Today's post derives from spending 20 minutes with the Sunday New York Times. I used to love and respect that paper. It's just a shame but then I live in a country that elected George Bush after seeing him in action for almost 4 years. There are three POS articles on Thompson, Saudi Arabia and the Surge. None of them mention the reality. There is also a mention of cancer as metaphor.
-- more after a short HTTP break --
Marc Santora at the NY Times has an article on Fred Thomson headlined "Thompson Tries Out Campaign Lines" which allows him to transcribe the stump sound bites that Thompson is using with out having to even hint at a reality near Kevin Drum at Political Animal's judgement:
Thompson is a guy whose political record in the Senate was a big zero; whose only real claim to fame is being a character actor on TV and in films; who has done nothing to distinguish himself this year except deliver a few vaguely Reaganesque pastiches in a nice baritone; who is apparently not Christian enough for James Dobson's taste; who has no known issues that he really cares deeply about; and whose most famous quality is his laziness.
Along the same lines Walter Shapiro at Salon talks about how three of the Republican candidates (including Thompson) have cancer. My immediate reaction was to concoct a line by a media pundit: "We would never make an issue of the Republican candidates cancers because the metaphor of cancer would tend to remind people of their incurable essential moral decay."
And going for the Bifecta, The NY Times Week in Review lead article is about the conflict in Saudi Arabia between the benefits of modern life and religious traditional practices. I was interested in seeing how the article would deal with the systemic corruption that is the nature of Saudi "government". Turns out it isn't a factor so the article didn't mention it.
And the Trifecta is an op ed on the Sunday NY Times Op Ed page, Plan B? Let’s Give Plan A Some Time First by the father of the Surge (who gave up this beloved son for adoption by Republican President Bush.) I think his article is saying, "the surge is working because he can point to a half a dozen places where things are not as bad as they were." I could be wrong, I am not fluent in Neoconish. The examples all neglect that violence is down in the cherrypicked cases because the anti-occupation forces have moved elsewhere. You know during the 16th and 17th centuries, the victor in a battle was considered to be whoever was in possession of the field of battle at the end. That's not the case anymore. Anyhow, I had trouble understanding the article so I cut and pasted it into google translate, selected neocon to english, checked the summarize box and got: "One more FU."\
crossposted at unsourced.com