Monday, September 12, 2005


Mark Tapscott of the Heritage Foundation wants an Apology.

In response to my "Bush Hides New Orleans Dead" posting; The Heritage Foundation's Mark Tapscott wrote the following:

The Reuters piece failed to include the second part of my quote in which I said that some big stories require showning dead bodies in order to convey fully the magnitude of the event. The issue then is not if to show the bodies but whether it will be done sensationally or with dignity and respect.
# posted by Mark Tapscott : 12:31 PM

The Reuters piece was about FEMA preventing journalists from reporting a story. You tried to defend FEMA by stating that it wasn’t censorship, but decency that was motivating FEMA. Your “missing quote” doesn’t address your defense of FEMA restricting press access. I believe you defended FEMA because you have your head up President Bush’s ass, and the best argument you could come up with was decency. But that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.

In addition, Mr. Tapscott wrote:

By the way, where exactly did you see me saying anything remotely like what you attribute to me with this sentence: "This from the same asshole who tells us that the 'Marketplace' should determine everything, unless it's damaging to the Bush Administration." Since you and I both know I've never said anything like that, your simple apology and correction will be sufficient.
# posted by Mark Tapscott : 12:33 PM

Just for the record: Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

One has to wonder with a mission statement like that what “traditional American values” the Foundation is trying to promote. Could it be the traditional value of a black man as 3/5ths of a person? Could it be the traditional American value of racism? (The Heritage Foundation’s cozy relationship with Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh would make one pause.) Could it be the traditional American value of women’s rights? Could it be the traditional American value of exploiting the poor for the benefit of the wealthy? But I digress…

In a perfect example of heartwarming free market perspective, the Heritage Foundation, before the dead have even been counted or buried, has declared that New Orleans should be declared an "Opportunity Zone" and tax credits and incentives should be used to help rebuild New Orleans. (Presumably it will be rebuilt for those who can afford to live there.) This is even more callous than Brit Hume. I wonder where your "decency" is now Mr. Tapscott?

Apparently Mr. Tapscott of the Heritage Foundation disagrees with the mission statement of the Heritage Foundation. In his post to our blog Mr. Tapscott indicated that he’s never said that the Marketplace should determine everything, even though the free market is the basis for 99% of the agenda of the Heritage Foundation, in my opinion. But if Mr. Tapscott is in fact a Social Democrat and believes that social ills are a community problem to be solved with compassion, respect and dignity and more than just the free market, then I do owe him an apology.

However, in my opinion, to paraphrase John Kenneth Galbraith "The Heritage Foundation is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for greed."

Oh no, you don't get off so easy - I want to know the specific source that was the basis for your attributing the following to me: "This from the same asshole who tells us that the 'Marketplace' should determine everything, unless it's damaging to the Bush Administration."

If you don't have such a source and we both know you don't, the only rectal opening involved in this situation is the one from which you pulled this fictious quote that you attributed to me.

Now I want to see that apology and correction, with no evasion, qualification or limitation.
Now I want to see that apology and correction, with no evasion, qualification, limitation or obfuscation.
That's deplorable, unfathomable, improbable.

It's an infringement on your constitutional rights. It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous.

That's totally inappropriate. It's lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous!
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?