The first time that most Americans heard of now-Senator Tom Cotton was in 2006, when, while serving as a lieutenant in Iraq, he wrote a famous letter to the New York Times upbraiding them for publishing the secret details of the federal government’s anti-terrorist financing program. The conclusion of that letter: “By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.” In this final clip from our recent conversation on Uncommon Knowledge, I ask him, at the remove of nearly a decade, if he still stands by those words:
The NYT ran an op-ed over the weekend called “In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas.” In essence, it details all the ways that colleges and college students have been contorting their intellectual environments to make their campuses “safe” for people who find offensive ideas to be “dangerous.” To me, it appears painfully obvious that a movement toward letting the most offended members obtain a heckler’s veto on speech is a terrible idea. As the author puts it:
Still, it’s disconcerting to see students clamor for a kind of intrusive supervision that would have outraged students a few generations ago. But those were hardier souls. Now students’ needs are anticipated by a small army of service professionals … This new bureaucracy may be exacerbating students’ “self-infantilization[.]”
From my view, you are an adult once you go to college. You may not have the full complement of responsibilities that attend adulthood, but you are a man or a woman, and should start to be integrated into the world as such. This means that you cannot bend the world to your will, and that you accept that some people have ideas that you find offensive. But to equate “offensive” with being “unsafe” — on the grounds that they both make one feel bad — is a dangerous false equivalence.
A philosopher writing in the New York Times: Don’t blame postmodern philosophers for moral relativism. Blame the public schools. And there’s more. The article speaks for itself pretty darn well. I’m resisting the urge to add anything to it. Maybe better informed Ricochetti can add helpful things in response, perhaps along these lines: What are the immediate […]
My fellow editors asked me if I’d care to comment on Fethullah Gülen’s op-ed in The New York Times. I was uncertain whether I could do it without violating our Code of Conduct. I considered whether I might be able to get away with a few choice words in Turkish, but thought, “No, the Code of Conduct is sacred in every language.” I decided words like the ones I reckoned this inspired in Turkey really were too trashy. No need for that. So I offer just simple a rejoinder, seeing as the Times didn’t see fit to publish a rebuttal side-by-side–or even a clue who this writer is. Had they done so, I would have considered it perfectly acceptable. As it stands, I can interpret it only one of two ways: Charitably, they’re so stupid they don’t even read their own reporting. Less charitably, they’ve fallen in line with Our Thug, but for reasons so cynical–and stupidly cynical–they don’t even rise to the intellectual respectability of the word Realpolitik.
SAYLORSBURG, Pa. — It is deeply disappointing to see what has become of Turkey in the last few years.
Yes, it is. I lived there during that time, unlike you.
The New York Times editorial board helpfully informs us that the Republicans are surrendering on cultural issues, and this “may help spell an end to the politics of cultural division.” This is an impressive level of arrogance, even for the New York Times, on two levels: Preview Open
By now, you’ve probably heard about David Brooks’s column on how we need to be more deferential to the elites, and seen some of the conservative blogs‘ response. Anybody can make fun of the past writings of out-of-touch New York Times columnists, but only here on the Ricochet Member feed can you find their future […]
According to the NYT, the Germans are making a massive conversion to wind power and IT’S AWESOME! They’re making a bold, brave decision (that’s pushing energy costs through the roof) that’s “driving down costs” of wind turbines and solar panels and IT’S AWESOME! This abandonment of fossil fuel and nuclear power (will devastate the German […]
If you read the New York Times, you may find yourself reading op-ed columns like this: Preview Open
A friend who teaches economics points out this headline in today’s New York Times:
De Blasio Encounters Rising Friction Over Liberal Expectations
“It is amazing.” my friend writes, “what having to balance a budget in the face of pension and wage demands from the teachers union, the police union, etc., will do to temper one’s liberal dreams.”
The great thing about a marketplace is, it always tells you when you’re missing the mark.
Ricochet, for instance: we know we’re providing a useful and valuable service, but we also know we need to do better. Our customers — you — tell us that. When we launched the new site, memberships plummeted. When we got our act together, they picked up steam. We’re now growing about as fast as we were before the Great Migration.
I’m traveling in Europe, and find that the combination of iPad + free wi-fi means that I end up reading the entire NYTimes and WSJ and Financial Times. At home, at most, I’ll skim all three.
Skimming, in fact, is the subject of this excellent piece in the NYTimes Sunday edition.
Having blogged for some time now, I understand that there are partisan divisions in the political blogosphere, and I understand as well that they are here to stay. That having been said, it is worth noting—as James Oliphant does — that port-side bloggers are acting as publicity agents, apologists, and all-around hacks on behalf of the Obama Administration to a degree not seen before. Certainly, the administration of George W. Bush never benefited from the presence of a similar cyber-praetorian guard acting to advance its interests.
Read the following excerpt well, and note that there are a host of “journalists” who act more like one would expect paid White House staffers to behave. And boy, do they get the benefits that come with toeing the line:
When Jay Carney was grilled at length by Jonathan Karl of ABC News over an email outlining administration talking points in the wake of the 2012 Benghazi attack, it was not, by the reckoning of many observers, the White House press secretary’s finest hour. Carney was alternately defensive and dismissive, arguably fueling a bonfire he was trying to tamp down.
Continuing its usual theme that corporations are wicked, that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision will undermine democracy, and, well, blah, blah, blah, today the New York Times presents a story on a company that makes all its corporate contributions to Republicans:
The political action committee of Flowers Foods, a Georgia company that produces the pillowy sandwich bread [Wonder Bread], Tastykakes and Nature’s Own baked goods, has given more than 99 percent of its political contributions since 1979 to Republicans. Only three Democratic congressional candidates have gotten money from its PAC since 1984, and not one in the past 20 years.
It sometimes seems like the New York Times does a piece about rising real estate prices hourly. The components are almost always the same: rising prices, high demand, tight availability. (The NYT tends to see these things as distinct from each other, rather than interconnected.)
Usually, they’ll pick a “typical” New Yorker — read: a friend of a friend of the reporter — as a peg on which to hook the piece.
Just now, on the home page of the New York Times, these competing headlines: Ukraine Asks U.N. for Troops as Militants Defy Deadline Preview Open
It’s come to this.
The New York Times’ Timothy Egan used his weekend column to link America’s modern Republican Party—in the person of Congressman Paul Ryan—to the nineteenth century Irish famines that killed more than a million Irish people and led to the emigration of maybe a million more.