Response to an ass

Thoughts on Jeff Jacoby's Boston Globe column today.

"There are only a finite number of broadcast frequencies, the statists say. If the government didn't own and license them, the result would be chaos....Well, the supply of land is finite, too . Yet no one argues that real estate should be nationalized and licensed by the feds."
That's because land is not public airwaves. They are different. And I suppose 'statists' are supposed to be the bad people who believe in government action. Isn't a statist like an 'airist'? People who believe air should act? Duh uh uh uhhh uh uhhhh.

"These are the same Democrats, of course, who refuse to debate on the Fox News Channel because they object to its political agenda. So be it. But what does it say about their priorities that they gladly court Logo's niche viewers, yet snub the far larger mainstream audience that watches Fox?"
It says that they are open-minded and that the Dem party swings to the left. Logo Network swings to the left, Fox to the right. Duh...dumbass.

"Bilingual ballots, mandated by federal law in 1992, are incompatible with the American tradition of E Pluribus Unum."
Not really. Inclusion is also form of "shared identity". I say yahoo, yippee and whoopee to increasing participation in voting. That's what democracy is all about. Exclusion is what anti-statists like you are about.

"In Britain last November, a national survey measuring the trustworthiness of 19 professions found that journalists ranked dead last. Even politicians managed to edge them out....The more the press proclaims itself accurate and unbiased, the less the public seems to agree."
This survey a direct result of parcipation of Rupert Murdoch, the right wing extremist behind Fox and the tabloid crap that is so prevalent in Britain. The "press" doesn't "proclaim itself" anything. There is no spokesperson or centralized entity speaking on its behalf. Again, Jacoby is cute but wrong.