Sunday, March 13, 2005
The First Amendment Applies to EVERYONE: My boys at Rathergate.com are linking to an online petition to ensure political blogging is not restricted by the McCain-Feingold bill. You can sign it here.
Why this would even be considered? The last time I checked the first amendment did not say speech will not be restricted except that which is critical or disliked by politicians? Blogs are controversial in many respects. And there are a lot of people in the main stream media (myself included) who are still wondering how this medium will ultimately fit into the information age. But because some people are a little scared of bloggers' potential, or their current success, we shouldn't be running to limit what they can't and cannot do.
If that logic made sense, we would have already restricted people like the Communist Party from distributing leaflets and having meetings. And Michael Moore would have been muzzled long before "Fahrenheit 9/11."
What is wrong with getting more people involved in the debate? If you don't like what someone is saying, don't listen to (or in bloggers' case read) them. There clearly are some bloggers doing some good work that has proven essential in the search for truth. And there are others that are just using the Internet as a forum to spout their wild theories.
I don't have a problem with either. If we are not allowed to hear the good and bad speech, how will we be able to tell the difference? Political blogging is protected just like any other speech.
Why this would even be considered? The last time I checked the first amendment did not say speech will not be restricted except that which is critical or disliked by politicians? Blogs are controversial in many respects. And there are a lot of people in the main stream media (myself included) who are still wondering how this medium will ultimately fit into the information age. But because some people are a little scared of bloggers' potential, or their current success, we shouldn't be running to limit what they can't and cannot do.
If that logic made sense, we would have already restricted people like the Communist Party from distributing leaflets and having meetings. And Michael Moore would have been muzzled long before "Fahrenheit 9/11."
What is wrong with getting more people involved in the debate? If you don't like what someone is saying, don't listen to (or in bloggers' case read) them. There clearly are some bloggers doing some good work that has proven essential in the search for truth. And there are others that are just using the Internet as a forum to spout their wild theories.
I don't have a problem with either. If we are not allowed to hear the good and bad speech, how will we be able to tell the difference? Political blogging is protected just like any other speech.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Porn for Five Cents: Via Jonah Goldberg of NRO (whose speech at Northwestern on Monday I attended): Someone has noticed it's a male bison on the new buffalo nickel.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
"One can be sorry that Hunter Thompson died as he did, but not sorry, surely, that he stopped writing." That's how William F. Buckley summed up Hunter Thompson in this column.
It appears that Buckley grappled with the best way to eulogize Hunter Thompson. Two writers he greatly admires (Tom Wolfe and his son, Christopher Buckley) are big Thompson fans. WFB can't see it. And neither can I.
He asks the same question I asked when told about Hunter S. Thompson's deeper truths: "What deeper truths?"
"Thompson had a gift for vitriol. All — everything — was subsumed in his exercise of that art," Buckley later wrote.
OK, WFB agrees with me. Derrick is conspicuously silent, probably just trying to maintain stoicism in defeat.
I win.
It appears that Buckley grappled with the best way to eulogize Hunter Thompson. Two writers he greatly admires (Tom Wolfe and his son, Christopher Buckley) are big Thompson fans. WFB can't see it. And neither can I.
He asks the same question I asked when told about Hunter S. Thompson's deeper truths: "What deeper truths?"
"Thompson had a gift for vitriol. All — everything — was subsumed in his exercise of that art," Buckley later wrote.
OK, WFB agrees with me. Derrick is conspicuously silent, probably just trying to maintain stoicism in defeat.
I win.
