Bill Keller Puts Things in Perspective

Let's see: a genocide where women are routinely raped, people are randomly murdered and a group of people are suffering a holocaust not seen in decades versus saving a left-wing rag. Yeah, they seem comparable:

Commenting on the keep-the-Times alive movement, Keller said: "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause."

Yes, the failure of the NY Times would be the equivalent of the Janjaweed committing state-sponsored terrorism. I see where Keller's coming from...or not.

What's next, the bankruptcy of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer compared to the Rwandan genocide? You know, the bankruptcy of the Philly Inquirer immediately brought to mind the release of chemical weapons on Halabja by Saddam.

Is Bill Keller even real? If the Times fails, the only people who would give a damn are liberals in DC, the upper West Side of Manhattan and San Francisco. Does Keller have an iota of conscience that would make him realize just how insensitive and stupid that statement is? Evidently not.

Pretty fucking shameful but about what I expect from the Times editorial staff.

So, let's look at the scorecard comparing the rescue of the NY Times and the situation in Darfur, shall we?



Versus:

I would say saving the jobs of Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd and Bill Keller far outweigh the saving of human lives in Darfur, wouldn't you?