Thursday, September 29, 2005

A Times-bashing, fun-filled, free-for-all !

Liberal spitrag. Remember how they claimed that vile bilgerat Mother Sheehan had "the absolute moral standing" to define the war on terror and America's place in it? She's a saint, because she's a Bush-bashing anti-American liberal. However, if you lost a loved one on 9/11, and you oppose a "Freedom Center" that trivializes their deaths, the Times describes you thusly:

Yesterday, the Freedom Center submitted a report that specified in greater detail how it would be run and what it hoped to present in the way of programming. This became necessary when Gov. George Pataki capitulated to a misguided outcry from critics who fear that the center's main task will be to present anti-American views of 9/11.

But since late June the Freedom Center has been caught up in a vitriolic protest called the Take Back the Memorial movement, whose leaders claim for themselves the right of deciding for the rest of us what we should know and think about 9/11.

No, because the Times has decided that only Cindy Sheehan has the right of deciding for the rest of us what we should know and think about 9/11. All others are misguided, vitriolic, and full of fear. But this editorial is dated 9/23; and today we read that:

Plans to build a freedom museum at the World Trade Center site were effectively scrapped on Wednesday as Gov. George Pataki gave in to pressure from vocal families of September 11 victims, saying the project had aroused "too much opposition, too much controversy."

Thanks for the nasty "gave in to pressure" editorial bias, Reuters. Who cares - you and you America-hating ilk at the New York Times have lost; common sense and human decency have won.

Not that the Times doesn't keep trying. Look at this doozy of a correction today:

Libel Memorandum Attributed Falsely to Court Nominee

Judge John G. Roberts Jr., nominated to be chief justice of the
United States, was not the author of an unsigned memorandum on libel law that was the focus of an article published in The New York Times yesterday. The Times erroneously attributed it to him.

So they wrote a whole Roberts-bashing article, based on a memo that he didn't even write? How the heck do heads not roll for this malfeasance? Maybe because the Slimes is a left-wing propaganda organ, and the author was simply doing his master's bidding? Or, like the Bush National Guard Memos, if the Times really, desperately, want something to be true, they ignore basics like, oh, the facts????

Link here:

And why does the Times hate poor people so much? From Instapundit:

...Mickey Kaus wonders why the New York Times hates poor people: "TimeSelect--and with it Web access to columnists such as Paul Krugman--is unavailable to those too poor to have credit cards. . . . News of the NYT policy comes at a time when Hurricane Katrina has raised profound issues of race, class, and gender." Heh.

TimesSelect will backfire; by taking their ultra-liberal columnist out of public discourse; they will have no effect on the debates of the day; they will simply be barking in an echo chamber. Works for me...

And that's today's Times slapdown. A dirty job, but...

Link to Kaus via Instapundit here:

Times editorial link from 9/23 here:

No comments: