Sure he "registers cautions and caveats" whatever the hell that means, but then proceeds to lay into the Putin conspiracies pretty thick. His support for the Iraq War (with registered cautions and caveats, of course!) was central to mitigating dissent among the Lefty Establishment. Same old same old from Remnick and crew.
Ironic, that he is so concerned about "wildly, messianic nationalists" and "neo-imperialists" with Putin, but clown boy had no such reservations back when he was pushing for the invasion of Iraq.
Also, Remnick and The New Yorker have no concerns over "wildly, messianic nationalists" and "neo-imperialists" during Israel's latest invasion of Gaza. Why not?
Depressing how this blog covers the Ukrainian issue immediately, but only addresses the Gaza crisis indirectly through lame ass app reviews.
Or consumers can simply click on the second Google search result. Crisis averted.
It's basically the same argument that facilitated the legalization of gay marriage. Government action must be, at minimum, rational, not arbitrary and capricious. The Nanny State is not banning carbonated sugar water out right, it is attempting to ban the size of the container that carbonated sugar water is sold in, but only in certain retail establishments. Under the regulation, some establishments would be barred from selling 20oz containers while Costco down the block can sell the exact same beverage in 3 liter bottles. Is this rational? Could a health board ban cheeseburgers or perhaps French Mustard next? Why the hell not if there is no limitation on state power?
There is nothing remotely "strangely dark" about this. Also, your last sentence is not a sentence.
Good to see the Black Intelligentsia finally coming around to this issue. Realistically though, would Congress ever approve reparations? If Obama is bold enough, perhaps he could do it by executive order, but the Fox News racists would go crazy.
Maybe Atlantic will let Minister Farrakhan guest edit next month's issue.
"The answer is not TED talks or branded content that looks deceptively like non-branded content."
Fair enough, but what is the answer? Investors do not invest in companies that are in perpetual decline. Something has to be done or there won't be the money to pay for those brilliant digital natives.
I think the only future of the Times may very well be Chairman Carlos Slim or Chairman Sergei Brin. Maybe Bloomberg in his last act of civic benevolence intervenes.
In December 2004, the Times stock was trading at $41.00 per share. Today it is at $14.77. The stock has cratered over the last decade. Revenues in 2004 were 3.3 Billion. In 2013, revenues were 1.58 Billion. That is a 50% decline in revenues over the past decade.
I am not one to defend Keller, but the NY Times in 2014 or 2011 is half the company that it was when he took over in 2003. Keller's contract was based on a highly valued company with a bright future. Abramson's contract was based on a company in an unrelenting collapse in a decimated industry.
Should we be surprised that executive compensation has declined in a company that has seen its entire industry collapse over the past decade? Shed all the tears you want over the injustices imposed on the 1%, but I think the cause of social justice lies elsewhere.
How is the post "orientalist?" Are you remotely familiar with the manuscript in question?
But then isn't Apple's acquisition of Beats a form of Cultural Appropriation?
I thought Garth Marenghi was that age in the 80's.