I Can't Believe The Times Stated This.
We here have read quite a bit of the New York Times. It’s one of the central MSM sources we look at everyday. But today, the Times put up the following:
(Hat-Tip: Captain's Quarters)
THE United States now has a mercenary army. To be sure, our soldiers are hired from within the citizenry, unlike the hated Hessians whom George III recruited to fight against the American Revolutionaries. But like those Hessians, today's volunteers sign up for some mighty dangerous work largely for wages and benefits - a compensation package that may not always be commensurate with the dangers in store, as current recruiting problems testify.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/opinion/25kennedy.html?ex=1279944000&en=95cbd1d32bd02bdf&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
The link above will take you to the piece. And I am, frankly, flabbergasted that the Times would stoop to such a level. This really takes the cake among the "elites" of the MSM. This is reprehensible, in our eyes. The Times has the utter audacity to call our troops "mercenaries," which is just a step above Sen. Durbin equating them to the thugs among dictators of the past. And they refer to our troops this way, but are afraid to label Hamas and Hezbollah as the "terrorist" groups that they are. They have yet to do so, to my knowledge. But as this particular issue deals with the military, I now defer to she-who-will-be-obeyed.
Our troops do not sign up to serve this nation for money and benefits. My brother earns less than what he would have earned had he stayed in school. But after 9/11, like a lot of young Americans, he felt the need—the calling—to stand up and defend the nation he was born in, raised in, and believed in. Mercenaries, to correct the Times, reach for fame and fortune. They do not stand up and fight for a patriotic fervor or obligation. All they care about is the bottom line; that paycheck and the perks that come with it.
And I detest the Times for being so severely obtuse on this matter. The same "mercenaries" they slander are the ones protecting their right to publish and print such tripe. I would like to see the editorial board on the firing line protecting their right. But then I must remind myself that the board, in and of itself, is so cowardly that they would be as helpful as a broken arm on the front lines. And by their very nature, when it comes to painting such a bleak picture of the war effort, they would be more of a detriment than a benefit.
If someone were to ask me who the lowest form of life was on the planet, I would have to state that it is, overall, a journalist. Several reasons I will cite for this opinion. These people are lazy, as it obvious by how often they have been caught lying about, or exaggerating, facts they print. They do opine quite nicely, but news is not opinion or commentary. This is also a point I make against journalists. When we report on a piece of news, there is a level of commentary about it, but we report the facts first, then head to our opinion. And all of our readers know this when they venture here.
Reporters also hide behind their First Amendment protections, and state they have a right to print whatever without fear of repercussions. So, I guess they would prefer to avoid the libel suits that could be filed on behalf of their lies? Too bad. As it stands right now, bloggers are the only people holding these buffoons accountable, and aside from raising the ire of the populace, and causing hardship to a MSM outlet, there is not way to hold these people accountable. Look at Dan Rather. Dan Rather believed in his own mythic portrayal so much that he was willing to go on TV, use phony documents, and outright slander the sitting president of the United States prior to an election in the hopes his lies would stick. I am happy to report he failed, and is on the back-burner at CBS now.
In closing I would like to simply say this: Retract the "mercenary" comment, and issue an apology. At the very least, it is the proper thing to do. And I would expect professionals to own up to their mistake. If a retraction is not made, or an apology handed down, then I openly support a boycott of this paper. Despite the fact that Thomas and I peruse it’s pages daily, both of us would walk away from it right now. That goes for anyone or any organization that defames our troops. It’s not acceptable. Not during a time of war. One of FDR’s opponents during the election of 1944 stated that he would not criticize the president over the war. To do so, he would consider it treason. I believe that such partisan attacks against our troops and the president during a time of war skirts dangerously close to such a charge.
The Bunny ;) & Publius II
We here have read quite a bit of the New York Times. It’s one of the central MSM sources we look at everyday. But today, the Times put up the following:
(Hat-Tip: Captain's Quarters)
THE United States now has a mercenary army. To be sure, our soldiers are hired from within the citizenry, unlike the hated Hessians whom George III recruited to fight against the American Revolutionaries. But like those Hessians, today's volunteers sign up for some mighty dangerous work largely for wages and benefits - a compensation package that may not always be commensurate with the dangers in store, as current recruiting problems testify.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/opinion/25kennedy.html?ex=1279944000&en=95cbd1d32bd02bdf&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
The link above will take you to the piece. And I am, frankly, flabbergasted that the Times would stoop to such a level. This really takes the cake among the "elites" of the MSM. This is reprehensible, in our eyes. The Times has the utter audacity to call our troops "mercenaries," which is just a step above Sen. Durbin equating them to the thugs among dictators of the past. And they refer to our troops this way, but are afraid to label Hamas and Hezbollah as the "terrorist" groups that they are. They have yet to do so, to my knowledge. But as this particular issue deals with the military, I now defer to she-who-will-be-obeyed.
Our troops do not sign up to serve this nation for money and benefits. My brother earns less than what he would have earned had he stayed in school. But after 9/11, like a lot of young Americans, he felt the need—the calling—to stand up and defend the nation he was born in, raised in, and believed in. Mercenaries, to correct the Times, reach for fame and fortune. They do not stand up and fight for a patriotic fervor or obligation. All they care about is the bottom line; that paycheck and the perks that come with it.
And I detest the Times for being so severely obtuse on this matter. The same "mercenaries" they slander are the ones protecting their right to publish and print such tripe. I would like to see the editorial board on the firing line protecting their right. But then I must remind myself that the board, in and of itself, is so cowardly that they would be as helpful as a broken arm on the front lines. And by their very nature, when it comes to painting such a bleak picture of the war effort, they would be more of a detriment than a benefit.
If someone were to ask me who the lowest form of life was on the planet, I would have to state that it is, overall, a journalist. Several reasons I will cite for this opinion. These people are lazy, as it obvious by how often they have been caught lying about, or exaggerating, facts they print. They do opine quite nicely, but news is not opinion or commentary. This is also a point I make against journalists. When we report on a piece of news, there is a level of commentary about it, but we report the facts first, then head to our opinion. And all of our readers know this when they venture here.
Reporters also hide behind their First Amendment protections, and state they have a right to print whatever without fear of repercussions. So, I guess they would prefer to avoid the libel suits that could be filed on behalf of their lies? Too bad. As it stands right now, bloggers are the only people holding these buffoons accountable, and aside from raising the ire of the populace, and causing hardship to a MSM outlet, there is not way to hold these people accountable. Look at Dan Rather. Dan Rather believed in his own mythic portrayal so much that he was willing to go on TV, use phony documents, and outright slander the sitting president of the United States prior to an election in the hopes his lies would stick. I am happy to report he failed, and is on the back-burner at CBS now.
In closing I would like to simply say this: Retract the "mercenary" comment, and issue an apology. At the very least, it is the proper thing to do. And I would expect professionals to own up to their mistake. If a retraction is not made, or an apology handed down, then I openly support a boycott of this paper. Despite the fact that Thomas and I peruse it’s pages daily, both of us would walk away from it right now. That goes for anyone or any organization that defames our troops. It’s not acceptable. Not during a time of war. One of FDR’s opponents during the election of 1944 stated that he would not criticize the president over the war. To do so, he would consider it treason. I believe that such partisan attacks against our troops and the president during a time of war skirts dangerously close to such a charge.
The Bunny ;) & Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home