RUTHFULLY YOURS

After being severely criticized for running an unsigned anti-Semitic cartoon about their most hated subjects — Jews, Israel, Trump, US of A — in their international print edition and then mocked for its pathetic excuse on numerous media sites (including American Thinker), the New York Times belatedly attempted an apology on Sunday.  And once again failed.  Because the Times is not sorry about printing an “offensive” cartoon; as the latest apology attempt demonstrates, it was just sorry it was caught and couldn’t get away with it this time.

Printing the unsigned cartoon with its euphemistically labelled  “anti-Semitic tropes,” as the nameless Times opinion writer originally stated, was the not the NYT’s fault — oh my goodness, no! — but rather the result of a “faulty process a single editor working without adequate oversight” according to the latest bleat.   In other words, not my fault because of a “faulty process!

Left unsaid was who put this “faculty process” in place.  Why — the Times itself did!  Getting dizzy yet?

Undizzy yourself.

The curiously unsigned cartoon was the work of noted lefty Portuguese cartoonist António Moreira Antunes, whose negative opinions of Jews, Israel, Trump and the U.S. harmoniously overlap with those of the New York Times.  The nameless, oversight-challenged editor therefore was just once again doing what comes naturally with him/herself and his/her employer as s/he undoubtedly received many commendations for previously approving similar slimy work.   Any Times “adequate oversight” individual would, by natural selection, also share the same views and quickly approve the cartoon.  After all, fish think living in water is natural; Times editors think loathing and mocking their hated subjects is natural.  And commendable.

So no, anonymous NYT Opinion editor. The fault lies not with a “faulty process” that can be improved by “evaluating our internal processes and training.”  The fault lies with yourself and your narrow view of the world.    There will only be “significant changes” when you can admit that and understand those implications.  Frankly, I don’t anticipate that you can do this.  Therefore, with my faultless thinking process I anticipate there will be more of the same but in significantly different clothes.

And that is not an oversight.