A Great Read

Jason over at CounterColumn takes the New York Times to task over its lack of ability to report about our heroes in uniform and the lame attempt to blame the White House for it's own inability to perform their journalistic duty. From the NYT article by Damien Cave:

...that might be because the military, the White House and the culture at large have not publicized their actions with the zeal that was lavished on the heroes of World War I and World War II.

Jason responds with a very thought provoking critique of how well the Times has been covering the actions of our heroes in uniform. A sample:

I'm glad you're finally showing an interest in the issue. As any recovering addict will tell you, the first step is to admit you have a problem. Of course, you haven't gotten to that stage in your recovery yet. But when you're dealing with with a neurotic who's so hopelessly consumed in their dysfunction, even the smallest signs of progress are great victories.

Nevertheless, I'll be straight with you.

The reason we see so few positive stories in your paper is, quite frankly, because you have failed. You have failed your readership, and you have failed your community. You have failed because you are so immersed in the dysfunction of reflexive urban liberalism that, like the drunken, lampshade-wearing man who embarrasses himself and everyone around him at the company Christmas party, your shortcomings have become patently obvious to everyone around you except yourself and your enablers.
Let me take you back to 2004....

I tried in a different post to comment on his article but I think it would be better for me to simply suggest that you read the whole thing -- it's well worth your time.

Update: You want some heroes? I've got a great round up of heroes RIGHT HERE.......
h/t Vodka Pundit