At the same time I get very scared when I read some posters here who say stuff like, “I live in New York and I didn’t see anyone read the NYT.” Living in a city where Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer are demi-gods and even Al Sharpton is regarded as a semi-respectable politician, and having not seen people read the NYT????

I go to the NYT website and they make their money off from–get this–having people PAY to read OPINIONS. News, is of course, FREE! So what I’m seeing is a legion of very liberal people who gladly line up to pay good $$$ to enter the echo chamber. But then of course, I also get scared when I see a legion of conservative folks who don’t read NYT and don’t know anyone in their social circles who do—living in the bluest of blue city in United States… It’s as if Upper East side is it’s own little borough.

Sometimes though, you have to wonder, is it scarier that they read the NYT or is it more scarier that people read the NYP?

Maybe you’re right. All of World War II could have been prevented if Roosevelt had just gotten on the radio and really dissed Adolf.

And if WWII erupted again, we’d have internment of Japanese-Americans all over again.

(Actually, I do see your point and agree with you to a large degree, but I think the lack of caring about wholesale suppression of people whose oppressive government’s abuses we’d like to ignore so they can just go away started with China, not North Korea.)

The NYT really has made itself look very stupid a couple of times when it comes to North Korea. A few months ago, Kristof wrote an ignorant long piece that Bush was a monkey for going into 6 Party Talks, because the North had shown they would only take 1-on-1 meetings seriously thus making the 6 party ones useless. And after reams of words calling Bush a sucker and what not, he added that 1-on-1 talks which the North wants would be a format in which human rights could be put on the table as well.

??????

How does that work exactly? If the most important thing is to get the Norks into a position where they feel like talking for real, but somehow bringing in human rights issues isn’t going to lead to gridlock?

I am for putting human rights on the table, but Kristof’s argument was a complete mess.

Then you have this one today….

If in the 1st third of the editorial, you say sanctions are a correct thing to do if the North has been illegally printing US dollars (and other things) the new sanctions were said to target, how in the world does the rest of the article make any sense whatsoever?

We know the North has been caught red handed doing everything claimed against them.

So, didn’t we just waist moments of our lives reading an editorial that shouldn’t have even been written if the author believes what he says he believes?

And when you read him using the phrase “Patriot Act sanctions,” you see the real desperation in trying to make an argument that works…..

…..it was a clear process of the guy falling back off the weak thoughts to gain blind support from the party faithful — where just mentioning “The Patriot Act” is meant to rally the masses to you — when you haven’t got a point to make.

What a sad editorial.

To think this is a newspaper of influence around the world, and they have to hammer out such a weak thought as that…..

President Bush should use harsher languages to put these asshos to the rightful place. These savages respect that type of language and understand the message better. Don’t use sissy-language with them. President Carter did and became a laughing stock, even to them.

—-if Hitler were facing the global community today………..I absolutely believe…..history would repeat itself…almost to a T.

You guys can have the front row seats to yourselves.