the newly-reorganized Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Lileks is there,
and he's in good company. Including guess who:
When I got to the precinct the flatfeet had already booked the perp. A slack shouldered little Norwegian weasel with a mop of greasy blond hair and a pair of jittery eyes. His name was Olafson. The hairs on the back of my neck told me something was wrong.
Today's "progressives" seem to be fully in favor of "progressing"
right back to a couple decades ago by reanimating the long-dead "Fairness
Doctrine." This would put Your Federal Government right back in the
odious business of making sure no Unfairness reached your tender senses by
way of the broadcast media. Derek Hunter at Politico has a
article on the history and current controversy. Bottom line:
The return of the Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with fairness. It has everything to do with shutting down opposing viewpoints. When Republicans were in charge, they didn't move to regulate into silence voices that spoke out against them. The power of government should not be used to silence opposition. That, by any reading of the First Amendment, is un-American and unfair.
George Will looks
at Nancy Pelosi's latest comments on gasoline prices and energy policy
and finds them short on substance, long on demagoguery:
Pelosi vowed, as politicians have been doing since President Nixon set the fashion, to achieve ``energy independence.'' Such vows are, as Soviet grain production quotas used to be, irrational reflexes that no serious person takes seriously. Pelosi baldly asserts that ``energy independence is essential to reducing the price at the pump,'' but does not say how.… perhaps because any elaboration of that idea would make its foolishness even more obvious.