Saturday, December 22, 2007
Conservative but "non-partisan": Part deux.
I'm going to toss in my own followup to this insipid crusade against liberal bias, specifically related to Raphael's idiotic description of Blogging Tory Sandy Crux as "conservative, but non-partisan." Let me explain how this works. Pay attention.
If you're a member of the Blogging Tories and a self-described "conservative", then it's going to be pretty hard to simultaneously label yourself as "non-partisan," don't you think? However, technically speaking, it's not impossible.
Even if you're a die-hard right-whinger, you can lay claim to doing something in a "non-partisan" way. In Sandy's case, despite the fact that she's obviously a partisan blogger, she would have the right to say that she's embarking on a non-partisan examination of media bias, but only if she did it fairly and evenly, and showed examples of bias of all kinds. But she's not doing that, is she? No, she's made it clear that she's interested only in anti-conservative bias, which makes one wonder -- what exactly is non-partisan about any of that?
Conversely, if Sandy wants to identify only anti-conservative bias, well, fine, go wild. That's her choice, and no one should begrudge her the right to do whatever she wants. At the same time, though, she shouldn't try to paint that as a "non-partisan" project of hers. See how that works?
Again, it's possible for someone who's thoroughly conservative to still get involved in a non-partisan project. But when someone is a member of the BTs, openly cops to being "conservative" and makes it clear that they're interested in exposing only anti-conservative media bias, well, there's absolutely nothing "non-partisan" about that in any way, shape or form, is there?
So how about you wanks knock off that "non-partisan" nonsense? There's not a whiff of non-partisanship about either Sandy or her current crusade, and all you're doing is demeaning the expression. And to fail to appreciate that implies that you're either a) too stupid, or b) too dishonest to acknowledge that point.
Again, that's a) too stupid, or b) too dishonest. I'll leave the actual choice in your hands.