Leftist language and logic

Nancy Pelosi told this to Jonathan Karl on ABCs This Week, April 30, just before she confused President Trump and President Bush:

I see everything as an opportunity. And I've never have seen [sic] so much willingness to help win. And winning means winning for the American people, that either we win or whoever wins understands the priorities of the American people.

What on this globe is she talking about?  For the monolithic media, being the leader of the House Democrats means never having to explain yourself, much less speak clearly.  But then, logic seems to be insurmountable for leftists these days.

It is one thing, however, for leftist logic to amount to mere gibberish.  It is quite another thing when the artfulness of leftist language betrays the intent to suppress individual liberty.

The New York Times on April 28 printed a letter said to be from an anthropology professor at a Midwest university.  The last paragraph of the letter, having to do with the cancelation of Ann Coulter's speaking appearance at the University of California, Berkeley, began: "Ann Coulter has had ample opportunity to express her opinions in public."  The letter continued: "It would be perverse to portray her as a victim of censorship simply because she cannot express her ideas on the Berkeley campus."  How did the anthropology professor come to this conclusion?

Earlier in the letter, the professor stated: "Free speech is meant to prevent censorship, to allow people to express any ideas in public, however unpopular or unsettling. It does not imply that these ideas must be expressed anywhere, anytime, under any conditions."

That the writer's logic seems rather out of joint is understandable, as his statement of the facts is equally convoluted.  He acknowledged, at the start of the letter, the "possibility of violence" in response to the Coulter appearance, adding that it was her "decision" not to speak at Berkeley.  It is, I believe, generally conceded that university officials acted to discourage the Coulter appearance in response to threats of violence from individuals having the rather skewed view of the concept of "free speech" shared by this anthropology professor, who complained in his letter, "Alas, the idea of free speech has progressively been expanded way beyond its original meaning."

The writer inserted one further point to hammer home his reasoning: "The New York Times, for example, is under no obligation to publish an outrageous and offensive letter in the name of 'free speech.'"

That statement is quite beside the point, the Times being under no obligation to print anyone's letters.  Clearly, however, the Times deemed it fit to print a letter from an anthropology professor that endorses a threat-of-violence veto by leftists over the free speech rights of conservatives.

I was tempted to conclude by inquiring: American Civil Liberties Union, where are you?  But what's the point?

Nancy Pelosi told this to Jonathan Karl on ABCs This Week, April 30, just before she confused President Trump and President Bush:

I see everything as an opportunity. And I've never have seen [sic] so much willingness to help win. And winning means winning for the American people, that either we win or whoever wins understands the priorities of the American people.

What on this globe is she talking about?  For the monolithic media, being the leader of the House Democrats means never having to explain yourself, much less speak clearly.  But then, logic seems to be insurmountable for leftists these days.

It is one thing, however, for leftist logic to amount to mere gibberish.  It is quite another thing when the artfulness of leftist language betrays the intent to suppress individual liberty.

The New York Times on April 28 printed a letter said to be from an anthropology professor at a Midwest university.  The last paragraph of the letter, having to do with the cancelation of Ann Coulter's speaking appearance at the University of California, Berkeley, began: "Ann Coulter has had ample opportunity to express her opinions in public."  The letter continued: "It would be perverse to portray her as a victim of censorship simply because she cannot express her ideas on the Berkeley campus."  How did the anthropology professor come to this conclusion?

Earlier in the letter, the professor stated: "Free speech is meant to prevent censorship, to allow people to express any ideas in public, however unpopular or unsettling. It does not imply that these ideas must be expressed anywhere, anytime, under any conditions."

That the writer's logic seems rather out of joint is understandable, as his statement of the facts is equally convoluted.  He acknowledged, at the start of the letter, the "possibility of violence" in response to the Coulter appearance, adding that it was her "decision" not to speak at Berkeley.  It is, I believe, generally conceded that university officials acted to discourage the Coulter appearance in response to threats of violence from individuals having the rather skewed view of the concept of "free speech" shared by this anthropology professor, who complained in his letter, "Alas, the idea of free speech has progressively been expanded way beyond its original meaning."

The writer inserted one further point to hammer home his reasoning: "The New York Times, for example, is under no obligation to publish an outrageous and offensive letter in the name of 'free speech.'"

That statement is quite beside the point, the Times being under no obligation to print anyone's letters.  Clearly, however, the Times deemed it fit to print a letter from an anthropology professor that endorses a threat-of-violence veto by leftists over the free speech rights of conservatives.

I was tempted to conclude by inquiring: American Civil Liberties Union, where are you?  But what's the point?