Nina Totenberg of NPR, and the editorial writers at the New York Times are both feigning surprise that Clarence Thomas still harbors some anger at their efforts to destroy his reputation, and his chance to sit on the highest court of the land. The Times' editorialist wrote:

"The rage he harbors raises questions about whether he can sit as an impartial judge in many of the cases the Supreme Court hears."

That quote is the headline of a recent post by Ann Althouse, who responds:

The NYT would like to say that Clarence Thomas's anger disqualifies from hearing some cases. Isn't it insanely obvious that if a liberal black judge harbored anger for the way he was treated over the years, the NYT would admire him for his passion and for the crucial perspective he brings to judging — perspective that white judges can never hope to reach through mere knowledge and empathy?

But somehow NYT editorial writers can understand that a conservative black judge's emotions are distorted, overblown, and disqualifying.

A recent Brent Bozell op-ed quotes Congressman Bobby Rush (D-Illinois), as he holds what Bozell dubs "a very unique hearing, focusing on the way the culture is being soured by the makers of sexist and racially charged rap music":

The congressman could have knuckled under from pressure by the anything-goes Old Guard of gangsta rap, but instead boldly put his prestige where his heart is. He said this music of violence and degradation has ''reduced too many of our youngsters to automatons, those who don't recognize life, those who don't value life.'' He was unequivocal. “There is a problem -- a deep-seated, deeply rooted problem in our country," he said. "The paycheck is not an excuse for being part of the problem.”

Loser: Michael Eric Dyson. The professor and Bill Cosby-hating author has become America’s leading excuse-maker for irresponsible thug music. He blamed America, that never-draining cesspool of racism, for whatever problem exists. “America is built upon degrading images of black men and women, so any discussion of misogyny or homophobia or sexism has got to dig deep into America, including Congress and corporate and religious institutions.”

Congressman Rush was not accepting that ridiculous excuse. He understands black rage against injustice in America, but in no way does it justify thuggery. He said, “I still have rage, but how do I channel it? Am I going to spew out counterproductively? Or do I accept a higher responsibility to take my rage and do something to improve the community?"

Why is it perfect acceptably for a liberal black congressman to declare that “I still have rage, but how do I channel it?", but not a conservative black Supreme Court justice?

Back to Ann:

Imagine that a liberal black judge had written a passionate, personal story of his life. Make that judge a man who grew up in poverty in the south in the era of segregation. Imagine a conservative newspaper editorial criticizing him for failing to write something more dignified, something more like like a history book written a white judge who was raised in middle-class, midwestern suburbia or a theoretical book written by a white man who spent his childhood in middle-class San Francisco. Don't you think the New York Times would sneer at that editorial and call it racist?

Via blogger "Eclecticity" who adds, "the New York Times is almost brazen in it's elitism and leftism, but since they breath the air in Manhattan, they can't even see it."

Which is an awfully parochial attitude for a newspaper whose publisher was once quoted as saying that "Diversity not only makes good moral sense, it makes good business sense too."