The destruction of America’s economy in order to demonstrate climate change ‘leadership’ hangs over our heads like the sword of Damocles. Elsewhere in these comment streams I recently remarked, “Nothing will speed post-Americanism more than acceding to the economy busting hysterical nostrums that are supposed to counter anthropogenic global warming. That is one of the many forms of now operant national suicide that the Left is busy implementing.” In the 1nov16 WSJ two more scientists again attempt to teach the teachables that atmospheric CO2 in the realistically contemplated concentrations will indeed warm the earth slightly. But that warming will be a blessing to the nutritional and living space needs of the arriving billions over the remainder of this century. Meanwhile technology has already and continues to reduce/remove environmental toxins and CO2 emissions without the draconian measures prescribed by the promoters of Agenda21 objectives and those non-participants expecting a handout in the process. (more here)
Don Rogers, publisher of our local newspaper The Union, goes through a tortured analysis cum apology (here) of why he decided to publish the now notorious 29oct16 political advertisement by Mr Frank Pinney. His soul searching concludes with a remarkable statement that I hope he, upon reflection, will reconsider. Mr Rogers’ apologetic ends with –
Where “censorship” and “judgment” meet is highly subjective and ever present. Where do we trust readers to make their own determinations and where do we decide to protect sensibilities beyond the conventions of libel in this era, and this race in particular? ... From what I’m hearing from readers, we drew the lines too loosely. Or rather, I did. I made the final call. Ironically enough, I did so not out of sympathy for the positions taken, but in trying to apply standards of libel, invasion of privacy, obscenity and clearness of opinion from facts. And also from the standpoint of political rhetoric in an advertisement as opposed to news or commentary. … This does raise an obvious question that doesn’t seem to bother our big league brethren: If it wouldn’t make the cut for commentary, why should it get a chance as a political advertisement? … It’s one we’ll have to consider more thoroughly in the future, plainly.
First, we’ll forgive him for confusing the orthogonality of “trusting readers to make their own determination” with his self-anointed task “to protect sensibilities beyond the conventions of libel”. The answer here is simple – trust your readers! But the apex of his suffering comes from mistaking advertised political speech for commentary qualifying as the paper’s editorial content. Conflating the two as eschewed by his “big league brethren” does indeed expose his tendency to become the community’s censor of political speech. The rules for libel, especially in a heated election season, are almost non-existent as evidenced by the torrent of invectives from the candidates and their political ads nationwide. In this category Mr Pinney’s exhortations were low-grade ore. So Mr Rogers, ignore the progressive pinhead contingent of your readership, and let it be.