Slate Hatchet Job On Firefighter Ricci

Share0
Tweet0
Pin0
Of course this is Dakhia Lithwick of SLate. Why did you expect any different?
Of course this is Dalhia Lithwick of SLate. Why did you expect any different?

You knew it was coming.

Slate is doing a hatchet job on Connecticut firefighter hero Frank Ricci. I won’t go into their despicable article, but suffice to say that the implied underlying theme of the Slate gibberish is that  publishing  the history of Ricci’s law suits somehow makes Sotomayor qualified to be a Supreme Court Judge.

Darn that Supreme Court.  If only they had read the wisdom coming out of lacunaic brains at Slate, they might not have embarrassed the hell out of Sotomayor by making her the first and only SOTUS candidate to be overturned by the SOTUS during her nomination for the SOTUS… ahhh hmmm…

We know that  the real reason that Slate did the piece is because  their masters yanked the chain and they squealed “how high” ? I  do, however, wonder what pretext does  Slate use so that when they wake up in the middle of the night and stare at a mirror in darkness they’ll once again  pull the gun out of their mouths without pulling the trigger? Is it that dyslexia is not real? That the handicapped should not stand up for their rights?  Worry not. The Slate cowards will never clarify their goals  because, like all cowards, they’re afraid – not just of you, but also that the next time they look at that mirror in the middle of the night  maybe they’ll get itchy.
(They linked to us but no  I’m not linking to the article – to hell with them- I am however going over there to post and stir the pot he he he )

Here is the reality of Frank Ricci’s fight and victory over the racist bigoted forces championed by Sotomayor

  1. You are quite correct in labeling Slate’s article as “a hatchet job”.
    First, Mr. Ricci is not responsible for the news media’s supposed depiction of him “as a reluctant standard-bearer”. He has never portrayed himself as “reluctant”, or eager, for that matter. He has simply defended his rights.
    Second, an perhaps more importantly, the Slate article fails to mention that Mr. Ricci WON both his lawsuits!. The first, in 1995, “… was settled in 1997 with a confidential settlement in which Ricci withdrew his lawsuit in exchange for a job with the fire department and $11,143 in attorney’s fees. As for the second, as we all know, the SCOTUS agreed with him.
    I guess that Dahlia Lithwick, the Slate writer, knows better than either the City of New Haven (who settled #1) and the SCOTUS.
    Third, Ms. Lithwick completely misrepresents your comment noting that Mr. Ricci never requested special treatment for his dyslexia. Your comment correctly refers to only his second case against New Haven for throwing out the promotion test. It (the comment) does NOT, as she implies, refer to any of his earlier actions.

    1. In neither of the three law suits did Mr Ricci seek any special advantage because of his dyslexia. Did he want to be treated as equal to everyone else? Sure who doesn’t?As we all know the last case has nothing to do with his handicap at all but of course Dahlia is not known for letting facts interfere with her,ahem, stories.

  2. Is this supposed to be journalism? If you wish to get your point across to a broader audience (and not just yell/preach at those that are ALREADY on your bandwagon), you might consider using citations and actual arguments.

    Your piece on a hatchet job is in itself a hatchet job- and a poor one. Don\’t turn into another Rush Limbaugh wannabe.

Comments are closed.

{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}