- The Washington Times - Friday, March 1, 2002

Media mantra
"In the wake of poor Daniel Pearl's horrible murder, CNN news anchors took a break from celebrating the Islamic hajj and turned their short attention spans to celebrating themselves. …
"Since [September 11], the media have militantly outshone Muslim leaders in distancing the faith of Islam from the acts of violence perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam. This is a new consensus-shaping mantra. Any acts of brutality by Muslims are, as the CNN imams are quick to point out, gross perversions of Islam. And every Muslim who kills is in revolt against the genuine Islamic faith. …
"The narrative in the media invariably adheres to the following lines: People kill, lie and cheat because they are poor, unemployed, black, female, depressed, uneducated, don't live in a democracy or need to have what others have acquired.
"The media's depiction of the route to a better world is consistent with their view that the locus of control over good or bad is not in the human being's heart and mind but in the external forces that act on him."
Ilana Mercer, writing on "The Miasma of Media Myth-making," Wednesday in World Net Daily at www.worldnetdaily.com

Whatever they want
"It used to be that the Left actually believed the Constitution had a meaning. You know, the actual document doesn't provide instructions on how to replace the toner cartridge on the office copy machine. The words mean X but not Y. That's why the progressives and Lefties actually amended the Constitution to make the income tax constitutional. They organized. They had a fight. They won. Bully for them.
"But, today, the Left simply asserts that the Constitution as a 'living' or 'evolving' or 'organic' whatever simply means anything good. Capital punishment is bad, so it must be unconstitutional. Campaign-finance 'reform' is good, so whatever form it takes must be constitutional. …
"Across the liberal firmament we are told that the denying of a federal grant to an artist who defecates in a can and calls it 'art' amounts to 'censorship,' but the restriction on the ability of certain groups to criticize an elected official during an election is well within the bounds of the First Amendment. … [H]ow the champions of free expression can make such claims while banning issue ads precisely the sort of speech the Framers had in mind is beyond me.
"Well, that's not actually true. I do understand it. They simply believe … that the Constitution is like a pool of Narcissus for their egos, just a reflection of their own flabby convictions."
Jonah Goldberg, writing on "Rambling Through the Constitution," Wednesday in National Review Online at www.nationalreview.com

The man's fault
"As the case stands now, there is virtually no chance that justice will be served. [Andrea] Yates is, by all accounts, a very sick woman. She has been in and out of treatment and on and off medication for postpartum depression for years. After the birth of her fourth child in 1999, Yates twice attempted suicide once with pills, once with a steak knife.
"Compounding the problem, her husband seems to be an absolute cretin who, despite Andrea's obvious problems, kept pressuring her to churn out babies. In 1999, after Andrea's suicide attempts, he told her psychiatrist that he wanted to get her off medication and pregnant again, according to medical records. …
"Not that it excuses what she did, of course. But if you have any qualms about executing the mentally ill, this case should give you the willies. It should also make you wonder whether there isn't a way to charge dear Rusty with reckless endangerment."
Michelle Cottle, writing on "Punishment That Fits," Feb. 22 in the New Republic Online at www.tnr.com

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide