Ridding the world of evil, treasonous Nazi stalkers

Recently, on that hotbed of hypocrisy known as Fox News, people were complaining that Ward Churchill was guilty of treason for this article, and that he was brainwashing his students and should be fired. I didn't actually see this segment, but bethje told me about it, and I DID see an allegedly pithy comment that Bill "Falafel" O'Reilly had received through e-mail, which really pissed me off. The comment was something along the lines of, "How come the liberal media [1] can criticize you for what you're saying, and defend Churchill under the First Amendment?" Now, I don't know for sure what the so-called "liberal media" said about O'Reilly, but unless it was something like, "O'Reilly is a traitor who shouldn't be allowed to speak, and should be fired!", there's really no comparison. The thing is, I see that flaw employed all over, and this isn't even the most flagrant case. Someone will spew out some hate-filled garbage on some medium or other, and insist that they're exercising their First Amendment rights. And there's no denying that this is the case. The problem comes in when someone else criticizes them, and then they complain that the critic is trying to censor them. I'm sorry, but unless that critic is part of the government (and sometimes not even then), there's no censorship involved. "You should shut up" is hardly the same thing as "you shouldn't be legally allowed to say that." Also, just because you CAN say something doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea. But then, that's advice that I don't always follow. {g}

As for the article itself, it might be a bit on the unprofessional side, but the guy is clearly using shock value to get his point across. There are way too many cases of people bringing Nazis into irrelevant arguments (need I mention Godwin's Law?), but Churchill actually EXPLAINS why he's drawing these comparisons. And come on, treason? That's a word that seems to get inappropriately thrown around almost as much as "Nazi." (Another word that has nothing to do with this particular situation, but belongs on the same list, is "stalking.") Besides, Fox News being concerned with someone else's unprofessionalism is a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black. I mean, we're talking about a network where hosts routinely interrupt, cut off, and talk over their guests, and where a spot for an upcoming O'Reilly Factor segment contained the phrase, "Your [sic] wrong!" I can also recall O'Reilly referring to "bad guys," although I suppose he's just following Big Boss Bush's lead there. I caught a few minutes of The Daily Show's coverage of Bush's inauguration speech. When Bush said something about "evil encroaching on our borders," Jon Stewart quipped, "Is he being sworn in as President, or Dungeon Master?" Now, I'm not saying words like "evil" should never be used, but in a presidential speech or news broadcast? Doesn't that make the speaker rather difficult to take seriously? Not to a lot of the country, apparently.

( Speaking of Dungeon Masters... )

I got my copy of The Frogman of Oz and tickets to the Salvador Dali exhibit at the Philadelphia Museum of Art in the mail, but I'm still waiting on the new Hypnotic Clambake album.

[1] While I don't want to go into another big, long rant about the myth of liberal media bias, I WILL ask a question I've been meaning to ask for some time. Has anyone who made accusations about the "liberal media" EVER provided any actual examples? I think there's more concrete evidence for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster than of left-wing bias in the mainstream media.