Monday, July 06, 2009

Wingfield At It Again

The best suggestion for naming my new series is "My Morning Wingnut". But I can't do it. I can't possibly justify it. Kyle Wingfield is making my life hard and I don't know what to do about it.

Like this.
That’s why the opportunity for us to take the future of our civil-rights framework into our own hands is so valuable. While the Supreme Court might be able to temper public angst by issuing warnings before it acts, as it did last month, the better solution is for citizens and our elected representatives to take the initiative.
Criticize this? Hell! I could have written it!

Maybe wing nuttiness is acquired with age. Maybe I can find some way to slip Kyle a loony pill. Until that time, I doubt you'll see much ranting against the AJC's latest "wingnut".

One other thing. It's time to let a cat out of the bag. Although I'm pro-choice, he sums up my feelings on Roe v. Wade pretty well. Let the slings and arrows fly.

6 comments:

Sara said...

I suspect the AJC conservative readership will grow tired of Wingnut quite quickly if he doesn't up the crazy ante. So, perhaps you will have more material to work with in a few months or a year.

DaleC said...

I knew I shouldn't have come back to your blog. Now I have to start reading the AJC again. This guy Kyle seems pretty good.


AJC Conservative readership? All three of them?

Sara said...

Take a look at the comments on any AJC story on the website and you'll see there are plenty more than 3 whackjob conservative readers, Dale.

Jerry said...

I'll take issue with him on something.

"When judges cut short public debate, as the Supremes did on abortion in 1973, the result is polarization between people with differing views."

The Supremes didn't cut short any debate. The debate continues, as passionate as ever. And the polarization existed long before that decision anyway.

DaleC said...

You are correct, there are at least five :-)

TL said...

The lead in to the section you quoted:

The legislative process might not make everyone happy, but its outcome has a broad legitimacy that the sudden edict of unelected judges does not enjoy.

This is a pretty shopworn saw in the puditocracy. The only problem is that there is absolutely no evidence that it is true.

Indeed, there was widespread anti-abortion mobilization in the years leading up to Roe in reaction to states that had liberalized their abortion laws that was strong enough to stifle additional states from taking similar measures.