As I understand the basics of the John Gaunt case, he compared a member of our ruling class to a Nazi, then got forced out of his job by a state body.
So no Nazi overtones there at all then.
Personally, I think we dodged a bullet. If calling them Nazis means they use the power of the state to hound you out of your job, think what they do when you call them perverts?
But what are the odds, hey? We've had eight years of BushChimpler slurs but with the Obamamessiah in the White House and Useless Dave in No 10, liberals are suddenly against harsh language. Can't we all just get along?
Well, no, actually. Consider the actual casus belli here: Councillor Heinrich's bonkers idea of keeping kids in care just to make some anti-smoking point. This isn't even a case of either/or. In contrast to the theoretical risks of passive smoking, the lousy outcomes for kids in care are a fact. Kids are having their lives blighted just because some spooky wierdos don't dig fags. This is the type of thing that's supposed to enrage decent people.
Still, now we have the High Court's verdict that's it's unreasonable to call Michael Stark 'ignorant', we have to.... well, actually this is the Blogosphere, so we can say what we mean, unlike the fearless MSM, which has fearlessly grovelled to the thugs at OFCOM. We can say that Councillor Michael Stark is a vicious little rat and a bully, a fascist dolt who's readiness to resort to thuggery is a testament to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of his ideas. In so far as he supports using some of the most vulnerable people in society as sock puppets in his stupid crusade, he is a sicko, little deviant who's unfit to be trusted with the keys to the stationary cupboard, far less the fate of young children. 'Ignorant' is unfair only in so far as it suggest his problem is stupidity rather than depravity. On the contrary, his determination to choke off the public debate speaks to a man under no illustrations about the utter failure of his twisted ideology in the marketplace of ideas.
In fact, the only people worse than Herr Stark are the MSM drones who cravenly accept the right of agents of the state to do all but burst through the studio doors shouting 'Satire Squad! Step away from the mike!'..... all the while lamenting that their crappy, dull, government-approved stations are failing.
Once you have High Court Judges picking through commentary and deciding what's lawful and what's 'undirected abuse', the whole 'free speech' thing is DOA. You can't have worthwhile political commentary if everyone's looking over their shoulder for Big Government to suddenly leap out and announce that no one expects the OFCOM Inquisition (but, since we're on the subject of undirected abuse, what was the actual point of Jerry Springer: The Opera)?
Actually, all this is still giving liberals too much credit. This is an exercise in simple thuggery, and some of them aren't even trying to hide it: check it out.
Yes, indeed: state harassment of right-wing commentators is a good thing because it restricts right-wing commentary. A-huh!
All of which proves that, as usual, I am right: liberalism can only succeed by force or fraud.
So no Nazi overtones there at all then.
Personally, I think we dodged a bullet. If calling them Nazis means they use the power of the state to hound you out of your job, think what they do when you call them perverts?
But what are the odds, hey? We've had eight years of BushChimpler slurs but with the Obamamessiah in the White House and Useless Dave in No 10, liberals are suddenly against harsh language. Can't we all just get along?
Well, no, actually. Consider the actual casus belli here: Councillor Heinrich's bonkers idea of keeping kids in care just to make some anti-smoking point. This isn't even a case of either/or. In contrast to the theoretical risks of passive smoking, the lousy outcomes for kids in care are a fact. Kids are having their lives blighted just because some spooky wierdos don't dig fags. This is the type of thing that's supposed to enrage decent people.
Still, now we have the High Court's verdict that's it's unreasonable to call Michael Stark 'ignorant', we have to.... well, actually this is the Blogosphere, so we can say what we mean, unlike the fearless MSM, which has fearlessly grovelled to the thugs at OFCOM. We can say that Councillor Michael Stark is a vicious little rat and a bully, a fascist dolt who's readiness to resort to thuggery is a testament to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of his ideas. In so far as he supports using some of the most vulnerable people in society as sock puppets in his stupid crusade, he is a sicko, little deviant who's unfit to be trusted with the keys to the stationary cupboard, far less the fate of young children. 'Ignorant' is unfair only in so far as it suggest his problem is stupidity rather than depravity. On the contrary, his determination to choke off the public debate speaks to a man under no illustrations about the utter failure of his twisted ideology in the marketplace of ideas.
In fact, the only people worse than Herr Stark are the MSM drones who cravenly accept the right of agents of the state to do all but burst through the studio doors shouting 'Satire Squad! Step away from the mike!'..... all the while lamenting that their crappy, dull, government-approved stations are failing.
Once you have High Court Judges picking through commentary and deciding what's lawful and what's 'undirected abuse', the whole 'free speech' thing is DOA. You can't have worthwhile political commentary if everyone's looking over their shoulder for Big Government to suddenly leap out and announce that no one expects the OFCOM Inquisition (but, since we're on the subject of undirected abuse, what was the actual point of Jerry Springer: The Opera)?
Actually, all this is still giving liberals too much credit. This is an exercise in simple thuggery, and some of them aren't even trying to hide it: check it out.
Yes, indeed: state harassment of right-wing commentators is a good thing because it restricts right-wing commentary. A-huh!
All of which proves that, as usual, I am right: liberalism can only succeed by force or fraud.
2 comments:
And here, in the true spirit of Voltaire and JS Mill is the pick of the comments crop:
james jooq
13 July 2010 at 23:37
"these fox news there are racist they are not a news station there are bound of racist who they are pack together to just go aganist obama and black poeple latino.wake up from monring with fox and friend till on a record late night dey just go aganist obama no new it just to lie every day so my people of uk send dem bak to usa to go and meet glenn beck calling obama racist on live tv,ruch limbo said he want obama to failed so uk people send dem back pls."
It even contains a modern version of that lovely and beloved English sentence, 'send them back.'
It's got the lefty-liberal lot: proof that progressive education works - specially in its avoidance of punctuation (who cares about the form if the meaning is sincere/clear?) -, the ranting and formless nature of the 'prose,' including no attempt to demonstrate, exemplify, or prove the point being alluded to ['made' is too strong a word], and of course the unsubstantiated ascribing of evil and unforgivable motives to behalf of the Right.
Now, you'd expect that in the New Statesman, but even an Obo or Old Holborn rant uses sentences for us to pick and choose the meaning from.
A national gem, this. Perhaps it should go into next CGSE English exam as an example of committed writing?
"Still, now we have the High Court's verdict that's it's unreasonable to call Michael Stark 'ignorant', we have to.... well, actually this is the Blogosphere, so we can say what we mean..."
Oh, but believe me, they are working on that....
Post a Comment