Thursday, May 04, 2006
Some thoughts on Tom Maguire and current issues
So I’ve been thinking about Tom Maquire. I keep wondering where his sympathies truly lie. Three recent issues – Moussaoui, the admin’s global warming study, and Steele’s OpEd – all seem to be right up his kind of alley, and yet, as of yesterday evening, 5/3/6, he hadn’t posted a word about any of them.
What is up with that? His primary audience is probably in love with Steele, mad that Moussaoui wasn’t executed, and totally taken aback by the study. Yet he keeps talking about Plamegate, or Colbert, or the Duke Lacrosse team. Or even immigration.
Which, of course, his audience can’t get enough of, either.
I wouldn’t care except that Tom has a voice – and damn near a reasonable voice.
In the same way Steele has a voice because his OpEd was published by the WSJ, Tom has a voice in the blogosphere. Of course, there’s no reason he should speak up on every issue that interests me, but I do wonder.
I wonder why the WSJ printed Steele, too. I see it one of two ways – either they were pandering to their base, or they believe in him, and in his words.
I can forgive the pandering thing, even though pandering is a nasty thing to do, but the other, not so much. ‘Cause if it’s the other, and considering who makes up their base, or basement, such belief makes the WSJ a very real part of Eisenhower’s despised military-industrial complex. A tool of that complex, if you will.
A tool of evil, if you will.
Jake
What is up with that? His primary audience is probably in love with Steele, mad that Moussaoui wasn’t executed, and totally taken aback by the study. Yet he keeps talking about Plamegate, or Colbert, or the Duke Lacrosse team. Or even immigration.
Which, of course, his audience can’t get enough of, either.
I wouldn’t care except that Tom has a voice – and damn near a reasonable voice.
In the same way Steele has a voice because his OpEd was published by the WSJ, Tom has a voice in the blogosphere. Of course, there’s no reason he should speak up on every issue that interests me, but I do wonder.
I wonder why the WSJ printed Steele, too. I see it one of two ways – either they were pandering to their base, or they believe in him, and in his words.
I can forgive the pandering thing, even though pandering is a nasty thing to do, but the other, not so much. ‘Cause if it’s the other, and considering who makes up their base, or basement, such belief makes the WSJ a very real part of Eisenhower’s despised military-industrial complex. A tool of that complex, if you will.
A tool of evil, if you will.
Jake
