The New York Times has previously reported on the dangers of the arcane problem of "epistemic closure," whereby the conservative movement (but evidently not the liberal one) suffers from "a kind of closed-mindedness in the movement....a high-toned abbreviation for ideological intolerance and misinformation."
Speaking of which...In Wednesday's edition of the weekly online chat at nytimes.com among columnists David Brooks and Gail Collins, posted under the heading "Moral Arguments," the more liberal Collins unwittingly provided Exhibit A of ideological intolerance, liberal-style.
Gail Collins: David, I am so worried about how this is going to play out that I can’t even enjoy a good basketball metaphor. I can’t believe this might be overturned. How can this law not be constitutional? The other alternatives are forcing taxpayers to cover the cost of the care in emergency rooms for people who don’t want to pay for their insurance, even if they can, or letting human beings just die on the side of the road. I can’t believe fiscal conservatives think either of those options is a good idea.
Really, I have my hands over my ears. Not listening.
John Podhoretz marveled at the liberal media's shock over this week's evisceration of Obama-care at the Supreme Court in his New York Post column Thursday, "A Supreme Shock for 'La-La' Libs." Podhoretz used a recent op-ed by the Times' former Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse as an "example of the self-defeating parochialism of American liberals, who are continually surprised that conservative ideas and conservative arguments are formidable and can only be bested if they are taken seriously."
In a followup post at Commentary he quoted Collins, "Indeed, yesterday, as I was writing my column, liberal New York Times columnist Gail Collins literally wrote these words: “How can this law not be constitutional?…Really, I have my hands over my ears. Not listening.”