are Rabbi Seth Winberg of the Levine Hillel Center at UIC, Lori Barcliff
Baptista, Director of the African American Culture Center at UIC, Rosa Cabrera, Director
of the Rafael Cintrón Ortiz Latino Cultural Center at UIC, Megan Carney, Director of the
Gender and Sexuality Center at UIC, and Professor Nadine Naber, Director of the Arab American
Culture Center at UIC.
We will begin with Professor Nahmod, who will provide us with some background about the
First Amendment followed by a discussion which I will moderate.
If we have time, we will take questions at the end.
Professor Nahmod.
Sheldon Nahmod: Thank you, Provost.
I appreciate it.
Is the mic on?
Are you all able to hear me reasonably well?
I'm Sheldon Nahmod and I'll be talking about the First Amendment.
If you want to put in these terms since I'm speaking only for 15 minutes, I will indecently
expose you to the First Amendment.
Let's start with basics.
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of
the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for redress
of grievances."
Notice the language refers to Congress, but Supreme Court jurisprudence has applied the
First Amendment to state and local governments as well as to the federal government, but
not to private parties or private institutions.
The University of Illinois Chicago, for example, is covered by the First Amendment while my
school, IIT, Chicago-Kent College of Law being private is not.
Like the Constitution in general, the First Amendment is a product of the enlightenment,
which deals with self-government on the basis of reason, not on the basis of passion, not
on the basis of religion or tradition necessarily.
In order to understand some of the basics of the First Amendment ... Keep in mind, please,
I'm not giving anybody legal advice.
You consult a lawyer if you have specific questions.
I want to tell you briefly what the three major theories of the First Amendment are
and then get into some of the details, giving you examples from the UIC and other campuses.
Specifically the major theory or one of the three major theories is the marketplace of
ideas.
Think of John Stuart Mill and his on liberty, something similar to that, where the best
test of truth is its ability to be accepted in the marketplace.
This is modeled on laissez-faire and on scientific experimentation.
Under this approach, there is no hierarchy of speech.
No kind of speech is more important than any other kind of speech and the government's
role is one of neutrality.
Stay out altogether.
A second theory of the First Amendment is tied into the Constitution, which is self-government.
We need the First Amendment in order to educate ourselves through reason and practical judgment
about how to govern ourselves.
Notice from a self-government theory or perspective of free speech, there is in fact a hierarchy
of speech.
That is political speech would rank at the very top and other kinds of speech might rank
below that in terms of free speech value.
Here too, the government's role is one of neutrality.
Underlying both of these is what you might characterize as the avoidance of government
suppression.
We don't want the government intervening in the marketplace of ideas and intervening in
self-government.
The government serves us.
We do not serve the government.
That's the theoretical background of free speech.
Let's get into some more practical considerations.
First Amendment decisions are the outcome of three factors: the what, namely the content
of the speech, the how, the medium of the speech - oral, written, internet, TV, radio
- as well as the where.
The forum question.
Where does the speech take place?
This will be particularly important in connection with UIC, which is a public educational institution.
Notice that a rock group is missing from this list of the what and the where and the how.
Free speech has costs.
It has costs, as we will see.
Like other constitutional rights, the First Amendment, and this is important, is not absolute.
There is no such thing as an absolute constitutional right for individuals.
Many non-lawyers don't understand that.
I'm telling you now, that's a takeaway point.
If you learn nothing else from this little presentation, I hope you pick up on that one.
Let's talk briefly about the what because certain kinds of speech are actually unprotected
by the First Amendment.
For example, threats.
An attempt to intimidate by the threat of force or violence, which silences people.
That is unprotected by the First Amendment.
Government can punish that, which means the UIC could punish it as well.
Obscene speech is unprotected by the First Amendment utterly as is child pornography.
Unprotected by the First Amendment.
There is an aspect of free speech doctrine involving the hostile audience.
Suppose the speaker is addressing an audience which is hostile to his or her message and
tries to shout down or stop the speaker from speaking.
The Supreme Court has held, intriguingly, that there is an affirmative duty on the part
of government to protect the speaker from the hostile audience.
That government duty is discharged only when it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to
protect the speaker from the audience.
Hate speech.
What about that in terms of the what, the content of speech.
Hate speech is speech directed at a historically oppressed religion or racial minority with
the intent to insult or demean.
It undermines social attitudes and beliefs, isolates its targets and intends to silence
them.
It also traumatizes.
What has Supreme Court jurisprudence said about hate speech?
Well the short answer is, and it can be made considerably more complicated, is that the
government is not allowed to regulate hate speech as such, unlike the situation in Western
Europe, which has a very different, unfortunate historical experience from us in the United
States.
This is tied to the marketplace of ideas, especially self-government.
The enlightenment assumption is that people are ultimately persuaded by reason, even though
obviously emotions and passions play roles in political decision making.
Offending people, hurting people psychologically is not a sufficient justification for the
government regulation of speech.
There's also a very important free speech consideration here.
The opportunity for counter speech.
No matter how vicious or nasty or unappealing the speech is, we assume that there is room
for a counter speech, which might counter the original unfortunate hate speech.
Some general principals.
Government may not suppress or regulate speech with which it disagrees.
It may also not exclude certain subjects from public discussion.
We have a posture of suspicion.
UIC students, for example, cannot be punished solely because of expressing their political
views.
Faculty are a little more complicated because they are employees of UIC.
We can talk about that later, but they don't have the same free speech rights in this regard
as students may have.
That's the what.
Now the how.
Speaking, writing, demonstrations.
Traditional media include oral speech, writing, demonstrations and the like.
These are ordinarily accorded the maximum protection, depending on where they take place
and when.
As we'll see in a moment, demonstrations may be subject to reasonable time, place, and
manner restrictions and you'll be glad to know you probably know this already that the
Supreme Court has expanded First Amendment protection to the internet so that government
attempts to regulate the internet are generally found to violate the First Amendment.
Practical takeaway from this: there is no Constitutional right to say what you want
in however, with the medium that is, you want to say it.
This applies to public university, you can't speak up, for example, in the middle of a
science class to deliver a political message.
You can't have a sound truck on the campus in the middle of the day with political messages
and especially in the middle of the night.
Finally, the where question.
Remember the what, the how, the medium of communication, and the where question.
Maximum First Amendment protection is given to speakers and what we "lawyer types" call
traditional public forums such as streets and parks.
Almost as protected is free speech in designated public forums such as public universities
which are voluntarily opened up to students and faculty for discussion of all kinds although
not necessarily opened up to outsiders.
Outsiders do not necessarily have First Amendment access, you understand, to a public university;
although in a public university certain places can be designated for free speech activities.
Certain places might be severely restricted.
Dorms, for example, maybe the library; those places because of where they are might possibly
be regulable by government and this depends in part on the medium.
So, whether we have speech in a traditional public forum such as streets or parks or designated
ones such as public universities, permits can be required and, as I said earlier, there
may be reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.
After all, you can't generally hold two demonstrations at the same time in the same place, you've
got to have restrictions on those.
There is no First Amendment right to demonstrate, therefore wherever you want and whenever you
want on the UIC campus any more that there is a right to demonstrate where you want and
when you want on streets or in parks, permits may be appropriate.
Now, as I finish up, I want to make an important point that sometimes even we lawyers don't
get but it's especially important for non-lawyers to get.
I've been talking about the legality and constitutionality using free speech principles.
I want to say something and I hope this is one of your takeaways: just because you have
a constitutional right to do something, just because what you want to do or say is legal,
it does not follow by any means that it is moral to do so.
I'll say that again, constitutionality does not determine morality.
It does not at all.
You hope there's a connection, but there is no necessary connection.
So even if you have a constitutional right to engage in hate speech, it does not follow
that it is moral or to use another controversial example - I hope the women forgive me for
this just because it is constitutional to decide to have an abortion in the first two
trimesters of your pregnancy - it does not follow, this is your own decision, that it
is moral to do so.
Constitutionality is not the same thing as morality.
There are imperatives of citizenship.
Citizenship gives rise to certain norms that you should comply with since you are a citizen
and morality does the same thing.
So, that's how I finish with my preliminary comments.
I hope there are a few takeaways and I appreciate your being here.
Thank you.
[applause 00:16:56]
Susan Poser: Thank you very much, Professor Nahmod.
So now we're going to have very brief comments by each of our panelists and then after that
engage in a conversation about the First Amendment and so we will start with Megan Carney who's
the director of the Gender and Sexuality Center at UIC.
Megan Carney: Good afternoon, everyone.
Can you hear me?
Thank you so much, provost, for the invitation to be here.
I wanted to say a few words about the centers and then dive in to my specific example.
The four of us up here are representatives for the Centers of Cultural Understanding
and Social Change and for those of you who don't know us we're in Academic Affairs under
the Office of Diversity reporting up to the provost.
We brought a lot of materials today that are outside on the tables so I hope you'll take
a moment if you haven't had a chance yet to look at some of the programs we're doing that
directly relate to this and many other issues here on campus.
Each of the centers, some of us representatives are not all here today, each have unique locations
and identities but we also have a lot of overlapping work that we do, overlapping histories and
shared concerns and we do a lot of collective programming and take a lot of direct collective
action as a result of that.
Each of us is going to cite different examples of how instances around free speech and actions
that we've taken around that have occurred on campus in our recent history together so
I want to just start us off.
Professor Nahmod thank you for giving us that outline around the what, the how, and the
where and I'll just use that structure to share the example that I have which is an
instance of anti-gay or homophobic, transphobic, information being distributed via leaflets
in the Student Center East on our campus and this has happened on a couple of different
occasions in my time here and I want to tell you about one story in particular.
I was sitting in my office on that day and I got a phone call from a staff member who
works in the copy center, in the student center, who said "something's getting passed out by
the escalators and I'm really upset about it and I don't think this should be happening
on our campus and I just don't know what to do" and as we started looking into it I think
someone else had called the campus police and they said well we can't tell people to
leave, it's a public space so we came up with a counter narrative or, as Professor Nahmod
said counter speech, option to directly respond to that action.
So we had some cards already in our office from a visit of a pretty homophobic, transphobic
church that came to campus a couple of years ago and they were bright yellow cards and
they said something along the lines of "hate has no home here" or "no hate at UIC"
and then had some affirming messages printed on the back and had all the information about
the Gender and Sexuality Center included, so we grabbed the cards and a bunch of us
from the center went over to the Student Center East and we just stood on the other end of
the escalators and we passed these out.
And we had a lot of exchanges with students and staff and faculty who were using the escalators
that day about how they felt seeing us there because it was really confounding that that
would be happening on our campus especially because it was, we discovered, an outside
organization and we were unclear about what that arrangement was and how that was permissible
and if it was.
So I guess I just wanted to say some questions that came up to me from the top are what exactly
constitutes a threat is that physical, is that this kind of microaggression, is it leafletting,
at what point would that constitute a threat and then also in terms of designated areas
and outside entities at what point do we require a permit for an outside group that comes to
campus or could we say who invited you to come to campus and does that give us grounds
to determine what might be distributed.
Since the 2016 election results and the ensuing rise of hate crimes across the country the
centers gathered together in the fall and we sent out a collective statement kind of
standing against rejecting racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and other expressions of bigotry
and discrimination.
And we since have created a new card and I brought a bunch of these today, they're the
mint green cards that you'll see out on the table.
So I want you to take those with you.
And it's got a statement that sort of affirms our values, who we are as centers for the
campus, what the safe and brave spaces that we're continuing to cultivate for intersectional
communities working together and kind of inviting people into our process so this is one opportunity
for you to take away if you experience something like that to sort of reclaim public space
with a counter narrative that can be used.
And I think that's what I want to leave with today and pass on to Lori.
Susan Poser: Thank you, okay our next speaker will be Lori
Barcliff Baptista who is the director of the African American Cultural Center.
Lori Baptista: Thank you.
So I think I'm going to focus most of my speaking on a little bit of the how and so I'll start
with the what.
So the summer of 2016 was forcefully punctuated by a global, national, and local instances of violence.
Social media, cases are [inaudible 00:22:27] the tragedy of the Pulse nightclub shooting,
and the murders of Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, and five police officers in Dallas,
Texas, over the 4th of July weekend 62 people were shot in Chicago, four were killed and
July 2016 marked the deadliest July in Chicago in more than ten years with 65 homicides.
In addition to participating in a number of ongoing demonstrations, petitions, protests,
and rallies as well as issuing public statements, members of UIC community gathered for healing
circles, dialogue, and quiet reflection to process but also respond in various ways to
some of the injustices that took place over the summer.
The African American Cultural Center responded to the violence and also the increasingly
unsettling political rhetoric of Summer 2005 by initiating a site specific participatory
arts project, so this is the how.
We initiated a quilting project, the quilt is here with us today.
While quilting has its roots in a number of cultural traditions, we especially invoked
its African American genealogy as part of the Centers for Cultural Understanding and
Social Change's commitment to a program around the theme of remedies for this year and I
should say many of the seven Cultural Centers use arts based social practice to engage around
issues in addition to dialogue and some of the other methods that we use.
So, completed during the Fall of 2016, the project convened multi-ethnic, multi-racial
cohort canvas and community stake-holder to make what what would be known as a [inaudible
00:24:09 - 00:24:10].
The quilt is titled "Remedies, Love, Unity, and Peace" that is comprised of 39 8x10 panels
and one 24x30 panel.
62 faculty, staff, students and African American Cultural center community partners participated
in quilt making workshops at the cultural center facilitated by a Chicago fabric artist
and educator [Jim Smoot?
00:24:29] African American Cultural Center staff as well helped to coordinate the fusion
of many of our campus partners to participate.
And I'd say the "Remedies" quilt is really a product of our collective efforts to create
what we call the summer's safe embrace spaces that honor diversity of views and again represents
another outlet for sharing our responses to these things.
Susan Poser: Thank you.
Thank you Lori.
Our next speaker is Rabbi Seth Winberg from UIC's Hillel.
Seth Winberg: Thanks for the invitation to be here today.
I've been getting asked many times in the last couple of weeks what's the big deal about
these anti-Semitic fliers, why is this bothering Jewish students so much, and so I hope this
will help clarify.
I'm the director of the Hillel on campus, which is a non-denominational holistic Jewish
student organization.
The scriptural source for evil speech being a Jewish moral and spiritual sin is "cursed
be the one who harms his or her neighbor in secret" from the book of Deuteronomy and it's
hard for me not to associate posting anti-Semitic fliers or other forms of biased hate-speech
in secret when no one is looking, it's hard for me not to associate that with this verse
in the Torah.
Perhaps the most objectionable content of the fliers was the Holocaust inversion in
one of them.
The flier compares the condition of the Palestinians in Gaza with Jews in Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp.
The comparison between the Jewish state and those who perpetrated the greatest and largest
act of anti-Semitism in world history is a bias of intentionally hurtful comparison.
Holocaust inversion is not a form of legitimate criticism of the Jewish state it's a charge
that is purposefully directed at Jews claiming that Jews should not be seen as victims of
Nazi crimes but as Nazi perpetrators.
Such comparisons also start to diminish the significance and uniqueness of the Holocaust.
In short, making such comparisons is an act of hostility toward Jews.
Now, posing the question of whether a specific act of speech is legal according to the laws
of our country strikes me as an acceptably low bar.
For my students at Hillel and for all of us here, I would encourage a more spiritual frame
of reference: what speech helps build society and respect in harmony?
According to my ancient Jewish tradition, corrupt or evil speech mortally damages three
people: the one who says it, the one being talked about, and the one who listens to it.
Jewish tradition also teaches that it's better to throw yourself into a fiery furnace than
to embarrass another person in public.
Gossip is a moral and spiritual sin according to Jewish tradition, even when the gossip
is true.
All of us at a university, chancellors, provosts, professors, deans, students have to confront
evil speech.
University campuses made us particularly vulnerable to evil speech because at a university, freedom
of speech is cherished.
It's perhaps the only value that we can all agree upon fervently.
But spreading lies in order to hurt people is a perversion of the ideal of free speech.
Judaism aspires to a vision of society based on careful, deliberate, constructive speech.
That's what my tradition teaches in all sorts of speech which the United States allows are
morally and spiritually wrong.
That words can be used as weapons by those who want to cause others pain.
When people speak badly about other people, they erode the integrity of the community
they are trying to build together.
My question for you, Professor Nahmod, is what advice would you give to a student about
how to cultivate a commitment to citizenship?
Susan Poser: Thank you Rabbi Winberg.
Our next speaker is Rosa Cabrera who is the Director of the Latino Cultural Center at UIC.
Rosa Cabrera: Thank you.
Although the first time anyone [inaudible 00:28:49] matter offensive and personal [inaudible
00:28:54] consequences of hate speech on campus are very real for students in particular.
It interferes with their ability to fully participate in community life here at UIC.
My personal observation is that they feel threatened, undermined, and reminded that
the struggle to fully participate in society is unwanted and unjust exercise.
And these feelings and reactions work on a timetable that calls for urgent interventions
and since the Cultural Centers are designated by the students as safe and brave spaces we
are bonded to create these very timely responses or counter speeches to be able to support them.
Responses to hate speeches for us offer opportunities that, I want to emphasize this, for greater
inquiry into reasons for bigotry.
And this can bring us into safety as people feel more empowered and now the solution is counter speech.
And this is something that we're talking more and more about with these incidents happening
to sit down and as painful as it it to try to figure out why is this bigotry?
And I think we feel that if we have seen it a bit, as students, find out more, do more
with this inquiry.
That they feel more empowered to be able to then form counter speeches that are more informed.
I can share a couple of incidences on campus that prompted a series of urgent responses
from the Latino Cultural Center and all of the others centers.
The first was in 2013 when a poster in the LCC was vandalized with an anti-undocumented
slur and you can see all of these things on the table outside on display.
Right away the students worked with us and other cultural centers to develop a serious
counter response to reaffirm their identity as immigrant and as more important as undocumented.
This was very important to them.
And also that they were a member of the UIC community.
They created a display with the vandalized poster saying this will not stop us.
We presented a series of public programs on undocumented families and relationship in
the U.S. that drove in faculty to talk about particular demographic studies.
A serious out of the shadow and into the street took place in the quad so in a sense, they
felt more empowered and I need to come out and say I am undocumented and I'm not afraid
and this is who I am.
We hosted an outdoor exhibit called "I define myself undocumented and unafraid" the trouble
from the Hull House to various cultural centers outdoor spaces and the BSB with the Gender
and Sexuality Center where some of them are just posters were vandalized also so we have
to be organized in order to respond to this.
The second example that I wanted to talk about is the almost Trump visit, right because it
never happened which left many of the students, staff, and faculty involved in this process
with difficult questions on how a university can be open to all opinions, popular and unpopular,
while protecting the well-being of targeted people on campus.
This is key because the way that we might define threat and the way the university defines
threat is very different in the way the students would define threat.
And then this is a lot of this conversation, defining this.
After the almost Trump visit we had a very civil [inaudible 00:33:10] with the center
and we also had a circle to share afterthoughts about what it meant to be a part of organizing
this protest.
And also right before the Presidential inauguration national day the students came together and
we set up an open studio using the arts as a tool to get the students to really feel
better about what was happening and also talk of other feelings and their own stories.
So these counter speeches responses have allowed all of us to do a lot of storytelling, to
stimulate discussions on free speech and what
it means to be a part of diverse campus community and what this diversity brings to our creativity.
We all know that it is necessary to maintain human creativity when holding hands but it
brings a lot of challenges, right?
So how do we mediate this tool?
And also it has created a lot of opportunities to form alliance across issues and identities...
They have created the sense of safety only not only for the students, but also for contact
workers on this campus, because it also affects all of us, faculty and staff.
Susan Poser: Thank you, Rosa.
And our final speaker from the panel is Professor Nadine Naber who is the Director of the Arab
American Cultural Center at USC.
Nadine Naber: Hello everybody.
I'm going to start by sharing a greeting from Mark Martel with you.
He's the director of the Asian-American Resource and Cultural Center.
He couldn't make it today.
So I'm first going to set up the context of free speech for Arab and Muslim Americans
in the context of the periods, especially starting with the U.S. War on Terror up and
after the horrific attacks of September 11 with George Bush's statements, "Either you
are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
And we all recall, I'm sure.
And to think about that as a racial discourse that associates terrorism with people who
are perceived to be Arab or Muslim.
So we need to take that discourse into consideration, because over the years it's legitimized the
criminalization of people who look Arab or Muslim.
And it also helps justify hate speech, and hate violence against them.
In a recent incident this semester at UIC a man approached a freshman Muslim woman,
wearing a hijab, a student, a freshman.
She was walking through the engineering passageway on her own.
He yelled at her, "You have a bomb in your bag", and she was all alone, and other slurs
involving references to Islam.
Arabs or Muslims who peacefully express viewpoints that are critical of war on terror related
policies, whether it's anti-Muslim racism or the US War on Iraq, are disproportionately
targeted or criminalized within this environment.
So basically if you're not overly perceived to be Arab or Muslim, but you're also an activist
and criticizing racism or war, you're going to be disproportionately targeted, because
you have then there's that association between, activist and support for terrorism.
Because criticizing U.S. government policies equated with being un-American.
With the aim of thinking along that logic that you're with us or with the terrorist.
There's nothing, no other options.
So Arab and Muslims students across the U.S. are aware that they or their parents could
be targeted with hate speech in public space.
Or charged with terrorism related charges or put through trials based on secret evidence
that they will never see.
Or that their neighborhoods can be or are already under surveillance or being surveilled
by the FBI without any evidence of criminal activity.
So how does this matter to the First Amendment?
Well these institutionalized polices led to the War on Terror, whether it's surveillance,
use of secret evidence, et cetera.
That produced that culture of fear and repression, whereby our students and our communities can
be afraid to enact their constitutionally protected free speech rights and the fear
of criminalization or of simply being seen as un-American.
Or being targeted by Islamophobic groups that speak of Arab and Muslim individuals as potential
terrorist or terrorist supporters or un-American.
So it's important to think about that level of fear that's community wide.
And that also helps explain why there was a strong reaction to the posters, not only
because of the horrific and absolutely unacceptable antisemitism posters promoted, but also that
the posters were partly blamed on Arab and Muslims.
They were presented as the Arabs and Muslims were the authors of these flyers, as well
as Black Lives Matter movement.
And so that's taking place in an environment where Arabs and Muslims are the scapegoat
for being the bad guys.
And so the idea that, of course, the posters would need an investigation, and that already
creates a sense of fear.
So just because of how you respond on the campus, we agree with the theme that the way
to respond to hate speech, is more speech.
And we do that through community building and building unity across campus and building
strength and visibility.
And a voice for our Arab and Muslim students in diversity efforts across campus.
We support students through positive, uplifting, cultural and artistic events that help build
community, visibility and safe spaces.
So the woman who experienced that hate incident, she came to our center, and one of our staff
worked with her through art therapy, and she ended up writing a poem about her experience.
And she and her poetry will be featured at a campus event tonight called Rise Up There's
a Fire Outside.
And so what we do is we bring communities together to basically use the arts for healing
and for building communities.
So we'll have an event where poets are coming to work with a group of people to write poetry
together and create messaging for campus unity together.
With themes like, "Hate has no room here."
So for Professor Nahmod, how can our discussions of the law account for differential access
to free speech?
What do you think of the idea that not everyone is equally protected under the First Amendment?
Susan Poser: Okay.
Thank you Nadine.
So I think as a sort of a side note to the First Amendment, I think one thing that we
have learned here today is the strength and dedication of our cultural centers and our
Hillel, and their desire to support our students and our whole campus and all the kinds of
work that they're doing.
So I want to just publicly thank them for that.
Not that the Professor needs any summary, but I sort of picked up three themes here.
One being what constitutes a threat, and how can something really not be a threat, when
the people who are subject to the speech feel genuinely and authentically threatened.
The second one is this idea of counter speech, which I think is hard to argue with in our
culture.
It's really ingrained, but as Dr. Naber pointed out, some peoples counter speech is much more
risky than other peoples.
And so how do you account for that and how do you deal with that differential?
And then the third one that I heard, was how, what Rabbi Winberg said, how do we help our
students become good citizens, when the First Amendment bar is the floor and not the ceiling?
How do we teach them to become productive people and part of community?
When you can pretty much say anything you want, most of the time.
So it would be nice to have a conversation about this, but we will let Professor Nahmod
have the first word on that.
Professor Nahmod: I heard about seven or eight impossible questions.
[inaudible 00:07:15] I was taking notes, so ...
Susan Poser: You might want to put the ... Little closer,
yep.
Professor Nahmod: Several speakers gave us good examples of
calmer speech and I can only applaud those examples.
And I'll tell them to keep on doing it.
With respect to a question that somebody raised about outside organizations.
There is no necessary First Amendment right of outside organizations to have access to
a public university.
But we got an interest in public university here.
It's an urban public university and if streets and perceptive came to light.
So unless regulations or restrictions could be could be very carefully drafted to keep
outsiders out.
I think that might be asking for more First Amendment problems than it would be worth.
I'm just not sure.
What's a threat?
That's an excellent question.
The Supreme Court has told us there are two aspects to true threats.
One is that the speaker has to intend that the person on the receiving end be intimidated
by the personal threat of violence.
Secondly on the receiving end, it must be received that way, and a reasonable person
must have interpreted or received it that way.
So somebody with particularly thin skin, would not necessarily be able to say this is a threat.
So you need both of those in order to have a true threat.
And without those the Supreme Court just held, in a case a couple of years ago, involving
the apparent threat made to the ex-wife of some crazy guy over the internet.
His name was Elonis and the Supreme Court struck down his conviction because he didn't
supposedly intend that his ex-wife be threatened, even if she was and probably any one of us
would have been threatened or felt threatened as well.
Sometimes a threat can be conveyed just by a physical presence.
I'm relatively a short person and somebody comes up to me who is 6'6" and calls me
what?
My mother was from Poland, my dad was from Syria.
You dirty Pollack or you dirty Arab or something of that sort, in my face.
That could be a threat, besides being fighting words, which is another legal terminology.
Now there is another ... going to hate speech now on my little list.
There is an advantage in not prohibiting hate speech, you know who your enemies are.
That is not to be underestimated.
You know who your political enemies are.
Rabbi asked a terrific question.
How do you cultivate a commitment to citizenship.
Well I'm a first generation American and I really love and appreciate this country.
So the question is how do you develop, with all its flaws by the way and there are many,
how do you develop an attachment?
Well attachment is both intellectual and emotional.
You've got to learn American History.
I'm sorry, you've got to learn it.
I don't know if it's required anymore.
You've got to learn about this country.
Its ups and its downs.
You've also got to learn, at least as a layperson not necessarily going to law school, about
the Constitution.
You've got to know about the second World World, during which this Country saved the
world.
There's something important there.
Again with all of this Country's flaws.
So it's learning as well as figuring out what's happened in American History and connecting
to it, there are amazing stories that are there.
The damage poster, which was an example.
That can be punished, if it was a student who did it.
Maybe even if it was a non-student who did it, because the legal category would be trespassing
on personal property.
You can't commit vandalism on somebody else's property.
So you got a little legal handle in that situation.
What should the university do?
University has an obligation as a university, as well as having a moral obligation, to speak
out expressly against inappropriate speech.
Even if the person doesn't protest it.
You have to, and one in the same time, I would think, support free speech values and say,
regardless of those free speech values, we think that what this speech was was reprehensible,
and should not be accepted as the norm on our campus.
Now let me finish up, because we're talking about anti-Muslim and anti-Arab slurs.
When government officials engage in these slurs, and unfortunately our current President
has not been the best example for in helping us.
When a government official engages in these slurs it is especially troubling, because
it may reflect government policy.
On the one hand the government policy can sometimes when implemented be challenged in
the courts, but it also encourages bigots.
And that is another adverse effect of government officials speaking out in a bigoted way.
Now I saved one of the hardest questions for last.
And that is the essential access to free speech.
Does anybody here own a newspaper?
No.
Is anybody here a millionaire or a multimillionaire?
We have to be honest.
One of the flaws with the marketplace of ideas approach, is that money buys you greater access
to the marketplace and greater impact.
It simply does that, however the Supreme Court in a bunch of cases; the campaign financing
cases, and the citizens united case.
The Supreme Court has said, "Government should play no role in equalizing access to the marketplace
of ideas."
That's what the Supreme Court has said.
With that being kind of laissez faire approach, to political speech.
You've got the money in effect, you've got more political speech available to you, than
more of an opportunity to influence.
So given that First Amendment structure, you got to fight very hard and it's what you said
earlier, groups joining together to overcome the speech though engaging calmer speech against
the very powerful groups.
The assumption of most of us, studying the First Amendment, is it's probably better to
do that, than to get the government involved in regulating speech.
Because sometimes governments have their own hidden agendas, and maybe not so hidden.
And sometimes the government's agenda is on your side this year, next year the government's
agenda will be on the side opposite of yours.
So you always got to be suspicious of the government agendas, even though you have a
government very objective.
Susan Poser: Thank you very much.
Does anyone on the panel want to respond to that, or ask a follow-up question?
Professor Nahmod: Have we stopped you all from [crosstalk 00:15:54].
Its' not consistent with free speech values.
Susan Poser: Megan you want to exercise your free speech?
You just look like you were ... You don't have to.
Megan: I guess the one thing that came up to me,
and I don't want to take time away from what other people might be thinking.
But I was curious about all of the efforts you put into crafting non-discrimination statements
for our university and other protected classes around who's here and who's included and all
that.
I wondered if there's some overlaps between those territories?
Professor Nahmod: Can you be a little more specific?
Are you suggesting possibly as some scholars have, although there's a distinct priority,
that equal protection equality values should play a role in free speech jurisprudence?
Is that what you're hitting on?
Or that I make too fancy on the law side.
Because the Supreme Court has basically said equality, no Constitutional guarantee of equal
access necessarily.
You fight with what you have.
So are you saying something else?
Megan: I'm not.
I going to live with [inaudible 00:16:58]
Susan Poser: The question that I heard, I think I heard,
was we spend a lot of time creating anti-discrimination policies and policies about community inclusion
and we have cultural centers and so on and so forth, we do all these things.
And it seems maybe to say in an exaggerated way, pointless, if people can still go around
and say this stuff and create problems that go against these values of anti-discrimination.
Professor Nahmod: Well why would it be pointless?
Because when government enacts anti-discrimination legislation, the government is speaking and
the government is speaking in a way which many people think is very favorable speech.
And when government speaks it's always, as we said earlier, that sends a very powerful
message.
The question is would you rather have government speak in favor of anti-discrimination or have
government not speak at all and just leave it up to the vagaries of political organizations
and the like.
Government speaks.
Government has spoken positively in many areas of the law.
And government does have its own right to speak.
That's why we select certain government or certain political parties, because they speak
on our behalf.
Sometimes for good and sometimes not so good.
Susan Poser: And perhaps the other response is also that
there's a difference between the speech and an act.
And it certainly protects against anti-discriminatory acts.
Professor Nahmod: Oh yes.
I'm sorry.
I probably should have said at the outset, that we are talking about speech or at most
about speech that's embedded in certain kinds of conduct.
Demonstrations are obviously conduct, but they are communicated conduct.
There are expressive conduct.
A punch in the mouth is not protected by the First Amendment, even if it is effected by
someone who disagrees with what the other person is saying.
That is not protected.
Murder, assassination is not protected, not at all covered by the First Amendment, it
is an act.
That can be prohibited separately.
Regardless of the actors motives.
Thank you for clearing that up.
Susan Poser: Yeah.
But there's clearly a gray area there.
Right?
Professor Nahmod: Only in cases involving symbolic speech.
Burning a draft card for example.
Burning a flag.
There is a complicated free speech test involving symbolic speech, but we don't really need
to get into that right now.
Susan Poser: Yeah.
Anybody else on the panel want to say anything to speak, before we see if there are any questions?
We've got about five minutes.
And I will say that, I know that Rabbi Winberg has to run out of here right at 1:00.
He is dealing with a lot of student issues today.
Anybody have a question?
Yeah.
Go ahead.
Speaker 6: My question concerns restrictions of free
speech by academic boycotts as a way of shutting down speech?
The AOP is taken position in opposition to academic boycotts as a matter of principal.
So my question to the panel is, is an academic boycott, ever permissible?
And my question to Professor Nahmod is whether opposition to a boycott by a university, president
or official might be construed as prior restraint of free speech?
Professor Nahmod: Should I start off with the last question?
University officials who speak out, for example, against academic boycott, that goes with your
first question.
But that would not be a prior restraint.
A prior restraint is a licensing scheme whereby before you speak, you have to get permission
from the government official to speak.
So this technically is not a prior restraint at all.
As we indicated earlier, university officials can speak out on various issues, even if it
turns out to be controversial.
Now about academic boycotts generally, leaving aside questions of constitutionality, it seems
to me that an academic boycott, whether it was directed at some [inaudible 00:21:38],
whether it was directed at Israel, or directed at some Arab country.
And academic boycott that singles out professors from particular universities, particular countries
is antithetical to the values of the university.
It deprives students within the university of competing view points, students may want
to invite somebody to speak.
And I think there is a serious political and educational issue with that.
Is there a free speech right to argue for a boycott?
Sure we have a free speech right to argue for a boycott.
Is there a free speech right to argue against a boycott?
Yes, but when you have one regardless of who it's directed against, a country, or if a
nation, what nationality.
Antithetical to university values.
This may not be comfortable for some people, but that is my firm view.
And I'd like to think I need a hand for the [inaudible 00:22:38].
I would extend it to what was done decades ago in South Africa.
As capable as the South African nation once was.
Susan Poser: Yes.
In ...
Speaker 8: Thank you everyone so much for your time for
being here.
I just have one quick comment and then a question.
My first comment is that while I understand the illustrative impact of using abortion
as a moral question, I would encourage you to perhaps come up with different example
to illustrate that point.
In a room where there are people who have to make that choice and it can be difficult.
And that's not actually what I want to talk about…
Professor Nahmod: Good but I did, I did you know, remember something.
Just because a person makes a legal argument, this happens to me in my com law classes.
One of the things I do in my com law classes when we get to Roe v. Wade is to push back
on it, legally.
To push back on it, and some students say in their evaluation, Professor Nahmod is anti-feminist.
That's outrageous, I'm trying to teach them to think.
So you've got to be very, very careful.
I am a strong supporter of abortion.
Speaker 8: That's fantastic.
[crosstalk 00:23:58]
Professor Nahmod: That's not ... it shouldn't matter.
Whether I'm a strong supporter or not.
When I told you that, just because you have a legal right to burn a flag, just because
you have the legal right to engage in an abortion, it doesn't necessarily follow that that is
a horrible thing to do.
Speaker 8: A great example of what I want to talk about,
because I wanted to sort of think about perhaps, or maybe some people on the panel, perhaps
you professor, can respond to how do you think about protecting free speech when the mechanism
that is theoretically doing that production is also targeting students and people who
are read as Muslims, Arabs, South Asians?
How do we think about protection in that context?
Where the state or the government that is supposed to be protecting that speech, is
also specifically targeting and surveilling people who are trying to use that theoretical
right?
Professor Nahmod:
Who was that question for?
Speaker 8: Anyone.
Preferably you first, but [crosstalk 00:25:01].
Professor Nahmod: Well you have to be specific about that in
your question, because I'm not sure I follow it.
Are you skeptical of the government?
And if that's the case, which government?
United States government?
Speaker 8: I am speaking to the specific point of [crosstalk
00:25:14] government.
Professor Nahmod: We do deal with facts on the ground and facts
are incredibly important and you don't get to opinions unless you have facts.
So I'd like to know what facts you have.
Speaker 8: In regards to surveillance?
Professor Nahmod: Yes, yes.
Surveillance.
Speaker 8: Aside from the very specific programs that
we know exist in terms of surveilling Arab, South Asian and Muslims communities.
Professor Nahmod: Yeah.
And there is very ... and I'm not speaking for all the litigation, but there is a lot
of litigation going for one of the organizations.
Such as the ACLU and the like.
That are challenging these surveillance programs in court and one of the advantages that government
uses for those kinds of litigation.
One of the advantages is that it brings this stuff out into the open.
So you are right we're always fighting on all fronts.
Speaker 8: Right.
I understand that.
I guess I just maybe wanted to sort of think through on a different level or through a
different perspective.
Like when we talk about free speech and what free means in that context.
What does free speech mean in a context where, the mechanism the state, the government, that
is supposed to protect that speech is also part and parcel of the mechanism that is specifically
surveilling people that are perceived as Muslim or read as South Asian or Arab.
And that's I guess the question [crosstalk 00:26:39]
Professor Nahmod: I understand you a little bit better.
Keep in mind that when you talk about the government, you've got to be specific.
For example, when you talk about the Federal Government, we have not only Executive Branch,
we have Congress and we have the Federal Judiciary.
Which is independent.
And different branches do different kinds of things.
So if there is a problem from a person's perspective with the Executive Branch, some people have
problems with that, you have possibly Congress can provide some sort of remedy.
If you're in Congress, you hope that the Federal Judiciary, which so far has been independent,
can deal with some of those problems.
Because it is not politically accountable the way the President and Congress are.
Now I remember a saying a long time ago, and even Justice Stephens said he borrowed it
from somebody else.
And I know where you're coming from, "you cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the
good".
Just because there are problems with some of the branches of government.
It does not follow that everything government does is to be disregarded and rejected and
characterized as evil.
Maybe it's a function of being around a little longer than you, but is that responsive enough?
Susan Poser: I think that we're just about out of time.
I might leave that as a rhetorical question.
I know that Megan Carney wanted to say something quickly.
Megan: I just want to add quickly.
What I also hear in that question is rather than pursing out individual aspects of government
kind of thinking.
Kind of thinking about government in a broader way.
I've heard affirmed a lot on this panel, advocating for community response and meeting speech
with more speech.
Or meeting action with more action.
And some collective solidarity work that sort of doesn't necessarily include the government
response, but thinking what do we need in order to meet these challenges between the
even order to survive under certain conditions.
I guess I just wanted to say as a closing note to say, we're engaging, it's a complicated
conversation.
I'm glad you bought it up, but I think that the centers are each engaging with conversations
like that in their own particular ways.
And I wanted to invite everyone to again, check out that table.
There's a sanctuary, everybody's talking about sanctuary cities, and the major needs for
having them around.
What makes a sanctuary?
Sanctuary dinner dialog is happening at the gender and sexuality center coming out.
There's an invite on the table.
Other centers are kind of diving into exactly these questions.
How do we perceive under a given circumstances that are so different from each of our communities
and yet be in solidarity with each other and recognize those shared issues.
So I guess I just wanted to kind of bring it back to that ...
Susan Poser: Yep.
Thank you Megan.
Megan: and hopefully we can extend this conversation
in other formats.
Susan Poser: I think the other thing to keep in mind is
that the U.S. government has a history of this kind of conduct in various different
ways.
But we also have a history of overcoming it.
And the only reason that we have been able to overcome it and bring it out into the light,
is because of the First Amendment.
So it has a various sides to it.
And that I think goes back to the history point that Professor Nahmod made.
So this was, as I said at the very beginning, the beginning of a conversation.
The very, very beginning of one.
But I appreciate your being here and I hope that you will continue this conversation,
in a lot of different venues, for the rest of the year and so forth.
Thank you.
-------------------------------------------
Sean Spicer: Even Hitler Didn't Use Chemical Weapons - Duration: 9:01.
SEAN SPICER HAS BEEN CRITICIZED QUITE A BIT AFTER HIS PRESS
CONFERENCE TODAY, WHERE HE HAD A NUMBER OF GAFFES RELATED TO THE
HOLOCAUST, AND DONALD TRUMP'S DECISION TO TAKE ACTION IN
SYRIA.
WE ARE GOING TO SHOW YOU THE VIDEO OF WHAT HE SAID, AND WHY
HE GOT INTO SO MUCH TROUBLE AS A RESULT OF WHAT HE SAID.
TAKE A LOOK.
WE DIDN'T USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN WORLD WAR II.
YOU KNOW, YOU HAD A COMMON YOU KNOW, SOMEONE AS DESPICABLE
AS HITLER WHO DIDN'T EVEN SINK TO USING CHEMICAL WEAPONS.
SO, YOU HAVE TO, IF YOU ARE RUSSIA, IS THIS A COUNTRY
AND A REGIME THAT YOU WANT TO ALIGN YOURSELF WITH?
RUSSIA PUT THEIR NAME ON THE LINE, SO IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF
HOW LONG THAT ALLIANCE HAS LASTED, BUT AT WHAT POINT
DO THEY RECOGNIZE THAT THEY ARE NOW GETTING ON THE WRONG
SIDE OF HISTORY IN A REALLY BAD WAY, REALLY QUICKLY?
SO, I THINK MOST PEOPLE KNOW THAT HITLER DID USE CHEMICAL
WEAPONS ñ NOT ON THE BATTLEFIELD ñ BUT HE USED GAS CHAMBERS TO
KILL A LOT OF PEOPLE, AND SO THAT STATEMENT OBVIOUSLY NEEDED
SOME CLARIFICATION, AND LUCKILY, A REPORTER ASKED FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION.
LET'S TAKE A LOOK.
I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY SOMETHING
YOU SAID THAT SEEMS TO BE GETTING SOME TRACTION RIGHT NOW.
QUOTE, HITLER DIDN'T SINK THE LEVEL OF USING CHEMICAL WEAPONS.
WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?
I THINK WHEN YOU COME TO SARIN GAS, HE WAS NOT USING THAT GAS
ON HIS OWN PEOPLE IN THE SAME WAY THAT ASSAD WAS DOING ñ
ñ I APPRECIATE YOUR POINT, THANK YOU.
THERE WAS NOTHING THAT ñ
HE BROUGHT THEM TO THE HOLOCAUST CENTER, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT THE WAY THAT ASSAD CAME IN, AND HE GOT THEM INTO THE MIDDLE
OF TOWN, SO THE USE OF IT, I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION,
THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT.
SO, HE DID CLARIFY, HE MISPRONOUNCED ASSAD'S NAME IN
THE BEGINNING ñ
WHAT IS A HOLOCAUST CENTER?
IS THAT A CENTER WHERE PEOPLE GATHER AND DO COMMUNITY
ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE HOLOCAUST, I IMAGINE?
IN SEAN SPICER'S MIND, I IMAGINE THAT'S WHAT IS GOING ON.
I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS JUST HAVING A BAD DAY AND HE
MISSPOKE, AND IT WAS JUST GAFFE AFTER GAFFE, BUT IT WAS A
NIGHTMARE, AND AS A RESULT THERE HAVE BEEN MANY DOUBLE CALLING
FOR HIS RESIGNATION, AND I WANT TO JUST REALLY MENTIONED THAT
BEFORE WE GET INTO A LITTLE MORE OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT
HAPPENED, AND WHY THIS HAPPENED.
SO, APPARENTLY THE ANNE FRANK CTR.
FOR MUTUAL RESPECT IS
CALLING FOR HIS RESIGNATION, THEY SAY THAT SPICER'S STATEMENT
IS THE MOST EVIL SLUR ON A GROUP OF PEOPLE "WE HAVE EVER HEARD
FROM A WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY, SEAN SPICER NOW LACKS
THE -- TO SERVE AS SECRETARY, AND PRESIDENT MUST FIRE HIM AT
ONCE."
NANCY PELOSI ALSO RELEASED A STATEMENT, BUT I'M LESS
INTERESTED IN READING THAT BECAUSE IT'S NANCY PELOSI
AND THERE IS A POLITICAL ELEMENT, BUT WHATEVER.
THAT WAS A REALLY BAD WAY OF HANDLING THAT QUESTION, I
DON'T WHY HE WENT IN THAT DIRECTION, I THINK IT WAS
INSANELY IRRESPONSIBLE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE
HOLOCAUST IN THE WAY THAT HE DID.
I'M GLAD HE WAS ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION, BECAUSE MAYBE
HE DID MISSPEAK, BUT WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK ABOUT ALL OF THIS?
FIRST OF ALL, YOU SAID SEAN SPICER IS MAYBE HAVING A BAD
DAY, HE HAS BEEN HAVING A BAD DAY SINCE HE CAME INTO OFFICE.
EVERY SINGLE DAY IS A BAD DAY FOR SEAN SPICER, IT'S GAFFE
AFTER GAFFE AFTER GAFFE.
THIS IS IRRESPONSIBLE, AND ALMOST INSANE TO SAY, YOU
HAVE NO ONE ON YOUR TEAM THAT CAN TAKE YOU?
HAVING SAID THAT, WHAT I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT WAS THAT,
THERE IS ONE POSITIVE OUTCOME OF THIS, WE KNOW THAT DONALD TRUMP
LOVES BEING IN THE SPOTLIGHT.
CERTAIN INSIDERS HAVE MENTIONED THAT DONALD TRUMP LOVES BEING
IN THE SPOTLIGHT SO MUCH THAT HE HATED THAT STEVE VAN AND WAS
KIND OF TAKING AWAY FROM THAT, AND WHEN A LOT OF PEOPLE STARTED
CALLING HIM PRESIDENT BANNON ñ OBVIOUS EITHER AS A WHOLE DARED
KUSHNER, STEVE BENNETT THING GOING ON IN THE BACKGROUND ñ
BUT THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY STEVE BANNON WAS OUSTED.
WE KNOW THAT DONALD TRUMP, LIKE FOR INSTANCE IN THE MAR A
LAGO PRESS CONFERENCE ABOUT SYRIA, HE DID NOT WANT SEAN
SPICER TO HAVE A PRESS CONFERENCE, BECAUSE DONALD
TRUMP WANTED TO BE IN THE SPOTLIGHT.
IF SEAN SPICER KEEPS MESSING UP LIKE THIS, EVENTUALLY WHAT'S
GOING TO HAPPEN IS THAT DONALD TRUMP IS GOING TO FIRE HIM, NOT
BECAUSE OF INCOMPETENCY, BECAUSE HE KEEPS TAKING UP THE HEADLINES
THAT SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR OUR DEAR LEADER.
THAT'S AN INTERESTING TAKE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE REASON HE WOULD BE FORCED TO
RESIGN OR BE FIRED BY TRUMP, I JUST KNOW THAT HE IS NOT
DOING A GOOD JOB WITH THESE PRESS CONFERENCES.
HE IS VERY COMBATIVE, AND LOOK, IT IS A VERY DIFFICULT JOB,
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE FACT THAT AS PRESS SECRETARY IS
YOUR DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO COME UP FOR ANSWERS ñ COME UP
WITH ANSWERS FOR WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS DOING, AND RIGHT
NOW WE HAVE ONE OF THE MOST INCOMPETENT PRESIDENTS OF ALL
TIME, WHO APPARENTLY DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A STRATEGY WHEN IT
COMES TO SYRIA, BASED ON HIS OWN ADMISSION, AND BASED ON SEAN
SPICER'S ADMISSION, THIS WAS AN ACTION HE TOOK IN SYRIA BASED ON
EMOTION; BASED ON SEEING THE VIDEOS OF THE CHEMICAL ATTACKS,
HAVING AN EMOTIONAL REACTION, AND THEN REACTING SOMEWHAT
ERRATICALLY WITHOUT A STRATEGY FOR THE FUTURE.
AT THE VERY LEAST, WHAT WE SHOULD EXPECT FROM THE UNITED
STATES PRESS SECRETARY WHEN THEY ARE GIVING A PRESS CONFERENCE ON
MILITARY ACTION IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY IS DELICATE WORDING.
THE WASHINGTON POST DESCRIBED THIS NEWS CONFERENCE AS SEAN
SPICER PEEKING IN POLEMICAL DEAD ENDS.
LIKE WHEN YOU THINK OF OUR HISTORY STUDENT, IT'S WORSE
THAN HITLER, WHEN YOU THINK OF HITLER.
YOU CANNOT INVOKE THE NAME OF HITLER IN DELICATELY, WHICH IS
WHAT WE SEE SEAN SPICER DOING, WITH THE HELP OF THE PRESS
CORPS, DO YOU WANT TO QUALIFY THAT MORE?
AND THEN FOR HIM TO MAKE A DECISION AND BE EVEN MORE
UNCLEAR, IT'S FRUSTRATING BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
DESERVE EVEN MORE.
THIS IS A MAJOR ACTION WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE, AND FOR
US TO WALK AWAY EVEN MORE CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT IS
GOING ON, AND WHAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SYRIA
AND THE UNITED STATES IS, IS ABSOLUTELY IRRESPONSIBLE.
I DON'T THINK HE WILL GET FIRED BECAUSE THIS IS, AS YOU
POINT OUT, A STRING OF GAFFES BY SEAN SPICER, BUT THIS IS A
PRETTY SERIOUS GAFFE.
I THINK DELICATE WORDING IS PRETTY IMPORTANT, AND HE DOESN'T
UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT, OR AT LEAST HE DOESN'T
UTILIZE THAT TYPE OF STRATEGY WHEN COMMUNICATING WITH
REPORTERS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING
WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION, AND HOW THEY ATTEMPT ñ HOW THEY PLAN
TO PROCEED WITH VERY IMPORTANT FOR US ñ
VERY IMPORTANT FOREIGN POLICY DECISIONS.
SO, WHETHER IT WAS INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL, HE MINIMIZED
THE GROTESQUE BEHAVIOR OF HITLER TO DEFEND DONALD TRUMP, AND
THAT IS NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO HANDLE THIS SITUATION.
BY THE WAY, I WANT TO MENTION THIS, IT ñ SEAN SPICER
LITERALLY HAS THE HARDEST JOB IN AMERICA RIGHT NOW.
BUT ON TOP OF THAT, HE'S ALSO VERY BAD AT HIS JOB, AND
WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS, HE COULD JUST STRAIGHT UP BE LIKE,
WE ARE GOING TO MOVE AWAY FROM THIS QUESTION AND TALK
ABOUT WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT, AS THE PRACTICAL ñ
AS THE PRESS SECRETARY.
HE COULD JUST LITERALLY SAY NO COMMENT, BUT YET SEAN
SPICER ALWAYS LIKES TO SPICE IT UP, AND GIVE HIS TAPE ON ñ
HIS TAKE ON PARTICULAR MATTERS.
I DON'T WANT TO SEEM SOFT ON RUSSIA BY ANY MEANS, I PROBABLY
HAVE A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO HOW I WOULD HANDLE THE CURRENT
SITUATION THAN THE ADMINISTRATION IS DOING,
AND I TALK ABOUT THAT IN MY VIDEOS, YOU SHOULD CHECK IT OUT.
BUT THERE IS ONE THING, IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
HISTORICAL CONTEXT, IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO KNOWS WHAT
HITLER DID IN WORLD WAR II, IT'S RUSSIA.
NOT TO APPEAR SOFT TOWARDS RUSSIA OR ANYTHING, I'M NOT A
RUSSIAN AGENT OR SYMPATHIZER BY ANY MEANS, BUT HISTORY WILL SHOW
YOU THAT RUSSIANS KNEW WHAT HITLER WAS DOING, AT LEAST
A LITTLE BIT BEFORE THE BRITISH AND THE AMERICANS.
SO, ANYWAY, THAT'S ANOTHER TIDBIT THAT I WANTED TO ADD ON
THERE, BUT THE CONTEXT BEHIND WHAT HE SAID IS ALSO
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE HE IS TRYING TO BE THE PICTURE
THAT THEY ARE NOT SOFT ON RUSSIA.
IT'S A TOTAL BS LOOK AT THE POLLS -
ñ IT'S A GOOD WAY OF DISTRACTING FROM THE RUSSIAN NEGOTIATIONS,
OR MAKING IT SEEM LIKE THERE ARE ñ THERE IS NO COLLUSION WITH THE
PUTIN ADMINISTRATION.
SO, WHETHER THIS ACTION WAS POETICALLY MOTIVATED, OR
STRAIGHT EMOTIONALLY MOTIVATED, IT DOESN'T MATTER, EITHER REASON
FOR DOING WHAT TRUMP DID IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
YOU NEED TO HAVE A STRONG AND SOUND FOREIGN POLICY, AND IT
DOESN'T SEEM LIKE ANYONE IN THE AMORTIZATION UNDERSTANDS LIKE
THAT UNDERSTANDS THE NUANCES OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN SYRIA.
AND THAT IS NOT GOOD NEWS FOR OUR MILITARY, AND THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, SO THAT'S WHAT I'M MOST CONCERNED ABOUT.
THIS GAFFE WAS HORRENDOUS, BUT IT'S JUST ANOTHER SYMPTOM
OF THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR THAT WE ARE SEEING IN THIS WHITE HOUSE.
-------------------------------------------
For more infomation >> Sean Spicer: Even Hitler Didn't Use Chemical Weapons - Duration: 9:01.-------------------------------------------
United Airlines CEO Attacks Passenger - Duration: 10:29.
UNITED AIRLINES CEO OSCAR MUNOZ IS APOLOGIZING AFTER HE RELEASED
A LETTER TO ALL OF HIS EMPLOYEES, ESSENTIALLY CALLING
THE PASSENGER WHO WAS DRAGGED OFF THE PLANE DISRUPTIVE AND
BELLIGERENT.
THIS IS THE STORY INVOLVING A MAN WHO WAS LITERALLY
FORCED OFF A PLANE, AND HIS FACE WAS BLOODIED AS A RESULT,
BECAUSE UNITED OVERBOOKED THE FLIGHT, AND THEN HAD TO
CHOOSE PEOPLE AT RANDOM TO TAKE OFF THE FIGHT BECAUSE NO
ONE WAS WILLING TO GIVE UP THEIR SEAT.
THEY HAD TO MAKE ROOM FOR FOUR OF THEIR EMPLOYEES, AND THAT'S
THE REASON WHY FOUR PEOPLE HAD TO TAKE IT OFF THE FLIGHT.
FOR ANYONE WHO MISSED THE VIDEO, I THINK IT SUPPORTED TO SHOW YOU
WHAT HAPPENED, TO UNDERSTAND THE SEVERITY OF IT AND WHY SO
MEDIEVAL ARE ENRAGED.
I ACTUALLY HATE ñ WHY SO MANY PEOPLE ARE ENRAGED.
I HATE WATCHING THIS, BUT THAT'S YOUR WARNING.
CAN'T THEY RENT A CAR?
[SCREAMING]
NO!
OH MY GOD.
OH, MY GOD.
NO!
HEY HEY HEY.
GUYS, MY GOD, WHAT ARE YOU DOING?
THIS IS WRONG, MY GOD, LOOK AT WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO HIM.
OH MY GOD.
PEOPLE WERE UNDERSTANDABLY UPSET AFTER SEEING THAT VIDEO, AND YOU
WOULD THINK THAT UNITED WOULD HAVE A MORE APOLOGETIC TONE
IN RESPONSE TO THIS CONTROVERSY, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED.
SO, OSCAR MUNOZ, THE CEO OF UNITED, SENT THIS LETTER
OUT TO ALL EMPLOYEES: "THE SITUATION WAS UNFORTUNATELY
COMPOUNDED WHEN ONE OF THE PASSENGERS WE POLITELY
ASKED TO DEPLANE REFUSED, AND IT BECAME NECESSARY TO CONTACT
CHICAGO AVIATION SECURITY OFFICERS TO HELP.
OUR EMPLOYEES FOLLOWED ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES FOR
DEALING WITH SITUATIONS LIKE THIS.
WHILE I DEEPLY REGRET THIS SITUATION AROSE, I ALSO
INFALLIBLY STAND BEHIND ALL OF YOU, AND I WANT TO COMMEND YOU
FOR CONTINUING TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND TO ENSURE WE FLY RIGHT."
SO, TO ME, THAT SHOWS A CERTAIN LEVEL OF UNAPOLOGETIC
BEHAVIOR AND DEFIANCE THAT I THINK IS UNACCEPTABLE.
THIS GUYS FACE WAS BLOODIED BECAUSE YOU CALLED AVIATION
OFFICIALS TO DRAG HIM OFF THE PLANE, AND IT WAS YOUR BAD.
YOU GUYS OVERBOOKED THE FLIGHTS, AND YOU HAVE A POLICY OF
OVERBOOKING FLIGHTS.
ALL AIRLINES DO IT, BUT YOU ARE STILL MAKING YOUR MONEY,
YOU STILL SOLD THAT TICKET, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO MAKE EVEN
MORE MONEY?
DOUBLE THE MONEY ON ONE SEAT, WHICH DRIVES ME INSANE.
MUNOZ ADDED THAT WHEN CREWMEMBERS FIRST
APPROACHED BASINGER TO TELL HIM TO LEAVE, HE RAISED HIS
VOICE AND REFUSED TO COMPLY, AND EACH TIME HE ASKED HE
REFUSED AND BECAME MORE AND MORE DISRUPTIVE AND BELLIGERENT.
OKAY, HERE'S THE THING: FLYING, AND I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE BUT I
WANT TO REPEAT AND FSIS THIS, FLYING, AND PAYING FOR A TICKET,
WHICH COSTS HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS IN SOME CASES, IN OTHER CASES
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, IT'S LIKE THE ONE THING WHERE YOU CAN PAY
FOR A SERVICE AND YOU ARE NOT GUARANTEED THAT SERVICE.
ON ACCEPTABLE.
AND THE WAY THAT THE CEO RESPONDED, EVEN MORE ON
ACCEPTABLE.
SO, HE GOT A LOT OF HEAT FOR THIS BUT I WANT YOU GUYS
CHIME IN BEFORE I GIVE YOU HIS FOLLOW-UP TO THIS LETTER.
I KIND OF GET WHY OSCAR MUNOZ
DID THIS, ICELAND EARLIER TODAY,
THE REASON WHY HE PUT OUT A STATEMENT LIKE THAT, AND THE
REASON WHY UNITED ORIGINALLY TWEETED OUT TO THE PUBLIC, WE
ARE REALLY SORRY FOR OVER BOOKING THE FLIGHT, WHAT THEY
ARE DOING THERE IS TRY TO SPLIT RESPONSIBILITY AWAY FROM THEM,
AND ONTO THE CHICAGO AVIATION POLICE, WHICH DEFINITELY SHOULD
BEAR A CERTAIN LEVEL OF THE PROBLEM.
BUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS, WITHOUT LITERALLY GOING OUT AND
SAYING THIS IS THE CHICAGO PLEASED PROVINCE FALLS, IT'S NOT
OUR FAULT, WE JUST OVERBOOKED THE FLIGHT, SORRY NOT SORRY;
WHEREAS ñ LIKE, IT'S THEIR FAULT AS WELL ñ
THEY ARE ALLUDING TO THAT BY OMISSION, BECAUSE THEY SAY
ALL THE FLIGHT STAFF FOLLOWED PROTOCOL.
YOU KNOW, I AM EMPHATICALLY BEHIND MY TEAM, WE FLY RIGHT, WE
DID EVERYTHING RIGHT, SO THEY ARE SHIFTING BLAME ONTO THE
OFFICERS WHO FORCIBLY REMOVE THE GENTLEMAN FROM THE FLIGHT.
WHO WERE SUSPENDED, BY THE WAY, SO THE CHICAGO POLICE
ADMINISTRATION HAS TAKEN MORE ACTION THAN UNITED.
A WEEK BEFORE THIS INCIDENT HAPPENED, THE CEO WAS NAMED AS
THE TOP COMMUNICATOR OF THE
YEAR.
IN THE WAKE OF THE LEGGINGS THING, WHICH IS NOT A DIRECT
COMPARISON, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WERE FLYING FOR FREE AND
THIS PERSON WAS PAYING.
BUT THAT WAS WHEN HE GOT THAT AWARD.
IT REMINDS ME OF OBAMA GETTING THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE, AS SHE
WAS KILLING INNOCENT CITIZENS WHO WERE REFERRED TO AS
COLLATERAL DAMAGE.
THE IRONY IS NOT LOST.
EXACTLY.
NOW, UNDERSTANDABLY SO, PEOPLE DID NOT LIKE THE FACT THAT
THE PASSENGER WAS CALLED BELLIGERENT BY THE CEO.
BUT DID HE SHOW THEM HIS AWARD THOUGH?
THAT HE'S A GREAT COMMUNICATOR.
HE SHOULD MAYBE HAVE JUST TOLD THEM.
THE CEO DECIDED, MAYBE THAT WAS ILL-ADVISED, MAYBE I SHOULDN'T
HAVE DONE THAT, SO I AM GOING TO ACTUALLY PUT OUT A REAL APOLOGY,
LET ME READ THAT TO YOU.
THIS IS JUST A PORTION OF IT.
HE SAYS, "THE TRULY HORRIFIC EVENTS THAT OCCURRED ON
THIS FLIGHT HAS ELICITED MANY RESPONSES FROM ALL OF US:
OUTRAGE, ANGER, DISAPPOINTMENT.
I SHARE ALL THOSE SENTIMENTS, AND ABOVE ALL MY DEEPEST
APOLOGIES FOR WHAT HAPPENED.
LIKE YOU, I CONTINUE TO BE DISTURBED BY WHAT HAPPENED ON
THIS FLIGHT, AND I DEEPLY APOLOGIZE TO THE CUSTOMER
FORCIBLY REMOVED, AND TO ALL THE CUSTOMERS ABOARD.
NO ONE SHOULD EVER BE MISTREATED THIS WAY."
HE ALSO SAYS THAT HE TAKES FULL RESPONSIBILITY, AND THAT
THEY PLAN ON REVIEWING SOME OF THEIR PROCEDURES AND
POSSIBLY IMPROVING THEM MOVING FORWARD.
BUT HERE IS PROCEDURE NUMBER ONE THAT YOU CAN IMMEDIATELY TAKE
ACTION ON AND IMPROVE: STOP OVER BOOKING THE FLIGHTS.
I DON'T CARE IF PEOPLE DON'T SHOW UP.
PEOPLE HAVE PAID FOR IT, SO IF ñ
IF THEY DON'T SHOW UP, THAT'S ON THEM.
UNITED IS REALLY STRUGGLING TO MAKE A PROFIT RIGHT NOW,
AND PART OF THE REASON WHY THEY ARE STRUGGLING IS BECAUSE
THEY SUCK, AND MAYBE YOU WILL SUCK A LITTLE LESS IF YOU
STOP OVER BOOKING FLIGHTS.
I PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED THIS WITH A UNITED FLIGHT.
I MISSED MY FLIGHT TO CHICAGO BECAUSE I HAD THE AUDACITY TO
SHOW UP 20 MINUTES BEFORE THEY TOOK OFF.
I THOUGHT 20 MINUTES WASN'T ENOUGH TIME.
THEIR POLICY INDICATED THAT THEY CLOSE THE GATE 15
MINUTES BEFORE TAKEOFF.
I WAS THERE FIVE MINS BEFORE THAT, BUT THEY HAD ALREADY
GIVEN AWAY MY SEAT, BECAUSE THEY OVERBOOKED THE FLIGHT AND
THAT'S WHAT THEY DO.
I'M SICK OF IT AND I'M SICK OF THEM BEING UNAPOLOGETIC
ABOUT IT.
NO MORE OF THIS, THE OVERBOOKING SITUATION IS UNACCEPTABLE
AND IT NEEDS TO STOP.
ALSO, LET'S RECOGNIZE THIS TWITTER APOLOGY FOR WHAT IT IS:
IT IS A REACTION TO THEIR STOCK PLUMMETING.
THEY NEEDED TO GO FOR A DIFFERENT PR STRATEGY, AND
AS THE COMMUNICATOR OF THE YEAR, SOMEONE HAD THE BRIGHT IDEA
OF, WHY DON'T WE TRY AND BUT THE?
I HEAR HE WAS TAKING A PEPSI-COLA WHILE HE WAS
TAKING IT.
I HEARD KENDALL JENNER HANDED HIM THAT PEPSI-COLA.
OF COURSE, BUT YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT
GOVERNMENT REGULATION, I THINK A PART OF THE OVERBOOKING PROBLEM
IS LARGELY RELATED TO LACK OF REGULATION THAT SURROUNDS
THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY, AND THE FACT THAT THERE ARE THREE OR
FOUR AIRLINES THAT ESSENTIALLY OWN MORE THAN 70% OF DOMESTIC
AVIATION AT THIS POINT, SO THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.
AND BY THE WAY, THE PRICE-FIXING AS WELL, WHICH IS ILLEGAL,
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS CERTAIN ñ
CURRENTLY INVESTIGATING; HOWEVER, ASIDE FROM
PRICE-FIXING, OVERBOOKING IS A MAJOR PROBLEM.
AND THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE, AND THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES OUT
THERE, FOR WHY I THINK LIBERTARIANS ARE SO INCREDIBLY
NAœVE WHEN IT COMES TO ñ
YOU KNOW, THEIR POLITICAL IDEOLOGY AND WHAT THEY
THINK ABOUT REGULATIONS ON CORPORATIONS AND ALL OF
THAT, YOU THINK CORPORATIONS ARE GOING TO LOOK OUT FOR ALL OF US?
YOU THINK A FREE MARKET IS GOING TO LEAD TO THEM NOT
SCREWING US OVER?
I MEAN, LOOK AT THAT.
I HATE OVERREGULATION, OKAY?
AND BELIEVE ME, THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT I THINK
ARE OVERREGULATED, LIKE OUR FOOD SERVICE INDUSTRY, ESPECIALLY
IN LOS ANGELES, BUT THAT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STORY.
BUT IN THIS CASE, YOU NEED REGULATIONS TO PROTECT THE
CONSUMER.
IF I PAID FOR A SEAT, I SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO THAT SEAT
UNLESS I AM BEING UNRULY, OR THREATENING PEOPLE OR
BREAKING THE LAW.
THAT I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND, BUT I'M A PAYING CUSTOMER AND THERE
ARE NO OTHER PROBLEMS, I SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO THAT SEAT.
IF I DON'T SHOW UP, WHO CARES?
THAT'S ON ME, THAT'S NOT ON THE AIRLINE, THAT SEAT HAS
ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR.
AND PEOPLE CAN NEVER GET REFUNDS FOR THEIR FLIGHTS.
BY THE WAY, THEY ARE LEGALLY OBLIGATED, AND YET THEY FINALLY
PULLED AROUND IT AS WELL, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, GRACE AND I COVERED
11 WAYS TO GET KICKED OFF THE PLANE LEGALLY, RECENTLY, ONE
THING, YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS, IF YOU GO TO ASK
FOR A REFUND, THEY HAVE TO GIVE YOU IF IT'S UP TO $650 MAX.
YOU STILL CAN GET AT LEAST THAT, IF THEY DON'T ñ IF YOU MISS YOUR
FLIGHT WHERE THEY KICK YOU OFF OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT HAPPENS.
ANYWAY, WE WILL SEE HOW THIS STORY DEVELOPS, BUT I HOPE THAT
PEOPLE DON'T JUST FORGET ABOUT IT AND THEN NOTHING IS DONE,
BECAUSE, AGAIN, THERE ARE CERTAIN ACTIONS THAT NEED TO BE
TAKEN TO PROTECT THE CONSUMER.
DUST BECAUSE ALL OF THESE AIRLINES ARE MERGING,
DOESN'T MEAN WE GET TO TAKE ñ
THEY GET TO TAKE IT VANTAGE OF US LIKE THIS.
-------------------------------------------
For more infomation >> United Airlines CEO Attacks Passenger - Duration: 10:29.-------------------------------------------
"A Love Supreme" — Lilly's — Chicago - Duration: 2:36.
this is about, uh "you know who"
i don't like saying his name
i hope his health is as jacked up as his tax returns
you know who
it's garbage for my karma but i'll take the heat America (i'll take it)
let's not waste time in debate of whether or not he actually hates anyone, whether or not
he's a bigot or a racist or a rapist or a moron or a genius
i know that he is weak and he doesn't represent me
his vulnerability vast as the sea a crippling vanity
blood sacrificed by hands of those who flatter him and walk free
but his ego is a thumbscrew so stick your thumb in
and screw him
it is our patriotic duty to tell jokes at his expense
to disseminate unflattering pictures
to remind him that he has sacrificed nothing
i remember that first week of November, i was preparing my nuanced takes
on how i think she's kindof a snake
i mean i voted for her make no mistake
what was i gonna do? usher in the KKKandidate?
they estimate it came to 70,000 votes in the battleground states
one half of one tenth of one percent thwarted the will of the majority
"don't worry, we won't re'elect him" i'm afraid there won't be another election
"oh that—that can't happen here!" like all those other people in other places must have been dumb or something
they must not love their freedom
"oh that can't happen here!" like "it can't be cancer!"
take it from me: yes it can, sir
it can really be cancer
i want badly for the way forward to be comfortable
for the math to work out so that even if the overwhelming county by county count is red
that blue would still win and math could make the problem go away
i hate that the burden of work is on the already surviving
it is not going to be comfortable for a long
time to put our bodies against the machine
with tears in our eyes and a love supreme
-------------------------------------------
For more infomation >> "A Love Supreme" — Lilly's — Chicago - Duration: 2:36.-------------------------------------------
Try your girlfriend, with 726 days to live and test results are determined in seconds for the guy - Duration: 10:06.
For more infomation >> Try your girlfriend, with 726 days to live and test results are determined in seconds for the guy - Duration: 10:06. -------------------------------------------
For more infomation >> Try your girlfriend, with 726 days to live and test results are determined in seconds for the guy - Duration: 10:06.-------------------------------------------
ウィーン・アカデミー管弦楽団 ベートーヴェン交響曲全曲演奏会 - Duration: 2:50.
For more infomation >> ウィーン・アカデミー管弦楽団 ベートーヴェン交響曲全曲演奏会 - Duration: 2:50. -------------------------------------------
For more infomation >> ウィーン・アカデミー管弦楽団 ベートーヴェン交響曲全曲演奏会 - Duration: 2:50.-------------------------------------------
Romans 3 | Day #215 - Duration: 3:32.
Romans Chapter 3
What then is the advantage of the Jew?
Or what is the profit of circumcision?
Much in every way.
First, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.
For what if some disbelieved?
Shall their unbelief annul the faithfulness of God?
Absolutely not!
But let God be true and every man a liar, as it is written, "That You may be declared
righteous in Your words and may overcome when You are judged.''
But if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God, what shall we say?
Is the God who inflicts wrath unrighteous?
I speak according to man.
Absolutely not!
Otherwise how shall God judge the world?
But if the truthfulness of God has abounded in my lie unto His glory, why still am I also
being judged as a sinner?
And why not say (as we are slanderously charged and as some affirm that we say), Let us do
evil that good may come?
whose judgment is just.
What then?
Are we better?
Not at all!
For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin,
Even as it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one;
There is none who understands, there is none who seeks out God.
All have turned aside; together they have become useless; there is none who does good;
there is not so much as one.
Their throat is an opened grave; with their tongues they practiced deceit; the poison
of asps is under their lips; Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.
Swift are their feet to shed blood, Destruction and misery are in their ways,
And the way of peace they have not known.
There is no fear of God before their eyes.''
Now we know that whatever things the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law,
that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may fall under the judgment of God;
Because out of the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before Him; for through
the law is the clear knowledge of sin.
But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been manifested, witness being
borne to it by the Law and the Prophets; Even the righteousness of God through the
faith of Jesus Christ to all those who believe, for there is no distinction;
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
Whom God set forth as a propitiation place through faith in His blood, for the demonstrating
of His righteousness, in that in His forbearance God passed over the sins that had previously
occurred, With a view to the demonstrating of His righteousness
in the present time, so that He might be righteous and the One who justifies him who is of the
faith of Jesus.
Where then is boasting?
It is excluded.
Through what kind of law?
That of works?
No, but through the law of faith.
For we account that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
Or is He the God of the Jews only?
Is He not of the Gentiles also?
Yes, of the Gentiles also, If indeed God is one, who will justify the
circumcision out of faith and the uncircumcision through faith.
Do we then make the law of no effect through faith?
Absolutely not!
Rather, we establish the law.
-------------------------------------------
"A Love Supreme" — Lilly's — Chicago - Duration: 2:36.this is about, uh "you know who"
i don't like saying his name
i hope his health is as jacked up as his tax returns
you know who
it's garbage for my karma but i'll take the heat America (i'll take it)
let's not waste time in debate of whether or not he actually hates anyone, whether or not
he's a bigot or a racist or a rapist or a moron or a genius
i know that he is weak and he doesn't represent me
his vulnerability vast as the sea a crippling vanity
blood sacrificed by hands of those who flatter him and walk free
but his ego is a thumbscrew so stick your thumb in
and screw him
it is our patriotic duty to tell jokes at his expense
to disseminate unflattering pictures
to remind him that he has sacrificed nothing
i remember that first week of November, i was preparing my nuanced takes
on how i think she's kindof a snake
i mean i voted for her make no mistake
what was i gonna do? usher in the KKKandidate?
they estimate it came to 70,000 votes in the battleground states
one half of one tenth of one percent thwarted the will of the majority
"don't worry, we won't re'elect him" i'm afraid there won't be another election
"oh that—that can't happen here!" like all those other people in other places must have been dumb or something
they must not love their freedom
"oh that can't happen here!" like "it can't be cancer!"
take it from me: yes it can, sir
it can really be cancer
i want badly for the way forward to be comfortable
for the math to work out so that even if the overwhelming county by county count is red
that blue would still win and math could make the problem go away
i hate that the burden of work is on the already surviving
it is not going to be comfortable for a long
time to put our bodies against the machine
with tears in our eyes and a love supreme
-------------------------------------------
(ENG) 장문복 - [곡성] - Duration: 3:21.
My attitude is tied with my body at all times
The path I see in front of me can never handle my pace
I live hard and fast every day without wavering, motherfucker
I can't just sit and stay still, so let's go, take out
I have no regrets on whichever path I take, I choose for myself
Lives are piling up, from high school to now
The only way out for me, who yearned for freedom
If the recording studio is the batter's box, I'm past the outfield
Pitch it all in, you guys are boring Cheaters get K.O'd
You either have to overcome prejudice, or stand up at the front
Yeah motherfuckers I keep my focus, there's no way to buy my attention
Unafraid of uncertainty Bump and watch, stay all day
The dawn of the new world, We say it's the dawn of rebellion
Engraved into the blade of a changed knife
Brothers of names and bodies different to mine, true brotherhood's flow
That attitude flows through us to the end
The origins of the main road we walk is real
I can't die, I'm all in even if I collapse at a living bar I'm showing you this killer technique
I'll tear you all down the second I open my mouth Here's your pride and prejudice
The only way to avoid suffering is for you to shut your mouth Run & Run
If you really want something self-written, that's Jang Moon-bok's speciality
Everyone I had wanted to see break down were irrelevant, Macintosh*
From the sight of my wild image on-screen, they all say, "cough"
Those kids are mental, I just spit some rap to shut them up
I don't need fame I'm followed on the radio, by GD
The only thing left for the growing-in-reverse me to do is prove it
OK, OK I'll rap cool-ly
Must have a lot to talk about, look at your expression You must all have a lot of complaints
Hold up, huh? Yeah, listen to this track This track featuring a celebrity
Hold the beat for the next minute, Let me make myself clear
Even if I were to go to hell, there's an end to the end of that road
The steps to see that ending With his courage, he continues walking
The corners of your mouth curl upward like a selfish man's god complex
My voice strikes those sly bastard's ears harshly, like an uncomfortable dissonance
I'll tear you all down the second I open my mouth Here's your pride and prejudice
The only way to avoid suffering is for you to shut your mouth Run & Run
If you really want something self-written, that's Jang Moon-bok's speciality
Everyone I had wanted to see break down were irrelevant, Macintosh*
From the sight of my wild image on-screen, they all say, "cough"
Those kids are mental, I just spit some rap to shut them up
I don't need fame I'm followed on the radio, by GD
The only thing left for the growing-in-reverse me to do is prove it
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét