Today, thus, we come to ponder editorials, specifically two lead editorials this week (January 23 and January 26), both foaming-at-the-mouth hysterical in opposition to the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.  Ralph Neas and Nan Aron don't go that far over the edge. Alito Hysteria at the New York Times

Not so long ago, the mainstream media, beset by the insolent revolution of the blogosphere, sniffled in defense some mush about "filters," meaning that they had a bunch of j-school graduates, layers of bureaucracy, "keepers" if you will, to maintain the straight and narrow that represents all that is holy about journalism.  That notwithstanding bloggers who actually worked those Hillaryesque plantations before discovering communication without deforestation and air pollution.  Others are lawyers, engineers, business people, etc., folks who know stuff and write stoutly, despite the attendant nastiness regarding doing so in their pjs.

Chief among those whining, sniping, carping, slipping the rusty old knife in anytime they can has been The New York Times, they of, shall we say, unitary First Amendment understanding, unitary subsidized real-estate deals, unitary national security judgments, yada yada yada, stones from Jayson Blair's house and all that.

The news pages of the Times have begun to read as if all editors are otherwise engaged at diversity conferences and internal cutbacks have extended to dictionaries, but, hey, what other newspaper would devote real space to Paul Motian riffing on drumming and jazz?

Today, thus, we come to ponder editorials, specifically two lead editorials this week (January 23 and January 26), both foaming-at-the-mouth hysterical in opposition to the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.  Ralph Neas and Nan Aron don't go that far over the edge.

Should we cite "[Mrs. Alito's] bizarrely over-covered crying jag" as language that seems a bit bereft of "filters" for responsible editorial comment?  Nah, that's just the trashmouth  throwaway lead of the January 23 offering.  Before even ending that first paragraph, we get to "[Judge Alito] wants to reduce the rights and liberties of ordinary Americans, and has a history of tilting the scales of justice against the little guy."  Wants to?  You got two sources for that beyond wacko liberal screedmongers, Mr. Sulzberger?  Whose talking points did you plagiarize for your "little guy" reference?

We move on, quickly now, to accusing Judge Alito of  inordinate fondness for machine guns and falsified odometers, lacking "sympathy" for "women, racial minorities, the elderly and workers."  What an ogre!  Well, at least the Times didn't mention those anonymous sources claiming Alito stole gruel from the orphanage.  Whew!  Snuck that baddie past.

Having moved neither mountain nor molehill, nor demonstrated a pen mightier than a wet noodle on January 23, the Times mainlined some more Ibogaine, lurching back on January 26 to accuse senators unwilling to support a filibuster of Judge Alito as spineless, while also observing the futility of that little gambit.  Although not real clear, the Times appeared to be chastising Judge Alito for not "to even pretend to sound like a moderate" in contrast to now-Chief Justice John Roberts, who is virtually accused of dissembling.

But enough of this; it's just too painful to plod through the depths to which a once-distinguished newspaper has fallen.  Gonna put these two babies away now in that file we're building for our book, "Moses:  The Last Honorable Journalist?"  (Yeah, it takes a few minutes to get that one.)

Seriously, political and journalistic liberals have, in their attacks on John Roberts and Sam Alito, shown that they support only result-driven application of the law, the results they want.  That's as dangerous as it is ignorant, at least it would be if effective.  The results of all their attacks on Judge Alito are in the polls:  His public approval has risen 10%.

January 26, 2006
[About CFIF]  [Freedom Line]  [Legal Issues]  [Legislative Issues]  [We The People]  [Donate]  [Home]  [Search]  [Site Map]
© 2000 Center For Individual Freedom, All Rights Reserved. CFIF Privacy Statement
Designed by Wordmarque Design Associates
Conservative News Legislative News Congressional News Agricultural News Campaign Finance Reform News Judicial Confirmation News News About The Supreme Court Energy News Technology News Internet Taxation News Immigration News Conservative Newsletter Legal Reform News Humorous Legal News News About Senator Kennedy News About The War In Iraq Tribute to President Ronald Wilson Reagan