Thread: New York Times: The US is the single greatest force for stability in the world

John Burns is known as "the dean of American foreign correspondents:"

The United States and its predominant economic, political and military power in the world have been the single greatest force for stability in the world such as it is now, certainly since the Second World War. If the outcome in Iraq were to destroy the credibility of American power, to destroy America's willingness to use its power in the world to achieve good, to fight back against totalitarianism, authoritarianism, gross human rights abuses, it would be a very dark day.

--New York Times bureau chief John Burns

This is the framework of American reporting which is just the continued presupposition that the United States owns the world and everything it does is in "efforts to do good," as liberal New York Times columnist, Anthony Lewis remarked on the Vietnam War:

The early American decisions on Indochina can be regarded as blundering efforts to do good. But by 1969 it was clear to most of the world - and most Americans - that the intervention had been a disastrous mistake.

So since the United States did it, it's intentions were benign by definition and the war was just a "mistake" and not "morally wrong" as 70% of Americans viewed it.

The New York Times was also blatently deceptive about the light bulb phaseout.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/ga...pagewanted=all

Read the first part of the article; it's a gold mine. Apparently there are even many liberal environmentalists that are stockpiling lightbulbs. The article makes purposely tries to make it seem like incandescent bulbs will still be allowed, when in reality none of them (including the halogen bulbs) will be able to meet the efficiency standards towards the end of the phaseout, and thus will essentially become illegal. The article also neglects to tell its readers how much less light that 50 dollar LED light it mentions actually puts out, nor does it mention that lumens are only a measure of the light output of the bulb at its front end, not the total light output.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

The New York Times was also blatently deceptive about the light bulb phaseout.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/ga...pagewanted=all

Read the first part of the article; it's a gold mine. Apparently there are even many liberal environmentalists that are stockpiling lightbulbs. The article makes purposely tries to make it seem like incandescent bulbs will still be allowed, when in reality none of them (including the halogen bulbs) will be able to meet the efficiency standards towards the end of the phaseout, and thus will essentially become illegal. The article also neglects to tell its readers how much less light that 50 dollar LED light it mentions actually puts out, nor does it mention that lumens are only a measure of the light output of the bulb at its front end, not the total light output.

I could point out dishonest reporting by the Times for the rest of my life.

Remember Churchill's aphorism about democracy? Maybe the same applies to the US. Think about it. Look at the really powerful countries in the world right now and decide which one you would want with the title of "The World's Superpower"?

Don't nominate Costa Rica okay? This is about realism. China? Russia? Not bloody likely. Out of the three the US gets my vote. Britain? Hmm, relatively benign now but have you seen their history? What if they had a relapse? Mutiny and they stick you at the wrong end of an artillery field piece and put one up the spout and suddenly you're sprayed all over the desert, no thanks, might give them a miss. Germany? Maybe, at least things would be organised. France? Perhaps, at least the food would be good.

Italy. Okay, it would be chaos but it would be bloody good fun.

Nope, seriously, the US has my vote, warts and all.