Pathetic NY Times
It's been said before, but the NY Times is frequently pathetic. Here's another example.
Let's get this straight -- the NY Times, that never supported democracy in Afghanistan in the first place, and that was amongst the first to declare the American invasion of Afghanistan a quagmire after a couple of weeks (you have to do it in a couple, because it was over in three) is now claiming to be the guardian of liberal democratic ideals in Afghanistan?
Adding to the silliness, what the editorial is arguing for sounds suspiciously like... IMPERIALISM! Nasty Imperial America, telling the poor, innocent peoples of the third world how to run their lives. So it's okay when the NY Times does it, but not when the US government does? And when your paper in particular has previously taken editorial stances that would have precluded the present democracy in Afghanistan in the first place? So first, Bush is stupid for thinking to impose democracy in Afghanistan, and now he's to be blamed for not pushing it hard enough?
Ever get the feeling you can't win with some people?
I have a feeling the Afghans will brush this one under the carpet somehow, it's gotta be embarrassing for them. Of course I'd love to see them abolish all such stupid, theocratic laws, and I'm sure that one day, as the country continues to develop, it will. But having said that, the existence of stupid, backward laws does not preclude a nation from being a genuine democracy. After all, if the majority of citizens believe that converts should be executed, and vote for representatives who share those beliefs... well, that's nothing if not democratic.
Let's get this straight -- the NY Times, that never supported democracy in Afghanistan in the first place, and that was amongst the first to declare the American invasion of Afghanistan a quagmire after a couple of weeks (you have to do it in a couple, because it was over in three) is now claiming to be the guardian of liberal democratic ideals in Afghanistan?
Adding to the silliness, what the editorial is arguing for sounds suspiciously like... IMPERIALISM! Nasty Imperial America, telling the poor, innocent peoples of the third world how to run their lives. So it's okay when the NY Times does it, but not when the US government does? And when your paper in particular has previously taken editorial stances that would have precluded the present democracy in Afghanistan in the first place? So first, Bush is stupid for thinking to impose democracy in Afghanistan, and now he's to be blamed for not pushing it hard enough?
Ever get the feeling you can't win with some people?
I have a feeling the Afghans will brush this one under the carpet somehow, it's gotta be embarrassing for them. Of course I'd love to see them abolish all such stupid, theocratic laws, and I'm sure that one day, as the country continues to develop, it will. But having said that, the existence of stupid, backward laws does not preclude a nation from being a genuine democracy. After all, if the majority of citizens believe that converts should be executed, and vote for representatives who share those beliefs... well, that's nothing if not democratic.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home