I'm the submitter of the NY Times piece here. The WSWS link was submitted by a banned account (I have "showdead" enabled so I see such comments). In the inter

I'm the submitter of the NY Times piece here. The WSWS link was submitted by a banned account (I have "showdead" enabled so I see such comments). In the interests of fairness and to remove the claim that that viewpoint is being suppressed, I provided it myself in my own comment. I'm going to suggest that the HN readership should be sufficiently literate to compare the two pieces, the narratives, facts, and shadings presented, and if it chooses to do so, assess and/or identify slants, defects, or strengths of each piece. Which might be more productive than attacking someone who's already said that they don't endorse the piece.