Keeping Up with The Times

The annual March for Life took place yesterday in Washington. We know this because we read it in The Times.

Eventually.

Once we got to page 12.

At the bottom.

Click here to learn what they had to say on page 12.

What did make the front page of The Times this morning? Why, this year's Academy Awards nominations, to be sure, an article on the newly anointed president's devotion to his Blackberry, and a sad story on the Santa Ana Zoo which is running short of monkeys.

By the way, if you are going to read The Times, there is a special lexicon for proper interpretation. Pro-life people are "abortion rights opponents" and pro-abortion people are "abortion rights advocates". It's all about rights advocates and opponents. The people who support the babies' right to life are "rights opponents" and the people who oppose any rights the babies may have are "rights advocates". Be sure to get that straight.

Elsewhere, we read that the Sainted One still plans to spend our money to kill foreign children. It's in the Wall Street Journal here. But he wanted to be "sensitive" about it and not sign the order on the Roe v. Wade anniversary. The mind reels. I suppose we ought to be thankful for any sensitivity we can get. But I suspect most pro-life people would willingly swap the lives of the babies for the insensitivity: feel free to excoriate us but don't sign the executive order at all.

And you may have noticed that the WSJ also has a precious vocabulary of its own. That's why a rule which forbids giving American money to China to pay for forced abortions on terrified Chinese women is referred to as the "Family Planning Gag Rule".

[Addendum: As of this evening, our brand new president, his sensitivity worn to the nub, has repealed the "Family Planning Gag Rule". Gag, indeed. You can read about it here and the response here.]