The India attacks haven't been much news in the US for a long time now. I think things are looking bad.

India - given many factors - is a key nation to have had something like this happen: To watch such a major event take place, once the Indians feel was their 9/11, and to see the world do nothing about it at all ---- is not good for the future - the future of India, the US, the nations of Western Europe - anybody.

It is a similar warning to us much like the Bush administrations (and Obama's now) non-response to the revelation that North Korea was helping Syria build a hidden nuclear reactor:

If red lines like this can be crossed with no action taken --- it only green lights future actions.

India couldn't effectively respond by itself. It needed the US and world community to come together to produce a united front that could help deter such future attacks. The fact such a unified front wasn't even attempted --- should give great encouragement to those who carried out the attacks - and other groups/nations around the world we want to use provocations.

You would think that - in a perfect world - but it is clearly not how it is going to be put to work by the people pushing it. If Republicans were pushing for The Fairness Doctrine, you'd think that was what they had in mind. But this is coming from the Democrats.

...And they will obviously go along with the mainstreammedia in their denial of what a majority of Americans believe: that the MSM is heavily bias in favor of Dems and liberalism.

In short, the Fairness Doctrine will be used to attack outlets deemed by whatever power is in charge to be a danger to it. Right now, the Dems want it to justify government action against conservative talk radio. But, if they succeed, it will open the door years down the road for Republicans to use it against the MSM.

I detest the MSM --- but I certainly don't want to see the government get involved in "forcing them to be balanced".

I like the comment: in one quick nutshell (which is kinda pun itself, hehehe) these "news people" put on display their utter contempt for average Americans and their affinity for the fringe left and their fear of average Americans becoming politically active.

Miley is a white girl from the South who doesn't mind speaking publicly about her Christian faith -- just another obvious American redneck racist who gets what she deserves from the entertainment personalities and the press.

Just like with Brittney Speares when she was proud to be a virgin and until she became more respectable as a freak.

I'm glad we have someone like Foxx out there demonstrating for us so clearly who is in the right and who is in the wrong.

Look, the man is obviously white and obviously not an Obama supporter. Any sensible human being functioning as a reporter has ever right to react to a racist the way she did. We should all be proud of her....

(if you can't get the sarcasm in the comment, you should have...)

I'm for the death penalty for sex crimes if we have a death penalty, but I'm not in favor of silencing these groups.

As a conservative, I can't believe how far the liberals - especially in places they control like a college campus - have gone in promoting "hate speech" codes and the like. There was a time when organizations like the ACLU would defend the KKK - not what they stood for but for their right to speak, write, and gather as they liked.

I think it is right that our society allows a group like NAMBLA to have the freedom of speech and assembly.

And what better way to keep track of them and infiltrate them and lock them away when they do or attempt to commit a sex crime?

It's not just a case of getting off or being convicted -- the more money you have, the better your lawyer, the better chance you have of missing the death penalty if convicted.

Someone found guilty of a crime but not given the death penalty isn't getting off - he's getting a different sentence.

I'm not strongly against the death penalty. I have no problem with the idea that the state has the right to take a citizen's life or that a citizen can forfeit his right to life by doing certain crimes against his fellow man or the state. But -- I feel there is too much disparity between who is likely and who is unlikely to ever receive a death sentence in practice to support it as a judgment.

Keep the NABLA stories coming. One of the problems with the common crime of child sex abuse in our society is that normal people don't have the stomach to hear such tales. Well, try living as a victim in one...

Even Hollywood backs off this sexual-related social item on the big and little screens. I can remember seeing a movie on TV with Ted Dansen as the father in an incest story. It was highly tame for such subject matter. Brad Pitts' Sleepers was more graphic and did a better job of depicting the subject matter and aftermath but still pulled a lot of punches that audiences don't want to see. I say again - try living through it.

My point being - society doesn't adequately deal with such things by avoiding them - because we are afraid of their graphic horrors. --- The cold hard truth is --- those graphic horrors are occurring in real life, whether we choose to acknowledge them or turn a blind eye.

Hollywood helped change our society for the better when it opened up its portrayal of rape of women and all the things connected to such crimes and the aftermath. It forced the society to look at a very real problem that had been purposefully avoided in public discourse until then.

--- And who benefited from the silence that was the norm before? The abusers --- Certainly not the victims. The victims were actually harmed by the silence. It wasn't until society was made to face the issue in all its graphic horrors that it opened up greatly with support groups and victim's rights advocacy and mental and physical health related items that were missing when the society felt more comfortable sweeping the issue under the rug.

I don't think we have yet been force to face the reality of sexual abuse of minors and children. That is still too difficult for normal people to stomach ------ and that only helps the criminals like those of NAMBLA get away with what they do -- and keeps many, many victims from the help they need.

Just looking at the statistics of past child sex crimes from polls taken of adults shows us the issue is much bigger than people generally think - and again - the reason they think that way is the lack of fortitude in addressing the issue in pop culture.

I forget the name of it, but I remember some years ago when that documentary came out about NAMBLA-types. A lot of people thought the film shouldn't have been made or distributed. I disagreed - as a former victim - I thought as many people as possible should be forced to watch it and see what these people are like and imagine what trail of destruction they leave behind them -- as the bulk of society keeps their blinders on.

I thought it would be even better if the film had not left it so much up to the imagination about the destruction those people leave behind. It gave the NAMBLA-types a forum in which they damned themselves in the eyes of most viewers, but I don't remember it giving the victims the chance to show the devastation that happened to them....

Lastly, I'm a conservative but against the death penalty, because obviously in our society, the more money you have and the higher the price of a lawyer you can hire, the less chance you have of being convicted of murder much less sentenced to death. --- But, if we are going to have a death penalty, I think convicted sex offenders, especially of children and repeat offenders, should make death row.

For me, the respect I had for Silver - as an entertainment figure giving socio-political opinions - didn't stem from whether I agreed with him or not -- but from the fact he was actually an "expert" on the topics I heard him talk about - China.

What I hate most about Hollywood mouth pieces isn't so much their politics but the fact that they (and apparently the media) believe the fact they are talented in acting or directing or singing and the like -- make their views on totally unrelated socio-political issues relevant.

Silver is the only Hollywood personality I never had disdain for when I saw them on a "news" show, because unlike virtually all the others, I knew that he had taken the time and effort to actually learn about what he was asked to comment on. I forget what the issue was but he was on CNN discussing something about China, and they had introduced him by noting his background on that nation. I thought, "Finally!! You bring on a celebrity to give an opinion about something they have actually studied in depth!!!"