Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Getting Bill O'Rielly's Goat.

Media Matters - The wisdom of Bill O'Reilly

Bill has asserted that the ACLU is a bigger threat to freedom than Al Qaeda.

"How," you may well ask, wondering if he's thinking of the same ACLU that has defended the civil liberties of Americans of every conceivable form, from outright commies to Nazis to Klansmen, so long as they were just talking.

Is any liberty more important to the American people, and particularly Bill, than the freedom to be loud, rude and obnoxiously wrong in public?

I mean, why waste the time of the courts in disputation of the right to speak foolishly? And if it is not so obviously foolish, then forestalling it by law might just choke a good idea. That was how the founders thought - as they mostly refrained from choking one another.

If you have an idea you think important, have the guts to get up in public and defend it against all comers, without presenting the excuse that such an exercise might provoke people into harming you, as Bill commonly suggests "we liberals" wish to do.

But then, this is WHY "conservatives" of a certain sort screen their calls, their "live" audiences and try to silence their critics. They are incapable of defending the positions they take because they haven't the wit or the willingness to establish a defensible position - all they wish is to be legally protected from criticism.

Now, if the ACLU is shut down, such conservatives think that will mean it will be ok to shut down THEIR critics, while they are free from any review whatsoever. Five bucks says that if they MANAGE to succeed in suppressing the ACLU, the major casualties will NOT be "liberals," it will be idiots at the hands of outraged Americans.

Goddess knows, people of the intellectual quality of Bill O'Rielly are certainly not comfortable with the idea of "review" by any intellectual superior - such as the goat he's so afraid of.

And 10 years, this is gonna be a totally different country than it is right now. Laws that you think are in stone -- they're gonna evaporate, man. You'll be able to marry a goat -- you mark my words!
Yes. Perhaps in ten years I will be free to marry a goat, should I choose to do so. I'd think that silly. But there are old ladies that settle their estates upon their cats. I do not therefore assume that said old lady had carnal knowledge of Fluffy and Fuzzynuts.

To be blunt, it would neither interest me one way or the other, nor would it be my rightful concern, even if it did.

But perhaps Bill is afraid for the future of whatever quasi-legitimate spawn he may have, as clearly goats would be preferable to anyone sharing his genetic predisposition toward willful stupidity.

How can more liberty be a threat to Liberty?

That's not a rhetorical question.

The idea of liberty is that you are free to do things that I might object to, be revolted by, find unaesthetic, unpleasing or even totally offensive - like, say, the Fox News Network. But so long as you are within the tested bounds of legitimate free speech, and/or within your inarguable bounds of private concern, it is NOT the place of me or anyone else to interfere.

It is none of my proper business, and none of yuors if Bill O'Rielly is fond of masturbatory phone calls at $4.99 a minute.

We become concerned when Bill feels it is his right to pressure colleagues to indulge his monkey-spanking at the price of keeping their jobs. That is interfering with their right to say "no," as well as a cheesy attempt to extort a valuable service - or at least a service he obviously deems valuable.

It would not surprise me, considering some of the public behavior Bill is apparently insufficiently embarrassed of, if he were a closet zoophile. Generally folks see in others the very things they are most guilty of themselves. I mean, who's subconcous DID that goat leap from? Certainly not mine.

And while I and many others would say "Ewe!" at the very idea, it's only fair that if he wishes to be guaranteed such dubious comforts in the night, it's proper that there be provisions in the law to account for varying tastes such as that in order to decently provide for the innocent livestock involved.

I mean, don't take my word for it, go ask PETA about their stance about the exploitation of animals without concern for their future or feelings.

tag: , , , , , , ,

No comments:

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Popular Posts

News Feeds

Me, Elsewhere