In the end, the Los Angeles Times, as with every other paper in the nation, has a basic decision to make. What is the purpose of editorial content? Is it meant to educate readers? To debate issues? To provide new, original ideas that cannot or will not be presented by the politically powerful? To attack? Or simply as masturbatory fodder for those few readers who treat their political affiliations with the all-encompassing fervor that they treat sports franchises, less concerned with either education, debate, knowledge or accuracy than with half-drunken taunts at the opposing team [emphasis added]?That last sentence was beautiful - ten points from my book to theirs.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Moonbats and Masturbators
Reviewing a recent critique of an LA times op-ed article, I found a wonderful sentence. The whole article is over at DailyKOS and is quite enjoyable if you are even offended by the term "moonbat," which by the way is wholy the creation of folks who needed to come up with a better term than wingnut (which is a reference to themselves) as a derogatory (as if they need others) word for liberal types. Anyway, without further ado: