Why Does the New York Times Hate America so Much?
Filed under: US Elections
Is it simply because it won't buy their paper?
Can there be, anywhere in American society, an institution more loathsome, contemptible and pathetic than this self-styled "paper of record"?
In the past few days, we've reported two tremendous batches of good news for America, first on the domestic front and then on the international. We noted, in passing, that the New York Times either concealed the data from its readers or grossly perverted it into malicious propaganda.
The Times is undoubtedly fuming because, as we've also reported recently, Repubicans have enjoyed a series of impressive electoral successes while Nancy Pelosi's first term as Speaker has been exposed as a pathetic sham, even as their own stock price and circulation (to say nothing of paper size, ad revenues, etc.) have plummeted. It can't have helped calm the Times moonbats that, only days ago, the paper was forced to take on a second right-wing columnist for the first time in its history, and William Kristol of all choices. But if one thought (or even hoped) that this was a good sign, a sign of reform and improvement at the times, one was cruelly disappointed. The bitterness of failure, it seems is now seeping out of every pore.
And so we get yesterday's editorial in which the Times roots, cheers, hopes for America to fail economically. I mean really, how low can you go?
It's so sad to see the editors of the Times, post Jayson Blair, post George Bush re-election with a majority of the popular vote, squirm and wiggle like worms in the muck to avoid what the paper itself recognizes are "rising wages, low unemployment and what he calls healthy economic growth" combined with booming "business investment and exports."
It says house prices are down. So what? It's called capitalism, and perhaps that's why the commie rats the Times don't understand it. Markets have some irrational exuberance, then they have a correction. Those who speculated to brashly pay the piper; those who had previously been priced out of home ownership now can enter it. The Times says bank losses are mounting. That's the same problem, in different words. Shameful. It says the price of oil is soaring. Indeed so. And this will force America to wean itself from foreign dependence, one of the healthiest things that could possibly happen to the country. Time to fully develop the Canadian oil shales and make America energy subsistent. That will drive enemies like Iran and Russia right into the ground, and it couldn't happen any other way.
Read the editorial for yourself. But I warn you: You'll feel sick in your stomach as you realize that the Times editors don't offer one single constructive suggestion as to how to improve our economic progress even more. Instead, they just use the opportunity to bash President Bush in the manner of Soviet propaganda. Hatred for our country oozes out of every word like pus from a pimple.
Of course, it would be quite difficult for the Times to offer advice on economic success, because they themselves are failing so miserably. The hypocrisy might cause what few readers it has left to simply burst out laughing. Try to find a Times editorial that attacks the paper's owners for their mismanagement in the same way it attacks George Bush, though. Good luck with that.
An article today by one of the Times most-criticized reporters, Alessandra Stanley, states: "Late-night talk shows are soap operas dressed up as entertainment." Maybe so, but those "soap operas" (especially Jon Stewart) are cleaning the Times' clock when it comes to providing information to young people, the future, and maybe that's the most crucial factor in explaining the Times' seething bitterness, which has now apparently resulted in total blindness and a Thelma-and-Louise-like rush to the edge.