Security Threat

We have already commented on the dangerous precedent being set by the law suit brought by a bunch of self-styled Muslim clerics (Reverend Sharpton anyone?) against not only USAir, but also against the passengers on the flight that brought these people to the attention of the American public. We have also lauded the work of Congressman Peter King in his effort to immunize public whistle blowers. Now that the King amendment has passed the House, we are waiting for the senate to take up the issue on behalf of homeland security.

We are also waiting, as usual, for the NY Times to take up the issue. The NY Post does so again today, and the NY Daily News has already chimed in on the side of safety for New Yorkers, as well as for all Americans. From the Times? Ungatz! Just like its silence on the Duke lacrosse case, after devoting 6,000 words in an article that bent over backwards to include anything possibly damaging to those kids who were falsely accused.

The Times' Duke coverage was colored by the usual liberal correctness lens that substitutes "meta-narratives" for reporting; in this case the "victim" was poor and black and the "offenders" were rich athletes-just throw the facts out the window. In the case of the imams we have two taboo Times areas to traverse: Islam and civil liberties.

With these two liberal taboos in play, our public safety will no longer concern the Times, a paper that long ago forfeited the right to speak on behalf of regular New Yorkers. Conveniently forgotten are the signs plastered all over our subway stations and cars that warn us: "If you see something, Say something." For the Times, however, the safety of New Yorkers ranks behind the machinations of a group of clerics who represent a strain of fundamentalism that would immediately get the Times' dander up if only it were coming from a Christian source.