Ever notice how the stereotypical newspaper op-ed columnist will harp
on a topic repeatedly, but not come to any conclusion? That is a demonstration
of the lack of philosophy and principle that characterizes modern journalism.
Take newpaper columnist Dan Ruth (please, take him). Ruth ridicules the owners
of a professional football team and the government's multimillion dollar
"deal" that resulted in new taxes for a socialized football stadium.
But anyone who is mildly libertarian notes that Ruth never pens any clear
opposition to new taxes for socialized stadiums and Ruth doesn't call for
an end to government ownership of the stadium.
Here is an excerpt from a Ruth column:
Next up was the chap from the BBC London, who also apparently had done an
Internet search and discovered that this space and the Glazers have shared
nearly 10 years of bliss rivaling Jonathan and Liz Alpert's love affair that
makes the "Taming of the Shrew" look like Nick and Nora Charles.
"Let me see if I have this straight,'' the BBC reporter asked. "The citizens of Tampa built a stadium for him?''
"Yep.''
"That's incredible. Nothing like that would ever happen here, and we're a socialist country.''
How is it possible that Ruth can write the above, yet
Ruth does not oppose the fact that taxes are used to build stadiums, rather,
Ruth simply thinks the stadium “deal” with the current owners was “unfair.”
(Ruth has made this glaring omission so many times that this columnist has
stopped paying attention -if anyone knows whether Ruth has ever publicly
stated opposition in principle to taxes for sports and/or government-owned
stadiums, and for ending government ownership of sports venues, then please
alert me). Ruth simply engages in personal ad hominem attacks on particular
persons, and cannot think philosophically about the issue at hand.
That's as good as it gets
with the stereotypical “journalist” today. Everyone is left to wonder
whether he/she would be any better off if Ruth's idea of a "perfect stadium
deal" had been enacted into law. Under Ruth's vague vision, the government
would be even more involved then it is now. In other words, (and Ruth
always fails to see or address this issue) Ruth would have a stadium deal
that was even more socialistic than what already exists. The government
would be even MORE involved in private enterprise, the economy, the “special
interests” (as Ruth calls them). Does Ruth evade the obvious
question of his stand on taxes for a socialized stadium because Ruth hides
the unseemly hypocrisy of his own views. Does he support taxes for
government-owned venues for professional sports? Is Ruth a socialistic
sports nerd?
The media prove that the separation sport and state is
as important as the separation of church and state. The media prove
that the separation of school and state is as important as the separation
of church and state. The media prove that government schools are unconstitutional
under the 1st Amendment as a violation of free speech and a free (intelligent)
press.