The NY Times Gets It Wrong—AGAIN

Blaa, Blaa, Blaa...

What else could you expect to receive other than apologies, cover-ups, and rationalizations from the leftist appeasers at the NY Times?

What about getting some ACTUAL NEWS along with the editorializing they publish and attempt to pass off as being news stories?

Following up on this mornings earlier posting (see the next post below), I was reading the latest NY Times edition and I just had to write to point out their continued predictable spin on the situation in France.

Two hundred and seventy four French cities have been set on fire to date and the French authorities are pretty darn sure who's doing it, but the NY Times waited until paragraph twenty-nine of a two page, thirty three paragraph article to mention the words Muslim or Islam:

While the violence has not taken on religious overtones, most of the young people involved are nominally Muslim, raising fears that Islamist groups could capitalize on the unrest to recruit new members. Internet postings from one such movement encouraged young Muslims elsewhere in Europe to riot in the name of Islam.

"Oh, you Muslim people in Europe, walk with and like your brothers in Paris and learn that these people are dogs," read a message posted on Monday on the popular Web site of a dissident based in London. "Teach them that we are a single nation and if a single member is touched, then all the others will erupt like a burning volcano."


Holy Toledo...there are Muslims in the crowds?

Imagine that...who knew?

And what exactly is a "nominal" Muslim?

Is a "nominal" Muslim better than an "average" Muslim or an "optimal" Muslim. Do they have any tips on how I can tell the difference when they walk into my business or board a bus with a backpack bomb?

I can’t be sure, but it seems that the Times thinks that it would be easy for me to visit France, in spite of the nightly violence if I want to:

Indeed, for all the televised images of burning cars and chaotic streets, central Paris and even its suburbs show no obvious signs of crisis. The highway to Charles de Gaulle Airport, which passes by some of the hardest-hit suburbs, was flowing normally on Monday, with no visible police presence.

"No obvious signs of crisis"?

So the Times writer thinks that the television reports are biased and we should take his word that things aren't really as bad as they look?

Well, that certainly makes me feel better, I think I’ll call Air France and spend next weekend in Paris.

Anybody out there want to come with me?

No?

I thought not...

Yet in an uncharacteristic moment of actually providing meaningful information, their article provides this little tidbit that I hadn't heard before:

France was slow to react to the spreading violence set off by the accidental deaths of two youths on Oct. 27, in part because the initial nights of unrest did not seem particularly unusual in a country where an average of more than 80 cars a day were set on fire this year even before the violence.

An AVERAGE of EIGHTY cars were burned?

EACH DAY?

BEFORE the current violence erupted?

Clearly many of the French government positions are occupied by mindless, politically correct idiots if they could allow a normal night in France to include the burning of 80 cars. Based on the relative populations, that would be like having 400 cars torched by vandals each night here in the US. I think that the American people would have demanded the enforcment of laws before now.

I wonder how many “officials” cars have been torched so far?

Can you say NONE?