Earlier this week, the New York Times did itself little honor when it blasted the Bush Admnistration for not providing the very federal monies that it itself had raged against in an earlier editorial.
Well, it seems this kind of thing is becoming a pattern with the Paper of Record. From the Weekly Standard “Scrapbook,” Sept 5/12, “The Best of Times, the Worst of Times”:
Let it be recordeth that when, in January 2004, “we the people of Afghanistan” didst promulgate a brand-new constitution–“in the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate” and “Believing in the Sacred religion of Islam”–rich men and shepherds alike rejoiced, and even the New York Times editorial page found something nice to say. Something very, very nice, in fact. The Afghan blueprint was an “excellent foundation” for that nation’s future, the Times announced, and the Bush administration was right to be “thrilled” by its “enlightened” compromise between “the goal of an Islamic state” and the need to abide by international human rights norms.
Let it further be recordeth, that the Times found reason to issue such a ringing endorsement of the Afghan constitution despite the fact that said constitution (1) established “an Islamic Republic” in which “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam”; (2) adopted a national flag and insignia each of which prominently incorporates a “sacred phrase” about there being “no God but Allah”; (3) imposed explicitly sectarian religious tests and oath requirements on candidates for highest national office; and (4) formally ensured that these and other “provisions of adherence” to an “Islamic Republic” and its faith “cannot be amended,” ever.
Maybe the Times was just in a really, really good mood that day? Who knows?
And who cares? That was then, and this is now, when it’s the people of Iraq who’ve just made public a draft constitution. Rich men and shepherds alike have again rejoiced. But this time the Times finds the whole business “unsettling.” And then some. Iraq’s “badly flawed,” “reckless,” even “indefensible” constitutional proposal raises legitimate fears of an “Iranian-style Shiite theocracy” and altogether fails to promote national unity and peace, the Times complains. “Nor does it reflect well on the Bush administration,” which has abandoned its responsibility to promote Iraqi respect for “women’s rights and the rule of law.”
The Times, let it finally be recordeth, is particularly exercised over provisions in the new constitution “declaring Iraq an Islamic state and prohibiting any legislation that conflicts with the fixed principles of Islam.” Why this might be a problem in Iraq but not Afghanistan the Times does not explain.
Could it be that the Times has no respect for its readers? Or perhaps that the editorial staff just believes that their readers’ memories are as afflicted by Bush Derangement Syndrome as their own?
Just, y’know, spitballing here…
The NYT is a political party, or maybe a PAC. Indeed all of the media is a politcal party. They don’t see truth or consistency as part of their job description.
The other day I was accused of being an ideologue, and I confessed that I did indeed have a system of political beliefs. It has become quite common, especially of the left is seems, to throw ideologue out as an insult, and it confuses me a bit. But then the NYT or someone similar does one of these numbers, and I am reminded that it is alot more convenient to just demand what they want, when they want it, for whatever reason, and not give a rat’s ass how they go about getting it.
If they are in the majority, they believe in democracy. If they are in the minority, they suddenly remember the Constitution and rationalize some way for it to cover it.
Ideology is a rudder, and too many politicoes have none. That’s why they sail around in circles like that.
“Could it be that the Times has no respect for its readers?”</br></br>
Yes.
Is there any chance they’re just fucking morons?
Rather, it’s obvious they don’t ever bother to read their own editorials. Its a wonder anyone else does.
They are just supplying a demand, is all. The newest rumblings on the boards at Washington Monthly
is about how the MSM is focusing on the problems in Louisiana to make democrats look bad, but ignoring the problems in Mississippi because they are covering up for Haley Barbour and the rethugs. If your target marketshare are dimbulbs, you have to make the print a little bigger I guess.
I think Charlie hit it. I read the dopes everyday and I just have to come to the conclusion that they are the fucking idiot spawn of intellectual incest. Wasn’t it that supernumerary Pauline Kael who opined that she couldn’t understand how some Republican (I forget which) got elected since no one she knew voted for him? You gotta love ‘em, their incompetence makes it so much easier
Too good. TW: “fire” as in when you see the whites of their flags. Take no prisoners.
Well, could it be that Iraq is right next door to Iran, one of the biggest state-sponsors of terrorism in the world, and a nuclear threat to boot?
Whereas Afghanistan…oh. Nevermind.
“Is there any chance they’re just fucking morons?”
I’d say the chances were good. Any paper that would let a couple of eighth grade nitwits like Dowd and Krugman into their editorial pages MUST be run by morons. When I was growing up, these two would not have been allowed near a typewriter, much less a newsroom. Welcome to the new millenium…
I think they’re convinced that they’ve soundbitten and quick-cut-transitioned us into a herd of ADD-afflicted sheep, waiting to be led whichever way they choose for us. They don’t have to be consistent, they just have to give us another dunk in the Styx and any memories that conflict with today’s spin will be washed away.