There is an intriguing letter in an advice column in The New York Times from last July. Many are wondering if this anonymous letter is refers to the newly revealed extra-marital affair of (now former) CIA Director and General David Petraeus. But a closer look at the advice the Times gives proves that the so-called “paper of record” can’t even keep its anti-conservative agenda out of simple advice columns.
The letter from an anonymous reader is tantalizing. It sure sounds like someone describing Petraeus’ ill-advised affair.
My wife is having an affair with a government executive. His role is to manage a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership. (This might seem hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration.) I have met with him on several occasions, and he has been gracious. (I doubt if he is aware of my knowledge.) I have watched the affair intensify over the last year, and I have also benefited from his generosity. He is engaged in work that I am passionate about and is absolutely the right person for the job. I strongly feel that exposing the affair will create a major distraction that would adversely impact the success of an important effort. My issue: Should I acknowledge this affair and finally force closure? Should I suffer in silence for the next year or two for a project I feel must succeed? Should I be “true to my heart” and walk away from the entire miserable situation and put the episode behind me? NAME WITHHELD
While that is quite an amazing parallel to what we now know about Petraeus, the more telling thing in this column isn’t what the reader says in the letter. It’s the advice given that is the real shocker.
“Don’t expose the affair in any high-profile way,” The New York Times begins.
Well, that might seem sensible. But wait, there’s more. In the very next line The Times violates its own advice and reveals that there is a least one reason that someone may want to out an affair and destroy the very important work of such a government official.
It would be different if this man’s project was promoting some (contextually hypocritical) family-values platform, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. The only motive for exposing the relationship would be to humiliate him and your wife, and that’s never a good reason for doing anything.
Ah, so it’s OK to destroy an official if that official happens to be a champion of “family-values.” But not otherwise.
The hate is so strong with these people, that The NY Times can’t even keep its desire to destroy pro family-values conservatives out of a simple advice column.