Moralizing Editors
The Lincoln Journal Star editors often get accused of being too liberal. Not today. Their chock-full-of-holes defense of the internet gambling ban reads like something straight from the pen of Bill O’Reilly. The editorial refers to “the problem” of internet gambling without ever explaining how they came to the conclusion that a problem exists, and their supporting arguments consist entirely of:
- Some people misuse it;
- Young people do it; and
- People who make money off of it want to keep making money off of it.
Hardly the stuff Pulitzer Prizes are made of. The same arguments support banning, among countless other things, junk food. The nannies are all around us.
The Comments
Dave K July 18, 2006 at 9:27am
I’m still trying figure out what their point to the editorial is. It’s all over the place (thus, the holes that you mentioned).
Most of the time, I derive entertainment from the LJS editorials. They normally don’t post my critical comments on the website. I noticed that if you say anything negative about the LJS, they won’t post your comment. But anyways, this was my favorite part of the editorial:
* The coincidence of the upcoming congressional elections and introduction of the legislation causes suspicion. Previous attempts to outlaw Internet gambling acquired an odor when they were defeated by, among other forces, now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Please tell me how many times a lobbyist has ever been mentioned when referring to defeated legislation. Yep, ZERO. They think they gain points in their ‘argument’ by mentioning that Jack Abramoff was on the other side. Morons!
Oh, and the LJS editorial board is a bunch of liberals.
Neal July 18, 2006 at 12:19pm
Hey Dave, you should start a running thread of all your comments that don’t get posted.
Considering they post LJS-critical comments from other readers, we need to get to the bottom of Why Does the Journal Star Single Out Dave?
Neal July 19, 2006 at 9:48am
While I’m sitting over here talking to myself, I’m also wondering…
Dave, when you write
“Please tell me how many times a lobbyist has ever been mentioned when referring to defeated legislation. Yep, ZERO. They think they gain points in their ‘argument’ by mentioning that Jack Abramoff was on the other side.”
What exactly are you trying to say? Are you disputing the fact that Abramoff was lobbying on behalf of the interests who got their way? I’m not really sure...the fact that you feel justified to refer to them as “morons” suggests there must be something hugely inaccurate about that passage, yet I’m struggling to find such an error.
Your help would be appreciated.
Dave K July 19, 2006 at 2:15pm
The ‘morons’ comment was in reference to them using a lobbyist’s disgrace to support their argument. They don’t make a good argument to begin with (as was noted here), but even if they did have a good argument it would only be weakened by the attempt to discredit a movement based on the movement’s association with a criminal. I’m pretty sure there are a lot of criminals or otherwise objectional individuals who are part of certain movements you’re in, so does that invalidate your movement(s)?