The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof is a simpleton. There is really no other way to say it, no gentler phrasing possible, to explain how childish and uncluttered his tiny little mind really is. The latest example of his utter inability to think clearly can be seen in Kristof’s screed against Americans that love America. Kristof thinks that conservatives and Republicans should look with longing at the troubled nation of Pakistan and see it as a model state. He says that they are no better than Muslim extremists that employ oppression, murder, and terrorism as a tool of the state. No, he’s serious.

How does he justify this simple-minded, hyperbolic, partisan hate-speech? Not very well, I’ll tell you that much.

He makes all sorts of idiotic charges against Republicans, but the best way to understand how unthinkingly childish his screed is, is to simply imagine that everything he says conservatives support he must imagine that liberals are against. After all, the only way to see his calumnies as such is to imagine he thinks that he stands on the opposite side of the ideas of which he accuses conservatives of being in favor.

Let’s take his points and then imagine what the opposite is and you’ll see what I mean.

He says that Republicans are for the lowest tax burden. If this is true and he finds this a negative point, then we must assume Kristof wants the absolute highest tax burden, a crushing tax burden that destroys all capitalist endeavors. That would be the opposite, wouldn’t it?

Next Kristof says Republicans want a limited government so that, “burdensome regulations never kill jobs.” The only take away here is to understand that Kristof sees this as a bad thing. He is smarter than we are, you see. So, Kristof, then, wants a government that is so burdensome that it kills jobs. He must. He finds the non-burdensome government to be a negative against Republicans doesn’t he? (more…)

I recently watched the HBO documentary Reporter,  profiling the New York Times columnist and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Nicholas Kristof, as he reported on the genocide taking place in the Congo.

Notably, the documentary spent considerable time focusing on Kristof’s journalistic standards, rather than only spotlighting the great tragedy taking place.  In fact, much of the video documents Kristof teaching his trade to journalism students.  That part of the film was very revealing.

One highlight of the documentary was when Kristof traveled to a village that had just been ransacked by militants.  Villagers told Kristof that an enormous number of people were murdered.  Their stories were horrific.

However, despite their eyewitness testimony, Kristof was skeptical about what he was told.  In fact, he continued to inquire about who saw the murders.  Was there proof about the number of people killed?  Was there any evidence?  He didn’t believe it was enough to simply report that villager X saw Y happen; he wanted the truth.  Reflecting on that clip, I wonder whether I would have held myself to such a high standard, or would I have simply reported what someone told me? (more…)