Even though nobody asked for it, we have the return of full-blown moral equivalence, courtesy of that cack-handed speech delivered at the U.N. yesterday. Oh, sure--there were the (contractually-obligated boilerplate) good parts, but they were more than cancelled out by the desperate, knocking-knees attempt to reassure that we understand your outrage, and are determined to validate it.
Back in the days of the Cold War, our
Non-Aligned Press would desperately try to burnish its Objective
credentials by pulling a Derek Smalls and attempting to be lukewarm
water between the U.S.' fire and the Soviets' ice. Which meant,
basically, that you'd get the grandsons of Walter Duranty
waxing flatulent about such things as "why yes, the U.S. has certain
freedoms, but the Soviets have free health care, so there" and trying
desperately to put an "objective" spin on such Soviet faux pas as
invading Czechoslovakia or crushing Solidarity. After all, the Soviets
were different, and valued different--but certainly not bad--things.
Like autocracy and famine.
maybe there was the occasional crop failure, or something, but it's
convenient propaganda to suggest there were deliberate efforts to starve
inconvenient peoples, or that there were mass slaughters which built
various communist regimes. You can't trust dissidents and their agendas.
We must be objective. We shouldn't report incendiary charges.
Hey, is that Kim Kardashian's ass over there?
we have a determined effort to downplay what is happening in the Middle
East, to not report on its, er, inconvenient features, and to paint it as something it manifestly is not--the aspiration
for Western freedoms. This ugly putz begs to disagree, and he has the organization which has successfully said otherwise.
yes, if you still have your old Sovfilter from the Cold War in the
attic, now would be a good time to break it out and reinstall it. Our
betters are cranking out the propaganda again.