Wednesday, January 12, 2011
After the horrific shooting spree, the editorial board of New York Times offered a voice of reasoned circumspection: "In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions . . .," the paper counseled.
The Tucson Safeway massacre prompted exactly the opposite reaction. What was once known as the paper of record egged on its readers to draw invidious conclusions that are not only prejudicial but contrary to fact. In doing so, the Times has crossed a moral line."
Crossed, re-crossed, and double-crossed. But that's okay; really it is. There ARE times when we forget who the real enemy happens to be. When, during a lull in the fighting, we forget how truly insidious liberals are. How they'll climb, tooth and nail, atop a heap of still twitching bodies to make an incorrect assumption that just might persuade Ma & Pa Kettle over to their side.
I'm glad James Taranto reads the Times so I don't have to. I despise him for providing them even one reader, hardcopied or virtual, but just like outhouse cleaners, somebody's gotta do it.