Posted on 07/30/2003 9:40:22 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay
Not even the food articles in the New York Times are a safe haven from liberal potshots. In a New York Times Magazine story this past Sunday, Jonathan Reynolds ostensibly recounted his trip to Norway to learn how to prepare scallops and other fish. But in the midst of his piece, he took a shot at President Bush's capital gains tax cut.
Reynolds described the monkfish as "the poor man's lobster" and asserted: "If you see a whole monkfish at the market, you'll find its massive mouth scarier than a shark's. Apparently it sits on the bottom of the ocean, opens its Godzilla jaws and waits for poor unsuspecting fishies to swim right into it, not unlike the latest recipients of W's capital-gains cuts."
"This is a food column, for crying out loud," exclaimed James Taranto in his "Best of the Web" column on Monday for OpinionJournal.com (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003808 ). Taranto tried to dissect the analogy: "Aside from the inappropriateness of the political commentary, this is really bad writing. We had to puzzle over it for several minutes before we realized that in Reynolds's metaphor, both the tax cut and those who benefit from it are fish."
Here's the paragraph in full with the monkfish leading to a remark about the capital gains tax cut:
"In the kitchen, Nina sauteed fresh, fat scallops in a little butter, removed them and made a simple but exquisite saffron sauce by adding a little stock, cream and a few pink peppercorns for color. Eystein dipped monkfish chunks into an elemental flour batter for quick sauteeing. I've never subscribed to the marketers' description of monkfish as the 'poor man's lobster' -- it's like the Chicken Liver Council claiming its product is Gonzo's rib-eye for those who can't afford it. I usually find it combative in texture and only mildly toothsome. If you see a whole monkfish at the market, you'll find its massive mouth scarier than a shark's. Apparently it sits on the bottom of the ocean, opens its Godzilla jaws and waits for poor unsuspecting fishies to swim right into it, not unlike the latest recipients of W's capital-gains cuts. So it has in common with lobster only reprehensibility of character."
For the July 27 New York Times Magazine piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/magazine/27FOOD.html
There's no where to hide from the bias in the New York Times.
O O O O O Hey...just another fish tale!
For a good part of it's history there was a significant percentage of the US economy which was managed collectively.
People would all work based upon their abilty, and all would contribute to the collective throughout the year. Then at the end of the year, one member (who was decided in advance ) would distribute the returns of the collective based upon a number of issues including need.
This system remained in place for years and years until one day, Republican politicians decided that the collectives needed to be broken up.
So they used their firm control of the military industrial complex and took their army to the collectives and forcibly dismantled them. What happened to the members of the collectives?... They set them free.
(A little idea I've been playing with for debating libs.)
Hiya kids! Hiya Hiya!
I knew lobster were called the "cockroach of the sea," but I don't see how eating whatever happens to come along is a character flaw. Sounds like survival to me.
But I get the point, it's too vague. It's still an idea in development.
It's a tricky balance between setting it up and knocking it down. I've been worried about the big suprise, but I guess I should be a little more specific.
Thanks for the feedback.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.