Two articles in the New York Times today capture just how far out in left field the "newspaper of record" has wandered.
First, we are treated to an essay on the ethics of eating peas. No, the article is not using satire or hyperbole. We're seeing the stirrings of a new movement for people for whom veganism simply isn't radical enough. We are seriously asked to consider the ethics of eating peas, because studies have shown that pea plants can remember, communicate with one another and react to the information received. Somewhere, some insane vegan will decide forego the eating of highly evolved plants.
Second, the author E.L. Doctorow is given space for a screed that is notable for managing to fit more distortion, ignorance and misinformation in 713 words than any piece of writing in history. I hardly know where to begin. It's not an essay so much as a pompous recitation of the most blinkered leftist talking points possible. Since he tosses off each in a sentence without any attempt to explain or support his statements, it's really not worthwhile to try to refute them. He sees evil destructive ideas at work destroying our republic in everything from Bush's illegitimate election (Yes, my lord, still that. BDS will never end, apparently) to concealed carry laws.
The article makes so many ludicrous, fallacious claims, it would be embarrassing as a blog post, no less a selection in what used to be the U.S.'s most respected daily newspaper.
These are on top of the business-as-usual tag team of Maureen Dowd and Nicholas Kristoff both penning columns about how mean and evil the old white men of the Catholic Church are for daring to criticize nuns. Neither of those columnists can ever resist the chance to bash them some old white Catholic men, so I can't really be surprised.
No comments:
Post a Comment