The Philadelphia Inquirer - controlling both sides of the debate

With characteristic chutzpah (labeling his column “Center Square”) and inadvertently admitting a shortcoming most people on the far side of City Line Avenue have known for years (“balance”), the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Chris Satullo announced over the weekend that the Inquirer is hiring a “conservative” columnist (Great leap rightward? Nah, just finding balance, Jan 15). Eh? What’s this?

Not to worry - he’s a neo-conservative - i.e. a liberal who thinks it just fine to make war for the purpose of crushing another foreign nation under global capitalism - and that gives the Inquirer the right to call him a “conservative.” Jonathan V. Last is a columnist for the Weekly Standard - the official organ of American neo-conservatism. These are the people who invented the Pentagon’s Office of Special Projects when the CIA refused to whisper their lies into the ear of President Bush. They’re the ones who got us into Afghanistan and Iraq and coming soon (their next big project), Iran.

I don’t think the Inquirer cares about most Americans - but to most of us, “conservative” is someone who thinks homosexual marriage is not such a good idea for society to sanction; that faith should be sacred rather than the object of mockery; that building your politics around abortion is immature, morbid, and slightly fanatical; that women should be protected; families with mothers and fathers are a good thing for society; that wars should be to defend hearth and home - not spread ideology; and that maybe it’s time Israel started making peace with its neighbors instead of wars which always seem to cost American lives; that shared spirit and ancestry trump ideology every time - and every one of those beliefs has no place in The Weekly Standard.

Controlling both sides of the debate - that’s how the Inquirer thinks it wins. We aren’t fooled. The Inquirer doesn’t speak for us and we still won’t subscribe.

http://www.amconmag.com/