User Rating: / 8
PoorBest 

Friday, 10 February 2012 13:00

Written by Reg Henry

Two exceptional opeds appeared in the Post-Gazette today, and one of them was by George F. Will, whom I have often criticized for tying reality into a bow-tie knot suitable for wearing in superior circles. But credit where credit is due. In this piece, he takes on the blowhard hawkishness of Mitt Romney to devastating effect.

I hesitate to mention the second piece, because its very title "Race-Baiting Republicans" is an incitement to further cranky dispute. But I defy anyone to read Jeffrey Goldberg, a writer for Bloomberg View, and not think that they he makes a good case. He writes that "Dog-whistling -- the use of coded, ambiguous language to appeal to the prejudices of certain subsets of voters -- is one of the darkest political arts..."

When it comes to dog whistling, our own Rick Santorum let the cat (er, dog) out of the bag when he inadvertently revealed in almost lily-white Iowa what sort of people he associates with welfare — and they aren't lily white (he was so exposed that he tried to lie his way out of it).
                                                                  •
I am usually one who doesn't take what is written about me personally. But this entry both saddened me and flabbergasted me because of who wrote it — and I can only hope that it was some sort of joke:

written by Mugsy, February 09, 2012 - 08:02 PM

Thank you, Reg, for equating my position with those idiots that crash funerals, honor killings, and racists. Much appreciated.

Mugsy, you know very well the respect I have for you. Do you really think that for even one fleeting second I would suspect you of harboring such sentiments?

Indeed, what you took from my writing is the exact opposite of my meaning. I assumed that every single reader here would share the abhorrence of the things I mentioned and that would spur them to better understand the difficulties of applying the First Amendment.

Mugsy, it wasn't about you. It was about the complexity of the First Amendment.

What further amazes me is that I very made clear that I believe freedom of religion is in the vanguard of all our rights. I also indicated that I think the rule should be amended (as the White House is announcing today it will do). Mugsy, I was tending to your side. So from whence does my alleged ill will come from?

It occurs to me that if I write something so plain and it can be so flagrantly misconstrued by one of the most decent people here, then we can't discuss anything intelligently on Reg on Wry. And if that is so, maybe I am just wasting my time with this blog. The implications of that are something I must think about some more when I am not so depressed.

Have a good weekend.