Today in Stupidity in the Post (Shome Redundancy, Shurely?)
I don't normally read the Post, but I needed something to wipe dog shit off my shoes, and the hotel had it for free.
Anyway, I made the massive error of reading the letters page. Normally, this is sort of like sending an engraved RSVP c/o Hypertension, but it seems to have just gotten to the point where it's not worth bothering anymore. Aside from the normal idiocy ("Yay Isreal! Wooo! Nothing they do is EVER wrong!" could be the paper's sub head) and the Letter of the Day being from a dad who cries and who thinks that because the Taliban don't respect human rights, they don't deserve human rights (please point out the fallacy in that argument), they also had a drive by on the Liberal party by some shmuck.
The best part was this. In paragraph two, the writer expounds on how the Liberals have shifted policies over the past 75 years. He takes them to task for this, because apparently ideological rigidity over a three-quarter decade period is admirable.
Then, as he's wrapping up, he complains about the younger members of the party and that they were drawn into the party by "the promise of running the country without the risk of proposing new ideas".
Okay, dude. Either you can write a screed saying they're inconsistent and keep coming up with new ideas, OR you can try to argue that they never have new ideas. But is it too much to ask that you try to be a little consistent yourself within the same idea dump? Try to keep your talking points straight.
What do they put in the water up in North York? Is it just laziness? Did he cut and paste from the wrong base file?
Anyway, I made the massive error of reading the letters page. Normally, this is sort of like sending an engraved RSVP c/o Hypertension, but it seems to have just gotten to the point where it's not worth bothering anymore. Aside from the normal idiocy ("Yay Isreal! Wooo! Nothing they do is EVER wrong!" could be the paper's sub head) and the Letter of the Day being from a dad who cries and who thinks that because the Taliban don't respect human rights, they don't deserve human rights (please point out the fallacy in that argument), they also had a drive by on the Liberal party by some shmuck.
The best part was this. In paragraph two, the writer expounds on how the Liberals have shifted policies over the past 75 years. He takes them to task for this, because apparently ideological rigidity over a three-quarter decade period is admirable.
Then, as he's wrapping up, he complains about the younger members of the party and that they were drawn into the party by "the promise of running the country without the risk of proposing new ideas".
Okay, dude. Either you can write a screed saying they're inconsistent and keep coming up with new ideas, OR you can try to argue that they never have new ideas. But is it too much to ask that you try to be a little consistent yourself within the same idea dump? Try to keep your talking points straight.
What do they put in the water up in North York? Is it just laziness? Did he cut and paste from the wrong base file?