This post is sure to bring out the cranks in Megan's audience.
And yes, she is citing Wikipedia as the basis for her arguments on whether or not participation in Social Security is voluntary.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The differences between Megan and Jonah Goldberg are dwindling by the day
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Perhaps already covered, but MM highlights the "comment of the week" to the effect that people are afraid to discuss the possibility that racial prejudice is justified, with the ass covering caveat that the commenter hopes this is not the case.
She is clearly determined to push this line as far as possible. My challenge, which I have emailed, is that if this is to be her missioin, to "examine" the factual bases for prejudice, why not address other commonly held views. Perhaps that Jewish Americans pull the strings of American foreign policy. Or that homosexuals are promiscuous and serve as vectors and reservoirs for STDs. Or that unmarried women pushing 40 stand next to no chance of getting married.
I can think of no greater example of the absolute need for affirmative action than MM's continued race-baiting. The Atlantic's lily-whiteness is at the root of MM's ability to foist her jabbering nonsense on the world. African Americans are fair game. I have a strong suspicion Jewish Americans and Gay Americans are not.
You moron. She's not citing wikipedia. She read the cites from Wikipedia and offered a conditional interpretation, all couched under a 'beware wikipedia's dodgy reliability' title.
See, this is why you guys are stalkers rather than critics. You deliberately misread and misrepresent in order to spin the worst.
Post a Comment