Well, well, well. Here it comes again. Wouldnt you just know it. The "paper of record" is creating quite a record. Im sorry but the gray lady (NYT) is such an elitist pig. She sells us out on issues of war, civil liberties, rent gauging and labor.
Today's NY TIMES Editorial proclaims:
"An Unnecessary Transit Strike"
Now note who gets what: The New York Times slaps down Toussaint and the TWU's action, while stroking pet-favs, Pataki and Bloomberg. Recall, the NYTimes endorsed both of these BushLicking Republicans. Note how, in this editorial, they kindly "understand that Mr. Pataki has higher aspirations" which have taken his time away ... (as the clock ticked toward negotiation expiration). But the cooing gets even better for "hatless" (!!!) hero Bloomberg regarding, in their words, "[ ...] the kind of moral support he displayed when he took a page from Ed Koch and walked - hatless - across the windswept Brooklyn Bridge."
Do tell! (Takes moment to position self over feather bed in order to swoon and faint safely.)
They also take up the "holding the city hostage" meme re Toussaint. Check out these particularly offensive and ridiculous paragraphs:
EXCERPTS:
"Many other issues remain to be hammered out, but none justify a strike, especially in the frigid days before the holidays. While New Yorkers fought the freezing cold, the transit union leaders seemed to be steamed about the enormous number of disciplinary actions against their members. The issue deserves study, but even the transit workers' parent union did not see it as sufficient reason to strike.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg's strike contingency plan appeared to help move people who car-pooled. Beyond that, he can offer only a bully pulpit and the kind of moral support he displayed when he took a page from Ed Koch and walked - hatless - across the windswept Brooklyn Bridge with others who hoofed it to their jobs yesterday. Clearly angry, the mayor demanded an end to the strike before talks resume, but that is not his call, and the sequence is less important than ending the strike fast.
Mr. Toussaint should not have the ability to hold the city hostage. That he can do so says little about the leadership on the other side of the table. The executives of the M.T.A. answer to Gov. George Pataki. We understand that Mr. Pataki has higher aspirations, but it was a bad call to visit New Hampshire as the first strike deadline approached and the city was increasingly anxious. The governor is in a position to impose some reason. If Mr. Pataki wants any chance to fulfill his ambitions, he should do all he can to help get a settlement, and quickly."
The NYT's elite assists a Bushlicker like Miller in rushing us into war and deprives us of knowing we're spied on for a year. Add to its Christmas coal pile-up an extra chunky one to remind us that the New York Times is anti worker, or perhaps just anti nonrich. No, not regarding the far off impoverished. Ever notice that? Im sure youve seen the articles where they highlight the plight of the "distant ones." They are kind to those far away, to the "Exotics" for whom they can take up the remote (and painless) cause. They do this in articles about starving folks in Ethiopia, suffering Indians high in the Andes, harsh measures in Uzbekestan, etc and so on and throw in a colorful ethnic photo to boot. See, they like the downtrodden masses, just NOT in THEIR city. What they do like, apparently, is the new New York, where one is supposed to just buck up and shut the fuck up over the fact that to live here is largely possible only for the wealthy (or people past college age who want to live like sardines in a dorm). I mean, how many articles have they done over the damn shame that is the increasingly impoverished Bronx ... falling, falling, FAILing (and making it to the top of the nation's most impoverished regions) under Bloomie's mahvelous tenure. Scant few ... hardly any ... over the course of all these years. But see, that would go against their grain. Im sure Hugo Chavez does too (sniff sniff), but Bring It On, Chavez, bring that discounted heating oil onto the Bronx, my friend. Shame these capitalist elitists, because we, on the progressive left, still dont seem to be quite there yet ... not full-throated enough, in large enough numbers, anyway, to stand up and say Basta as well as you have. I am sure you would stand with our striking transit workers, too.
See, with the New York Times, it's a pattern. Not only did it deliver this anti-worker idiotorial denouncing the Transit workers wonderful, ballsy, CORRECT strike, but they also stood up for the city's greed-soaked real estate camp against the already-embattled tenants a few years back when they editorialized in favor of abolishing New York City's Rent Stabilization laws. That they did in this city's real estate market! They urged the erasure of the last measley protection tenants had. And, of course, even with our paltry stabilization protection our rents are out of sight for most people. (Thanks for helping to weaken it, NYT! Kisses!) And, of course, the NYT's elitism is not the l-i-b-r-u-h-l elitism the rightwang freeps like to attack the Gray Lady with, because there is nothing "liberal" about kicking low/mid earners when they are down. And this is exactly what the ole gray la ... (whore?) has done, once again, by shitting all over these incredibly ballsy strikers.
I'd say if any publication is worthy of a flood of angry letters, the NYT is it, on this day. Fire up your keyboards, dip your quills in the well. Give em hell, liberals. Show them what a true liberal is all about. Be the one who truly deserves the rightwingers'/freepers' wrath (so erroneously delivered onto the Times) by standing by the striking workers. Would that the NYT actually deserved the Freepers' wrath. Then it would deserve none of ours.