And a word to Marc Charisse, editor of the Hanover PA, Evening Star ..insignificant compared to the cause of Diana West

Mr Charisse whose paper publishes Diana West's columns, has come across with this:

I am, however, getting ready to pull the plug on Diana West, whose column often appears on Saturdays in The Evening Sun.

In an October 2007 column written when we had to replace some of our other columnists, I said West "never met a Muslim she didn't hate."

"I'm no mullah-lover myself," I added, "but OK already, we get your point. Find something else to write about or we'll find another columnist."...This election, though, has added sharp new subtext to the subject of Muslims and a couple of readers--one caller and one letter writer have argued West's column is increasingly confrontational, inappropriate and out of place. I have to agree, and unless there's a chorus of reasoned argument on her behalf, she'll soon be replaced.

In my youth, demands that something be banned were usually enough to convince me they had to stay in print. But over time, I've come to realize some things just aren't worth saying. Still, while we're on the subject of Muslims the intolerance of some Islamic sects, their seeming affinity for censorship, continue to bother me more than the pronouncements of ... Diana West.

"There are regimes in the world where ideas 'offensive' to the majority (or at least those who control the majority) are suppressed. There, life proceeds at a monotonous pace," Justice William Douglas wrote in one of his many free-speech opinions. "Most of us would find that world offensive. One of the most offensive experiences in my life was a visit to a nation where bookstalls were filled only with books on mathematics and books on religion."

It's clear Douglas is referring to one of the more conservative Islamic lands, and I never wanted my own country to be like that.

I'd still like to think we're up to the responsibilities that should come with freedom of speech.

In other words if you are responsible with freedom of speech, you will be non confrontational, and vary your subject. Words I am sure that a certain conservative back bencher in 1936 would have found attention getting as well.

Mr. Charisse has in fact demonstrated his ignorance of the subject at hand, ignorance of its relative importance over the next 50 years or more, DESPITE THE CURRENT ECONOMIC PROBLEMS, and INDEPENDENT OF ANY ELECTION OF ANY DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, ignorance of what the Quran and Hadith say, and caring more that Diana West publish columns about the garden from a conservative point of view, or perhaps swimming pool chemicals, or even Michelle Obama's ass rather than hew to the dangers we face as she sees them.

He has in his characterization of Ms West, called her a bigot from the outset.

That should carry its own weight.

He is a fool with a paper, and electronics and software have consigned him and his paper to a less profitable place.

Perhaps he should vary his subject matter.