Mike Tyson vs James Buster Douglas

February 11, 1990 Tokyo : Up to this moment in time, Mike Tyson had pulverized his opponents, some in a matter of seconds - his invincibility epitomized by not even once being knocked down in his previous 37 bouts...then, in the 10th round against one more obscure contestant, history unfolded:

The New York Times and General Musharraf

In light of this past month's universally chastised article regarding the sketchy wrong-doings of Senator John McCain, I've been compelled to construct my personal critique of The New York Times - specifically, its long-held antagonistic compositions on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in both its main pages and editorials - expressly its editorials as I shall attest to presently. The Times is arguably the most prominent and thus influential paper of record in the US, yet clearly it belies the notion of being objective most conspicuously with its constant and prevalent denunciation, even carping, of all things Bush. The most feckless illustration of this bias can be summoned by simply perusing the Times' editorials leading up to the invasion of Iraq, such as this one from February 2003 urging the UN to be forceful in disarming Saddam, and another actually touting the case for war. They followed the Bush doctrine when the public at large had starry eyes for a battle with Saddam. Now back to General Musharraf, whom the editorial page at The Times seems to have a bizarre obsession for judging by more than ONE HUNDRED entries spanning from the counter-coup of 1999 through its third writing of the new year this morning. Here is the listing of the postings. Except for the brief period following the Planes Operation of 2001, the editorials are universally vituperative toward this one leader, who they have opined on more than any other in the world save for Bush 43. I've personally written to The Times on multiple occasions questioning why they continually ascribe blame to Musharraf for the sorry state of affairs in a still third world country, who after all is in better economic shape following the corrupt two term regimes of the late Benazir and the now revived Nawaz Sharif, the latter being the designated suitor to ameliorate whatever affliction The Times believes Musharraf has caused these many years. When you study and glance over the many articles excoriating him for his supposed subverting of democracy in a state where militants are not only harbored, but are bred, how can you not conclude that a wretched bias persists. We all know that extremists existed in Pakistan years before 1999, being clandestinely cultivated by the United States during its Cold War engagement. My thinking on this is that Musharraf's ties to George Bush have earned him eternal ostracism in the eyes of The New York Times, for as the saying goes, you are judged by the company you keep, and how dare the president of Pakistan foment favorable ties with the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. Perhaps he wouldn't have merited 10 editorials if he stayed disengaged until another Clinton had attained the reigns...The Times could finally revel in its political coverage then.