Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: (well, mostly left wing)

The editor-in-chief of The Washington Times speaks out -





posted by Quiddity at 12/14/2002 10:16:00 PM

You call that an editorial?

The New York Post had an editorial on the subject of Cardinal Law's resignation. But it was a strange one. We counted:

18 lines. The breakdown:

Statements "criticizing" Cardinal Law	3	"The resignation of Boston's Bernard Cardinal Law yesterday marked a sad moment for the archdiocese over which he presided - and for American Catholicism generally." "It shouldn't have taken subpoenas, criminal probes, lawsuits and the prospect of bankruptcy to reach this point, of course." "Law's resignation was an essential step toward that goal." [of restoring trust]
Statements of fact about the scandal	11
Forward looking statements of hope	4

Talk about a light touch!   A "sad moment"?   We've seen much harsher language in Post editorials about Hillary Clinton.

One way to pad out an editorial and avoid being judgmental is to recite fact after fact after fact - which is exactly what the New York Post did in this case.

posted by Quiddity at 12/14/2002 02:48:00 PM

Rooting around the archives:

There were some overlooked remarks made by Bush in his speech about the Faith-Based Initiative. This was also the speech where he denounced Trent Lott - and that that aspect got the most coverage. However, Bush also said these words: (our emphasis)

We've reformed welfare in America to help many, yet welfare policy will not solve the deepest problems of the spirit. (Applause.) Our economy is growing, yet there are some needs that prosperity can never fill. We arrest and convict dangerous criminals; yet building more prisons is no substitute for responsibility and order in our souls. (Applause.)

No government policy can put hope in people's hearts or a sense of purpose in people's lives. That is done when someone, some good soul puts an arm around a neighbor and says, God loves you, and I love, and you can count on us both. (Applause.)

To which we reply:

• Before addressing "problems of the spirit", how about addressing problems of the body?
  
  
• Government policy can put food in people's stomachs, heat in people's homes, medicine in people's children, and knowledge in people's brains.
  
  
• Those are needs that prosperity can always fill.

posted by Quiddity at 12/14/2002 10:44:00 AM

Keep Lott in! (part 2):

We watched Lott's apology, and call us gullible, but we think this whole affair has changed Trent. If he stays as Majority Leader, we expect him to be supportive of civil rights and affirmative action. In fact, this possiblilty has the conservative pundit Michelle Malkin quite concerned. Here is part of her most recent essay:

On Wednesday, the Senate Republican leader went on Fox News and CNN promising more race-conscious government remedies to make amends for his tacit endorsement of segregation. In interviews with Sean Hannity and Larry King, Lott cravenly pledged support for "community renewal" (more minority set-asides); said he would "put more money into education so no child is left behind" (more federal spending for failed urban programs); and boasted of his "African-American interns" and appointments (more racial preferences).

Malkin doesn't like that sort of thing. Also, she's worried that Lott will be gung-ho for a minimum wage increase, expanded affordable housing and a prescription drug benefit. Horrors!

No wonder arch-conservatives are screaming for Lott's head. They don't want a compromised Majority Leader.


posted by Quiddity at 12/14/2002 10:10:00 AM

Republiconfederates:

Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial Carving to get facelift - news item.




posted by Quiddity at 12/13/2002 12:06:00 AM

Thanks a Lott:

The current Trent Lott / Thurmond imbroglio is causing immense damage to Republicans and right-wingers. For example, on the conservative Hugh Hewitt radio show, a Lott supporter called in to bemoan the fact that Harry Truman "didn't support the military" and had advisors like the "terrible" Dean Acheson. Therefore, Thurmond and the Dixiecrats were the better choice! It's become that goofy.

We say, keep Lott in!    First of all, the Democrats couldn't have a better get-out-the-vote machine than Trent's mouth. Second, we're not so sure his replacement would be better for the U.S. policy-wise, or for Democrats politically. You've gotta wonder when some right-wingers are looking at Lott's dilemma as something they can take advantage of.

posted by Quiddity at 12/11/2002 07:34:00 PM

The Washington Times -- America's Newspaper (at least that's what they say about themselves):

In covering the Trent Lott situation, the Washington Times publishes a story with this headline:

Black lawmakers upset with Daschle

But that was misleading. Here's a breakdown of the story:

Who	Lott	Thurmond	Daschle	Bush/Fleischer	Black lawmakers on Daschle	Black lawmakers on Lott	Other Lott critics
# times mentioned	10	3	5	4	2	7	3

posted by Quiddity at 12/11/2002 07:37:00 AM

Sex laws:

In Slate's Explainer this week, there is a discussion about sodomy. One reference provided is http://www.sodomylaws.org/ which has a state-by-state breakdown of the statutes. We looked at a few, and most of them were uninteresting, but Arizona's caught our eye. This is the now recinded law (13-1412, Lewd and Lascivious Acts, Drafted in 1901; Repealed in 2001):

A person who knowingly and without force commits, in any unnatural manner, any lewd or lascivious act upon or with the body or any part or member thereof of a male or female adult, with the intent of arousing, appealing to or gratifying the lust, passion or sexual desires of either of such persons, is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.

Let's distill those words a bit. We get:

A person who commits a sensual act upon an adult with the intent of gratifying passion or sexual desire is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.

This statute is unusual because most other states outlaw the mechanics of sodomy by listing prohibited contact between various enumerated body parts. But Arizonans, bless 'em, got right down to the point and declared it against the law for an adult to experience sexual pleasure under certain conditions. That kind of thinking (anti-pleasure) also is behind our current drug laws.

How peculiar humankind is. Outlawing acts that result in sexual pleasure, yet not at the same time outlawing acts that result in anxiety, emotional distress, and any number of unpleasant feelings.

posted by Quiddity at 12/11/2002 06:54:00 AM