Thursday, March 04, 2010

Editors offer divergent views

As most educated readers know, editorial writers are generally the fuzziest thinkers and dullest wordsmiths even in the generally fuzzy and dull world of journalism.
In the edition of Wednesday, 3 March, the leftist Times editorializer hewed to the demagogic party line that the evil Senator Jim Bunning is grabbing food and medicine out of the mouths of starving widows and orphans:"Sen. Bunning's cruel hold."
The rightist Free Press ditto titles his editorial "Senator calls Congress' bluff."
Mr. Anderson's position is "Sen. Bunning is now being denounced for blocking federal spending. Instead, he should be praised for proving that Congress' supposed 'pay-as-you go' rules are really 'pay-as-you-borrow-and-tax' rules."
The Times demagoguery contains such garbage as "Party of No" and "their blatant obstructionism," winding up with "... they don't seem to mind how many innocent Americans they hurt in the process."
In all the long years the Times has been proclaiming big, intrusive government -- and that's all the years I've been aware of its existence -- "innocent Americans" have seldom been the concern of its editorial writers ... or its "news" reporters.
"Innocent Americans" are the working and producing people whose money is forcibly taken to allow the demagogues to buy more votes ... and to make the economy even worse by excess regulation and red tape and taxation.
If editorialists really cared about "innocent Americans," they'd call for more actions such as Sen. Bunning's and for repeals of laws and restrictions.
They'd call for a free market that would create jobs and let people work.

No comments:

Post a Comment