I spent a part of last week deciding what my next step would be in response to Ed Weaver's column where I was mentioned by name a dozen times. My final decision was to let it ride. Honestly, I wasn't real upset about it so I laughed it off. After consulting with some friends who read the article, they all had the same reaction, "I wasn't sure what he was trying to say." So, with that in mind, I figure that most people probably thought the same thing. Therefore, moving on like nothing happened would be my best course of action. And, I hope, the most irritating to him!
Now, on to this week's column. Blah, blah, blah, troop surge, blah, blah, blah, Kerry and Pelosi bad, blah, blah, blah, how dare Democrats browbeat Condi, blah, blah, blah.
...— and this is just conjecture, I admit — that the Democrats will raise the minimum wage at a much sharper rate than they now propose, hope for a quick inflation rise and blame it on the president's tax cuts.This really shows the level of this guy's paranoia. I guess it's one thing to run scenarios through your head as part of the thought process. The difference between him and most others is that we identify the unreasonable ideas and discard them...but he puts them in print.
Ed Weaver's column appears every Saturday in The Record newspaper in Troy, NY. I'd say he's a right-wing conservative, but all indications are that he's even whackier than that. His views are so skewed, and based in a reality that I don't even recognize, that I think he sees the world through fun house mirrors, only it isn't funny. He's proof of the theory that hindsight is 20/20, only his vision is 20/100...20 for those things that support his views, 100 for those that don't.
Previous Posts:
1.6.07 || 12.30.06 || 12.23.06 || 12.16.06
12.9.06 || 12.2.06 || 11.25.06 || 11.18.06 || 11.11.06 || 11.4.06
10.28.06 || 10.17.06 || 10.10.06 || 10.3.06 || 9.26.06 || 9.19.06
2 comments:
Interesting. I read the exchange in question here on your blog. You do an excellent job rebutting this bafoon, but I'm surprised that you did not point out that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks whatsoever. This guy has obviously fallen for the erroneous PR pitch by the administration that it did.
It has been proven time and again that there was not one Iraqi involved in those attacks. Not one. This is a matter of fact and public record and has been for a couple years now. It's not a matter of debate or interpretation. How does this guy have a newspaper column and is so ill-informed of the most basic facts?
Oh, don't I know it! That's why I starting blogging about him and every now and then, when I have a particularly persuasive argument, I condense it, tone it down a bit, and send it in. My record is pretty good...I'm 2 for 2 on getting published!
I think he will be for Bush's plan long after Bush has abandoned it. There's no convincing folks like this but I can do my little part to call bullshit on him and present a thoughtful other side.
Post a Comment