Ms. Huffington, Why are your readers, a self-proclaimed tolerant lot, so adament [in their comments on your blog] that you must censor your notable satirist? Gutfield's latest has your readership calling him: "UN-funny, misogynistic, smug-ass punk," "humorless nitwit," "fascist, anti-democratic drivel," "pathetic jerk," "humorless, uninformed, embarassing nit-wit," "[graphic scatalogical imagery]," and "offensive, immature, not funny, and a down right DRAG."And you guys call him hateful!Jake106 had a choice observation as well:
I think it's great that the majority of you who hated Greg's article decide to use the most hateful language that is allowable on this site to describe a man you don't know at all. The really neat part is the way you use all your hateful language to describe Greg as .... hateful? What the hell? Do you actually read your posts before you send them out? It's generally not a good idea to label someone else as hateful if your going to do it in a style that makes you sound like a half-intelligent rabid dog.We suppose there are mirror cretinous outpourings on "right wing" web sites, at least where those are communities of high school kids and the occasional adult reveling in the freedom to engage in anonymous invective. The above excerpts are noteworthy for the slight stink that emanates from the comments of people who are readers of a respectable left wing blogger and columnist such as Arianna Huffington and, arguably, people of some education and class.
Forget it. The education is a veneer.
In the early 80s the Colonel was leaving a Washington, DC Metro stop and reached for a copy of a favorite weekly conservative paper distributed there free. A gentleman beat the Colonel to it and scooped up the entire remaining stack of papers and dumped them in the trash with commentary to the effect that this was undesirable right wing garbage. When confronted the man he was unapologetic. We were impressed by the fact that he was obviously an educated man and wore a three-piece suit.
It seems like his brothers and sisters who are capable of appreciating Arianna Huffington's site are similarly clueless about what free speech and lively, honest debate are about.
Bottom line conclusion from this: the left wants to pull the plug and suppress contrary opinion.
Admittedly this is a small sample of data and we'll cheerfully amend, retract, or qualify this conclusion as needs be. For now, take it to be the Colonel's going in position.
You can take it as a given that the left -- which can't lay a glove on Vice President Cheney on substantive issues -- will howl far into the night about the shooting accident he caused and, should Mr. Cheney's friend die, the hounds will bay from now till November that Mr. Cheney will have to resign.
This is obviously a most unfortunate accident about which the Vice President must surely be mortified and horribly worried. This will be ignored, of course, and the left is at present doing all in its power to make this a public issue because of its PR ramifications.
Anything to get at the man. As though it's a unique moral dereliction of some kind on the VP's part to delay, if he did, so that the news of the accident would not be in the Sunday papers.
Hmmmm. Monday, good; Sunday, bad.
Is this what we are going to eat up bandwidth over?! Not "Hide this at all costs" but "Delay this a short while"? Kindly see our immediately previous post on curious delays on the part of Democrats that were exceedingly more sinister than any involved here.
We also seem to recall that President Clinton committed troops to Bosnia under circumstances that strongly suggested he wished to divert attention from some of his domestic [sic] problems. Did the leftist press carry on like lovesick alley cats over that at the time?
Answer: No.
No comments:
Post a Comment