I'd Like to Solve the Puzzle, Pat

I had no idea, but it would appear that Pat "Buy a Vowel" Sajak has a blog. I guess after you spend decades of your life surrounded by the geniuses who can't quite figure out who ABRAHAM LIN_OLN is, some of that brilliance rubs off.

He's currently lamenting how closed-minded and awful liberals are. So much so, in fact, he can't even stomach having a conversation with any of us. Let's see what he has to say, shall we?

I was discussing the United Sates [sic] Supreme Court with on [sic] of my many Liberal friends out in Los Angeles when she said, without any discernable embarrassment, that Justice Anton Scalia was “worse than Hitler”. Realizing she wasn’t alive during World War II and perhaps she may have been absent on those days when her schoolmates were studying Nazism, I reminded her of some of Hitler’s more egregious crimes against humanity, suggesting she may have overstated the case. She had not; Scalia was worse.

Putting aside the concept of hyperbole (look it up, Pat), in this case you're right. Scalia is an unimaginable asshole, but he's no Hitler. You must be proud that no one on the right ever invokes Nazi imagery.

If a Conservative—one of the bad guys—complains about the content of music, films or television shows aimed at children, he is being a prude who wants to tell other people what to read or listen to or watch; he is a censor determined to legislate morality. If, however, a Liberal complains about speech and, in fact, supports laws against certain kinds of speech, it is right and good because we must be protected from this "hate speech" or "politically incorrect" speech.

Are there any laws preventing me from spreading hate propaganda? Aren't the KKK permitted to hold rallies in even the most liberal of cities? Don't people have bumper stickers saying things like, "Kill the towelheads" or whatever other insipid racist garbage? The answer is yes. On the other hand, if the conservatives had their way, our nation's artists would have to work with their hands tied behind their backs, doing the world a disservice. I liked Eyes Wide Shut, Pat. I don't think kids should be able to see it, but I'm happy that it was made available to me. Furthermore, limiting speech in any fashion is (oh no, not Hitler again!) a step down the road to fascism. When people start making decisions about what gets to be said, and what cannot be said, it opens the door for corrupt politicians to limit what can be said about them and their policies.

Protests about Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor and self-proclaimed Native American,

Self-proclaimed? What does that mean? Who else is going to proclaim?

who, among other things, likened some Sept. 11 victims to Adolf Eichmann (there go those pesky Nazis again), were characterized by much of the Left as an effort to stifle academic freedom. But, when Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers’ job is put in jeopardy over a caveat-filled musing about science and gender, it’s okay, because what he said was sooo wrong (even if it has to be mis-characterized to make the point).

Well, I don't feel as qualified as you to speak for all liberals, Pat, but I didn't think there was anything wrong with what Mr. Summers said either. In any case, I think that had more to do with the preconceived notion of a pattern of sexism at Harvard in the first place. The woman who had to leave to room to barf, on the other hand - she's a whackjob.

When Liberals want to legislate what you’re allowed to drive or what you should eat or how much support you can give to a political candidate or what you can or can’t say, they are doing it for altruistic reasons. The excesses of the Left are to be excused because these folks operate from the higher moral ground and the benefit of the greater wisdom and intelligence gained from that perspective.

Allowed to drive - protect the environment, stop funding terrorist cells, and save people from needless death at the hands of tank-sized killing machines. What to eat - agribusiness is killing people with tainted food; lackluster enforcement of pesky rules like not covering up mad cow disease; pumping our food full of dangerous chemicals and high fructose corn syrup creating a health crisis not seen since the plague, not to mention fatass lazy kids; the cruel factory farms are poisoning drinking water and air, destroying people's property values and quality of life. How much support you can give a candidate - a) isn't it the McCain (R)/Feingold (D) bill? b) there is rampant corruption in our government, all due to outrageous corporate contributions to candidates with a tacit policy of quid pro quo. Try to remember, Pat - money is money, not speech.

In a different West Coast conversation, I complained to another Liberal friend about some of the Left’s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those "red state" voters caricatured as red-necked rubes. My friend asked, "Well, don’t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?" It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt.

While the term "red-necked rubes" is pointless invective, the fact is that the red-staters voted against their own interests, and it was studied at length in the PIPA Report that the people who voted for Bush were, by a wide margin, much more likely to be misinformed on most major issues. To name one, directly out of this report - 57% of Bush voters think we found WMD in Iraq, compared to 23% of Kerry voters. (Just in case you're unclear, Pat - there were no WMD.) So yes, to answer your question, I believe that having accurate facts makes me more qualified to make a decision about politics than someone who has inaccurate ones.

The rhetoric has become so super-heated that, sadly, I find myself having fewer and fewer political discussions these days. And while I miss the spirited give-and-take, when Supreme Court Justices become worse than Hitler and when those who vote a certain way do so because they’re idiots, it’s time to talk about the weather.

While you're bitching, Pat, maybe you ought to have words with Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, and the rest of those assholes. I don't see them doing anyone any good, either. In the meantime, why don't you go back to flipping letters and leave the thinking to us.