[P-40]

“I would like to see real breaking news,” he said.

The Wall Street Journal is quality news reporting. That is why it can be kind of boring and appeals to a limited segment of the population. If someone wants to read a tabloid, they can always get the New York Times.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Wall Street Journal has always done quite a few editorials defending people accused of day care sex crimes. And they tied that in to the Libby case in their editorials defending Libby!

Defending the particular people accused of the particular "sex crimes" is IMHO honorable. By all reasonable accounts, the transcripts of the testimonies of the "victims" are simply not rationally credible; the testimonies don't make physical sense and don't accord with physical evidence. The "victims" were children bullied into accusing the adults. IMHO. One of the accused "offenders" who was finally vindicated, sort of, was railroaded by Janet Reno down in Florida, before she was tapped for Attorney General - and went on to accept being lied to by President Clinton, and being told to propagate those lies to the public. She must have accepted it; she didn't resign when the truth came out.

(The Journal's stance is memory "experts" say we can't trust memory for important things at all, not names and places or who did sex crimes.)

"Recovered memories" are particularly dangerous, being essentially the products of brainwashing. People can "know" things that simply ain't so.