"TRUTH? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' TRUTH!"

A while ago, I said it must be nice to work for the New York Times editorial board and be unencumbered by the truth and sure enough, today, we get an editorial about the case of an elderly elevator operator with a serious heart condition. Her job was eliminated when automatic elevators were put into the Hudson County administration building in Jersey City and the Social Security administration denied her disability payments because technically she could still perform her job, it’s just the job wasn’t there anymore. Now, I’m not going to comment on the right or wrong of their decision other than to say this is what happens once government becomes everyone’s wet-nurse.

What got me right off was this quote:

“It is an absurd decision, but one fully in keeping with the Bush administration's drive to cut back on spending for the needy. “

Puhleeze, what was that all about? The Bush administration has nothing to do with this case. What the Times failed to mention, and I’m sure it was just an oversight, that the case dates from 1995. Now, who was President in 1995? It wasn’t George Bush, it was the original Gropenator, Bill Clinton. And Clinton didn’t even have anything to do with it, the Social Security Administration is a lumbering beast of a bureaucracy and the current administration has only minimal, if any, influence on it’s rules.

But, why let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good insulting lie, huh? Perhaps the Times could have had something like this in their coverage of the Red Sox/Yankees violence last week:

“Garcia threw Zimmer to the ground fully in keeping with the pro-violence stand of the New York Times”

If George Bush can be lied about because of a low level decision from a government agency, there’s no reason the Times, as part owner of the Red Sox, can’t be blamed for the thug-like actions of it’s star players, right?

Or does all of this just not make sense?