Why Does the New York Times Publish Such Dreck?

Brad, not to put you on the spot, but this is the second time you've posed this question recently.

Why do you think they run this type of material?

Why Does the New York Times Publish Such Dreck?

Brad, not to put you on the spot, but this is the second time you've posed this question recently.

Why do you think they run this type of material?

I totally approve of the title. We may have a recurring feature here.

Why can't the Palestinian and Chechen rebels have blond hair and blues eyes? How dare they be members of a perceived minority. Damn it, this simply confuses the editors of the New York Times. After all, isn't it disgustingly racist to take to task those with darker complexions when they commit evil deeds? A minority person is a victim of an oppressive and unjust society and therefore always has a right to torture and murder people. Isn’t that the way it’s suppose to be? Brad DeLong must be some sort of right-wing nutball.

I hate to bring a rather flame-baitish subject up, but while were on the letters to the editor section of the times, this one REALLY pissed me off.

To the Editor:

Re "Dead Parrot Society" (column, Oct. 25):

Paul Krugman is fueling partisanship and class warfare. Comments like "the Bush administration lies a lot" and the president "is as slippery and evasive as any politician in memory" only serve to tear the country apart as it fights terrorism and tries to respond to volatile economic conditions.

If it is true that 40 percent of the Bush tax cut goes to 1 percent of the population, then it is also true that 60 percent goes to people who are not wealthy.

Mr. Krugman's generalization that those "who earn at least $300,000 a year . . . really don't care about either the environment or their less fortunate compatriots" is a hurtful and insulting remark.
SALVATORE J. BOMMARITO
New York, Oct. 25, 2002

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHH!!!! Did the NY Times editors actually check on Salvatore Bommarito to make sure that that was an actual quote from Krugman that even came close to implying that "those 'who earn at least $300,000 a year . . . really don't care about either the environment or their less fortunate compatriots'"? NO! Here's the actual quote from his column: "Its domestic policies are designed to benefit a very small number of people — basically those who earn at least $300,000 a year, and really don't care about either the environment or their less fortunate compatriots."

It's one thing for the New York times to publish stuff that has distorted figures or isn't completely objective, but this guy was quoting the New York Times' own columnists out of context! You wouldn't think it would be too hard for them to guard against that.

Julian Elson

Actually (answering to David Thomson), blue eyes are not at all uncommon among the Chechens (although they usually go with brown, rather than blond, hair).

Seriously, though, let’s try to look at the Chechen problem from a longer-term standpoint...

On December 14, 1825, following the death of king Alexander I, a group of high-ranked army officers and civil servants attempted to prevent the coronation of the next king and institute a transitional government, which was envisioned to eventually become a republic. Needless to say, the attempt was suppressed, five leaders of the uprising were executed (interestingly enough, one of the five members of the Supreme Court dissented, insisting on there being no crime committed), hundreds of others were sent away to remote parts of the country.

The next king, Nicholas I, was a huge fan of everything Prussian, especially corporal punishments. His problem was, he had a government (and, to an extent, an army), which were heavily influenced by republican ideas. His solution was to have a war in the Caucasus. In 1827, Alexei Yermolov, the commander of the Special Caucasian Corps, a hero of the Napoleonic War, and an open sympathizer of the December uprising, was replaced with Ivan Paskevich, a personal friend of Nicholas I. The later history showed that Paskevich was VERY effective in dealing with guerilla wars (one only needs to look at his deeds in 1830-31 Poland and 1848-49 Hungary). In Caucasus, however, Paskevich’s appointment was closely, within months, followed by the creation of the Chechen imamat seemingly out of nowhere. Notice that army officers were usually sent to Caucasus for being politically suspect (teaching soldiers how to read and write, sympathizing with Polish separatism, questioning the necessity of indenture service, and other equally heinous misdeeds). So in all likelihood, the imamat was a cleansing device implemented by Paskevich on behalf of the Russian government. You see, the Paskeviches and Romanovs couldn’t bear the thought of losing millions of souls that they owned (by the way, that’s the actual term they used; a manor with 1,000 peasants living nearby was commonly referred to as “an estate with 1,000 souls attached”).

First two imams combined lasted only seven years; the third, Shamil, proved very durable. To make a long story short, on August 25, 1859 (after 25 years of resistance), Shamil turned himself in. If we accept the conspiracy theory outlined above, we shouldn’t be surprised that Shamil was not executed or sent to galleys; instead, he was held under a house arrest in the city of Kaluga (about 100 miles south-east of Moscow) until 1870, when the Russian government actually allowed him a pilgrimage to Mecca. He died in 1871 in Medina.

Indenture service, after decades of hot debates (in some cases followed by abolitionists fleeing the country or being sent away), was finally abolished in 1861 by Alexander III. The Caucasian war, having lost its real cause (indeed, getting abolitionists killed was no longer necessary as abolition has taken place), died down by 1864.

This was the first case of the Russian government using the “Chechen issue” to divert public attention from the real problems facing the society, in this particular case, the indenture service. In today’s Russia, you can use the “Chechen issue” to defend a whole slew of otherwise indefensible proposals. War in Chechnya is extremely convenient to quite a few people in the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Domestic Affairs, who now don’t have to worry about losing their jobs (and, more importantly, their access to recruits’ slave labor, which is routinely used in building and maintaining generals’ mansions). Is it an accident, then, that quite a few Chechen leaders (starting with general Dudaev himself) are graduates of these distinguished agencies?

Quite a few times, I have heard a quote (supposedly from Marx) that said, “there is no crime a capitalist wouldn’t commit for a 500% return on investment.” Whether Marx really said this or not, this might be an important lesson to learn from the 19th century. What can we learn from the 20th? Perhaps, that there is no crime a corrupt official operating within an armed bureaucracy wouldn’t arrange to keep his job?

Some speculate that the Chechen hard-liners aren’t interested in peace and democracy, but the establishment of a dictatorship in the region. How powerful are the radical Muslims? Also, you mention that some Chechens have blond hair and blue eyes. Are they in the minority, and do these folks possess real power. Perception is often more important than reality. In other words, do most outsiders perceive the Chechens as primarily members of a racial and ethnic minority?

I most certainly concede that Communist Russia did some very bad things to the Chechen people. However, is their predicament worsening because of the radicalism of the so called freedom fighters?

With respect, Brad, I think the editorial raises two valid questions.

First of all, as has been stated above by Nikolai, Matthew's talk of 'a group trained and supported by Al Qaeda', and the apparently invisible complaints of the Chechens, is a little simplistic (or disingenuous). Let's blame the cultivation of ignorance in the US mass media for that. Anyway, to put a parallel case, the Kosovar and Bosnian Muslims were also assisted by irregulars trained at Bin Laden Terrorist Venture Capital, Inc. and they were the 'good guys' in their separatist struggle, weren't they? And so were the Chechens for much of the 90s -- indeed, it's still disputed whether the Moscow bombings were indeed by Chechen terrorists or inside jobs by the Russian secret service designed to play the war card.

If anything, the Moscow hostage crisis has more in common with the London bombings of the IRA than the attacks on New York and DC. This doesn't make the taking of hostages any less despicable, but it shows that there's the potential for a 'peace process' (not appeasement -- the two get too quickly elided by the lumpenwarbloggers these days) that actually renders the terrorists an irrelevance. But that doesn't play well in Moscow.

Secondly, Putin has raised the stakes in the 'war on some terrorists' by using a substance that, had it been in an Iraqi warehouse, would have been classed as a 'weapon of mass destruction'. Will the next bunch of Chechen extremists bother taking hostages? I doubt it. Will other states feel emboldened to use high concentrations of chemical agents in the line of 'law enforcement'? I suspect so.

>> I totally approve of the title. We may have a recurring feature here. <<

It would be a worthy contribution. Once there was notable web site dedicated to the question, but the editor moved on to help found NY's new daily newspaper, the Sun.

However the archives are still up, at www.smartertimes.com.

David,

you mention that some Chechens have blond hair and blue eyes.

Not really... I mentioned that some Chechens have BROWN hair and blue eyes.

How powerful are the radical Muslims?

WHAT radical Muslims? The only real radical Muslim out there is Khattab, who was born and raised in Jordan. The rest of the warlords are either former Soviet military and police (well, actually, police-brutality) types or serial armed robbers. Both types will wear the color that seems most promising at the moment. Right now, the color is green...

Movsar Baraev, the supposed mastermind behind the recent Moscow hostage crisis, is said to model his life after that of his uncle, Arbi Baraev, who was killed by Russian special forces back in June. What was Arbi’s occupation under the ancien regime? Traffic police (translation: petty extortion). Who gave him the job? Why, his own uncle, Vakha Arsanov, a senior official with Domestic Affairs in Chechnya since good old Soviet times.

Actually, come to think of it, Movsar was supposedly killed in Argun back in August. At least, that’s what Russian Federal Security Service said to the press back then... Can’t help but wonder, did they really kill him this time around?

is their predicament worsening because of the radicalism of the so called freedom fighters?

OK, here’s life as seen from a place like pre-war Chechnya. The primarily rural population is growing exponentially, while jobs are nowhere to be found. Secondary education is not that good, so relatively few young people go to college. Migration is a distinct possibility, but Russia is not exactly a booming economy, so there’s a lot of resentment toward migrants (not to mention legal restrictions on migration, aka extortion opportunities for police; and Moscow, which is a relatively attractive place for both an honest worker and a petty crook, is by far the worst at it). So those who leave Chechnya (Osetia, Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkaria -- cross out what you don't need) face extremely unfriendly surroundings; they are frowned upon by general population and harrassed by the police. The only way to get ahead for those who stay in Chechnya is to be a gunslinger, with the government or otherwise.

I think it is amusing how the American press - with the exception of Fox - uses the term "Chechen rebel" instead of "Chechen terrorist"...

I guess one can conclude that one only earns the "terrorist" label by attacking certain 'important' people - among whom Russians are not included.

Can you imagine it:
the Palestinean rebel group, Islamic Jihad...

It's very unfortunate that the Chechen rebels acts in this manner, but still I understand their despair. It's a quite easy one, Russia attacked Chechia...Chechia wants their independence and Russia is the opressor. When the Chechen rebels don't have any military resources this is the way they have to perform their war against Russia. But Russia started this thing and they are to blame of course. What what nutty right-winger Thomson say if Mexico invaded Texas (assume Texas wasn't able to defend itself). Would you think that it was understandable that citizens of Texas "terrorised" Mexico then? I would...

"Chechia wants their independence and Russia is the opressor. When the Chechen rebels don't have any military resources this is the way they have to perform their war against Russia."

This is one of the most immoral statements I've ever read on this discussion board. It is enough to make one want to vomit.

"David,

you mention that some Chechens have blond hair and blue eyes.

Not really... I mentioned that some Chechens have BROWN hair and blue eyes."

Sorry about the minor mistake. However, you are ignoring my central point. Is the American Left making excuses for Chechen terrorism because these so-called freedom fighters are perceived to possess darker skin? Do the rebels have any interest whatsoever in forming a secular and pluralistic democracy? Am I right to suspect that instead they desire to impose a fascist dictatorship?

"Secondly, Putin has raised the stakes in the 'war on some terrorists' by using a substance that, had it been in an Iraqi warehouse, would have been classed as a 'weapon of mass destruction'. Will the next bunch of Chechen extremists bother taking hostages? I doubt it. Will other states feel emboldened to use high concentrations of chemical agents in the line of 'law enforcement'? I suspect so."

Why are "war on some terrorists" and "law enforcement" in quotes? Putin had little choice but to order the military to carry out the operation. Why is he being charged with "raising the stakes" as if he might have had a viable alternative?

Strikes me that it is wrong to equate Putin's battles against the Chechens with America's battle against Osama bin Laden for the very obvious reason that America did more or less nothing particularly bad to Osama and his people, while Putin's problems are the result of ongoing brutality to the Chechens. If the Arabs had been exposed to a fraction of the treatment which the Chechens have been subjected to, the "blame America first" lobby would have had a point.

David Thomson: If you would have been around when you guys were fighting against the british you probably would have called it terrorism. The fact that you don't see the opression performed by the Russians just shows your how big your ignorance and stupidity really is...

Indeed, thinking about it, the quality of Mr. Yglesias' argument is such that, as far as I can tell, it is only a pity that Slobodan Milosevic's defence lawyer didn't think of it ...

"David Thomson: If you would have been around when you guys were fighting against the british you probably would have called it terrorism. The fact that you don't see the opression performed by the Russians just shows your how big your ignorance and stupidity really is..."

It seems that the moral equivalent crowd is wide awake this morning. When did George Washington’s troops take over a theater and hold innocent civilians as hostages?

Nobody is claiming that the Russians have clean hands. However, this is no justification for the torture and murder of innocent people. You also persist in ignoring my central question: are the Chechen rebels truly interested in advancing the goals of pluralism and democracy in their homeland? I have serious doubts that this is the case.

Ideological Liberals mistakenly believe in the innate goodness of human nature. They have a hard time acknowledging that some people are evil--especially if these folks are of a darker complexion. A white man such as Adolpf Hitler may be deemed beyond the pale, but the same can never be said concerning a person of color.

>>When did George Washington’s troops take over a theater and hold innocent civilians as hostages?<<

Pretty ignorant, David. Try doing an internet search for the term "tar and feather"

"tar and feather"

Is this sad example of moral equivalency the best that you can do? The phenomenon of tar and feathering during revolutionary times cannot be defended. Nevertheless, it is in no way comparable to the recent events in the Russian theater.

I know that your professors have a done a lousy job educating you. Alas, one can only hope that you don’t totally embarrass them. Please come up with something better.

Actually, given that the argument is about equivilance, isn't it fairly well established at this point that the Russia-Chchnya:US-Alquaida relationships are not at all similar. David Thompson can't seem to get around to asking whther that is true, and argues against a broadly stated liberalism and leftism.

Ooh, straw man arguments, how very....high school.

The answer isi simple--there isn't equivalence, and the main reason is that russias behavior toward chcnya is criminal. Interstingly, the clear implication from David Thompson and Brad Delong is that they support past Russian actions in Chechnya.

Thats pretty much clear entry into rhinoland, there,

>>Is this sad example of moral equivalency the best that you can do? The phenomenon of tar and feathering during revolutionary times cannot be defended. Nevertheless, it is in no way comparable to the recent events in the Russian theater. <<

Would sir be caring to have an argument there?

"The answer isi simple--there isn't equivalence, and the main reason is that russias behavior toward chcnya is criminal. Interstingly, the clear implication from David Thompson and Brad Delong is that they support past Russian actions in Chechnya."

I never supported past Russian actions in Chechya. However, this is still no justification for terrorism. Are you hinting that it is? Also, why do you ignore the central question: are these Chechen rebels attempting to form a secular and democratic society? Am I right to suspect that they instead wish to impose a fascist dictatorship?

Thomson:
"I never supported past Russian actions in Chechya. However, this is still no justification for terrorism."
- You insist to call it terrorism. I call it a region in despair that desperately fights for its freedom. I wonder if Thomson argues as heavily when russina troops murder Chechen rebels, or is that a legitimate war? And the counterattacks are terrorism? Why?

What is it when American troops bombs a wedding in Afghanistan and kills around 150 people, because some sad officer thaugt they were al-qaedas´or something similar? Terrorism?

>>When the Chechen rebels don't have any military resources this is the way they have to perform their war against Russia. But Russia started this thing and they are to blame of course.<<

No. Hostage-takers are to blame for their actions. There is no "necessity" here. They don't have to become criminals and terrorists. They choose to become criminals and terrorists.

Brad DeLong

Again, with respect, Brad, choosing to respond to the weakest counter-argument here only highlights the fact that there are several stronger ones. Is that your interview coaching technique at work?

DeLong writes:
"No. Hostage-takers are to blame for their actions. There is no "necessity" here. They don't have to become criminals and terrorists. They choose to become criminals and terrorists."
- Well, sure. If you don't want to take the whole picture into concern. Of course they are not physically forced to do this. This is of course not what I meant, which you surely also understood. But this is a sad incident that shows what a people in despair can do when they are opressed by such a big power (in compared to themselves) as Russia in this case.

I clearly stated that I thought that it was very sad that they did what they did, but I also stated that we have to look at the causuality here. Who begun this? Why are they doing what they are doing? Is it really so that Russia and their war and terrorism towards Chechia has nothing to do with this?

Violoence is always sad, but an opressed people commit desperate actions. Unfortunate, but very true...

>>What is it when American troops bombs a wedding in Afghanistan and kills around 150 people, because some sad officer thaugt they were al-qaedas´or something similar? Terrorism?<<

No, the difference between knowingly killing civilians in a peaceful city and accidentially killing civilians in a war zone is a big distinction. This is not hairsplitting. Placing a bomb in an Israeli bus-stop for example, is terrorism. If the people who placed that same bomb then run in to an apartment building full of (Palestinian) civilians to hide amongst them, and some of the civilians get killed/injured in the pursuit of the terrorist, they are noncombatant casualties of war and, I would argue, are also victims of that selfsame terrorist. Only the most obtuse or morally bankrupt person could fail to recognize this distinction.

David,

Sorry about the minor mistake. However, you are ignoring my central point. Is the American Left making excuses for Chechen terrorism because these so-called freedom fighters are perceived to possess darker skin?

I don't think so. It just fits the pattern: a former colony is trying to break free from a decaying empire. "Colonialism" is "bad", "decolonization" is "good", so there you have it...

Do the rebels have any interest whatsoever in forming a secular and pluralistic democracy?

In my opinion, no. Chechen society is very much clan-based. Relationships between different clans are complex and sometimes hostile (lately, to the point of using machine guns). The issue the Chechen side is trying to resolve is essentially that of which clan will end up running the place if/when the Russians are out of the picture.

Brad you write 'No. Hostage-takers are to blame for their actions. There is no "necessity" here. They don't have to become criminals and terrorists. They choose to become criminals and terrorists.'

Why can't both the hostage takers and the Russians share some of the blame? Wouldn't it be a little strange for an inhabitant of Nazi Berlin to blame only the Americans for the deaths of his/her family caused by indiscriminate high-level bombing...?

Well... I remember in Gulf War I the American forces deliberately targetting water and sewer infrastructure in population centers. This is a deliberate policy which was not militarily necessary, which caused a great deal of civilian casualties over time.

Hostage taking is indefensible. But maybe some of the people here who think the Chechens are all in the wrong should read up on what has happened to the Chechen capital city, for example.

And childe, bombs aren't very accurate or discriminate, not even those nice fancy "laser guided" bombs the Armed Forces is so proud of. When you bomb population centers you know that there are going to be civilian casualties and you accept that. And sometimes civilian casualties are the goal, whatever the rhetoric. Like when you bomb sewage lines and plants, for example.