Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Glenn Beck conducts an interview about free speech issues, as they relate to these shock-jock firings and the efforts to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine.
I’m liking this Debbie Lynn Wolf lady. She’s a babe. Her ideas make good sense too. I like the way she responded to these nit-pickers over here.
Here’s an observation I find interesting.
Most of us are on one side of this issue or another. By arguing against censorship — or to be more precise, this boycott-driven witch hunt — the anti-censorship people leave themselves open to charges of racism. They leave themselves open to the charge of agreeing with the speech they are fighting to protect, which is not necessarily the case at all.
The pro-witch-hunt people, on the other hand, leave themselves open to charges of molding and shaping the argument underway, in such a fashion that one side might prevail when it otherwise would not. They leave themselves open to the charge of, essentially, defeating what might be a good idea by declaring it “over the line,” knowing full well that if they were to try to attack it through logic and reason, they’d fail.
The anti-witch-hunt people are placed in the position of asserting and reasserting, that they are not bigots. They’re never done doing this. Someone is constantly accusing them of racism even when there is no evidence to support this whatsoever.
The pro-witch-hunt people…and I find this to be like an itch I cannot scratch…are never, ever called-upon to defend what they’re doing, it seems. Seldom do I see them called-upon to explain that actually, they’re ready willing and able to debate the statement they find loathsome in a free and open exchange of ideas. There is much evidence to suggest otherwise.
Irrelevant? Not from where I’m standing. Not when the pro-witch-hunt folks are trying to get someone censured, or fired, after uttering a serious policy idea that may or may not be good. This issue is all-important. If the pro-witch-hunt people are on a witch hunt against things they find offensive because they’re true — or sound — we can’t let them get away with it. We just can’t. Even if we disagree with the idea they’re trying to attack, we can’t afford it.
One good example? Profiling in the airports. There are good reasons not to do it, and there are good reasons to go ahead. I expect a lot of people disagree with it, and would still concede that it’s an issue deserving an open debate so all the points can be made. If someone supports it, are they a racist? Hey, it’s possible…but it doesn’t necessarily follow. But that’s not how we think about it. We think, if it could be a sign that someone is a racist — then that must be what it is.
And so we’ve surrendered that one to the pro-witch-hunt people. I suppose a lot of anti-profiling people are thinking, well great. What’s the problem? The problem is this: Here you’ve got a policy decision upon which our very lives depend. Perhaps, if we settled the matter using logic and common sense, the outcome would be the same. But I don’t know that. You don’t know that. We’ve surrendered this to the forces of anti-logic.
What’s next? Well, there’s a black guy running for President you know. Did you know there are a lot of people out there who think if you say something bad about a person of color, and you’re white yourself, that makes you a racist? There are, you know. Now you’re thinking…that’s nuts. I agree. Perhaps in a free and open exchange of ideas, you and I could defeat those people and settle the matter that just because you’re white, and you have a critical comment about someone who is not white, this doesn’t make you a bigot.
Sounds easy right?
But we don’t necessarily get our free and open exchange of ideas. We surrendered on the profiling issue, the precedent is set. One side accuses the other side of race-based pinheadedness, the other side has to shut up and back down.
It’s just not the right way to noodle things out. Everybody knows this deep down, but few people say so out loud, so we end up getting further and further entrenched in this muck.
Meanwhile, we’re all supposed to be concerned about our freedoms and civil liberties. Well, we don’t want to use our freedom and civil liberties to do our thinking…so what other purpose do we have in mind for them? Smoking our next joint, and nothing else?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.