What’s Wrong with this Picture?
One of the fringe benefits to last week’s Supreme Court decision was Friday’s editorial in The New York Times, a...
One of the fringe benefits to last week’s Supreme Court decision was Friday’s editorial in The New York Times, a newspaper that unfailingly hits new heights of hysteria at anything remotely favorable to gun owners. The Times’ view of America, at least as far as firearms are concerned, is apocalyptic. Heller will unleash armed mobs; the end is near.
It reminds me of Alexander Hamilton’s quote: “The people, sir, is a beast.”
From Friday’s Times editorial page we get:
“This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain and suffering and turn America into a more dangerous country. It will also diminish our standing in the world, sending yet another message that the United States values gun rights over human life.”
Not bad. On the Gun Nut Hysteriameter I give it an 8.5 out of a possible 10. Now we jump to page E1, the Weekend Arts section, where we come to the review of a new movie titled “Wanted,” and this amazing description:
“A man has soared onto the roof of a high rise where he has laid a handful of others to waste. Suddenly the camera cuts to his face as a bullet exits his head in slow motion, his skin stretching forward as the projectile tears through it going straight for the camera and our already numbed skulls. Well, that’s one way to get the attention of fickle movie goers…”
Is that what it is? I might have thought it was senseless glorification of violence to make a buck, glamorizing killing and inviting some of the halfwit jerks who watch this stuff to try it themselves. I might have thought it was the kind of thing that the Times Editorial page might condemn, except that on page 11 of the same section is a ¾-page, four-color ad for “Wanted,” for which said paper was paid a whole bunch of money. And as we are all aware, this is a very tough year for newspapers.
So I guess I will not hold my breath waiting for that particular editorial.