Sunday, May 20, 2007

John Floars of Woodbridge: Far-Left Moonbat

I know, I know: Young, you're being redundant.

Nevertheless, it is repetition for emphasis. Today's Potomac News brought a letter demonstrating the kind of dishonesty and contradiction typical of the far Left. Here's his missive:

Consumed as he is by his high dudgeon against John Merli, Dale Rehak (Letters to the Editor, May 16) appears to have forgotten a couple of very important points.

First, Merli writes a column of opinion for the Opinion page of this newspaper. He's entitled to his opinions, whether Rehak likes it or not.

Second, the First Amendment says he has every right to voice his opinions, and the Potomac News has every right to publish them.

Rehak may not agree with Merli's opinions on George Bush, but if he silenced everyone who doesn't like this president, about 65 percent of the country would have to stand mute.

Since Rehak is agitating to have Merli's column dropped, I'll do a bit of agitating of my own: If the Potomac News caves in to ultra right-wing ideologues of Rehak's ilk and drops Merli's column, I will immediately cancel my subscription.



Now, it's not that I disagree with Floars about Merli; I don't. Indeed, Merli is so harmless and offers such weekly pablum that, while it is difficult to understand how he obtained his space in the first place, it is impossible to believe that the current management of the Pot. News could ever dismiss anyone for being too far to the Left. Frankly, I don't remember what Floars' target said, but it's not as if there's some sort of campaign against Merli by "right-wing ideologues" (compared to, for example, the campaign waged against me by the likes of Floars, among others). Indeed, the only campaign against Merli that I could imagine would be one seeking substance on the editorial page of the Potomac News.

What I found entertaining was Floars' characteristic sanctimony. Characteristic of the far Left; characteristic of Floars. Particulatly dishonest was his stirring defense of Merli's First Amendment rights, and the suggestion that it is somehow illegitimate to ask that a columnist be dropped.

The problem? Merli's First Amendment rights have nothing to do with the continuation of his column, or the business decision that the Pot. News makes to run it. Indeed, I find it highly doubtful that anyone --- including Rehak --- would suggest otherwise.

I know when I read this missive that Floars' name was familiar, so I checked my files. Sure 'nuff, I found about three letters attacking me for something or other that I wrote over the years when I had 800-900 words a week in that journal. The most recent appeared on 1 June 2004, in which Floars made the following statement: "A couple of years ago, I had a subscription to the Potomac News. I cancelled, in part, because I was heartily sick and tired of seeing the viperous right-wing rantings of James Young."

I guess Floars only objects when people cancel in protest of conservative "rantings."

However, I strongly suspect that, if the circulation of that journal were measured by what the readers of Prince William County wanted ("right-wing" vs. "left-wing"), Floars would never have re-upped in the first place.

No comments: