The Missing Editorials

From the February almanac:

Daniel Pearl, murdered and beheaded- Among his last words, was an ‘admission‘ to being the ‘son of a Jew.’

The administrator of a London Islamic school admits to using textbooks that refers to Jews and Christians as ‘monkeys and apes. She defiantly claims the references to Jews and Christians as ‘monkeys and apes’ are taken ‘out of context.’ The administrator does not indicate the proper context for describing Jews and Christians as ‘monkeys and apes.’

At a recent Democrat Party meeting, the opening prayer was delivered by a man with clear and direct ties to terror and bigotry. He counts among his friends Holocaust deniers and makes less than veiled threats against Jews and others.

So far, there have been no editorials taking note of these events.

The Anchoress explores the real meaning of free speech:

One of the paradoxes of free speech is that while you and I are (mostly, for the time being) free to say what we wish in this country, our words are not sacrosanct and untouchable – other free people are (mostly, for the time being) free to say what they wish in response. No one has to listen to anyone and accept their opinion as the final word. Hence, the Dixie Chicks are free to say “we hate that Bush is from Texas” and others are free to say, “okay, and I hate that opinion, so I won’t buy your records.”

It’s not censorship. It’s simply another opinion. The Chicks are no martyrs to free speech, they simply came to the uncomfortable conclusion of that free speech paradox: you can say what you want, but you have to be willing to take the consequences for it.

The Anchoress is right, of course. Free speech really isn’t free at all unless you are willing to afford the same rights to others. When others complain about the response to free speech, they are in effect demanding a kind of censorship, so that their words are afforded greater meaning and import.

A case in point is the brouhaha surrounding bloggers Pandagon and Shakespeare’s Sister, hired by the John Edwards for President campaign. The ‘Catholic bashing’ made some very upset and many more uncomfortable.

We reminded Amanda Marcotte of her own, earlier remarks, in a comment a Pandagon post, Edwards Camp: Cavinvg In To The Right Wing Never Works. We noted that in an earlier post, she had correctly and succinctly observed that

“…offending people and asking them to still cheer on the offensive statement is completely ass-backwards. They’re offending people without really thinking about why it’s offensive, which in turn destroys all discernment between statements. They can add in any subtext they want after the fact, but when you speak in broad images and short slogans, “Mow My Lawn, Eddie” speaks volumes more than any subtext you can imagine, particularly if that subtext isn’t actually aired until you get in trouble.”

Our comment ended as follows, with a thought or two (in italics) that resonated from an earlier Anchoress post:

In fact, does anyone really expect John Edwards, or any other presidential candidate, to remain silent when Catholics are bashed? Should candidates remain silent if Jews or blacks that don’t support a particular agenda are vilified?

Presidents and presidential candidates represent the entire nation, not just those who supported him or her. While that does not mean that he or she must kowtow to opponents, it does not mean that opponents can be vilified or demonized, either.

The problem isn’t necessarily John Edwards.

In a milestone post, Utopian Dreams And Nightmares, Dr Sanity clearly distinguishes between the arguments of those who would impose their ideas and beliefs and those who would attempt to persuade you.

The do-gooder leftist in all the various ideological incarnations–the antiwar crowd, the environmental crowd, the communists, socialists, and assorted collectivists–offers the rationale that he does what he does for the “common good” and for “social justice”, “peace” and “brotherhood”. His high-minded, self-righteous rhetoric justifies (to him anyway) imposing his will and beliefs on others for their own good; and he will not hesitate to use whatever coercive capablity he has at hand to get others to do what he wants and what he says.

The capitalist, on the other hand, is overtly out to pursue his own selfish profit, and understands he must use persuasion. That is, he must convince people that his ideas and the products of his mind are better than all the rest so that they will be willing to part with their hard-earned money to possess them. His desire for power over others is manifested in an indirect manner because people must wnat what he has to offer and believe that they will benefit from an interaction with him.

There can be no real debate or exchange of ideas between those who seek to impose ideologies and those who submit their ideologies for scrutiny and examination. If an idea can stand on it’s own in the free marketplace of thoughts and ideas, well, that idea has merit. When an idea cannot stand on it’s own, that idea cannot be made more relevant or meaningful if it is imposed on others.

Earlier in her post, Dr Sanity quoted Leszak Kolakowski, a noted Polish philosopher who was unceremoniously booted from the Communist party.

Socialism as a social or moral philosophy was based on the ideal of human brotherhood, which can never be implemented by institutional means. There has never been, and there will never be, an institutional means of making people brothers. Fraternity under compulsion is the most malignant idea devised in modern times; it is the perfect path to totalitarian tyranny.

Think about this:

So, many times in politics, programs that originate with the “best of intentions” end up doing exactly the opposite of what was intended. Yet, the political left is so ideologically committed to the Utopian ideal of egalitarianism which, in the real world simply makes everyone equally poor and miserable (except for the lucky elites who control the social system) that they reflexly keep pouring money into programs that can be shown to actively harm the people they are meant to help; and reinforce the stereotypes they are meant to end.

The politically correct left heaps scorn on business, capitalism, free trade, and globalization; and instead glorify and praise the most primitive and barbaric of cultures and cultural practices. As Bob suggests, they come for the egalitarianism, but stay for the bestiality and tyranny they unleash with their “progressive” ways.

If they really cared about helping the poor; if they really cared about social “justice”–then they would shut the hell up and get out of the way of those evil, greedy capitalistic bastards, who, while pursuing their own selfish, profit-making agendas, in the long run effortlessly manage to increase the standard of living and improve the lives of everyone around them.

Where are the editorial writers?