« Thanks for clarifying that, CNN |
| Questionable Solar Math at the Wall Street Journal »
September 17, 2012
Why the New York Times forgets 9/11
It's a funny thing, but the New York Times and its faithful followers never seem to remember 9/11.
A week ago, when Al Qaida's black flag of Holy War was raised over the US Embassy in Cairo on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 -- and the American Ambassador to Libya was sexually assaulted and murdered in Benghazi -- the Times just couldn't figure out what had the AQs all upset. It had to be that 15-minute web movie against Islam.
What have we done to them lately?
Don't they love Obama anymore?
It couldn't be that 9/11 thing again, could it?
Obama fixed that, by single-handedly killing that guy, ummm whatisname. That was Boosh's War, and it's all over now.
It couldn't be those Predator strikes Obama ordered last night in the White House, could it?
Nope. No way.
Obama has made peace in Iraq and Egypt and Libya and Afghanistan.
It's the Arab Spring!
We're outta there, baby.
Once Israel surrenders to the Palis, it's peace and love forever. With Obama they finally know we want peace.
Islam means Peace.
Michelle Obama tells us that body fat is a national security crisis -- much bigger than those Moo Bros who just took over Egypt -- and the Times wants to run a Michelle puff piece instead.
The NY Times is a wonderfully strange place, and I think I've finally figured out why they can't seem to remember 9/11 -- even when the baddies started rioting again in 14 different countries, just to remind us.
It's got to be those 500 Jews who paid for that 15 minute web clip on the Koran, right? What was his name, Bacilli? Imbecilli? No, Sam Bacile, alias Nakoula Basseley Nakoula , and he's an Egyptian Christian Copt.
Or as the Times likes to say,
"A resident of Southern California."
All the News that's Fit to Print, Baby!
Gimme a Five! Yow!
I think I've finally figured out why these news stories are so hard to write, over at the New York Times Building on 40th and 8th Ave.
It's location, location, location.
The Times is in Midtown Manhattan, but the Twin Towers were way below their mental horizon in Lower Manhattan, practically in Brooklyn. Or maybe Jersey, or something.
Before you-know-what happened.
Remember that famous New Yorker cartoon about America seen from Manhattan? With a really skinny California falling into the Pacific, 'cause it's too hard to see?
Well, it's not just California that's hard to see from Midtown.
The Twin Towers were just too far away. Out of sight, out of mind.
They were too close to Wall Street.
Lower Manhattan. It's soooo unradical chic.
The only time the Times thinks about the Twin Towers at the Times is at night, watching big screen TV from that waterbed in that Upper West Side pad they all have.
It's too far on the subway. It's practically Wall Street.
The Times only sends out a few participant-agitators to Wall Street when they have to publicize the Occumorons, courtesy David Axelrod, produced by Disney, and over-acted by unemployed Broadway extras.
So non-hip, so not metrosexual.
So flyover country.
The Twin Towers?
Wasn't that a movie?
Was it any good?
I don't think I liked it.
Mi mi mi mi meee...
Mid-Manhattan navel-gazing does explain a lot of things, doesn't it?
On a clear day
You can see forever ...
FOLLOW US ON