The Arts & Ideas section of the New York Times today features a headline, "Rethinking Negotiation With Hitler." Really, that's the headline. The debate over Winston Churchill, the Time tells us, is "part of another, wider and even more acrimonious one among British historians and political figures: Should Churchill have negotiated a compromise peace with Germany?" The article suggests at one point that "the idea of an armed truce with Germany" carries a "moral odium," but this is mentioned in passing, almost as an afterthought, amid a serious, straight-faced discussion of the virtues of appeasement. When Patrick Buchanan makes arguments like this in books he is denounced, as he should be. When the New York Times does, though, hardly anyone seems to bat an eylash. Remember, this follows the November 12 New York Times article on fascist chic in the fashion world. That article asserted that "the ponderous style identified with tyranny retains an allure," and it quoted another fashion authority as saying, "Fascism -- I hate to say it, but it's sexy."
Shopping in Albuquerque: The New York Times business section today features a big display article on the Christmas shopping rush that began yesterday. The article begins with a scene from that famous Christmas shopping destination, Albuquerque. The article proceeds to discuss the crowds at a Target store in Houston, a factory outlet mall in Gurney, Ill., and a mall in Columbus, Ohio. Finally, in the 15th paragraph, the Times gets around to mentioning New York City. Well, Smartertimes.com has nothing against Albuquerque. The one time the editor of Smartertimes.com visited there, he had a perfectly pleasant stay. But it says something about the Times' priorities, and the way it puts its national audience ahead of its New York readers, that the newspaper based in the shopping capital of America, Manhattan, chooses to basically ignore its local readers and advertisers and shoppers and instead focus on Albuquerque.
Sophomoric: An article on the front of the metro section of today's Times runs under the headline, "On a Student Field Trip, With the Planet at Stake." The story tags along with a sophomore at Hunter College who apparently believes, as, apparently, does the Times, that "the fate of the planet was at stake," depending on whether America signs onto a flaky environmental treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol. If America signs onto the treaty, as the sophomore and the Times want it to do, the planet will apparently be saved. The Times describes one of the student environmentalists presenting an award to two Republican senators who opposed the treaty. "The award was five Barbie dolls buried upside down in a box of sand." The Times also describes a graduate student arguing with a Republican congressman, James Sensenbrenner Jr. In the entire extremely lengthy Times story, the Republicans are never given a chance to explain why they oppose the treaty. Readers are left to assume that they favor the destruction of the planet.