Tag Archives: times

NBC’s Williams Hits Bowles and Simpson from the Left, Deficit Cutting an ‘Assault’ on Middle Class and Poor

NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams on Wednesday evening hit presidential deficit commission co-chairs Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles from the left, the New York Times left. Without ever raising conservative criticism of proposals to raise taxes, Williams charged: It seems to me there's two arguments. There's what you're trying to accomplish and then there's how you're trying to accomplish, and there are, as you know, critics of what you're trying to do.

A Heavy Dose of Pro-Obama Books (and Insider Favors) on the New York Times Top 100 Books List

Typically, The New York Times has released its annual book reviewers' list of the 100 Most Notable Books of 2010 , and they favor liberal authors, and most helpfully, current and former staffers of the New York Times. For people who may buy Christmas gifts or make Christmas lists based on this top-books list, Obama is still the hero. The Times recommended both The Bridge by David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, and The Promise: Year One by Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter, not to mention leftist Salon writer Rebecca Traister's book Big Girls Don't Cry: The Election That Changed Everything for American Women. The Times calls it “A colorful, emotional argument that 2008 gave feminism a thrilling 'new life.'” With Michelle Obama growing vegetables?

Pity the Prez: NYT Blog Hauls Out the ‘Distraction’ Meme Again (Update: Press Treated NoKo as a Distraction in April 2009)

I heard Rush mention this Caucus Blog item at the New York Times on his program today. It seems that the Times's Michael Shear is disappointed that Dear Leader is yet again caught up in a “distraction” (“Pat-Downs Ensnare White House in New Distraction”) It's headlined in the item's browser window as “Pat-Downs Ensnare White House in New Controversy.” Interesting edit, don't you think? If it's a “controversy,” the President owns it. If it's a “distraction,” well, it's an unfair intrusion. Clever. Shear wrapped it in a narrative whose theme was that “It all felt vaguely familiar.” Well, yeah. What's more than vaguely familiar has been the press's tendency to lament the distractions our supposedly otherwise focused like a laser beam chief executive must endure. On April 9, 2009 (at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), I noted that “The words 'Obama' and 'distraction' have both appeared in 2,425 articles in just the past 30 days; excluding duplicates, it's about 450.” In his blog entry, Shear listed many other awful distractions the president has encountered. What's interesting are how many of them escalated because of Obama or people working directly for him: read more

See the article here:
Pity the Prez: NYT Blog Hauls Out the ‘Distraction’ Meme Again (Update: Press Treated NoKo as a Distraction in April 2009)

Gift Guide: Deadwood and the Most Versatile Swear Word Ever

“There ain’t much to country living,” sang Warren Zevon. “Sweat, piss, jizz and blood.” Those four fluids are present in prodigious quantities throughout the three seasons of David Milch’s HBO western Deadwood, now available on the Blu-ray set Deadwood: The Complete Series.

Read more from the original source:
Gift Guide: Deadwood and the Most Versatile Swear Word Ever

Gift Guide: Amy Sedaris Can’t Make You Rich, But She Can Save You A Bundle on Crafts

If you have a friend who is poor, bored, crafty, and/or appreciative of subversive humor, he/she will benefit from Simple Times: Crafts For Poor People , Amy Sedaris’ new hardback featuring lessons on making crab-claw roach clips, tinfoil balls, and crepe-paper moccasins.

See the original post:
Gift Guide: Amy Sedaris Can’t Make You Rich, But She Can Save You A Bundle on Crafts

Geysers Explode With Energy and Life (Slideshow)

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons When huge volcanoes erupt , sending ash miles into the atmosphere and shutting down air travel for entire continents, the world can’t help but take notice . Yet everyday, around the planet, smaller displays of geothermal force take place. Sometimes, it’s fairly static, like a gently simmering hot spring, and other times it’s explosive—albeit less so than

Read the rest here:
Geysers Explode With Energy and Life (Slideshow)

Open Thread: Balance the Budget in Under a Minute

We've got quite the OT today. The New York Times has come up with a nifty interactive tool for making your own preferred reforms to balance the federal budget. James Pethokoukis brags that he balanced the budget (as of 2030) in under a minute. read more

More:
Open Thread: Balance the Budget in Under a Minute

New York Times Reporter Kevin Sack Issues White House Press Releases for Obama-Care

The first wave of Obama-care goes into effect today, and New York Times health-care reporter Kevin Sack celebrated with a series of propaganda-style articles for the front of the National section, topped by ” For Many Families, Health Care Relief Begins Today .” (As did higher costs and denied coverage, but the Times didn’t get into that.) The Times’s headline reads more like an Obama administration press release than an actual instance of journalism, and Sack’s reference (in a news story) to the “Darwinian insurance system” doesn’t inspire confidence in his objectivity. Sometimes lost in the partisan clamor about the new health care law is the profound relief it is expected to bring to hundreds of thousands of Americans who have been stricken first by disease and then by a Darwinian insurance system. On Thursday, the six-month anniversary of the signing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a number of its most central consumer protections take effect, just in time for the midterm elections. Starting now, insurance companies will no longer be permitted to exclude children because of pre-existing health conditions, which the White House said could enable 72,000 uninsured to gain coverage. Insurers also will be prohibited from imposing lifetime limits on benefits. The law will now forbid insurers to drop sick and costly customers after discovering technical mistakes on applications. It requires that they offer coverage to children under 26 on their parents’ policies. After Sack allowed a single middle paragraph for dissent from House Republicans, and a brief mention that Democrats had managed to defer “the pain of tax increases and penalties until after the election,” he indulged in more leftist boosting of the program’s alleged popularity, or at least “many of the provisions.” Sack conveniently bypasses the findings of recent New York Times/CBS News polls that find most respondents disapprove of the plan. Polls have found that many of the provisions taking effect Thursday are popular, tugging at a national sense of fairness and feeding off distrust of health insurers . They bear particular appeal for the 14 million people who must buy policies on the individual market rather than through employers and are thus at the mercy of the industry. And they land on the heels of a government report showing that the recession drove the number of uninsured Americans to 50.7 million in 2009, up 10 percent in a year. Three other brief profiles on the same page were headlined as if the Obama administration were free-lancing as copy editors. “Chronically Ill, and Covered,” “Cap Lifts, and So Do Spirits,” and “24, and Back in the Fold.” (Insurers must offer coverage to “children” (?) under their parents’ plan until they turn 26.) The Washington Examiner has an alternative view in an editorial: ” Obamacare is even worse than critics thought .” A couple of the editorial’s bullet points: Obamacare won’t decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare’s actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care. Obamacare will increase insurance premiums — in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients’ children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare’s mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama’s only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.

Read the original:
New York Times Reporter Kevin Sack Issues White House Press Releases for Obama-Care

Ground Zero Imam’s Group Trained NY Times Mosque Reporter

A New York Times reporter, who co-authored two fawning articles on the Ground Zero mosque in 2009 and 2010, previously attended a media training program run by the mosque’s organizer, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, according to the group’s website. The journalist, Sharaf Mowjood, participated in an April, 2009 media training program led by Rauf’s American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), reported the Investigative Project on Terrorism on Sept. 20. Rauf founded ASMA in 1997, and currently serves as the group’s CEO. Mowjood’s first article on the controversial Ground Zero mosque – a glowing, 1,200-word piece titled ” Muslim Prayers and Renewal Near Ground Zero ” – was co-authored with Ralph Blumenthal in December, 2009. All eight of the sources cited in the piece said they approved of the Ground Zero project or lauded its leader Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Mowjood was also a contributing reporter to a flattering front-page profile on Rauf that ran in the Times on Aug. 22. ASMA, which ran the “Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow” media training session that Mowjood attended, pointed to the reporter’s work as evidence that its training program was effective. “Media trainings showed immediate results,” claimed a 2009 report on the ASMA website, noting that “Sharaf Mawjood [sic], a journalism student at Columbia University and trained at the [Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow] conference, wrote a compelling story about the Muslim community’s plan to establish a center near Ground Zero. The story was published on the front page of the New York Times with Sharaf as co-author.” According to the ASMA website, the conference “focused specifically on the media. It offered participants a diverse range of intensive media trainings, imparting the [Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow] in attendance with concrete tools to become effective media spokespeople.” The website said that the conference was held in partnership with the Cordoba Initiative, the organization behind the Ground Zero mosque – which is another group led by Rauf. The Times’ Metro editor Joe Sexton denied that Mowjood was trained by ASMA, telling the IPT that the reporter “attended a lecture sponsored by ASMA in 2008. He was not a presenter or participant. He signed the sign-in sheet.” But the IPT noted that a photo from the event, which shows Mowjood seated at a conference table littered with papers while watching another participant speak, “indicates the session was more than a lecture.” In addition to his ties with ASMA, Times’ reporter Mowjood also held a government lobbying position at the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) up until at least March of 2008. CAIR, which calls itself a “grassroots civil rights and advocacy group,” has come under fire in the past for its alleged ties to international terrorist organizations. Excerpts from Mowjood’s work could possibly pass as press releases for groups like CAIR or ASMA. His Times articles were extremely favorable toward Rauf and the Ground Zero mosque. “Those who have worked with [the imam] say if anyone could pull off what many regard to be a delicate project, it would be Imam Feisal [Rauf], whom they described as having built a career preaching tolerance and interfaith understanding,” read Mowjood’s enthusiastically pro-Rauf article written in December, 2009. Mowjood’s story made no mention of legitimate criticisms of the planned mosque. Instead, opponents of the prayer center were sources of potential anti-Muslim violence. “[T]here is anxiety among those involved or familiar with the project that it could very well become a target for anti-Muslim attacks,” wrote Mowjood and his co-author Ralph Blumenthal. “Joan Brown Campbell …who is a supporter of Imam Feisal, acknowledged the possibility of a backlash from those opposed to a Muslim presence at ground zero.” Mowjood was also a contributing reporter to an Aug. 22 Times article on Rauf, in which the imam is described as the leader of “a truly American brand of Islam [that] could modernize and moderate the faith worldwide.” The 1,900-word article quotes no critics of the mosque, featuring mainly friends of Rauf who say things like “[he] is an excellent schmoozer” and “[to] stereotype him as an extremist is just nuts.” Mowjood’s background as a CAIR lobbyist, as well as his attendance at an ASMA media training event, may conflict with the Times’ ethical standards. The paper’s code of ethics says that reporters “should be vigilant in avoiding any activity that might pose an actual or apparent conflict of interest and thus threaten the newspaper’s ethical standing.”

Original post:
Ground Zero Imam’s Group Trained NY Times Mosque Reporter

Nutty Professor Pleads for Extinction of All Carnivorous Animals

Better enjoy the Lion King while you can. Flipper could also be gone soon. If a certain nutty professor has his way, all lions, dolphins, as well as all other carnivorous animals on this planet would be selected for controlled extinction for the “high crime” of eating meat and causing suffering in other animals. I kid you not. In a long, rambling, seemingly endless opinion piece in the New York Times that comes off like a bizarre mixture of Dr. Strangelove and Professor Irwin Corey , Rutgers philosphy professor Jeff McMahan makes the case for playing God in the animal kingdom because of his assertion that God was flawed for allowing animal suffering in the wild: Viewed from a distance, the natural world often presents a vista of sublime, majestic placidity. Yet beneath the foliage and hidden from the distant eye, a vast, unceasing slaughter rages. Wherever there is animal life, predators are stalking, chasing, capturing, killing, and devouring their prey. Agonized suffering and violent death are ubiquitous and continuous … … Suppose that we could arrange the gradual extinction of carnivorous species, replacing them with new herbivorous ones.  Or suppose that we could intervene genetically, so that currently carnivorous species would gradually evolve into herbivorous ones, thereby fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy.  If we could bring about the end of predation by one or the other of these means at little cost to ourselves, ought we to do it? For the nutty professor from Rutgers, the answer to the latter question would be “yes.”  The big question your humble correspondent has is why the New York Times allowed this insanity to be published in their newspaper. The only answer I could come up with is that an editor at the Times must hate Professor McMahan so much that he decided to allow the Nutty Professor to unwittingly subject himself to public humiliation and ridicule. For another example of professorial nuttiness, check out this assertion from McMahan that we must play God…in order to correct God’s “flaw” in allowing innocent animals to suffer from the attacks of carnivorous species: The continuous, incalculable suffering of animals is also an important though largely neglected element in the traditional theological “problem of evil” ─ the problem of reconciling the existence of evil with the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent god. The suffering of animals is particularly challenging because it is not amenable to the familiar palliative explanations of human suffering. Animals are assumed not to have free will and thus to be unable either to choose evil or deserve to suffer it. Neither are they assumed to have immortal souls; hence there can be no expectation that they will be compensated for their suffering in a celestial afterlife. Nor do they appear to be conspicuously elevated or ennobled by the final suffering they endure in a predator’s jaws. Theologians have had enough trouble explaining to their human flocks why a loving god permits them to suffer; but their labors will not be over even if they are finally able to justify the ways of God to man. For God must answer to animals as well. And here is the Nutty Professor fantasizing about playing God: If I had been in a position to design and create a world, I would have tried to arrange for all conscious individuals to be able to survive without tormenting and killing other conscious individuals.   McMahan concludes his voluminous piece with a final fit of supreme nuttiness: Here, then, is where matters stand thus far.  It would be good to prevent the vast suffering and countless violent deaths caused by predation.  There is therefore one reason to think that it would be instrumentally good if  predatory animal species were to become extinct and be replaced by new herbivorous species, provided that this could occur without ecological upheaval involving more harm than would be prevented by the end of predation.  The claim that existing animal species are sacred or irreplaceable is subverted by the moral irrelevance of the criteria for individuating animal species.  I am therefore inclined to embrace the heretical conclusion that we have reason to desire the extinction of all carnivorous species, and I await the usual fate of heretics when this article is opened to comment. Trust me, no animal in the wild has ever suffered as much as I did by reading Professor McMahan’s insanity in its entirety. So would that give me the right to call for the extinction of a certain Nutty Professor?

View original post here:
Nutty Professor Pleads for Extinction of All Carnivorous Animals