You know, if you saw this at some small time newspaper, or a blog without multiple levels of editors, you'd be quite forgiving.
But when the supposedly most respected newspaper on the face of the planet, with a large office building filled with writers, editors, and staffers, mistakes a key phrase from the Declaration of Independence as a "constitutional right," one has to wonder what's going on with the Old Gray Lady.
Such is doubly the case when this mistake is made in an editorial (h/t Glenn Reynolds, emphasis added):
It is an eminently good thing that the anti-suicide measure would require medical specialists to keep track of veterans found to be high risks for suicide. But that's to care for them as human beings, under that other constitutional right - to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Ahem, gentlemen, might I direct you to paragraph two of The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America (emphasis added):
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Of course, it's really not a surprise that the editorial staff of the Times doesn't know which document this is from, is it?
For those interested, Reynolds has comical observations from others in the blogosphere here.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Get Email
August 30, 2007 - 17:05 ET by Clear thinkerROTFLMAO!!!!!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
I heard they're leaving
August 30, 2007 - 17:08 ET by balboaI heard they're leaving that out of the next Superman movie altogether. ;-)
Bal
August 30, 2007 - 17:13 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Truth, Justice, and the American Way! :-) ns
I know, I was trying to
August 30, 2007 - 17:46 ET by balboaI know, I was trying to find a way to drag that old argument back into the daylight again (because I know we didn't get enough of it the first 12 times we talked about it). :-)
Bal
August 30, 2007 - 17:53 ET by Noel SheppardB,
I knew you were kidding, and actually liked the joke. Just wanted to bust your hump the way you do mine. :-) ns
Consider it busted.
August 30, 2007 - 18:01 ET by balboaConsider it busted. :-)
Of course, they should ask Ms. South Carolina why she thinks the NYT made that mistake.
Hmmmm" Just wanted to bust
August 31, 2007 - 10:18 ET by Dan The Man 2Hmmmm" Just wanted to bust your hump the way you do mine". I guess if yall dont do it in restrooms then its ok. ;=)
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
And even sadder.
August 30, 2007 - 17:15 ET by c5thenMost liberals that I talk to (yes, I do talk to all kinds of people) think that the Constitution actually grants us certain rights.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Rights
August 30, 2007 - 17:41 ET by JeffWeimerThe bill of rights enumerates the rights we already have, in order to keep the government from impinging on them. Essentially, it tells the govt. what it CANT do.
Of course, it's really not
August 30, 2007 - 19:07 ET by motherbeltOf course, it's really not a surprise that the editorial staff of the Times doesn't know which document this is from, is it?
Hell, no, it isn't. The NYT believes that all rights are granted by the Government, so what difference does it make which document it's in?
The enumeration of right we
August 31, 2007 - 10:20 ET by Dan The Man 2The enumeration of right we already have and the acknowlegement that government doesnt give them is what sets the USA apart from other countries.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
The bill of rights
August 30, 2007 - 18:43 ET by JeffWeimerThe bill of rights enumerates the rights we already have, in order to keep the government from impinging on them. Essentially, it tells the govt. what it CANT do.
I thought I had the right to
August 30, 2007 - 17:16 ET by The PresbyterI thought I had the right to not treat people as human beings, this is news to me.
They diidn't read far
August 30, 2007 - 17:18 ET by danboThey diidn't read far enough. Actually, they didn't read it.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Let's see if any of their target librul audience catches it.
August 30, 2007 - 17:27 ET by RJIt'll also be interesting to see if they correct themselves....and how they 'splain their ignorance.
...but, hey, these guys read more books than we do, right?
The correction will be
August 30, 2007 - 17:36 ET by Conservative_in_mass.The correction will be located on pg. B22 below the fold three weeks from now.
"There's no department of
August 30, 2007 - 17:36 ET by PeskyDane"There's no department of happiness." One of my favorite quotes from Mr. Newt.
the lady
August 30, 2007 - 17:43 ET by dubuquemanGood post, so I hate to be picky (but I am lying, since I am going to be picky)--but the traditional moniker for the Times is simply "the Gray Lady." The "Old" is superfluous, perhaps a case of "graying the lady."
DM
August 30, 2007 - 17:51 ET by Noel SheppardDM,
Actually, if you Google "Gray Lady," "Old Gray Lady," and "Old Grey Lady," you'll find that there seems to be some debate about which is right. Frankly, whenever I use this term, I find myself aGoogling because I'm never sure. :-)
That said, I think it unfair to suggest that "old" and "gray" are superfluous. If my wife didn't dye her hair, she'd be completely gray, and she's only 47. :-) ns
nits
August 30, 2007 - 18:15 ET by dubuquemanI know. I just always favor the simple and the subtle (Occam's razor and all that), and I have always believed that when in doubt, leave the modifier out (now watch me use too many modifiers). To get literal, I think that when the phrase was originally coined, it wasn't meant to emphasize the paper's age, but its colorless, type-heavy appearance and staid, scolding manner--one perhaps associated (with apologies!--I assume your wife is vibrant and fun-loving) with tightly coiffed, prematurely gray schoolmarm types. I'm not trying to school you--just throwing in an observation. But "grey" I won't allow; it's downright Canadian or, worse, British!
Gray Lady Origin
August 30, 2007 - 22:16 ET by stratmanDid it earn the moniker based on the preponderance of gray colour inside and outside the building?
Or was it called that for the very reason you cite:
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
What's surprising about this?
August 30, 2007 - 17:46 ET by mattmWhy would anyone think the staff of the NYT would not be ignorant about the founding documents?
They have dismissed those old-fashioned White European Judeo-Christian ideals and replaced them with Post-Modern secularistic neo-socialism.
Law of the land
August 31, 2007 - 07:05 ET by ThisnThatI think the Times does this on purpose. For the longest time, now, they and the socialists of this country have been trying to push their interpretation of the Constitution, and as much as they can get people to believe their version, the more influence the socialists will have.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
That comes from God, not the Gov't
August 30, 2007 - 17:51 ET by ArcherBWhat should really get their goat is when they find out that those rights are endowed by our Creator (notice the big "C", meaning God), not by the Constitution.
If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. --George Orwell
The NYT's Strikes
August 30, 2007 - 17:57 ET by bigtimerThe NYT's Strikes Again!
I am laughing as I post this...thanks for the laughter right off...
Unbelievable whiz-bangs as usual.
New York Times
August 30, 2007 - 18:02 ET by cheesegraterI think the confusion with the moniker is that it's too close to "the old gray mare.
"craven gun lobby" (from original Times editorial)
August 30, 2007 - 18:12 ET by ChaitealoverWould that be those silly people that think the Second Amendment actually means what it says?
Those who would expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it - Thomas Paine
People vs. State
August 30, 2007 - 23:10 ET by RevolvrThe "Rights" are for people, not states. States don't have and can't have "rights", they have "powers" which much of the constitution details.
The concept of a "state right" is meaningless.
Hence the notion the 2nd ammendment is a state's right to have a militia is absurd.
It's sad that so many people, even lawmakers, do not understand this document.
_____________________________________________
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Yeah . . . . I can see
August 30, 2007 - 18:31 ET by clifcrdsYeah . . . . I can see how the Times feels as though the unalienable Rights are part of the constitution. The Times, like most liberals, thinks that a middle class lifestyle from cradle to grave, free health care, dumbed down no results free education, and even citizenship for all who want to come to America are constituional rights. But mention freedom for religion or gun ownership and they get their undies in a bind!
Clinton's Military Philosophy - Tanks In Waco OK . . . Tanks In Mogadishu NOT OK
The NYT and their liberal
August 30, 2007 - 18:44 ET by Chris NormanThe NYT, and their liberal ilk, think it's all in there, if one just squints hard enough...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
The New York Times should Quote the Communist Manifesto
August 30, 2007 - 18:40 ET by Lame CherryThe Times should be quoting Karl Marx as they would not be confusing documents then they have never read.
It is always a joy for me to see the Declaration of Independence as one of the signers was a relative of mine. Most people never know that most of those gentleman signed above met utter ruin, disaster and death for signing that document they pledged their all for.
I hope to God in the near future He will provide us with a new group to lead America as the current crop is some of the worst of mediocre in the history of the world. Rebellion as in sin gets Americans exactly what they want.......and such a winter of discontent is upon the American season. Oh for a glorious summer dawned not by the Times of York, but the New American Times of our God blessed Destiny.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Constitutional Right to be Stupid
August 30, 2007 - 19:50 ET by WoodyMHow can we expect The NY Times to know what the Constitution says when their favorite President doesn't know?
President Bill Clinton, campaigning in California October 17, 1996:
"The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says."
Except that was in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.
Maybe people have a Constitutional right to be stupid. A lot in the media are taking advantage of it.
Ha! That's funny, Woody.
August 30, 2007 - 19:54 ET by RJIf liberals knew half as much as they think they know...
WoodyM
August 30, 2007 - 20:20 ET by krismcsherryPresident Bill Clinton, campaigning in California October 17, 1996: "The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says."
Nooooooooo.....can't be true. You're joking, right? No adult is that stupid.
As for the NYT. Shaking head and laughing. Incredulous again.
The Master's Voice
August 30, 2007 - 21:04 ET by WoodyM(Until I get this hang of this, you may have to "cut and paste" or re-enter the links.)
Hear it yourself. Bill Clinton Sound Byte.wav (193K) http://www.gargaro.com/sounds/bc.wav
Source: Carolyn's Stupid Statements from Bill Clinton http://www.gargaro.com/clintonquotes.html
Anyway, what's the big deal about some old historical documents?
More Chestnuts
August 30, 2007 - 22:26 ET by stratmanClinton in January, 1998, denying that he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. clintondenial.wav (423K)
Bill Clinton promising NOT to raise taxes (prior to giving us the largest tax increase in history!) notaxes.wav 42K
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
what was the times
August 30, 2007 - 21:00 ET by crsheddwhat was the times thinking. there is no constitutional right to 'life, liberty...'. just because the declaration of independence puts in writing the beliefs of our founding fathers, we should NOT heed it's words. it is not law, it carrys no penalty, etc. just because the founders believed that crap does not mean we have to even consider those beliefs today. we all know that the declaration was just propaganda.
Propaganda?
August 30, 2007 - 21:08 ET by WoodyMWell, if you don't believe in inalienable rights and call them "crap," then you can sit around until the government passes a law to give them to you.
But, regarding the Declaration of Independence, can we leave in the part about the savage Indians?
Crshedd
September 6, 2007 - 06:23 ET by UnsaneVery good, crshedd. The Declaration of Independence is NOT a legal document upon which the laws of the United States are based. It got us independence, thank you, but we do not use it as a reference for law.
Besides, why are you crying, anyways? You definitely do not want independence; you crave being a ward of the State. You do not want to pursue happiness; you want the Nanny State to coddle you to happiness; to give it to you on a silver platter.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Eminent Domain
August 31, 2007 - 06:02 ET by AgnosticDo you think if they read these two documents they might realize that they should move out of their new building and give it back to the rightful owners, Supreme Court or not?
The Declaration of Independence vs the Constitution
August 31, 2007 - 07:17 ET by UnsaneThis, from the same people who argue that the United States MUST be a Nanny State based on the phrase "promote the general welfare" in the Constitution's Preamble? And, based on the fact that cities have public libraries and parks?
No way!!! I am quite shocked....
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Separation fo Church and State
August 31, 2007 - 10:23 ET by LionKingWhile we are scanning the Constitution, anyone find that Separation fo Church and State stuff?
Waco..
August 31, 2007 - 10:26 ET by Sergeant ROCK.. is how liberals seperate church from state.
Maybe, ...
August 31, 2007 - 11:35 ET by mytwocentsMaybe, but it most certainly is how they separate fact from fiction.
...or freedom from
August 31, 2007 - 10:40 ET by rightside...or freedom from religion?
Yes! Have some.
1st Amendment
September 6, 2007 - 06:27 ET by UnsaneThose words are found in Jefferson's writings, true, but:
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." That means complete religious neutrality. For instance: you want to bring up your children in a religious manner? Outstanding! Do it at home.
"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Let's make religion our own personal business...I, for one, shall fight tooth and nail for that.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
International Law
August 31, 2007 - 14:20 ET by WoodyMMaybe the Times meant that came from "International Law," which they believe trumps all others. I take that back. International law doesn't mention any rights for people--just government, which is why the Times likes it.