whomod...

after reading through the two stories you quoted, i'm perplexed by the author's audacity.

in the initial article, with his criticisms on the concert-attending bush supporter, the author is completely and totally hypocritical, to a blind extent.

bruce spoke his political mind. the female fan angrily retorted with her differing opinion.

the author gets mad that the woman is mad at bruce ... which, in itself, is retarded, because he's now guilty of what he thinks she is: not permitting others to have differing opinions.

he goes on to belittle not only this woman, but everyone on the fence's other side, "ceaselessly wav(ing) their little American flags."

its similar to the whole michael moore event of a few months back (i forget which award show it was... oscars?).

big mike goes and speaks his political mind, and those who disagreed did so loudly. ... then, everyone gets mad at the disagreers, saying they're repressing moores' freedom by disallowing him to present a differing opinion.

...what about the opinion of those who disagree with moore? how come they don't get the same freedom? how come only one side is allowed to disagree?

its a very frustrating and narrow point of view.

"It's sad and troubling that, today, some Americans still seek to oppress rather than to protect the right of dissenters to speak their minds."

well said. not well followed.