One Sided "Civility" is really just "Censorship"

Advocate of Violence
Frances Fox Piven and the New York Times's dishonest campaign for "civility."

[...] They may not agree with what you say, but they'll fight to the death for your right to remain silent.

And the New York Times will cheer them on in that fight. Why is a newspaper that has been posturing as the scourge of violent rhetoric now siding with a purveyor of such rhetoric, and blatantly slanting the news as it does so? Because her opponent is a prominent media figure from outside the old media establishment. Because Glenn Beck is a threat to the authority of the New York Times. [...]

Read the details, and weep. Talk about twisting things.

When civility is demanded from only one political side, how is that any different from censorship? Someone please explain it to the NY Times.


Also see:

HEARD OF PROFESSORS CLOWARD AND PIVEN?
     

Is the Troop Surge Really Working in Iraq?

The recent soccer victory isn't the only good news coming out of Iraq. Some noted critics of the Iraq war are starting to play a different tune about the surge:

Stop the presses! NYT says we may win war in Iraq!

This post by Pat at "Born Again Redneck" is not only about the NYT article, but also links to another article that explains why president Bush's long term strategy for the Middle East is wise. Pat gives us great excerpts from both articles, along with his sensible commentary too, check it out.