First he was a star, then a wife beater, and now is his chance for a new start. Paul Henry had to resign for what he said*, and Veitch resigned for what he did. Both crimes earn a life sentence in some circles. I wonder where our readers stand?
Do you think Tony Veitch should be goose-stepped off the airwaves by the third Reitch** of lefty/liberal public opinion, or should he be given a chance? Has he paid his debt to society or are the penalty interest rates still applying?
A timely question, given the interesting connection Lindsay made about other types of Jockeys and Trevor Mallard representative of the left. And also a general observation about liberals, conservatives and libertarians:
*Or did Paul Henry have to resign for what he thought. What, punishment for thought crimes? Is it legal for me to suggest this?
**OK, I know Veitch and Reich is an example of illiteration rather than alliteration, but I don't care.
Do you think Tony Veitch should be goose-stepped off the airwaves by the third Reitch** of lefty/liberal public opinion, or should he be given a chance? Has he paid his debt to society or are the penalty interest rates still applying?
A timely question, given the interesting connection Lindsay made about other types of Jockeys and Trevor Mallard representative of the left. And also a general observation about liberals, conservatives and libertarians:
..One of the biggest disagreements between the political left and right is their conflicting notions of fairness. Across many surveys and experiments, we find that liberals think about fairness in terms of equality, whereas conservatives think of it in terms of karma. In our survey for YourMorals.org, we asked Americans how much they agreed with a variety of statements about fairness and liberty, including this one: "Ideally, everyone in society would end up with roughly the same amount of money." Liberals were evenly divided on it, but conservatives and libertarians firmly rejected it.Conservatives, liberals and libertarians
*Or did Paul Henry have to resign for what he thought. What, punishment for thought crimes? Is it legal for me to suggest this?
**OK, I know Veitch and Reich is an example of illiteration rather than alliteration, but I don't care.
I certainly will be avoiding Tony Veitch on the airwaves.
ReplyDeleteThere's no such thing as "fairness". To make it the focus of any endeavour is an exercise in futility. It's something only brain damaged leftists are usually preoccupied with.
ReplyDeleteWell, I'd certainly love to see him goose-stepped off the airwaves by media companies that don't want to inflict obnoxious, intellectually-challenged loudmouths on the listening public - but that's probably too much to ask for.
ReplyDeleteRedbaiter - indeed, I think that was the point. In looking at the concept of fairness, conservatives are looking at it from the point of view of justice and consequences. Liberals, on the other hand view it as equality.
ReplyDeletePsycho Milt - not too much to hope for given Paul Henry went quietly into the long dark night (well, quietly compared to Chris Carter, and long dark nights in the media business can extend through to an entire season)
Interesting that no producers want to work with him - and not because of the scandal.
ReplyDeleteI said back when:
Game of two halves is funny. But it seems to be a reflection of many under 50′s people, particularly men, who simply refuse to act with maturity and self control. You know the ones – still running around in their 30s and 40s in the same irresponsible and self gratifying way that they did when they were 20. It’s an attitude that many on benefits share, leaving their children in the hands of their parents while they drink and do drugs.
...
And Veitch’s actions, in my opinion, fall directly out of that attitude.
Redbaiter - indeed, I think that was the point.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I did actually get it. As I said on Mitch's site...
"Fairness" to me is a completely imaginary concept. That leftists spend so much time pursuing it is symptomatic of their separation from reality. I feel Libertarians pursue their own perception of Liberty in much the same way. What both leftists and Libertarians want cannot be achieved because both objectives are underpinned by an irrational doctrine.
Conservatism is not supported by that kind of unrealistic dogma. It existed in America and the UK for a long time and only fell into disrepair in the 1900's under the seeping infiltration of the left. Government steadily grew and Conservatism fell under attack.
Conservatism's objective can be reached (again) by the simple expedient of de-funding and shrinking government. This is a practical objective that requires no belief in anything spiritual, biblical or doctrinal.
Do away with big government and its cushioning of immorality, and wrong doers are forced to face reality. Its that simple.
That is why the focus of the fight against today's totalitarian socialist condition has to be focused on that one objective. (or two objectives if you like) Cutting the size of government and cutting government spending.
Concern with any other objective is a waste of time and resources.
As a radio sport man I am happy that Tony V is back. He is one of the top two or three sports reporters on that station so on the one hand that is good.
ReplyDeleteBut does that make it right that he is back? For me I believe every person deserves a second chance but that has to be earned and only in certain areas.