In Their Insane Quest to Comfort the Afflicted, The New York Times Goes To Insane Lengths To Make A Drug-Dealing, Thieving Career Criminal Look Like A Hero

In an article insane even by New York Times standards entitled "In Sentencing, Just What Did Judge Say: 3 Years, Or 2?", the reality contortionist morality athletes at Amerika's newspaper of record give us the heart-wrenching story of this piece of shit:

I had to read this story twice, it seemed strange even for the the New York Times to publish a story about a career criminal scum bag who was griping about maybe having spent one year too long in prison.

In a sane society, when rubbish like this started whining about police brutality and discrimination in the justice system so that it can win the ghetto lottery, it would be told to shut its ugly maw and get back in its cage. But in USA 2011, it has a willing and eager co-conspirator in the New York Times, who will do anything to prove their commitment to their beloved repressed underclass blacks.

Turns out the retired judge, the stenographer, the courts - everybody involved in this failed mutation of nature's case and everybody quoted in the article pretty much confirms that he was in fact sentenced to three years, thus making it clear that this non-story had no business being printed at all.

But the NYT is just so committed to social justice and afflicting the comfortable, that any time a beloved minority claims injustice - and I mean ANY time - then the Times is on it like stink on shit.

No mention of course of the fact that this loser's goal was to further punish productive society by rolling the dice in the ghetto lottery, so à la Sean Bell it could sue the pants off the NY justice system and like a bad skin disease continue to punish the state where it festers with its high-odor, low-IQ presence.

It sort of reminded me of the Times' breathless coverage of that semi-retarded dude with the "The Rent Is Too Damn High" mayoral campaign last year - even after it emerged that the guy was totally illegit (he lived rent-free in government housing), the Times stuck with promoting him as some kind of brilliant social justice icon.

How can the NYT validate scum like this and keep a straight face?

Proof that this article should never have been published, from the article itself :

The New York Times: Going With A Guilty White Liberal Conscious Since 1959.