Never missing the opportunity to twist the anti-Bush knife

Here I am, happily reading a New York Times movie review about the new Oliver Twist movie, when suddenly I stumble onto a completely unrelated, yet nevertheless extremely mean-spirited political attack:

In the landscape of "Oliver Twist," as in "The Pianist," goodness is so rare and inexplicable as to seem almost absurd. Oliver is played by Barney Clark, who was 11 when the film was made and whose slight frame and delicate features emphasize his character's vulnerability. An orphan, Oliver lands first in a workhouse (its resemblance to a concentration camp is hardly accidental), and before long finds himself apprenticed to a weak-willed coffin maker. At every turn he is menaced by adults whose grotesqueness, while comical, is also a measure of their moral deformity, and of the ugliness of the society that makes them possible. The worst thing about these villains, who tend to occupy positions of at least relative power, is that they believe their sadism and lack of compassion to be the highest expressions of benevolence. Like Barbara Bush after seeing the "underprivileged" citizens of New Orleans exiled to the Astrodome, they insist on telling Oliver that things are working out pretty well for him.

Never mind that this has absolutely nothing to do with a movie review and is just a gratuitous political insult. There it is. The other day, I noted that an New York Times movie reviewer included a completely gratuitous anti-clerical dig into an otherwise innocuous review about Tim Burton's Corpse Bride. I've finally decided that the problem isn't these movie reviewers, who are simply producing the material that would logical flow from liberal zealots sheltered within the New York Times walls. The problem is me, because I keep stupidly believing that, if the New York Times is no longer capable of reporting about politics or any type of real news, it might still have some capabilities in other errors. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.