Every time you think the @nytimes can't get worse, they take it as a challenge.

There is NO MENTION in this editorial that Trump signed 220 goddamn EOs in 4 years, DWAFING the pace set by previous presidents. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/27/opinion/biden-executive-orders.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

And the reason for that is that this is edit not interested in presenting a well thought out opinion of PRINCIPLE, nor is it actually trying to PERSUADE anybody to do anything, or even rile up "the choir."...

It's just trying to play cowardly both side bullcrap.

The point of this piece, the ONLY point, is to appease the white supremacists and other Republican aligned forces, who complain about the "liberal media."

It's so some fucking guy can go on TV and say "no no no, we've been critical of the Biden administration as well."

This is ASS COVERING, by the @nytopinion so somebody who does not actually exist will go on white nationalist TV and say "actually, the Times is balanced. Look at this facile trash they just published."

To pick just one useless passage:
"But Dreamers deserve better than to be subject to the whims of whoever holds the White House. It is long past time for Congress to establish a clearer, more permanent path for them."

HOW IS THAT BIDEN'S FAULT???

I can make that same point in a myriad of less cowardly and STUPID ways. For instance:
"Democrats, you have the majority, STEP UP for the Dreamers."
OR
"The Republicans will always demonize immigrants, the time for the Democrats to protect them is NOW."

But the Times didn't say it that way. Because they actually don't give a wet shit about the Dreamers. They just want, I don't even know who, somebody on CNN to say "The Times is playing TOUGH with the Biden administration."

Here, as an opinion writer, you could tell that the piece doesn't not have the courage of its convictions:
"Undoing some of Mr. Trump’s excesses is necessary, but Mr. Biden’s legacy will depend on his ability to hammer out agreements with Congress."
Well, WHICH ONES ARE NECESSARY

An opinion piece with courage says "Stopping Trump's actions on [X] and [Y] had to be done through EOs. But, DESPITE THIS CLEAR NECESSITY, other EOs [ACTUAL THOUGHTS] should have NOT BEEN DONE AT ALL if they couldn't have been done through Congress."

That would have been AN OPINION. Some would have said "but, NYT, why does MY priority get screwed?" And the edit would have had to defend that. But, that's a piece.

This tried to play (wait for it) BOTH SIDES, but suggesting unnecessary EOs, but not explaining which ones.

Sorry, it bothers me because it's from the whole edit board. Any ONE writer can be trash on any day (lord knows not all of my pieces are winners). But when the whole fucking board does this, and is like "yeah, let's not even MENTION some relevant facts" it's just ridiculous.

The country is BETTER OFF when the @nytopinion page isn't actual trash. No matter what the Fox News people think. No matter what's said on Newsmax, the country is literally BETTER SERVED when the Times has the courage to stand up to that blowback.

And instead they give us this.

Oh, and don't even get me started on calling him "Joe" in the Headline. You could read 100 Times articles about Ice Cube and I bet every time they call him "Mr. Cube" or "Mr. Jackson." But the week long President of the United States is "Joe" like they're fucking friends.

Anyway... later, when I'm complaining about being broke, send this thread back to me as "Exhibit A of why you'll never get a job at the New York Times."

@JosephPatrice, @eiffeltyler, you're both good at reminding me it's actually all my own fault. Almost as good as my mom.