The very definition of propaganda rags...

Why the New York Times hires Adam Nagourney and continues to publish his dreck I can't say. But they do, and even though 20 seconds into reading the latest piece on Bill and Hilary's marriage I said, "don't I have better things to do like try to deconstruct Ken Wilber?" it still behooves me to dig a bit deeper, at least because I think I have a point as cogent as DarkSyde's:

Personally, I'm not terribly upset when a rich and powerful politician gets nailed for anything, large or small. But there has to be a deeply disturbing pathological weakness present in anyone who fails to comprehend that an affair between consenting adults and a screw-up or intentional decision resulting in thousands of needless dead and injured men, women, and children, don't occupy the same rung on the ladder of moral rectitude.

This fascination with tawdry sex, this drowining out of more important narratives, all of it serves to hijack your awareness, if not let your awareness drift into areas into which you might make a difference: write a letter, hug your kid, prepare your meal, exercise, let alone determine how you and those in your family and community use money, food, the environment, in short how your familial, local, state and government polities affect your life and how you are affecting them.

Don't I have better things to do than to read an Adam Nagourney goo-goo-gah-gah-maybe-there's-a-bit-of-tawdry-sex Clinton piece?

Doesn't everyone?