friday, february 11, 2005 and the editorial board of the new york times elects to focus on the most important woman in the news.
if you think carleton fiorina's getting fired from hewlett-packard is more important than what's happening to lynne stewart and apparently the new york times does think so.
was there a point of the fiorina editorial? i doubt if and when gail collins gets forced out of the new york times she'd want an editorial on her 'fatal operating error.'
but that's where the paper of non-record is today. wasting space on fiorina. i'm sure fiorina's a wonderful person and i'm sure she will or will not bounce back and i am sure that none of it matters to me 1 way or another except to think, 'gee since she's not up on charges a la tyco, do you think maybe you could quit reporting this like the scandal to end all scandals?'
meanwhile lynne stewart was convicted yesterday. of what? who knows with the current justice department. she was defending a client that won't win any applause from most americans. the justice department puts in place a policy that isn't exactly a law since, last time i checked, the justice department wasn't in the business of writing and passing legislation.
so they target lynne stewart (they includes the clinton administration though at least janet reno had enough sense not to bring stewart up on charges - that dishonor would go to john ashcroft) and tap her in what may or may not have been legal.
and the lawyers who should be defending her (because she is them) are in the news stories in the new york times today making idoitic comments about how they were for her until they heard the audiotapes.
don't we expect a little more from lawyers? don't we expect that they will be the 1st to say, 'now those tapes may or may not be appropriate evidence?'
no, as the common ills noted this morning, those jerks are all running for higher ground to escape the flood moving in. it truly is the new mccarthy-ism.
lynne stewart's facing disbarrment and a lengthy stay in prison. for defending a client to the best of her ability.
and the editors of the new york times want to talk about some 1 losing her job - with a golden parachute, of course.
stewart's facing possibly 45 years in prison and the new york times wants to tell us about how 'wall street is littered with the carcasses of companies that got too big.' yes, wall street is. and the streets and subways are littered with papers people toss away because there's nothing in them that matters.
the editorial today, it didn't matter. who really cares? a wealthy woman lost her job and gets a big pay out to leave and the new york times wants to turn this into a social commentary. lynne stewart has been wrongly committed of a crime - for a public press release to reuters.
now when our modern day version of jane austen's miss carteret sticks her boring beak into
the valerie plame matter and faces jail time, the new york times can't shut their traps about how unfair things are for poor judy. lynne stewart's facing prison for what she did publicly with the press and the new york times wants to talk about hewlett-packard?
so is the editorial board just full of shit or does the freedom of the press only matter when judy miller is involved? i don't remember being taught in school that the free speech applied only to judith.
i'd urge you to pay attention to what's going on here and see who bothers to speak out for lynne stewart. growing up, i heard about the rosenbergs and i always thought, 'how could that have happened, didn't anyone speak up?' no, because they were scared, they were cowards and they were ass wipes. that crowd is still amongst us so pay attention and see who defends stewart and who doesn't. you'll find out who cares about free speech, who cares about social justice as opposed to the ones who are too busy covering their own asses and cowering in fear.
welcome to the new mccarthyism. maybe we'll all have adjoining cells before this administration is done? but i won't shut up and i won't act like what happened to lynne stewart resembles justice.
maybe tomorrow the editorial board will weigh in on the pressing issue of prince charles getting married? we're living history right now and we will be judged by our actions so take note of who rushes to defend stewart and who suddenly goes mute.
