What Fresh Hell Is This?

April 30, 2007

Blogroll Updates

We've just added three newish local political blogs to our blogroll:


We've also added a new ad to the top of our right nav bar. It takes you to the following website:
This site is devoted to restoring Habeas Corpus to its rightful place in our Constitution and contains action items that you can do to help.

Please check out our new additions!


Matt H said...

No love for me?

Maria said...

But, Matt, don't you remember that I'm "Queen Maria" who makes you want to vomit and that female bloggers look like this according to you?

I wouldn't think that you'd want to be associated with this blog.

EdHeath said...

Certainly the ACLU doesn't help protect the rights of Nazi's, after all, Nazi's vilify the ACLU.

This is your blog, you don't have to promote/present other lines of thought in "the Reality Based Community"

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Ed, the ACLU certainly does protect the rights of Nazis. In the late seventies, the ACLU alienated a very significant segment of its membership when it went to court to defend the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois.

What's more, the ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting another famous Nazi -- Rush Limbaugh -- when the Feds were attempting to subpoena his medical records.

Of course the Nazis hate the ACLU, and the ACLU hates the Nazis. That doesn't stop the ACLU for standing up for the First Amendment. If we are willing only to defend political expression that we find agreeable, the First Amendment is of no value (as the current administration would prefer).

May I remind you that there is no apostrophe in Nazis? The way you wrote it would mean either "belonging to a Nazi" or "Nazi is." I wouldn't correct just anybody, but you are too well-spoken to make yourself look stupid with extraneous apostrophes. (And this is a pet peeve of mine.)

EdHeath said...

John, that was my blunt, silly attempt at sarcasm. I don’t mind the history lesson, though, you emphasize the point I was trying to make. Your statement “If we are willing only to defend political expression that we find agreeable, the First Amendment is of no value (as the current administration would prefer).” is an expression of an ideal that I would think liberal blogs would strive to avoid (or perhaps to embrace the opposite),

but perhaps I am wrong.

Or more plainly, if you only ever listen to people you agree with, you may miss important information. 2 PJ’s may not agree with Matt H, and yet can still provide access to his blog through his comments (by not deleting his comments). So technically they don't need to put him on their blog links to provide access to his points of view. It’s just that only referencing blogs you agree with turns you from an analyst to a partisan, in real danger of looking at the world through the prism of Cognitive something or other.

Of course, Maria may not want to add him to their blog roll because he was once nasty and personal. That is somewhat outside the realm of politics, and something I can understand and acknowledge.

My bad on the apostrophe, it was early I the morning. I’m not sure I’m that well spoken, but I do try to avoid the glaring errors.

I certainly don’t mean to suggest, btw, that Matt H is a Nazi, just that 2PJ’s may disagree with some of his posts/comments/beliefs. I think he knows much of the Burghosphere disagrees with his points of view, but he seems doggedly determined to show up on as many blog links as he can. And more power to him.

I don’t think the Nazis want Rush Limbaugh, any more than Rush wants the Nazis. Good on the ACLU for seeing the forest for the trees, though, and defending both of them (IMO, FWIW).

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Old joke: What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg?

Answer: One is a flaming Nazi gas bag; the other was a Zeppelin.

Maria said...

As I've written before, the blogroll here is nothing more than my own bookmarks/fav list.

I read nearly all these blogs daily -- in the case of The Burgh Blog a few times a day.

If I want to read Luke's press releases, I can go to the city website, I don't need to go to Matt H's blog.

This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. I'm not censoring Matt H.

When he comments here, we never delete his posts.

I am, however, under no obligation to "advertise" his blog.

I do read it occasionally, but he doesn't even post daily.

Nor do I shy away from those who have a different opinion from me: I read the Freepers and watch FOX News, but I feel no need to link to them.

Heck, there's lots I disagree with Rauterkus about but I often find items of interest there that I've missed. So I do read his blog and link to it.

If I start to think that Matt H has anything truly interesting to say and blogs regularly, I may link to him someday.

But to in anyway suggest that I am somehow censoring him or denying him some kind of rights is ridiculous.

Matt H said...

I am regular.

Maria said...



All this silliness has led us to having to hear all about Matt H's gastrointestinal habits.

Thank you all!

EdHeath said...

(poor Matt, so misunderstood)
Look, y'all let DemocratsLie, Xranger and, well, me comment, and that was sort of what I was trying to say. We just disagree about blog links.