~ we aren’t allowed to comment on cafe tableaux [w], but there are some fallacies in a recent comment about their review for double shots espresso bar which deserve a small bit of our attention:

(errors from original post) “Hmm, I frequent this shop quite often and there doesn”t seem to be any books DISPLAYED but many are on some bookshelves along with many other works. WiFi is FREE and I use it for school work quite often but I guess if you stayed more than the 12 seconds you would have found that out. Maybe one should not be so quick to make judgements about books considering we all do have the right of freedom of speech (just like the freedom to write our thoughts online)” –shawn

» thos [w] wasn’t ‘quick’ with his judgment about the ‘drudge manifesto’; he was aware of the politics of drudge before entering the cafe, so there was no judgment about the material being made on the spot. thomas had long known the text to be partisan, kool-aid propaganda.

more importantly, the fact that there is such a thing as ‘freedom of speech’ does not absolve anyone from being judged. the conceptual gap between your whining that drudge should not be judged and your ‘defense’ of free speech is large enough to roll an f-150 through it. nothing is more embarrassing than seeing someone cry about their right to expression by bitching when someone else expresses a contrary view. shawn and drudge have the freedom to say or write whatever they want, and thos has the right to tear their drivel a new one.

in any event, at no time did thos claim that drudge did not have the right to espouse drivel; thos stated that he did not desire to ‘support a cafe that displays…Drudge’. the difference between these positions can not be made more clear.

» when a book is placed in the center of a shelf with its face turned to the room whilst every other book shows only the spine, that qualifies as a ‘prominent display’

» thos looked up double shots online at the time of review; they state that wireless access requires payment.

~ a discussion o’er at jawk [w] resonates with some earlier off hand comments made on the angry red planet upon hearing that the south dakota legislature has passed a bill which would require that doctors who perform abortions be fined and imprisoned for ending a ‘life’. no one who’s not as dumb as a stump fails to understand that the law is a gimmick to push the argument over which gov’ts, state or federal, has the authority, if anyone does, to interfere in women’s personal health. what if ‘we’ let them have south dakota? ignore the unconstitutional law and throw rights to the dogs in that welfare state; let safety and health of women in that state collapse, so that it can be preserved in the other forty-nine (49). they asked for it. lest some hapless woman who didn’t ask for it be abandoned to the dangers of child bearing in south dakota, take the millions of dollars that would have been blown in court cases and spend them on relocation of all those ladies to new york, california, and (maybe) oregon. what if evangelicals threw a party and we only let the dipshits turn up?

~

the huffster was stolen!?

‘enter trek 820: 02.2006’

‘rip: 6.2005-2.2006’

~ green line quote: “pronunciation is my for-tay”