Archive for the ‘internet/free speech’ Category

One of the great embarrassments of this year on the Republican side was the fact that after her humiliating defeat by Scott Brown in January no republican got on the ballot to oppose her in the fall.

Jim McKenna however is trying to reverse this mistake, he is launching a sticker campaign for the Republican primaries. If he can get 10,000 sticker votes during the primary he will be on the November ballot and we will have the chance to retire Martha Coakley permanently.

I talked to Mr. McKenna last week concerning his campaign:

He also made a presentation at the Twin City Tea Party last week. Here is his presentation in three parts:

Part 2

Part 3

Not getting on the ballot initially was a mistake but there is no reason why we can’t make up for that mistake on primary day.

Red Mass Group has more here.

Update: Looks like he would be a square peg in the statehouse. from his BIO:

Jim has taught courses on law and ethics as an Adjunct Assistant Professor in the part-time MBA program at Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s Department of Management.

Ethics in Massachusetts? Boy talk about not fitting in.

Following up on his first rate post on Howard Zinn this weekend Stacy puts up a new article at the American Spectator:

Revelation of Zinn’s support for Stalinism is unlikely to affect his standing with liberals, whose main response to the FBI disclosures was to express shock that an official of Boston University tried to get Zinn fired in 1970. Zinn’s liberal admirers obviously share his anti-American perspective, in which the FBI poses a greater danger than any foreign enemy. It was that view Zinn meant to express when, in 1986, he condemned the U.S. bombing of Libya in response to a Libyan-sponsored terrorist attack in West Berlin. “There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people for a purpose which is unattainable,” Zinn wrote.

That such a condemnation could be applied more truthfully to Zinn’s communist heroes, who slaughtered millions of innocents in pursuit of an unattainable socialist paradise, is an irony the professor apparently never contemplated.

This is uncharitable of me but I suspect he did contemplate it and brushed it aside as all fans of totalitarianism do. What are mere lives when compared to the cause? The irony that he did this from the safety of America where he was free to make a living off of his support for our foes is not lost on me.

Those who promote his views have much to answer for.

…Islam has issues.

But I’ve never been one for burning books.

Analysis for me is pretty easy for me on this one. The so-called “International Burn the Quran Day” is geared to the sheer shock factor. It’s beyond incediary, ludicrous and a waste of time. And worse, this kind of behavior (burn the Quran/Koran day) distracts from the clear downsides to Islam. It sells books too, apparently. But in the end it is this group’s right to do as they please on their property – free speech (including liberal pet projects like flag burning) is sometimes ugly.

I’m with Left coast rebel here. Burning books seems kinda anti-American to me.

They get 10 out of 10 for not being afraid of the inevitable fatwa but they also get 0 out of ten for giving Islamists an actual cause for grievance. Going nuts over a cartoon? Nonsense! Burning their holy book, yeah I can see getting angry over that.

This of course doesn’t change the fact that it is protected first amendment speech and violent retaliation is the act of barbarians.

Oh and the Anchoress makes a great point:

But I have to wonder about Rick Sanchez, here. His points are not badly made, but I wonder why he showcased this fellow at all? As one of the deacon’s readers points out:

While I don’t support the burning of the Quran, I can’t help but wonder where CNN and Rick Sanchez were when we had the atheist college Professor Paul Z. Myers desecrating the Eucharist on posting pictures of the act? Maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall Sanchez grilling Myers in a CNN interview. It gives credibility to the statement that anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice.

Just so; I have to wonder whether Sanchez highlighted this story because a) it feeds into the public perception of Christians as intolerant and stupid and b) it is fodder for a potentially huge story: the inevitable fatwa against this man and the tensions his ideas will foment. Is Sanchez stoking this little twig in hopes of reporting on an eventual conflagration down the road?

Either way its bad form and will have a bad end.

Memeorandum thread here.

What do this headline:

FBI Files Reveal Historian Howard Zinn Lied to Hide CPUSA Membership

and this one

So Clarkson was right: Sight of a scantily-clad woman drives men to distraction (… and off the road)

have in common? (more…)