I see that the NY Times yesterday, on the front page no less, reported that the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming is far less monolithic than The Great Al Gore, moral crusader and addict to heavily-subsidized Tennessee Valley Authority electricity, would have us believe. Thus did the Times call into question a central tenet of left-wing religion, to wit, the moral necessity of world government as a tool with which to temper the destructiveness of mankind. This truly is fascinating: It is virtually unprecedented for the Times to subject leftist nostrums to actual scrutiny. Why has this happened? Only one plausible answer comes to mind: The Times must favor Hillary for the Democratic nomination, viewing The Great Al Gore as a threat. And so the politicization of the Times' news "reporting" continues apace, masquerading in this instance as hard-nosed objectivity. Some things truly are eternal.
1 comment:
I too have considered embracing subjectivity for its putative nose-softening effect.
Post a Comment