It should cease to be a shock to anyone that the threshold for what once was considered to be “good journalism” has crashed through the floor, with the New York Times gladly leading the way. First, the op-ed piece in the New York Times, published Wednesday, September 5th, ascribed to “anonymous”:

I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

Teflon comes immediately to mind, you see.

Because, at the end of the article, I concluded that the writer was like thousands of others who bitch about their bosses but don’t mind cashing the bonuses at the end of a successful year. “My boss sucks, man,” I’ve heard people say for years. Then they go out and do their jobs. Or they leave.

Mr Anonymous — who may be revealed soon than he thinks, surely believes that “my boss sucks, man.” From Tucker Carlson:

.@TuckerCarlson: “Trump’s attempts to do what he promised to do on the campaign are not a travesty, they are a sign the system is working as designed.” #Tucker pic.twitter.com/2nY2oCiZO9

— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 6, 2018

Let’s back that car wash up just a bit. DC and New York — hell, just about the entire northeast — lives in its own little politically-insulated bubbular cocoon and find themselves stepping into nightly bar echo chambers and attending cocktail party echo chambers with those whose job it is to be seen at said alcohol-and-dope-fueled echo chambers. They don’t realize that, for the bulk of Americans, the bulk of journalistas and talking heads are writing and jabbering and pecking away just for themselves. A whole bunch of counties like the hell out of Donald John Trump, the guy with the dead orange cat on his head.

When the article referred to the brilliant, insightful, understanding, loving, accepting arms of the god-like John McCain — peace be with him — I knew precisely who this lop was. Another Deep Statist or RINO with all the colorful, jejune umbrage of a Bill Kristol or a George Will.

Let’s be honest. The “anonymous” author may work in a building for another element of government literally blocks away from the White House. He may have actually seen President Trump passing by as his motorcade — once again — screwed up the already-execrable DC beltway traffic.

Former Trump campaign staffer Michael Caputo says he thinks he knows who the anonymous person is and makes these points.

Another interesting point in concert with the above information comes from the seminal FBI analyst who detailed and revealed information leading to the arrest of the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynsky, in 1996 — retired FBI Agent James Fitzgerald. Here he talks about the forensic linguistics featured by the anonymous NYT op-ed author:

I’m about to write heresy. Gird thy loins. What we’re seeing is something that is in the process of “fundamentally transforming America” but in a way that the standard power brokers and EstabliHacks cannot abide: President Trump is making the American Media Maggots and what Christian Whiton terms the “commentariat” completely immaterial and irrelevant. It’s producing PSH and clogging DC sewer systems with other Maryland counties.

The funny thing is this: under the Obama Administration the selfsame ever-fussy and oh-so-trustworthy and yet now-anonymous-embracing New York Times wrote this in March of 2016:

Tightening the screws on anonymous sources

by Margaret Sullivan

After two major front page errors in a six-month period, Times editors are cracking down on the use of anonymous sources.

An email to the newsroom Tuesday morning from Dean Baquet, the executive editor, Matt Purdy, a deputy executive editor, and Philip Corbett, the standards editor, said, in part:

At best, granting anonymity allows us to reveal the atrocities of terror groups, government abuses or other situations where sources may risk their lives, freedoms or careers by talking to us. In sensitive areas like national security reporting, it can be unavoidable. But in other cases, readers question whether anonymity allows unnamed people to skew a story in favor of their own agenda. In rare cases we have published information from anonymous sources without enough questions or skepticism — and it has turned out to be wrong.

Although the policy does not ban anonymity, it is intended to significantly reduce what Mr Purdy characterized as an over-reliance on unnamed sources.

The policy, several months in the making, is the result of newsroom leaders consulting with “a number of our most experienced reporters and editors,” the email said.

But what; where are those much-vaunted and hallowed policies now, when the threat and the goals have changed? The New York Times sought not to take down Barack Hussein Obama; quite the opposite. The enemy is now The Orange One.

The NPR Ethics Handbook says:

Don’t Let Sources Offer Anonymous Opinions of Others

Unidentified sources should rarely be heard at all and should never be heard attacking or praising others in our reports (with the possible rare exceptions of whistleblowers and individuals making allegations of sexual assault; see the longer discussion of anonymous sources in the section on transparency). While we recognize that some valuable information can only be obtained off the record, it is unfair to air a source’s opinion on a subject of coverage when the source’s identity and motives are shielded from scrutiny. And of course, we do not include anonymous attacks posted on the Web in our reports.

Of course not.

In conclusion, let’s apply BZ’s Logical Extension. We already know that certain personnel in the Trump White House entered under false pretenses, intent on subterfuge and undermining Trump’s policies and agenda. Trump is nothing if not consistent: you knew what you were getting when you signed up for him. Either that or you’re a blithering moron. I apologize for insulting morons in this instance.

Let’s do that Logical Extension. Let’s say you elect a certain individual with the understanding that they are going to represent your views, opinions and thoughts better than any other candidate. You place the X in their voting box.

Having won the election and now ensconced in a cushy political chair, they now decide to do, essentially, the exact opposite. They act, lobby or vote for pretty much the polar opposite of what they portrayed during the campaign. How betrayed would you feel? And would you think that it was fundamentally fair that they acquired their office via one set of words and actions, subsequently committing to the opposite words and actions?

Even five-year-olds see my point.

Bottom line? “Anonymous” doesn’t like his boss.

Well, boo-damned-hoo. Stop your whining and go get a real job then, sport.

There’s still real work to be done and you ain’t doin’ it.

The company is profiting. I hope you don’t get your bonus. Perhaps you’ll just get a lump of coal in your stocking come Christmas.

If you’re still employed.

BZ