Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000858.php on line 91

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000858.php on line 91
October 10, 2003
Paying the price

The price of free speech for all of us is that we have to let perverted bigots have their say. (I say, if the monument of the 10 commandments means you have to let just anyone and everyone put up any kind of monument they want, then take down the 10 commandments one.) Let us hope that Phelps goes that 'one step too far' that he usually can't resist and lays himself open to an action for slandering the community. (And, not to be all amateur psychologist or anything, but is Phelps a classic case of self-loathing, closeted, homosexual repression or is he not?)

And "freedom of speech" means there's not much that will stop you finding a job. Especially at the 'Sensational and Unbalanced Fox news network.

You also have to let the OpinionJournal attempt to use the "Wall Street" name to sway weak-minded readers over to a radical, right-wing perspective. Taranto tries his usual semantic misdirection to cover the incoherence of his logic.

Reading on down, you get to a couple of paragraphs about Dean's blog where Taranto manages to imply that most of the posters thereon are paid to be Dean's cheerleaders. In fact, by the use of the phrase, "on the take" he manages to infuse the entire situation with an aura of criminality.

Reading the source material Taranto links to, I didn't really get that impression, but I'm currently neutral on Dean's campaign, so I lacked Taranto's specific, right-wing agenda.

You know...the one that he, as a "professional journalist" is prohibited from taking money to support.

And then, reading on down, we find Taranto taking exception to the NYT taking exception to the Republican leadership's determination to place their own candidates on the ballot in California, regardless of whether or not their hand-picked candidate was attractive to the public.

In fact, it would be much easier to read the NYT material as supportive of a Republican candidate, provided that that same candidate was chosen/nominated/supported by the majority of California's conservatives, and merely critical of the Republican leadership's control-freakishness, but that wouldn't suit Taranto's agenda, so he struggles to twist the meaning of the words.

Just imagine how incoherent he'd be if he wasn't, you know, paid to produce favorable coverage for the Right.

Actually, I find him more amusing than most OpinionJournal writers. He's certainly the most transparent and the least intellectual. You have to like someone who posts two paragraphs of a Washington Post article just so they can admire the consistency of the metaphor used.

Of course, free speech is a wonderful thing. It allows some of us to do things like explore the fundamentals of the Republican party's platform. For those who don't think the actual Republican party is "that bad" and who maintain that the wing-nuts are...well, just wing-nuts and not the guys in charge, he provides a handy-dandy table that suggests otherwise. Those of you who consider yourselves to be "moderate" Conservatives had better start taking a good, hard look at where your party is headed.

I'm no mathematician, so I can't tell if the statistical analysis Miller is offering us today is significant or not. I don't like those "no paper ballot" machines and, human nature being what it is, I think they're a bad, bad idea.

(If the people buying the machines demanded that they print a back-up, paper ballot, then Diebold wouldn't be able to "refuse to allow printing of a ballot to be placed in a box as a back up" you know.)

Posted by AnneZook at 11:17 AM