Tuesday, February 7, 2017

The Pathetic New York Times

What else can you call it?

One more time, on the “bromance” between Trump and Putin….

Moral Equivalence?

“You got a lot of killers,” Mr. Trump told Bill O’Reilly of the slavishly pro-Trump Fox News. “What, you think our country’s so innocent?”

The editors at the Times take exception to this:

…rather than endorsing American exceptionalism, Mr. Trump seemed to appreciate Mr. Putin’s brutality…

I find nothing in Trump’s comments to suggest he “appreciates” Putin’s brutality.  Trump merely stated, in the form of a question, an undeniable fact.

The editors of the Times are very good at listing in some detail Putin’s transgressions – not all of which have any factual basis (but facts cannot be allowed to get in the way of these editors).

There is a Wikipedia page dedicated to all US military operations since 1775.  I count 70 US military operations since 1991 and the fall of the Soviet Union.  There is no such page for Russia; there are two unique pages – one for Syria and one for Ukraine.  That’s it.  Off of the top of my head, I would add Georgia.

The US military interventions span the globe; the Russian military interventions are either directly on the borders of Russia or to a close, long-time ally.  The US military interventions have killed, wounded or displaced countless millions of people.  The Russian interventions?  I will guess in the tens or hundreds of thousands at most.

Do the editors of the Times dare deal with reality?  No.  Not on this topic.

Speaking of Martians

On to the next topic:

Since taking office, Mr. Trump has shown little support for America’s traditional roles as a champion of universal values like freedom of the press and tolerance.

Martians value “freedom of the press and tolerance”?  Are these really universal values?  Returning to this planet, are these valued in so-called US allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel? 

The Times might consider – these so-called universal values may not be universal and in any case are not the business of the US government outside of the United States.  Tolerance is not the business of the US government within the United States, either.  The Constitution offers freedom of the press; it says nothing of tolerance.

The Ends Justify the Means

The Times, like all apologists for the military empire that is the United States, accepts immorality if the (advertised) ends are noble:

At least in recent decades, American presidents who took military action have been driven by the desire to promote freedom and democracy…

Ask the millions of dead, wounded and displaced if they appreciate the “freedom and democracy” that they have achieved via US intervention.  The ends justify the means only for those who benefits from “the ends,” and not for those who suffer through “the means.”

Whatever one might say about Hussein in Iraq, Ghaddafi in Libya, or Assad in Syria, the people in these countries weren’t dying by the millions before the United States intervened on their behalf.

…sometimes with extraordinary results, as when Germany and Japan evolved after World War II from vanquished enemies into trusted, prosperous allies.

This isn’t “recent decades.”  This is more than seventy years ago.  And it would be more accurate to describe Germany and Japan as vassal states, not “allies.”

A Stopped Clock…

The Times gets one thing right:

…Mr. Trump has…laid the groundwork for an aggressive campaign that could lead to conflict with Iran…

I wish Trump wouldn’t take actions that could lead to conflict with Iran.  One reason Trump won the election is because many people in the United States are tired of war and are tired of paying for war.

Do you want to see terrorism and the refugee crisis lose steam?  How about just stop bombing people.  The Times could endorse precisely this policy – you know, the opposite of the policy endorsed by their preferred candidate.


  1. From Bogart:
    Next thing the Times will do is to trot Krugman out to argue that mass war up through space based weapons is actually good for an economy. Yeah, Hillary feels this way.

    Or maybe trot Krugman out to argue that war is a little to harsh, but massive defense buildups are good for an economy. Yeah, Hillary feels this way.

    Or they will trot Krugman out and argue that the Police/Spying State is good for the economy. Yeah, Hillary feels this way.

    Or maybe the Times believes that Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine, Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Bosnia, etc are just a few years away from becoming beacons of freedom and enlightenment. Yeah, Hillary feels this way.

  2. Agreed.


  3. Actually, tolerance does have a place in the US Constitution, in the same amendment as freedom of the press, under the name "freedom of religion". Coming originally from Rhode Island, I grew up knowing the story of Roger Williams, and his nearly fatal problems with the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay colony. His example as well as others produced the tolerance for religious differences, and the unheard of hands-off approach with regard to a national religion found in the first amendment.

    The Peace of Westphalia resulted from general acceptance of the principle "quius regio, eius religio", but full religious tolerance was championed by Americans. What we have today is a splintering of morality, and the subsequent "culture wars", with each side attempting to make their personal view of morality the law of the land. We basically now function according to the principle "cuius regio, eius mores", as left and right capture the government. These wars will not end until, like religion, morality is left to the individual conscience. Is this not, in fact, exactly what the non-aggression principle would accomplish if widely adopted?

    1. Dwight, your point is valid, yet I do not interpret the context in the same way.

      Neither the Times nor current usage suggests "tolerance" to mean anything other than whatever lifestyle and culture they want to jam down our throat, we have to swallow - by law.

      This isn't "tolerance"; it is intolerance of the most tyrannical sort.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. From the Times article,
    "But no American president has done what Mr. Putin has done in silencing nearly all independent media, crushing dissent..."
    J.F.K., Martin Luther King, John Lennon, Snowden, Bradley Manning, Lincoln during the War of Secession, etc, etc, etc.
    The list goes on and, and on, and on, and...

  6. The Martians value "freedom of the press" and "tolerance" to a much more extreme degree than we terrans do. I've expressed this view (as an interplanetary journalist) to members of the Sublime Council on more than one occasion; I have also represented my views to the High Znam. The only action has been a reaffirmation of both concepts, and the promise of further expansion.

    My strong suspicion is that thr wheels are coming off the global economy with a vengeance; and I also suspect that the "Atlantic" economy (North America and the Western Europe) is on the leading edge with a vengeanc. I think that we in Asia will be hurt, but not as badly as North America and Western Europe.

  7. Articles like this Times piece explain why the Times doesn't need a comics section.

  8. I am a non-American, and have always been puzzled at the US establishment claim of "exceptionalism" and "moral equivalence".

    These two things seem to be justification for a sociopathic foreign policy in which murders committed by the US government are always considered just and right, and those killings committed by foreign governments are always wrong, even in self defense.

    Mitch McConnel came out the other day saying that the US has no "moral equivalence" to the Russian government. For once, I agree with that cuck. The US is FAR WORSE.

    Down with the empire!