Watching the lunacy at the New York Times, my schadenfreude meter has hit 10

The New York Times used to boast that it carried "all the news that's fit to print."  That slogan has been a lie since at least the 1930s when the Times allowed Walter Duranty to pollute its pages with pro-Stalin propaganda.  It was a lie when it constantly savaged Reagan, when it tried to undermine U.S. military efforts in Iraq, when it pushed hard-left social (and social justice) policies, and when it worshiped nonstop at the Obama altar.

Nevertheless, the Times used to try to maintain the fiction that it was an actual newspaper and not just a propaganda outlet for the Democrat party.  To that end, it would occasionally allow Republican politicians to write opinion pieces.  It also had opinion pieces from communists, terrorists, and Islamists, just to show how open-minded it was.

With Trump in the White House, though, the editors at the Times abandoned any pretense of journalistic integrity or objectivity.  The paper attacks Trump nonstop and has been at the forefront of pushing the various efforts to upend his presidency (the Russia hoax, the "fine people" hoax, the Ukraine hoax, etc.).

Of late, though, something's changed at the old Red Lady.  The college grads of the 1960s and 1970s are being pushed out by people who graduated after the year 2000.  These new employees (I cannot, in good conscience, call them journalists) are not merely left-wing; they are radical, anarcho-socialist leftists.  And because they are college grads, they have exquisite sensibilities that equate opposing ideas with violent physical attacks against themselves.

In true Maoist fashion, these college grads don't even bother with the pretense of even-handedness, objectivity, or open-mindedness.  You're either with them or against them...and if you're against them, they will destroy you.

So it was that we conservatives enjoyed the delightful spectacle of a rebellion at the Times when the older generation actually thought it was okay to allow a sitting senator to write an opinion piece expressing a viewpoint different from official Times policy.  You all have heard about the Sen. Tom Cotton kerfuffle, which saw the radicalized Times employees bully the paper's editors into apologizing for allowing Cotton to say America's stability would benefit if Trump would use his power under the Insurrection Act (enacted in 1807).  I won't repeat the whole thing.

That was glorious enough, but the schadenfreude meter — by which I mean conservative reveling in the self-immolation at the Times — hit a new high on Sunday, when the revolutionaries managed to claim multiple scalps.  The Times reshuffled like mad in to appease the woke mob:

Now the "paper of record" is having a shakeup. Bennet resigned his position as Editorial Page Editor. Deputy opinion editor Jim Dao is transferring from the opinion desk to the newsroom and Katie Kingsbury will serve as Editorial Page Editor through the November 3rd election. 

Publisher A.G. Sulzberger plans to work with Kingsbury "to bring more editing support to the Opinion department, as well as take other steps to ensure all our work meets our high standards."

"There are also fundamental questions to address about the changing role of opinion journalism in a digital world, and we will begin work to reinvent the Op-Ed format so that readers understand why we choose to elevate each argument and where it fits in the national debate," Sulzberger wrote in an internal email to staff. 




In keeping with its corrupt ethos, when the Times announced Bennet's resignation, it lied.  Tom Cotton called it out:


Sean Lennon, son of John Lennon (who had a finely developed BS meter himself), wrote the paper's epitaph:

If you experience technical problems, please write to