The NYT has always been neoconservative. Witness Michael Gordon, Judith Miller, and their 'delay' in notifying us that the US was now a police state. Among quantities of other evidence. They publish Krugman, Rich, and Herbert just to make it look good:

The war in Iraq, one of the most disastrous military enterprises in the history of the Republic, has the New York Times' fingerprints all over it. Across the past sixth months, the Times has been waging an equally disingenuous campaign to escalate American troop levels in this doomed enterprises, culminating in an editorial okay for a troop hike the day before Bush's speech.

The prime journalistic promoter of the escalation--it is time to retire the adroitly chosen word "surge"--now being proposed by the White House is Michael Gordon, the Times' military correspondent, a man of fabled arrogance and self esteem.

http://counterpunch.org/cockburn12312007.html

It's just that now the NYT has come out of the neocon closet. The pretense of reasonableness has been dropped. It's no longer concerned about it's credibility, or that public opinion is running progressive, or that the organization of drives for subscription cancellations has already begun.

But it does know that the neoconservative anschuss is coming and wants to make sure it's not a target by bringing on the Adolf Eichmann of neoconservatism. They haven't told us that yet either, but then, not all news is fit to print.

You simply do not have a clue the world no longer revloves around what "white folks" think anymore.

And yet, the ruling elite - the top corporatists, international bankers, militarists, and politicians - are nearly all older white males.

Are things different on your planet?

On the planet I live on those who lead the globe in exports, oil, etc ... do not look like those old white males you had so much pride for in your ealier post..

Pride? Nope.

But you've rather missed the point anyway. The world is run by older white males. You and I may not like it, but it is quite true.

Oh well. At least you got your handle right.

Go easy on those angry pills. Your apoplexy is showing.

As usual, I find your posts to be spot on the money.

Thanks. I try to be thoughtful.

I urge all readers of this thread to go ahead and read several past pages of Thrasher's posts

'Thrasher' is typical of the kind of troll we used to get on the old NYT forums before they were closed down: a right-winger posing as a rabid person of color for the purpose of discrediting minorities and libruls. It's a very old propaganda tactic, going back at least to the Roman republic, updated for the new internet media.

Those guys were terminally vicious. I guess you had to be there to appreciate just how barbaric and deceitful they could be when they put an effort into it, just like Kristol, their godfather.

It's suspected in some circles that the wingnuts there were protected by the NYT

However, more and more media outlets are "selling" their product for "free" so there is less and less income available to fund truly aggressive media activities. As a result, most stuff that is published is merely being repackaged from a central source that does all the hard work in researching issues, etc. etc. The NYT is one of the few remaining journalistic organizations that does original work and everybody relies on them for their daily feeds.

Which is hardly an excuse for laziness and for regurgitating obvious Bushite propaganda wholesale, now is it? You should know better.

There. I've saved Glenn Greenwald the trouble of chastising you himself.

I am not like many of the passive slugs in here

Really? Just what kind of passive slug are you?

Please theaten me

You're confused. We're not wingnuts.

You'd definitely be happier back at the Weekly Standard. Please wish all your fellow neocon pirates and war criminals over there a happy new year for us, wouldja?

Your right Walter Map

He's a white neo-con troll. Should have seen it all along.

Try to be careful. People are not always what they seem to be.

The country is loaded with deluded and extremely dangerous persons, and a lot of them work for the religious right, the Republican party, and various right-wing groups that don't get any press. Blogs are particularly vulnerable to con men and women, expert psychopathic liars specializing in social engineering, so be particularly careful with people who want to be your 'friend' but have no good reason for it. It is never a good idea to offer personal information on public blogs to strangers. You don't know where they've been. And it only takes one of these guys to ruin your life.

None of which is something you didn't already know. So have a happy new year.

Will become more vocal and more clever the closer we get to the elections. It's a cyclic thing. We have seen this before.

They can no longer post on the NYT forums and other high-end forums the way they once did, so it stands to reason a lot of them would end up on Salon. Plenty of targets for them here. It was expected.

A lot of them are professionals and trained in the arts of lying propaganda. And a lot of those are paid by the likes of Bill Kristol.

It's fairly easy to baffle the unwashed masses with bullshit, it's considerably harder with the self selected group that is mostly here on Salon.

Quite so. Still, I have the feeling that the likes of sugarman aren't going away just because they've discredited themselves as neocon scum. And it's usually a bad idea to let lies go unchallenged.

you referred to me by name and by so doing you invited the vampire in.

Your words, bloodsucker, not mine.

Next.

get off the board.

Make me, neocon criminal.

Let's see whatcha got.

Nothing? That's what I figured.