Thursday, August 16, 2018

The enemies of the people? Yes.

National press and media are complaining today, in a bunch of coordinated editorials, about being thought of (or rather exposed) as the enemies of the people.

Is it a truthful accusation?

Well, here are just a few examples of times they have been the enemies of the people:

  • When they helped Bush 2 promote the "weapons of mass destruction" lie and got a lot of people killed.
  • When they did everything they could to push Hilary Clinton on the v*ters.
  • Every time they use the words "gun violence", "common sense gun laws", "reasonable restrictions", "assault rifle", or any of the other terms which make anti-gun bigotry seem mainstream.
  • When they promote the words of government extremists (Paul Krugman comes immediately to mind) as if they are reasonable people who have something of value to contribute to "public discourse".
  • When they encourage support or pay raises for government employees.
  • Any and every time they push a "tax" increase, for any reason.

  • Every time they breathlessly promote socialized health care or "Universal Basic Income".

And there are so many more.

These are times they did things harmful to life, liberty, and property.

So, yeah. The national press (and similar media) are the enemies of the people. Enemies of individual rights and liberty. Their whining just shows how out of touch they truly are.

But they could change.

If they would start reporting the news, without a political slant, they could stop being the enemy of the people.

If they could leave their wish to enslave us all at home, instead of bringing it to work and putting it in the pages of their papers, they could stop being the enemy of the people.

If they would stop trying so hard to create death and destruction to give their news "color", they could stop being the enemy of the people.

Report what happened, don't analyze it, and leave the editorializing on the opinion page. And STOP being the enemies of the people, and maybe people will stop thinking of you that way.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Free speech in action

The above comment was posted on the newspaper's FB page in response to my most recent column. The comment was deleted, the commenter banned by the paper, and a screenshot (without the redactions) was forwarded to me.

I say the guy had the right to say what he said, and the newspaper had the right to delete the comment. The actions of neither seem out of line.

I would have been angry had FB chosen to intervene and remove the comment (of which they were not a party) since they supposedly invite the public to use the platform, but no individual has to leave anything that bothers them on their own page or a page they are responsible for. Had he waited to leave the comment on my post on my FB page, I would have left it. I do appreciate the paper's efforts at defending my honor, though. I realize they were also trying to protect their advertisers.

The comment didn't upset me. It was just too far off-base.

Just how far afield is the commenter? Well, I'm not "known", I don't worship (or believe in) anything supernatural, I don't rape or otherwise initiate force, I respect the rights of children just like I do anyone else, I don't have a basement (but I do have a cellar), and if I did have a basement I wouldn't invite a crowd of people into it to watch me do something I consider evil. And if someone did witness me doing such a thing they would have the right-- and the responsibility-- to shoot me in order to stop me.

If a comment were negative and too close for comfort it would probably be a different story. (Occasionally I've had people accuse me of being an anarchist! That just gets a "Yeah. So?" instead of the outrage or denial they had hoped for.)

Personally, I think the commenter was either trying to be funny or was trying to make a point. I was slightly amused by the comment. And, I can see a point to be made with such a comment. More than one, actually.

Yes, speech can offend people (as it did the newspaper) and it can cause harm. Perhaps he was trying to illustrate this point. No one ever said speech doesn't have consequences, nor that you get a free ride just by claiming "free speech". You are responsible for the consequences of what you say or write, whether your words are true or false. If you don't like that, you have the option to keep your thoughts to yourself.

Maybe he was testing my commitment to freedom of speech, even when it targets me. If so, bravo.

Anyway, it was just a little feedback to add to my information stack.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.