Here's how the New York Times lead news article today reports yesterday's House of Representatives vote on part of the Bush tax cut: "In the end, no Republicans voted against the bill, and only 10 Democrats broke ranks and voted for it."
What's with the "only"? It sounds like the Times is trying to minimize the number of Democrats who supported the tax cut. Why not just say that 10 Democrats voted for the tax cut, and leave it to readers or to partisan spinners to decide whether 10 is "only" or "surprisingly many." If 10 Senate Democrats had broken ranks and voted for conviction in the impeachment, you can bet the Times wouldn't have used the word "only." And if 10 Senate Republicans end up voting against the Bush tax cut, you can bet the Times won't describe that as "only."
After all, yesterday's New York Times article on the Congressional maneuvering around the tax cut reported that "The best estimate, party leaders said, was that all Republicans would vote for the measure and that they would be joined by a half-dozen or so Democrats." So the 10 Democrats are actually more that the best estimate by party leaders from the day before. The Republicans won over more Democrats than expected, yet the front page news article still uses the word "only."
Friedman's Collapse: A Thomas Friedman column on the op-ed page of today's New York Times mis-characterizes the "macho" camp on foreign policy. The approach, Mr. Friedman says, holds, "We're the tough guys. We don't really believe in arms control. And we don't care if North Korea collapses. Deep down we don't even want a deal with North Korea, because that would eliminate the very missile threat we've been hyping to justify spending $60 billion on a missile defense shield. If the allies don't like it -- too bad."
It's not that the tough guys "don't care" if North Korea collapses. The tough guys are hoping North Korea collapses. It's a goal of the tough guys to make sure that Communist dictatorships everywhere collapse and are replaced by freedom and democracy. For its people, North Korea has already collapsed, as the excellent Times dispatch a while ago on the sorry state of the medical system there indicates. All that is left is for the regime to collapse, which can't happen fast enough for the good of the people stuck under its boot.
As for the missile threat, the macho camp knows that the shield is needed not only to protect against North Korea, but also against Iran, Iraq, Russia and Communist China. Mr. Friedman is so non-macho that he can't adequately state the macho argument, even for the purpose of dismantling it.