[aunursa typing with left hand -- right hand is donating apheresis.]

Absolutely — I can certainly see a legitimate conflict of interest with the restaurant, because I can see what she stands to gain by misrepresenting her feelings about it.

If she says “the food at this restaurant is wonderful,” I wonder if she’s just saying that because she wants me to eat at this restaurant, so her husband’s job is secure.

But her rave reviews of this decision — when she says “this decision is wonderful” what is she trying to persuade me to do? Take another case to the supreme court, because it’s such a fair, unbiased institution? No. Hire her husband? No, the story doesn’t mention her husband.

What is she going to gain? How can she deceive me into doing something that will benefit her?

That’s what’s missing in this case that’s present in your restarant cook/reviewer analogy.

How about if she was the wife of a chef and she gave a rave review of the restaurant at which he toiled, but did not own? Split that hair, if you please.

Has she not sundered her credibility? Has the NYT not been similarly degraded?

Isn’t this enough to scorn each of these?

I guess you were not kidding ** sigh **

If that’s really what you guys think, then fine, whatever. I certainly wasn’t persuaded of that by the story, and I don’t know of anyone who would think that.

If she only thinks it’s a great decision because it’s a great victory for her husband, and she wants to puff up the importance of the decision to increase his notoriety, then that could be a conflict of interest, I guess. Although not a particularly harmful one at all. How does her worshipful tone create any harm?

The slobbering slavishness of Fox News to all things neocon is equally biased — just because they support these issues from politically-related bias rather family-related bias doesn’t make them any less biased.

You guys are acting like you’ve discovered a conspiracy. What’s the harm? Do you really think she’s going to persuade anyone that this was a great decision, against their will?

I still think this is all sour grapes, because you guys don’t like the outcome of the case.

Distressingly common sorts of stuff, and not the worst example I can think of. Locally, we had what appears to me to be the first defensive shooting by a permit holder since we changed our law.

Two problems: the shootee was an offduty cop, who was engaged to a staffer at a local news station. The reporter for the news station promptly busied himself researching a traffic arrest, several years before . . .

. . . . of the shooter? Nope.

The shootee? Nope.

He went on a hunting expedition into the background of prime witness to the offduty cop’s misbehavior.

(Disclosure: I’m leaving out a lot of stuff, some of it relevant.)

The more popular the Patriots become, the more successful will be team jerseys and other New England merchandising. And the more lucrative will be the endorsement offers for the New England players.