Why I consider libertarians who have a romantic vision of a libertarian/left-wing alliance in politics are either stupid or traitors to the very liberty that they claim to be defenders of:
Ryan Chiachiere was. A 26-year-old researcher in Washington, D.C., for liberal watchdog organization Media Matters for America, he was assigned to monitor Mr. Imus's program. Mr. Chiachiere clipped the video, alerted his bosses and started working on a blog post for the organization's Web site.
That highlighted part is enough to send a small shiver down the spine of anyone who cares about freedom when they contemplate what a left-wing government would look like. For the left, it's not enough to apply brownshirtesque attacks on people who say things that they find offensive, they must destroy their job and try to generally drive them out of employment in their field altogether if possible. On slashdot, some leftists were trying to point to the Dixie Chicks as an example of similar behavior from the right, the difference is that it was mostly Bush supporters who engaged in that behavior, and it was also motivated by a belief that the Dixie Chicks were trying to do their part to undermine our foreign policy (even if that's not saying much, the outrage was still over their intent).
Since being nominally removed from power, many left-wing groups have adopted a very authoritarian attitude toward dissent. Well, it was there in many respects all along, but it has become more prounced. Generally the people pushing speech codes and trying to use coercion to shut down their opponents, are those who have "liberal" views. As bad as many conservatives can be, their views on civil liberties tend to be far more enlightened than their left-wing counterparts.
The culture of hypersensitivity is one that needs to be ruthlessly assaulted, with a great, passionate fury by those who value liberty. It has already compromised most of the politically active left-wing groups, and is in danger of doing the same to the right. Liberty won't survive a society that acquiesces to the hurt feelings and brownshirt tactics of emotionally weak pissants.
How leftists can completely miss the implication that behaviour like theirs will ultimately come back to bite them in the ass is beyond me. Seriously, it's like these people are too stupid to live. As soon as you curtail someone else's freedom, you curtail your own.
They only seem to see the moment. Never the implications of what this moment may bring.
Reminds me of a garden and some fruit not to be eaten...
Roland,
I don't know that I would have said the Garden of Eden, but that works. I think they know a little better than they want to admit about where their behavior will end up. To admit that end, however, would be to admit that they are the enemy that they denounce.
Pablo,
The problem with that assumption is that they don't care about freedom in the sense that you care about it. They would gladly sacrifice freedom of speech on the altar of "anti-racism" and other crap like that.
I agree with you, the liberals seem to whine about the government monitoring us in the name of security, but they themselves monitor people for the sake of calling someone down if they make a statement that's even remotely offensive to someone.
I don't understand something, when Imus said they were 'nappy-headed', it was racist and everybody freaked out. When he used the word 'ho's' only a few people freaked out compared to the other remark. I would think that the 'ho' comment would be MORE offensive to MORE people.
Leave it to Al Sharpton to make a scene to further his 'feel sorry for me' cause.
Great post dude. The left is totally out of control at this point, and at some point soon, will HAVE to be put down. Anyone who claims to be a libertarian, and opts for this behavior is lying through their teeth. Not mistaken, but LYING!
A good example of this is the Green-Left's demand for "consensus" on the matter of Global Warming, no dissent is tolerated - which is not how Science works (or behaves) but it is how Social Engineering is implemented, by blunt-force trauma.
The Left has proven time and again, from Lenin to Stalin to Mao and Pol-Pot that they will get their "consensus" at any cost, no matter how many people they have to kill until they finally reach their so-fervently desired unanimity.
Kum-bah-jah that.
Ummmm how can you possibly compare "monitoring" a popular radio host with millions of listeners to monitoring average citizens? It's apples and oranges.
When you monitor citizens and their private lives, it's an invasion of privacy. When you monitor what public leaders (including those in the media), who have tremendous power, do and say that affects the public, it's called transparency.
No, it's not called transparency. Transparency is what happens when you expose the inner workings of a secret group to the public. Imus did everything in the view of the public, which means that your argument about transparency doesn't apply. The problem here is that you have groups that are specifically aimed at exerting coercion in some form to shut down speech they don't like; to get the platform ripped away from them. At its heart, that's the same sort of habit you have with totalitarian thugs, not "watchdog groups."