I didn't ride in today, and I unfortunately forgot the iPod that makes the bus trip home a good deal more bearable. I gotta have something on those buses to distract me from the pseudo-air I'm breathing. A book, music, something. Otherwise it's a struggle not to puke.
All of this explains how I found myself in possession of $2 to spend on a newspaper today.
Let's see. Globe and Mail's waiting for me at home. The SUN I read online this morning. The Star--doesn't look interesting. Ah, I haven't read a National Post in almost a year. They'll be in high dudgeon over Obamacare. Should make for some entertaining reading. ("Entertaining" = "blood-pressure-raising", in my case...every now and again I like to see what the right-wingnuts are up to, and the Post boasts quite a collection of 'em.)
I blanched at the price of the paper: $2. That, to me, is obscene for a weekday edition of anything shy of the New York Times. But hey, I've got $2, I might as well splurge a little. It's not as if the Post will be getting any more of my business in the foreseeable future.
Turns out $2 was something of a bargain. I've been battling a mild case of writer's block lately and today's Post broke that up but good.
Let's start out with Ann Coulter, as distasteful as she is. As has been widely reported, her bodyguard cancelled her planned speech at the University of Ottawa, citing "security concerns" due to a couple of thousand protesters. Even the Post won't go quite so far as to endorse Coulter's mad ravings, but it published a number of letters to the editor questioning whether we have free speech in this country.
I continually wrestle with this particular demon. Part of me leans towards the American definition of free speech--essentially, "anything goes". Part of me says that racists and bigots and idiotsticks (hereinafter collectively referred to as "coulters") should have absolute freedom to spout whatever drivel they choose. After all, when you deny a coulter a voice, you give that denied voice credibility. A subset of people (most of them coulters themselves, but anyway) will say that you're afraid of what that coulter might have said. They then make a curious pseudo-intellectual leap: whatever you're afraid of must be The Truth.
That's where the other part of me jumps in with both feet to say yep, they're right: we are scared of unfettered free speech. Not because we're afraid of the truth...because we're afraid other coulters might believe whatever horse hockey pucks they hear. Believe it...and maybe act on it.
Hey, there's nothing wrong with suggesting that a Muslim student "take a camel" instead of a flying carpet, right? Big funny joke, albeit one that's only big and funny if you're a coulter. Problem is, Ann Coulter is serious. She honestly believes that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to take airplanes. She has a lot of other things she's serious about, too, pretty much all of them scary to contemplate for any length of time. What sort of diseased mindset do you need to have to believe such nonsense, is what I'd like to know. That and how do you keep that brand of mental illness from spreading.
The answer to the first question--right-wingnuttism--is easy. The answer to the second is more problematical.
You can deny the coulters of the world a voice, but as illustrated above, that only gives them greater power. They love when you do that. Much better is the solution proffered by the citizens of Hamilton, Ontario, a couple of weeks back. A famous coulter by the name of Palin was scheduled to speak at their university, but had to cancel. Not because of "security concerns", oh, no: because too few people were interested in what she had to say.
There were at least a hundred people in Ottawa ready and willing to hear Ms. Coulter, unfortunately. And even though their numbers were dwarfed by the number of anti-Coulters, she can still claim victory of a sort. The woman thrives on reaction, and boy, did she get one.
In the end, I'm reminded that this is a woman who said "Canada is lucky we allow them to exist". One wonders why she'd have the slightest interest in setting foot in this menace of a communist state.
Tell you what, Ann: turnabout is fair play. We'll grudgingly allow you to exist, too. Just--can you do it from home, since you have no idea of how to conduct yourself as a guest of Canada? That's it, run on home and spout your hatred from there. That's a good girl.
-----------------------------
Next up, George Jonas' oh-so-predictable and oh-so-entertaining column here entitled "Ruining America--Coolly, Calmly and Collectedly". Its subject is, of course, Obamacare.
I've yet to hear even one person of modest means--somebody, say, without a job--denounce Obama's health care vision for America. Until I do, I'm not inclined to pay much attention.
C'mon, Jonas, and all you other coulters out there. Ruining America? Really? America's so much better when a substantial fraction of the population has to ceaselessly worry about the merest possibility they might get sick--because if they do, they're at real risk of losing their homes and going bankrupt? Really, Jonas? Tell me another one!
The right-wingnuts are up in arms not because Obamacare is ruining America, but because it's ruining American exceptionalism. The United States has long been the only country in the civilized world without some form of universal health care. This has been twisted into a good thing by the right-wingnuts, principally because keeping people healthy is such a huge drain on their pocketbooks.
Obama's total health-care package doesn't even approach the monies spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. Funny how that never comes up. Killing a bunch of strangers is fine and dandy, and don't spare the expense, but keeping your own citizens healthy? Forget it.
One would think the free-marketeers would be ecstatic at the prospect of more people being cured of whatever ails them and able to contribute to the economy, but no, they're better off bankrupt or dead. Whatever.
Finally--The Church Of Peak Oil by somebody named Peter Foster. This was actually entertaining...I laughed out loud a few times, especially at this gem:
It obviously never occurs to [Peak Oil believers] that this take might be a property of their minds rather than a reflection of reality. It is always others who are "in denial." They do not see how things can go on because they have no idea how things got to where they are. All they see is that resources are finite, and that we are using them at an accelerating rate, so how can we not run out?
How indeed, Mr. Foster? I was fascinated by this--you so clearly seemed to be going somewhere with it. I read on expecting to find the answer to all our problems. I mean, you'd already pooh-poohed the very idea of Peak Oil meaning "the end of civilization as we know it", since, well, you know, so few things are made with oil, and almost nothing is TRANSPORTED with it. But you chickened out, promising to address things in further detail in your next column. Ah, well. At least I won't have to spend another $2, now that I see you're online.
In the meantime, that's enough coulters for one day.
No comments:
Post a Comment