No, No, Nitsy!

I admit that after the way the Wall Street Jingos have systematically misbehaved, -- and even before Murdoch! -- on their op-ed page and with their cheap trashy wannabe-quaint Ye Olde Worlde engravatures that relentlessy made all WSJ ideobuddies look nice and all WSJ sceptics look, well, not so nice, some such retaliatiory offense as this was bound to come, yet woe to thee Aunt Nitsy, that it should thus come by thee!

Malignantly to sketch from scratch modo Manichaeo or for the sake of the OnePercenter jingos' Boy and Party is one thing, and maliciously to decolorize from a colour photo is quite another. (Does one add value or subtract?) If even their [exp. del.] Boy-'n'-Party neo-bigotess of a Miss Piggy Noonan can render all her relentlessly partisan blacks and whites in mere prose and typography, O Nitsy, why can't you respond in kind, for Pete's sake! Don't you see, ma'am, that you quite needlessly burden us good guys with the onus of having been first to deploy this particular sort of journalistic poison gas?

Since there is doubtless no colour photograph of "The New York Times Company" that exists to be thus decolorized and neo-vulgarized , O Nitsy, you must presumably think yourself perfectly safe from any direct tit-for-tat retaliation.

We'll see, Time will tell at last! In the meantime, there is bound to be lots of "collateral damage" all the same.

(( O God!, O Montreal!!, O Bernie Lewis!!! ))