THE HYPOCRISY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES ON THE QUEEN VS. GORBACHEV:

Hey, no bias there!

This week the world learned of the passing of England’s 96 year old Queen Elizabeth II. A couple weeks ago Russia’s 91 year old Mikhail Gorbachev, the last president of the Communist Soviet Union, passed away. And the difference in coverage in the media was, shall we say, interesting.

The New York Times published an essay by one Maya Jasanoff. Jasanoff is described as “a professor of history at Harvard, is the author of three books about the British Empire and its subjects.” The title of her essay:

Mourn the Queen, Not Her Empire

Among other things Professor Jasanoff says this on the Times pages beneath a photo of the Queen with the leaders of the British Commonwealth:

“What you would never know from the pictures — which is partly their point — is the violence that lies behind them. In 1948 the colonial governor of Malaya declared a state of emergency to fight communist guerrillas, and British troops used counterinsurgency tactics the Americans would emulate in Vietnam.”

Fighting communist guerrillas is bad? Hmmm. Also, 1948? Elizabeth didn’t become queen until 1952.

Contrast this with the Times obituary of Gorbachev’s death.

Mikhail S. Gorbachev, Reformist Soviet Leader, Is Dead at 91

Adopting principles of glasnost and perestroika, he weighed the legacy of seven decades of Communist rule and set a new course, presiding over the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the U.S.S.R.

If you really want to see the Times slobber over a much bloodthirstier Communist, read their obit for Stalin: “Stalin Rose From Czarist Oppression to Transform Russia Into Mighty Socialist State.”