Laird blows it again: the glaring, gaping hole in this week's column.

.
As an insulting shill for the bridgers/looters, John Laird is hard to beat.

I've ginzued that's guy's columns more then I've drank scotch (I don't drink, which is a major part of that equation). But then, when you're picking apart the delusional, it's not hard to do.

Take yesterday's effort, wherein, once again, Laird beats hell out of those wise enough to call bullshit to power.

I'm not going to waste time picking apart Laird's idiocy; I'm going to, instead, point out the gaping maw of bias and prejudice Laird can't help but include in his latest column with this simple observation:

Had those he was writing about SUPPORTED the bridger/loot rail position, Laird never would have written this steaming pile.

Had those Tim "The Liar" Leavitt babbled about for giving his main squeeze a hard time for mouthing Leavitt's talking points SUPPORTED his position, we'd have never heard a peep out of Leavitt, either.

Fairness? Balance? I'm sure there's a medication he can take to get over his psychotic episodes where he actually believes, in between slapping all of those smart enough to demand an end to this black hole of OUR money (That, as always, Laird won't have to pay) that he's exhibiting tenets of both.

What.
A.
Crock.

Laird has viciously attacked those wise enough to disagree with his Goebbelian propaganda. He does it because like Miyagi said, "Uh, tree no hitta back." Of course, Laird's not the first to follow in Koenninger's and Brancaccio's footsteps, and he won't be the last.

In Laird's world, we are not allowed to question authority. We are not allowed to ask questions if we refuse to like the answers. In Laird's world, it's perfectly OK for The Liar to censor because he doesn't like what he's hearing... kinda Soviet, if you ask me.

Laird complains, in his effort to engage in damage control for The Liar, that repeating the same things, over and over, is somehow harmful to the process.

But when those in power lie, and cheat to get elected... well, that's just swell with Laird when The Liar supports HIS view.

And there is, of course, a way to solve the repetition issue: LISTEN to them. ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS.

Do that, and they'll do what you want: namely, because they oppose your perspective, they'll shut up.

What's problematic here, of course, that they only way to address their concerns is to end this multi-million dollar farce of pay offs and corruption.

But because it ain't their money?

Neither Laird nor The Liar care.

In closing, as I actually watch Laird engage with a commenter, I'm struck by how respectful in tone and tenor he is... entirely unlike the Laird we've come to know and despise.

Of course, the commenter, David Madore, frightens Laird. Madore walks softly and carries a big checkbook. So Laird HAS to be civil and he HAS to respond in the Orwellian sense, since, while all commenters are equal, some commenters are more equal than others.

I point this out because Laird has been a pig to those opposing his point of view in the past. He's made things up in his column, built fictitious straw men and then knocked them down... and actually wants the reader to believe he's being both accurate and truthful in his nonsensical, one-sided, disrespectful, insulting rants... all while Brancaccio whines about civility, of course.

Laird tells us, "With freedom comes responsibility."

And that much is true. It's just a damned shame that Laird lacks any pretense of taking that requirement seriously... which makes his headline the hypocrisy of the week.

In the end, we've already established what Laird is. Now all we're doing is haggling over price.
.