First off, a disclaimer-I never read Schilling's blog. Ever. I have absolutely no interest in watching the guy polish his own dong, frankly, or make excuses for George Bush. That doesn't mean I don't think he has a right to say whatever he wants-I mean, I do the same thing-but I'm just not interested in hearing it.
However, I was inadvertantly directed to a post over on the WEEI page (where right wing freakazoids breed like rabbits) entitled "Shocked? You Just Can't Be Anymore," a self-righteous diatribe over Alex Rodriguez and how Mr. Sanctomony never took steroids in his whole widdle life (whatever, Curt. You're the only guy in the world who can make me feel like defending ARod.) In reading the post-the usual preening Schilling claptrap, don't bother going there if you haven't already read it-I couldn't help but notice what came before and after it. Schilling, in concert with the rest of the right wing, is practically self-immolating over the fact that Barack Obama has been elected president and everything he believed to be true over the past thirty years has been exposed as nothing but one big self-serving conservative lie. Like the rest of the goose-steppers, he even quotes Karl Marx to promote his point. What's most amusing, though, is that he hasn't got the smarts to put it into words himself-he's using his blog to recycle the words of others. The far-right Palin-loving Charles Krauthammer is reproduced in full, for example. So is the far-left Paul Krugman, as Schilling tries to make it appear he's giving equal weight to ALL points of view. But, you see, while Krauthammer's piece is introduced as being recommended by a friend who is "educated and versed in finance" (probably a guy like the right-wing Steven Moore, a WSJ economist who said we were in great shape a year ago) Krugman's piece is from "a ‘left wing’ mouthpiece that has never had issues reporting ‘facts’ that aren’t, as facts."
What a complete, passive aggressive asshole. You think I could let that lie? No. My response:
“I have no issues reading and hearing from any side in an argument and hearing input that is relevant and truthful.”
Which is, of course, why you IMMEDIATELY-and insidiously-dismissed the column as coming from the left wing NYT. While the eidtorial page itself is definitely left wing, it’s very fair to say the reporting is neutral (who do you think broke the Whitewater story?), and the Times has given *more* than enough face time to neoconservative propaganda machine and Palin apologist Bill Kristol (who told us the Iraqis would NEVER descend into sectarian madness, they’re all so secular), conservative pseudointellectual gasbag David Brooks, and torture cheerleaders/apologists John Yoo and John Bolton, to name just a few.
Grow up, and stop using that tired “media bias” argument. It would also be nice if you could actually write a post yourself explaining your views, instead of falling back on the intellectually lazy postion of reproducing the works of smarter and more articulate people on either side of the aisle. Or, you could just stick to sports, which you actually know something about.
I'm still in "your comment is awaiting moderation" mode. We'll see if it gets published, and if I get a snappy answer from Mr. Red Light himself.