Friends Don’t Let Friends Editorialize While Drunk
A reliable source of amusement each week is the “Thumbs Up Thumbs Down” section on the Saturday editorial page. Our paper of record briefly describes an event or issue, and then, as moral arbiter, proclaims whether it is ”Thumbs Up” or “Thumbs Down.”
I especially like it when they give a Thumbs Up to some girl scouts who raise $57.12 for a charity right before they give a thumbs down to a sociopath who just went on a 6 state murder/cannibalism/check kiting/puppy killing spree. Way to take a strong moral stand against murder, cannibalism, check kiting, and puppy killing!
Also humorous is the way in which the editorial board attempts to sum up a complicated issue in a single sentence or two. It is even better when the board attempts this feat after drinking seven blueberry almond martinis, as they did this Saturday:
THUMBS DOWN: for the continued focus on “gotcha” politics in the presidential race - misremembering, the use of certain words and personal relationships. The focus on nonissues was on display in this week’s Pennsylvania debate between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama.
What does that even mean? It is nearly impossible to analyze the substance of this statement. It was either written by someone who was intoxicated or it was translated from Chinese. Is the Democrat and Chronicle outsourcing its editorial page to China? I always suspected that the editorials were being written by evil communists.
As to the substance, the editorial board apparently does not think it is appropriate to question politicians regarding the following things:
1. The truth or falsity of the statements they make;
2. The words they use; or
3. The people with whom they associate.
Way to speak “truth to power,” Democrat and Chronicle! I guess it does make it much easier to be a reporter when all you can question politicians about is the weather.
One Response to “Friends Don’t Let Friends Editorialize While Drunk”
Discussion Area - Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Occam
Its the meaningless convoluted logic of the left. This is how it works. You start with a conclusion instead of your a question or hypothesis. In this case it was that Barack Obama had been treated mean by ABC (how dare they ask him to explain himself) Then you throw some words in that are subterfuge like “non issues” Next you tie back the non relevant comment to whats bothering you. Finally it is repeated over and over by left wing media until it is accepted as fact. To a like minded person who suddenly sees his hero being treated poorly it makes a lot of sense and they are lapping it up.
Could you imagine if they questioned John McCain like that? We would be spinning to the flip side. How he can’t answer the tough questions put forth by unbiased journalists doing their work. How an old man was mumbling and saying “Uh” a lot. (listen to Obama when he is unscripted. He sounds like a teenage girl with a long run on sentence joined by “Uh”)
Bullwinkle wrote a funny post on how he scored of the deabte. But I think he got it wrong. While ABC might had had to deal with the commercialization of the debates. I was very happy to see someone finally ask these question to Obama.