Ill Logic...
I’m not sure how MSNBC's latest talk show host Joe Scarborough ever got to be a member of Congress or how he got a TV show. He seems to be as clueless and narrowly right wing as O’Reilly.
Oh wait…that must be why he got the job.
Never mind.
Anyway, last night he had on a woman named Sumer Rose who had written a short sex article (about 'nooners') in a college newspaper - The Daily Mississippian - that has cause yet another firestorm.
Joe wanted to know why she would write an article about sex when an institute of higher learning should stay away from such subjects. Sharing his views and on the other side of the debate from Sumer was that famous sheltered 16th century thinker Rev Don Wildmon who agreed that sex had no place in the University. (Transcript here - scoll awile)
Here’s part of what Sumer wrote:
Nooner - a quickie with your significant other at lunchtime, or anytime for that matter. It's brilliant and much less obvious than saying quickie when talking in public.
You make a phone call on your way home to tell your boyfriend or girlfriend to meet you at the house for a midday romp in the sheets.
It's more fun than making a sandwich, and it definitely leaves you feeling more satisfied.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with an afternoon booty call.
[She concludes by writing]
Daytime sex puts you in a good mood, makes you feel awesome and makes working not so much like work.
It's like you're getting away with something, even though there's nothing wrong with it.
So screw class, go home and screw instead.
The article is funny and a little bit liberating - in a 1950's kind of way - since she deals with a few taboos - mainly writing about the enjoyment of sex. I suspect the reason there is a firestorm over this is because the article was written by a woman in the South.
But Joe had another issue in mind. He grilled her about responsibility with regards to the taxpayer dollars that go to pay for the printing of the newspaper - because, after all, the tax payers of Mississippi (all of them) are certain to be offended by a University newspaper using their precious taxpayer dollars to write about sex.
At the end of the segment Joe said: Again, I believe everybody has got the First Amendment right to say what they want and write what they want. I just don’t want, as a taxpayer, to have to pay for it.
At this point I was ready to put by foot through the TV screen but since it wasn't my TV I restrained myself.
What Joe is saying - if we take this to a logic conclusion - is that no one on the right or the left has a right to First Amendment protections if tax payer dollars are being used in any capacity at a University. Which is basically another way of saying no one at the University can say or do anything that might be construed as controversial.
What's clear here also is that Joe either doesn't understand compromise and representation over tax payer dollars (which is very odd considering he was a member of The House of Representatives) or he doesn’t really agree with the First Amendment when it protects those he disagrees with.
I suspect both.
Either way as long as he keeps pumping triffling stories such as these and blowing them out of proportion I'm sure he'll keep his job for a while.


