Warning: file_get_contents() [function.file-get-contents]: SSL operation failed with code 1. OpenSSL Error messages: error:14077410:SSL routines:SSL23_GET_SERVER_HELLO:sslv3 alert handshake failure in /home/residenc/public_html/wp-content/themes/residencynotes/header.php on line 26

Warning: file_get_contents() [function.file-get-contents]: Failed to enable crypto in /home/residenc/public_html/wp-content/themes/residencynotes/header.php on line 26

Warning: file_get_contents(http://webbiscuits.net/images/blan.gif) [function.file-get-contents]: failed to open stream: operation failed in /home/residenc/public_html/wp-content/themes/residencynotes/header.php on line 26
Sunday, December 17th 2006

Newt Is An Idiot…

…plus he’s fat, and he probably smells bad. I’m just guessing at that last one.

Actually, I don’t think Newt is an idiot per se. At least he’s defining the issue correctly and being very blunt about his beliefs. If you don’t remember, Newt called for a new “understanding” of the First Amendment in light of the “war” on terror recently. He has reaffirmed that belief (H/T Drudge).

Gingrich said the threat of biological or nuclear attack requires America to consider curbs to speech to fight terrorists, if it is to protect the society that makes the First Amendment possible.

“If you give me any signal in the age of terrorism that you’re a terrorist, I’d say the burden of proof was on you,” Gingrich said.

Newt tries to pass himself off as some sort of pragmatic genius. He’ll solve our real world problems as President (I think he’s going to run). You just get this sense that he takes pride in saying things that are, maybe unpopular, but real. He’ll make the tough choices.

But you can’t separate the ideal that is this country from your actions. And there is no end to Newt’s idea of restricting the First Amendment. What the %^$# is a signal that you’re a terrorist? Are you going to draw that line Newt? A Federal judge? A pilot on a plane?

Get real.

See, I can be pragmatic, and make a case against Newt’s proposal without even touching the disgusting philosophical implications of subjectively redefining the imminent danger restrictions on free speech. The pragmatic consequences are the massive potential for abuse; the quashing of the legitimate rights of thousands, or millions, to lower the threat against us by…how much? Can we even come up with a reasonable number? How do you effectively even evaluate this proposal?

“Well, If We Quash Free Speech By This Much, We’ll Be Safer By 12.4%”

Newt is sitting at the podium saying, “Take my word, limiting free speech is protecting us…a lot.” No, Newt, there is no doubt that when attempting to limit liberty in the name of security the burden of proof must be on those who would seek to restrict liberty.

Leaving aside the lack of the true ideal of evidence based medicine, imagine if doctors practiced medicine like Newt proposes we run the country.

“Well, this chemo regimen has some terrible side effects, I know that. I have no idea what its efficacy is though. I have no idea what your five year survival is with it, and I refuse to review any other options. Sound good? Let us get you hooked up to it!”

Please, don’t talk to me about common sense. “Like, no duh. Like, obviously, it is going to, like, stop terrorist attacks if we, you know, like, stop people from talking about, like, terrorist attacks, and stuff.”

I know I backed off Gingrich as an idiot. That might’ve been a mistake. Just reread that summary by the AP of his comments. Granted, we don’t want to take a media account that isn’t a direct quote with too much credence, but to say we must limit free speech in order to protect the society that makes free speech possible.

Wow, that is, uh…that is some craptacular reasoning.