The Freedom Bulletin

Each December I like to do a recap of the year’s notable people and events. This year, the format is going to be a little different than previous years. Instead of giving “awards” in different categories, I’m naming my top 10 people of the year. Below are the 10 most influential, important, and interesting individuals of 2008. The people on my list can be from local, national, or international news. Whether or not I like and agree with someone is a factor in determining whether or not they make it onto the list, but it is not a requirement. Listed in order of a combination of importance, goodness, and uniqueness, here are the Imperial Bulletin’s Top 10 People of 2008:

1. Sarah Palin
2. Ron Paul
3. Carla Howell
4. Bob Barr
5. Barack Obama
6. Neil Entwistle
7. John McCain
8. Michael Phelps
9. The Boston Celtics
10. George W. Bush

I was reading the Wikipedia article on political parties in the United States, and it seems like someone has an awfully weird idea of the political spectrum. In the chart comparing the five main parties, it says that both the Green Party and Democratic Party are center-left, the Libertarian Party rejects the political spectrum entirely, the Republican Party is center-right, and the Constitution Party is right-wing. Okay, in what universe is the Green Party center-left? The Green Party is far-left, at least as left as the Constitution Party is right. Just because most of Europe is skewed to the left politically doesn’t mean that left is now center.

How tolerant and accepting liberals are. Not! 

They just took over the presidency, the Senate, and the House, and now they’re throwing fits because Obama picked one slightly conservative person to speak for a few seconds at his inauguration. Obama’s choice of pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration was a gesture of inclusion and a way of saying that Obama actually values conservatives. Now, liberals are saying Obama’s choice was bigoted because Warren opposes gay marriage. Apparently, being inclusive means doing whatever it takes to avoid anything that might even remotely be considered offensive to gays and lesbians, even if it means completely excluding all conservatives. Well, I think that conservatives are just as important as gays and lesbians. I approve of Obama’s decision to bring some actual diversity to his inauguration by choosing someone conservative. A group of people who all think identically and believe the exact same things isn’t very diverse.

On another note, Merry Christmas!

Until the other day, I never knew much about the League of Women Voters. I just assumed they were a nonpartisan organization that supported the Nineteenth Amendment (giving women the right to vote) and now are kind of obsolete and support non-controversial things like making sure everyone gets the opportunity to vote. Well, was I ever wrong! I had no idea, until I visited their website, that the LWV of Massachusetts is the most left-wing organization I have ever heard of.

The first thing I saw was the following notice:

“Thank you to all who helped defeat Ballot Question 1!”

Okay, so they have no concept of private ownership of property. Great. But the horror got worse. They have no concept of the Constitution either. Under “Where We Stand,” they list all the things they support. For “Handgun control,” they write:

“Elimination of the private possession of handguns and assault weapons.”

Noooooooooooo!!!!! I have never heard of any organization that has ever publicly held such an anti-gun position. It horrifies me that an American organization would directly oppose the Second Amendment. But IT GETS WORSE. Under “Citizen rights,” the LWV writes:

“Protection of basic constitutional rights.”

WHAT ON EARTH???? I don’t think I even need to point out that these two statements directly contradict each other. Thomas Jefferson must be rolling in his grave. Apparently no members of the LWV are aware that the Second Amendment is a part of the Constitution. The LWV gives the rape advocate on BostonHerald.com from my earlier post a run for her money as the biggest hypocrite on Earth.

So, in short, to say that the LWV is left-wing is the biggest understatement ever. They make MoveOn.org look right-wing and make Obama look like a Republican. I am disgusted and horrified by their hypocritical, anti-freedom views.

Columnist Yvonne Abraham of the Boston Globe wrote a great column today about online comments and how mean they often are. I am inclined to agree. It’s a well-known fact that people are less inhibited when they don’t have to give their real names or speak to people face to face. This can be a good thing. Many people, myself included, are shy and don’t always feel comfortable saying our real opinions in real life, so the Internet gives us an opportunity that we otherwise wouldn’t have to share our views.

Other people are just plain mean. I am a nice person and would never be cruel to an innocent person, regardless of what other people think of me or whether I would be punished. Not everyone is like this, however. Apparently, there are a large number of people who only act civilly in real life because of the social consequences. When they are on the Internet and there are fewer consequences, these people become completely barbaric, cruel, and abusive. Many (not all) people who comment on news websites fall into this category.

Additionally, most (again, not all) use terrible grammar, spelling, and punctuation, have no original thoughts, and are illogical. It seems that the stupider someone is, the meaner that person is. For example, it seems that almost everyone in the universe (or at least in Massachusetts) hates George W. Bush and Sarah Palin and posts comments online insulting them. What’s the point in saying you hate Bush or Palin if about 100 other people have already said it in the comments on the same article? As another example, there is a person on BostonHerald.com who regularly posts about how great and hilarious it would be if Neil Entwistle was raped in prison and once criticized Entwistle’s lawyer for having defended rape suspects!!! If that isn’t hypocritical, I don’t know what is.

Yvonne Abraham says that the Globe tries to get rid of profane and abusive comments but that some always slip through. Well, the Globe is doing a lot better than the Herald! I’d say that at least 50% of comments on the Herald’s articles are vicious and brainless, and contribute nothing to the “discussion.” I have reported abusive comments numerous times and not one has ever been deleted. The Herald seems to make no effort whatsoever to keep the quality of discourse at an acceptable level. Abuse of innocent people seems to be fine to them.

Both the Globe and the Herald have added the ability to leave comments on articles fairly recently. I actually enjoyed both sites more before they enabled comments. I hardly ever comment on other websites, because I don’t want to interact with vicious bullies. For me, at least, the availability of comments doesn’t improve my experience at all, and some of the comments make me so horrified that my experience is much worse than it would be otherwise. News sites should monitor their comments much more closely, or even better, not allow them in the first place.