Glorifying the Lowest of the Low

We're going to try to keep to keep it current here at COTT,  but occasionally a NYT article from the recent past that was just so punishingly stupid that we can't seem to stop thinking about it will require commentary. 


A case in point is this  article dated August 14th, 2010,  entitled "In the Rearview Mirror, Oklahoma and Death Row." Check it out, it is beyond belief. 

The author, Dan Barry, tells the tear-jerking story of a failed humanoid, a one James Fisher Jr., who was recently released from death row in Oklahoma after being convicted not once but twice of a murder he never denied almost 20 years ago. 

James Fisher Jr. is African American, and probably gay, and this is why he can do no wrong in the eyes of the psychos at the New York Times. 

What is truly amazing about this article is that Barry makes absolutely no attempt to clarify whether Fisher actually killed a man with a broken wine bottle or not. To Barry it's not really important whether Fisher did it - in fact, in his twisted delusional wishful-thinking liberal nutt sack of a brain, it would be a morally superior scenario if Fisher had in fact killed a (white) man, and gotten away with it. To show you how far we've come, hallelujah. 

I was so gobsmacked by this article that I had to read it twice. Was the author really speaking in such glowing, adoring terms about a murderer? Couldn't possibly be I thought. But after a second read, it turns out that sure enough, that's what he was doing. 

Barry reserves his wrath for the illiberal: the first (black) public defender who didn't represent Fisher well enough (he would of course have gotten a pass from Barry for being black, but thankfully for the purposes of his love-a-murderer column, Fisher's first public defender didn't embrace homosexuality with the same verve that the NYT requires); and the second public defender who, conveniently for Barry, was a white male, well to do, with the additional evil attribute of having a taste for alcohol. 

To Barry, these two men - the conservative African-American, and the white male lawyer, who were donating their time to try to defend Fisher - are the true villains, not the loathsome,  violent, stupid, filthy dirt bag of a murderer who though born into a shit situation will forever be a leach on society's ass. And an expensive leach, with big teeth. 

It's amazing to me how the New York Times, day in and day out, in some twisted delusional variety of liberal logic (they call it: "Comforting the assailed and assailing the comfortable") continues to portray the weakest, the stupidest, the most savage as the true heros of society.  

I understand the whole moral superiority thing - I engage in it myself when a bum asks me for money (I never refuse) - but you would think that the writers at the NYT would be smart enough to recognize that the whole dirtbag uplift program has gone a bit far, creating entire cities of single mothers on welfare. and the world's largest prison population. 

Leave it to the New York Times to get it completely wrong, once again.