IBR>
It's so sad to see an editorialist eat rhetoric. Sadder to see him spit it out. In case you haven't heard, there are four basic "media taboos" held sacrosanct by media watchdogs, whomever they may be. Again, for those of you who haven't heard, a "taboo" is a subject of discussion to be suppressed or at least channeled through current political-correctness filters before entering into polite society dialogue. But let me get to my point: I think that taking sides is repulsive, in the spectator/armchair-quarterback sense. It's just really so pedestrian.

Neither rooting for the underdog nor cheering for the champion does anything to quell public malignancy, which is what James Keller implies that he is sorely protesting-a general lack of tolerance, equality, et cetera. In fact, espousing (or paraphrasing) leftist rhetoric serves only to exacerbate a situation, simply because it's just plain old rhetoric. Only by taking a centrist position, and doing so to inform both sides, can we reach an egalitarian consensus.

Let me try to bring this all together now: the four taboos are, and in no particular order, racism, sexism, anti-Semitism and homophobia. Like politics and religion, these are subjects best left to private debates among poets and social drinkers. James has crossed that line and stabbed at peaceful centrists such as myself, while aiming his sharpened quill at right-winged conservative types. Unfortunately, like the hockey player who intended to fight his opponent and, in his attempt, accidentally hit a referee obtaining a game misconduct along the way, we are accountable to the consequences of our actions. As a moderate, I am now wounded. This is Mr. Keller's shame. Even though I'm sure he meant no offense.

Of course, both sides have their faults: the separate school board for using public funds to impose their moral legislation, and "the other side" in asking the establishment for a blessing (of all things), in a sense to test the authority of an obviously anti-gay administration (as was argued by lawyers on behalf of the separate school board).

To be fair, we should ask writers to abide to the maxim of writing "what you know." Nowhere did the author indicate his own sexual orientation, and so I can only assume he was just repeating stuff he'd heard and thought he should repeat just to be neat on the left. I was, however impressed by his tightrope act in the first paragraphs (i.e. "those people.")

Although the press is academically held to be bias-free, I'll bet the real world knows better about the ivory tower's liberal manifesto. So get off the pot already.