The American Spectator

bluecollarbytes| 12.24.08 @ 4:17PM

I'm struck with something else. The NYT seems determined to 'balkanize' our politics. Doing this requires no set of conclusive and/or competing facts, only assertions.

Jeremiah| 12.24.08 @ 5:46PM

Mr Tyrrell --

This jeering and crowing about a phony letter published by the Times on Monday is just incredibly strange, and your readers don't seem to notice.

The Times -- it's true -- published a letter to the editor that was not written by the person who signed it.

This was a mistake, and given the status of the person ostensibly responsible for the letter, more should have been done to validate its authorship.

However, we're not talking about a major scandal here, and the reason you know at all is that the Times acknowledged, published, and corrected their error as soon as they learned of it.

People on the right bray and honk endlessly about how terrible the press is. The press is its own best critic, however, and it is in the nature of journalism to correct itself.

Does the Times make mistakes? You bet. But is that so surprising?

But how many news organizations have a public editor? The Times pays someone to criticize its editorial and reportorial mistakes.

Does Fox News?

If Mr. Tyrrell thinks the world would be better off without institutions like the Times, what would he replace it with? Who is going to pay reporters to do lengthy investigative pieces? Who is going to send journalists all over the globe to report on foreign affairs? How many correspondents does the American Spectator have risking their lives in Baghdad or Tehran? How many reporters does the Limbaugh or Sean Hannity have working for them in Moscow or Egypt?

I'd like to hear more about your journalistic theories and learn where I might get better news than at the Times, the Post, NPR, and Lehrer's News Hour. Should I tune in to yet another stirring hour of Bill Oreilly to get my news? How about Shepherd Smith, that intrepid hero of modern day journalism?

Let's hear it Tyrrell. Where do you get your news?

Jeremiah| 12.24.08 @ 8:12PM

Jeremiah, spare us your jeremiads.
Tyrell's point vis a vis the fake letter was to draw attention to the equally fake "news" you seem to rely on without question.
Have you ever read the American Spectator? Every page is filled with real news and analysis you couldn't possibly get from they dying Gray Lady.
Facts are facts, but screeds like the attempt to pin the housing bubble on Bush, or the ludicrous article about McCain's purported affair reveal the Times to be a tendentious purveyor of lies while fooling bubbleheads like you with its veneer of impartiality.

Jeremiah| 12.24.08 @ 8:51PM

You're seriously comparing the news available on this website to the Times?

Sir, don't be ridiculous. This is an opinion site. Which is great. I love opinions. But it's not a news agency.

You mention two of the more controversial stories: two out of thousands to appear this year -- of course in addition to the letter that Mr Tyrrell takes to be such a big deal.

You need to put things in perspective and ask yourself why people who support Republicans might really want you to fear and hate newspapers.

Maybe it's precisely because they offer information.

Think about it. What are the bogeymen of the right?

Schools, science, and journalism: i.e. information about reality, about what's really going on.

The right wants you to shut up, go to your megachurch, and know nothing.

If that's good enough for you, then you're a slave.

Let me give you true scripture from a real prophet:

Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.

Truthteller| 12.24.08 @ 10:10PM

Jeremiah,

The New York Times of Jayson Blair and Howell Raines, of declining revenue, of mortgaging their building to keep the ink flowing, is not so much a news agency as it is a propaganda arm of the Left.

It's the pretense of journalistic integrity that so offends us clear thinkers on the right.

The bogeymen of the right are not schools, science and journalism, when those entities act in an honest fashion. It is when the statist influence corrupts them that we recoil.

You yourself seem to hold Fox news in disregard. You yourself disparage the news in American Spectator. Are you not guilty of creating your own bogeymen?

Your "reality" is specious, and Tyrell's attempt to reveal the Times for what it really is, propaganda, is not the work of one seeking to stoke fear of newspapers. I remember when American Spectator was printed on broadsheet itself.

Fear? No. Revulsion, certainly. But tempered by the certitude that the Times will shortly be done in by the Internet, and good riddance.

You should read more of Rousseau. Did you know he believed people should be required to observe a public religion that encourages adherence to the social contract? A lot like the high priests of the Times masthead at whose altar you worship.

Jeremiah| 12.24.08 @ 11:55PM

Truthteller --

Rousseau's beliefs were complicated and -- I must say - rather contradictory at times. He was not a systematic philosopher.

Now, you allude to the Blair incident and the Times' lower revenues as though they were arguments against their journalistic practice in general.

The Times was duped by fraud. It only matters because the Times matters. Who would care if someone who was not really conservative was caught airing conservative opinions here or on Fox? Probably not many people.

But if things go as you gleefully hope, and "the internet" replaces newspapers, where will the information come from that we use to govern ourselves?

Will we ask the government and the politicians whether they're telling the truth?

Evidently that's what you'd like.

There won't be newspapers: there will be government websites that we can consult to find out what we are to believe. No one to check them or ask difficult questions. Just the party line.

Sounds like N. Korea. And no thank you.

Ammo Guy| 12.25.08 @ 5:12AM

Jeremiah, I know Bob can defend himself, but he's probably too busy celebrating Christmas with his family to bother with the likes of you. That being said, I can't wait for the Gray Lady to tear into the new President...like it has during his campaign. So, let's check back together a year from now to review all the hard-hitting stories that were fit to print now that GWB is no longer available to blame for every bit of bad news under the sun. Or, to save money, perhaps the Times will merely accept the self-investigations performed by the Obama staff and print whatever they are told is the truth. All I can say is that I am glad to have access to such a wide variety of news and opinion after growing up with only the liberal big 3 networks deciding what I should see. If you can't recognize the bias in what purports to be straightforward "news" reporting then you haven't been around very long...perhaps one day you'll see the light, but I doubt it. Merry Christmas.

Truthteller| 12.25.08 @ 8:34AM

Jeremiah,

The Times is the government mouthpiece you evince in your last paragraphs. Step back, get some perspective, and ask yourself when the Times ever supported limiting government?

Does the Times even support vouchers for education, or is it in lockstep with the N. Koreas of the world which insist that government educate our children?

As a libertarian agnostic churchgoer (complicated, like Rousseau) I am off to mass this morning. But I hear in your gentlemanly prose an echo of my own desire for freedom.

In that spirit, I will publicly hope that the Times does not disintegrate, but instead fulfills it's important role in the Fouth Estate, and lives up to it's responsibility to print all the news that fits, absent it's evident statist proclivities.

Merry Christmas Jeremiah.

Bob| 12.25.08 @ 8:40AM

The subject here, of course, is media bias. With the growth of right wing radio/Fox News and the increasingly leftish bias of MSNBC, judging fact from fiction is not easy. However, for the first time I can remember, the growth of the internet enabled us to actually check the facts on the election by sites dedicated to fact checking. It is interesting to note that there could be bias in these sites, but there was considerable agreement (not surprisingly) on the facts whether the site came from the left or right.

During the election, I visited these sites often to check "facts" from both the left and right. What I found were some outright lies, but mostly a slanting of the facts based upon ideology and viewership/readership of the outlet who promoted these items.

The conclusion I came to was that people today really don't want to know the truth nor do they have the capacity to adjudicate it. This is an outgrowth of de-centralized media slanted towards a particular bias. People can watch MSNBC, look at the "facts", and say that these people are Obama lovers and can't tell the truth. They then turn to Fox that has the same bias with the truth. People end up watching outlets that support their point of view rather than challenge their thinking ability.

This is all part of the fact that news is no longer news -- it is entertainment targeted for an audience segment that will sustain increased advertising revenues. Fox targeted an underserved, right wing segment, and it has been successful. MSNBC is becoming increasing left leaning to do the same on the left. The slanting of facts has more to do with viewership/readership and advertising revenues than it has to do with real factual analysis.

It is not surprising that the NYT leans left since its readership leans left. It is not surprising that the WSJ and Washington Times leans right because of their readership.

As a Republican that didn't think McCain had a grasp of the issues and Palin was not knowledgeable -- both of which are clearly facts if one is honest -- I often checked the facts presented. For example, let's take Ayers. There is no question that Obama had known Ayers. The issue was how deep was that relationship and did it say anything about Obama. The right said that this relationship was almost like a band of brothers and the left said it was almost non-existent. The truth is neither. There were as many Republicans on that educational board as Democrats and the organization was funded by Republicans. The fact that Ayers had a coffee for a neighbor who was running for office who was also a Democrat and was interested in education, is both not surprising and commonplace in politics. There is no evidence that Obama supported the radical leanings of Ayers other than their common belief in community organizing as a necessary action.

On the other hand, there is no question that Palin flubbed the only two mainstream interviews she had with Gibson and Couric. She was tested on her national knowledge because that was seen to be her weakness. That's what any good reporter would do, go after the story. MSNBC took that to the extreme and painted her as "stupid" when there was no evidence she was -- in fact, she did some very bright things as an individual. Fox called this "gotcha" journalism when, in fact, these questions were quite fair and the answers unsatisfactory. So again, the truth lies somewhere in the muddy middle.

Regarding the housing bubble and sub-prime lending. In the 90's, I worked for both Beneficial and Household -- two companies who targeted the subprime segments. We all knew that mortgages were being given out to unqualified borrowers and that some day, a high number of them would fail. There were two things, however, that enabled us to push these -- and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not a part of this. First, we were able to securitize the risk by creating mortgage backed securities. Therefore, we were no longer responsible for the loans we created. As long as there were buyers for these securities, we would continue to push deeper and deeper into subprime. In other words, we had no "skin in the game". Secondly, the rating agencies overrated these securities by assuming that housing prices would always rise thereby insuring that if the houses went into foreclosure, not much money would be lost. We knew it was a house of cards if the housing market ever decreased. What occurred during the Bush administration was continued deregulation by the SEC that allowed virtually non-regulated entities like investment houses and insurance companies (AIG) to leverage their investments to unheard of levels. This meant a slight uptick or downtick had huge effects.

Were Fannie and Freddie part of this? Sure, but they were not heavily into subprime in the 90's and were not the cause of the problem as those here on the right would make you believe. Those who were not in the industry do not have a good perspective of what really happened. It would be nice to see some objective journalism for a change.

Steve| 12.25.08 @ 8:54AM

Gee, what about that 63% to 68% during the Clinton admin, and 68% to 69% during the Bush admin? Not worthy of mention, or an Inconvenient Truth? I remember the NYT printed a story about the rising temperatures in Alaska, showing the average rising when figures for 1948 thru 1998 were used. Then some wag in another publication pointed out that if you used 1949 to 1999, or 1947 to 1997, or many other combos, the temperature average falls. Just an accident for the hapless nyt reporter? Of course, everyone makes mistakes. Stories of this nature are legion, which is why you are misinformed if you read the nyt unless you read all the publications that tell the rest of the story. But how delicious just to revel in hating George Bush without Inconveniences.

Jeremiah| 12.25.08 @ 9:26AM

Believe me, I've had complaints about the Times. I was an Obama supporter and their editorial board was Clintonite. While their editorials (including those from their public editory, who felt the paper was leaning towards Obama) were in outspoken support of Clinton, their reporting certainly was not.

That having been said, just three weeks before the election the Times carried a cover story on Obama's days at the U of Chicago that was far from flattering. I'd advise you all to read it. You won't find nonsense about his middle name or the fact that he lived in Indonesia or Bill Ayers, I'm afraid. Instead, you'll find a much more serious critique of his tendency to stay out of controversies that may well be his biggest weakness as a leader. It's a searching fascinating and not at all flattering article.

The article on McCain earlier this year was horrible -- and you should read the angry mail and the public editor's response to it....in the NY Times. I wasn't as horrified by the story on Mrs. McCain a few weeks ago, but it wasn't a shining moment in my view. I'd just as soon leave spouses out of investigative reporting unless they really are a part of the story (as Hillary Clinton often was).

One of view cheers for the great diversity of information available: I'm with you there. Still, I wouldn't trade for the world the Times.

The Times reporters write like I'm an intelligent adult. No laser beams, no bimbos mincing around like ridiculous birds (cable news). The editorial and op-ed pages are the best in the country. The arguments are always well-written (even if they're by William Kristol). Foreign coverage, coverage of arts and culture -- where do I find this diversity?

Critics invariably mention the coverage of politics in their complaints, but the fact is the Times publishes thousands of stories on every conceivable topic. Most actually are not about politics, narrowly construed. Most would probably strike few of you as slanted in one way or the other.

The editorial page is openly, honestly, earnestly, and absolutely liberal. That's the point of the editorial page -- to help you correct for bias. What's wrong with that? I think it's much harder than many of you think to find "bias" in the form of distortion in the actual reporting. But like I said, most stories aren't even political at all.

You people ought to buy a Sunday Times some weekend and just spend three or four hours reading it. It's really amazing.

Nick in Virginia| 12.25.08 @ 9:57AM

To all the leftie libs who hate Fox News:

Without Fox and all the web sites such as American Spectator, Human Events, FrontPage, etc. people would not be aware of the existence of media bias, because the vast majority of the MSM is leftie-leaning.

And from the way they have acted over the past 8 years, the MSM have no problems misrepresenting and ignoring facts to get their ideological views put forward.

Does Fox have a conservative bias? In the News department, I would say "no", but in the commentary department (of which O'Reilly is a member), the answer is clearly "yes". But do any of the right-wingers come close to the hatred spewed by Olbermann and Maddow, or the silliness of Matthews, on MSNBC? Not even close.

And the Times was the organization that was perpetrating fraud on the public with the Jayson Blair / Howell Raines situation, not the other way around.

Bob| 12.25.08 @ 10:14AM

Nick, please give us a break. Fox has bias in the news department as well. Certainly Brit Hume is biased to the right and Chris Wallace asks right leaning questions. Every interview of Palin on Fox was a puff piece and you know it.

When I do the fact checking, however, I usually see that the right wing bias of Fox is not as accurate as, what you call, the MSM. And you seem to conveniently forget Rush, O'Reilly and Hannity on national radio. National radio has a strong right wing bias. In case you don't understand, Rush, O'Reilly and Hannity are part of the MSM because of the size of their listener base. Believing otherwise is drinking the KoolAid.

As for me, I listen to and watch both and then search for the real facts and come to my own conclusions. I'm retired and have the time to do so, but it has made me aware of the veracity of the claims on all of the channels. What I have determined is the following:

The most accurate news channel is CNN. It leans very slightly to the left, but they have countered that with large numbers of Republican strategists. They are the ONLY news channel that tries to remain unbiased. Fox tends to be the least accurate in their use of information. This varies by show, but O'Reilly, Hannity, and Fox and Friends are virtually fact free programs. Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, and Shep Smith are right of center but use facts fairly well. MSNBC is better on the use of facts than Fox, but is virtually all left leaning -- even with their "real" news people who ask biased questions of the Republican operatives. Obviously, talk radio -- which is syndicated nationally -- is heavily right leaning and almost as fact free as Fox commentators. Left wing radio like Radio American does not have a big audience and thus is not a factor.

What bothers me most is that because of the growth of fact-free commentators, our electorate has grown lazy in looking at the facts. We watch programs that make us feel good about our ideologies rather than searching for the truth.

Martinn E Winters| 12.25.08 @ 10:29AM

Jeremiah

How about when movie critics and food reviewers in your beloved NYT can't get an article out without basting Bush about something totally unrelated? Do you consider that writing like you are an "intelligent adult"?

Marc Jeric| 12.25.08 @ 10:48AM

My opinion is that there is no left and right in this country: there are normal people and then there is the revolutionary marxist-leninist elite. The New York Times, which I have been calling The New York Pravda for the last 40 years, is the flag bearer of the latter. Their publication of anti-terrorist measures, thus informing the terrorists how to avoid them, in nothing short of treason. Their hate of President Bush and of us normal people is beyond the pale - it is pathological.

Dennis Morris| 12.25.08 @ 11:18AM

The answer is obvious. In a cost cutting frenzy the Times has fired all its copy editors. Any editor capable of cogent thought would have eviscerated Wallison's reasoning. As for the Mayor of Paris every small town hick paper has a policy of calling letter writers to verify their authorship. Phone budget slashed, too?

PKAmmoTroop| 12.25.08 @ 2:48PM

Jeremiah,

The words "Jason Blair" mean anything to you?

When you say "However, we're not talking about a major scandal here..." you're dead wrong. For the Times to write an article about the cause of the financial crisis, to ignore the real cause (which they've actually covered honestly in the past) and make up an artificial cause that fits their political agenda IS a major scandal. Like the Jason Blair affair the credibility of the NY Times has been shattered, this time with the blessing of their editorial staff, and no amount of bloviation on your part will hide the fact that the New York Times lied to their readers, to their subscribers, to their affiliates, all in the name of ego massaging.

However since you insist on ignoring everything that Mr. Tyrell, a man who has more knowledge about the news industry than you, and insist on jawing about the fake letter gaffe then you cannot ignore the fact that not long before the Times published the letter in question they published a story by Republican-hostile reporter Elisabeth Bumiller who mocked Gov. Sarah Palin recapping a prank interview Palin conducted with who she thought was President Nicolas Sarkozy of France but was actually a French radio prankster.

And besides, just because the name on the letter was fake, it doesn't mean that the content was incorrect.

Also, if you continue to ignore the issue that Mr. Tyrell wrote about and want to argue about the letter, the Times couldn't get the woman's name right. They called the woman in question Carolien Kennedy, but her name hasn't been Kennedy for over 20 years, her name is Schlossberg.

Jeremiah| 12.25.08 @ 3:33PM

I'm seeing a lot of opinions written here -- none substantially different from what I can here tuning in Limbaugh any weekday morning.

If you want to be a parrot, fine. It's a free country.

I don't here many of you complaining about the Jeff Gannon story: a true fraud perpetrated by the Bush White House (although, deliciously, perpetrated against it too).

There was Jason Blair -- what? -- how many years ago?

A few missprints. A mistake here and there.

Again, this is out of thousands and thousands of stories.

One of you mentioned the prank in which Sarah Palin was fooled into believing she was talking to the president of France.

She was not running for copy editor, mind you.

How many of you have actually read the NY Times, I wonder?

I doubt very many, which is fine by me, again -- it's a free country.

But don't try to sound like you know what you're talking about. It just makes you sound silly.

Jeremiah| 12.25.08 @ 3:34PM

And like the Times, I admit my mistakes:

I inexplicably spelled "hear" "here" twice. My apologies.

It doesn't mean I tried to deceive you, though.

Bob| 12.25.08 @ 3:42PM

PKAmmo -- You have a few things wrong. First of all Caroline Kennedy did not change her name when she married Edwin Schlossberg. The fact that you assumed this is precisely an example of the "anti-intellectual" bent found here. Secondly, it was not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that was the primary cause of the mortgage mess. Republican operatives want you to believe that because then it is easy to blame the Democrats. The cause of this meltdown was the full securitization of mortgages starting in the early 90's, the fact that the rating agencies did not include the risk associated with them, the lack of regulation of capital requirements of ultra high leverage financial instruments, and the collapse of the housing bubble. Fannie and Freddie were minor players in the cause of this since they were not heavily into the subprime market in the 90's. Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for this as well as the greed of Wall Street and laxity of the SEC.

Regarding the NYT, I cannot defend them. The state of journalism has declined everywhere, including the NYT and outlets like Fox News and MSNBC. They are not journalism any more, but entertainment.

The American public does not want the truth, they want sound bites and people from every side are trying to deliver that to them especially in blogs like this. Oversimplification of complex issues is primarily the culprit along with the "de-intellectualization" of the public. This is why I rail against these popularist symbols like Sarah Palin and why I thing we should start supporting smart, well educated conservatives like Romney and Jindal.

Ammo Guy| 12.25.08 @ 4:46PM

What I love about the American Spectator, the Weekly Standard, the Washington Times, and others is that they are unabashedly conservative so I know from whence they come. What cracks me up is when the NYT, Newsweak, Time, amongst others, claim they objective when it is so obvious they are not. Whether it is the decision on which headline to run and how to write it, what story to put above the fold and what story to bury in the back, the sly adjective here and there, their bias is evident if you look for it...and, after years of reading those publications, I do. The reason Fox News seems conservative to some is because they actually attempt to be "fair and balanced" and that is a shock to those of you weaned on old media. Bottom line for me at this point is that I don't care what you think - enjoy your new President and his fawning press...I'll stick with my friend RET and his elegant prose.

Daniel| 12.25.08 @ 5:35PM

Bob, who knows tells us that Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the mortgage collapse. After all, they did not lend the money. I have to wonder then why they collapsed.
My impression was that they guaranteed the mortgage packages, which was why they were highly rated by the rating agencies.
I guess I was wrong.
I also wonder about Frank and Dodd and etc. receiving contributions from Freddie and Fannie, and some politicians getting favorable terms from Countrywide. All the while they insisted that the great expansion of the commitments of Fannie and Freddie were not at all dangerous, that they were solid as rocks.

Tony| 12.25.08 @ 6:49PM

Bob and Jeremiah:

You both, to one degree or another, assert bias or stupidity on the order of the NY Times at Fox news. However, unlike this publication and many others, you fail to give examples. Simply stating that Brit Hume leans to the right does not mean he is incapable of presenting hard news in a straight way. Perhaps it does to you, so let us have specific examples of his bias, as Mr. Tyrrell has provided with regard to the NY Times.

As for bringing up "right wing radio talkers" as examples of bias, yes indeed they are biased. The difference between Rush, Sean and the others is that they identify themselves as conservatives. When was the last time that Katie Couric, Harry Smith, Brian Williams or any of the other so-called objective, on air journalists informed us as to their political leanings. You see, that's all we're asking for. We all know that it's nearly impossible for any thinking person to not hold a particular point of view on a subject. What we want is for these clowns to give up the pretense of objectivity and alert their viewers that they hold a point of view so that the viewer is fully informed and can make a judgment based on all available facts.

Danube of Thought| 12.25.08 @ 8:59PM

I would suggest to poor Mr. Jeremiah that he start with Lucianne.com, where he can sample a host of reports on events from every imaginable source, and opinions on those events from across the political spectrum. Having done so, if he is a mature adult he can reach his own sensible conclusions about matters, but what he reads in the New York Times will likely carry very little weight with him. It is not simply bias; it is rank partisanship, and it is laughable when disguised as "news."

Jeremiah| 12.25.08 @ 10:35PM

Ammo Guy --

The news and opinion sources you mention and approve of do state their political agenda clearly, and in general I share your enthusiasm for those sources. (I read everything, God help me.)

However, the Times in its way does as well: the whole editorial apparatus is designed to create a forum for debate AND to state the publisher's own views so readers can correct for possible bias. Of course the paper leans liberal, but no one has successfully demonstrated to me that bias or even a political agenda is necessarily at odds with good journalism.

Fox News is not bad journalism because it's conservative: it's bad because it's shoddy, shallow, and relentlessly obsessed with emotional, fear-mongering news non-news stories. MSNBC is little better.

The best man on television was Russert. Now that he has left us, I have very little use for television, other than Jim Lehrer -- a journalist respected by politicians on both sides.

What disturbs me is to hear people take themselves out of the loop: the powerful in this country -- believe me -- read the Times. But quite a few of them are delighted you don't.

Maybe you should wonder why that is.

Danube -- thanks for the recommendation. I'll try it out.

Happy Christmas.

ruth| 12.26.08 @ 12:47AM

Jeremiah, why inject fear into the discussion? Oh, I'm so scared; the powerful are happy I don't read the NY Slimes. Why are they happy? The Times has been a lying, sack of crap for years. I don't believe what they write--they lie--why should I spend money to keep them afloat? They need to be held accountable for their scurrilous behavior. Let the free market decide.

Ammo Guy| 12.26.08 @ 6:03AM

All of this is reminiscent of the GOP's 40 years in the Congressional wilderness. As long as Republicans knew their place and were satisfied with the few crumbs they were allowed from the table set by the Democrats, all was peace and love. Then along came Newt who had the temerity to actually attempt to unseat the old wise men and all hell broke loose. Things have never been the same and Old Media's discomfort with New Media is no different. For Jeremiah's sake, I second the notion of logging onto Lucianne's Forum on a daily basis...sometimes it is only the comments of my fellow posters that gets me thru the day. Some of the reason for not reading the NYT on a daily basis is time itself - I don't have a lot of it and when I do, why struggle thru their bias when I have the American Spectator to peruse? Lucianne and Rush do have the time and they point out articles and columnists that intrigue me so I can maximize my surfing time...even from a tent in some faraway ISB. I certainly don't feel uninformed or underinformed - it's what you do with what you know that makes all the difference. I'm still amazed at what RET was able to accomplish with only an IU education (just kidding Bob). Merry Christmas to all my fellow conservatives...and you libs too.

Pecos Pete| 12.26.08 @ 7:38AM

Thanks for the reference to lucianne.com.

Bob| 12.26.08 @ 8:36AM

Daniel, there is a difference between CAUSES of the mortgage meltdown and institutions that were caught in it. This is often confused by people who don't understand and by politicians who want to score political points. There was an assumption throughout the industry including Countrywide, Fannie, and Freddie, that housing prices would continue to rise. This was backed up by the ratings agencies. If prices continued to rise, Fannie and Freddie would have been just fine. Everyone in the lending industry, including all of the investment houses and banks made this assumption. Fannie and Freddie just happened to be the largest to do so. When you guarantee mortgages that other people made, you don't really know the quality of those transactions. You assume the mortgage originators did their job properly. Well, they didn't. This whole thing could have been at least partially prevented by forcing mortgage originators to retain a reasonable portion of the risk instead of being able to securitize all of it. In other words, the mortgage originators didn't have any "skin in the game" so as long as secondary markets bought these mortgages, they sold everything they could. The ratings agencies did not have the capability to evaluate these securitizations and derivatives and also didn't have any skin in the game. If they made a mistake, there was no financial risk to them.

The market oriented answer to this problem is to insure that entities have some skin in the game. This would be far more effective than onerous regulations. I would, however, put capital requirements on investment houses and not allow unfettered leverage.

Bob| 12.26.08 @ 8:52AM

Tony, my problem with Rush, et. al., is not that they present a conservative point of view, but they spread untruths and the lemmings that listen to them just believe those "facts". This is especially true when it comes to facts on science and economics. Since I check out the facts they say, I happen to know. However, I do listen to Rush especially, (not Hannity), because he has absolutely great political insights that I find helpful. However, if you believe the facts that Rush presents, then you are part of the problem.

Let's take global warming. Rush was talking about the fallacy of global warming the other day. He used the example of a little kid experiencing the cold snap. How could we have global warming if it seemed to be colder outside. This is like looking out of your front door and claiming the world is flat because it looks that way to you. Here is a graph from NASA on global temperatures that have NOTHING to do with opinion:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://geology.com/news/images/global-warming-graph.jpg&imgrefurl=http://geology.com/news/2006/01/global-warming-graph-and-map.html&h=294&w=460&sz=92&tbnid=IEoTpuA93NoOCM::&tbnh=82&tbnw=128&prev;=/images?q=global+warming+graph&usg=__nGK9cWUzCIjg9ebGRtADmlWEZTs=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=1

Global warming is a fact, not an opinion. There are some arguments regarding the extent of particular causes, but the not fact that it exists. I hear the same type of argument regarding if Palin helped the McCain ticket. Graphing the polling data on an event timeline proves that she hurt the ticket more than helped it, but people don't know how to do proper analyses anymore and will believe anything these popular yo-yo's say.

livenbyfaith| 12.26.08 @ 8:59AM

When the NYT returns the pulitzer prize awarded for the lies of Walter Duranty I will start to believe they publish the truth. For the crime of covering up the genocide of 12 million Ukrainians the NYT deserves whatever horrible fate is reserved for holocaust deniers.

tony| 12.26.08 @ 9:55AM

Bob:

Well, I see you didn't respond to my challenge to present evidence of Fox News' supposed bias and misreporting of the news. Want to give it another go?

You ought to listen to Rush a bit more. He, like make many others, has doubts about global warming, but absolutely rejects as total nonsense the concept that it is man made. We see the man made global warming movement as a pseudo-religion, requiring absolute faith.

I'm not sure how old you are, but I recall vividly the headlines from the '70's proclaiming the coming ice age, man made of course, with warnings that we must change our ways. The cause of this coming apocalypse was of course mankind, with the internal combustion engine, etc., as the weapons of mass destruction.

There is literally nothing we can do stop geological and atmospheric processes. True, we should be good stewards of the planet and should endeavor to maintain a clean environment. After all, even conservatives require clean air and water to survive. But I, like Rush and many others, completely reject the idea that by simply living our lives and advancing technology ("progressivism"), we harm the planet.

tom| 12.26.08 @ 9:56AM

Bob, I agree with your solutions to the housing situation, but I also think that we need to have the homeowner have more skin in the game. What , in your opinion, led to the situation where people who could only muster a 2,3 or 5% downpayment were able to get credit? Leveraging an investment bank at 30-1 seems silly in hindsight, but allowing an individual to do the same does as well. If you only have 2% down, you're not a homeowner, you're an option holder. So whoever allowed that is pretty guilty in this mess, as is the Fed. At least Bush, McCain and some others pushed for fannie mae reform that might have prevented the worst of this mess in the last two years of frenzied lending and speculation. Frank and Dodd are still to this day trying to retain the concept of lending to high credit risks with at maximum leverage.

One other question, if I might. What makes you think that all Rush listeners are lemmings except for yourself? You view him with with appropriate scepticism and just appreciate the entertainment value. You might be the rule, not the exception.

malm| 12.26.08 @ 10:34AM

Okay Bob you state that there are some arguments about what causes global warming, and the extent of it , etc. I listen to Rush and he states the same thing. It is the Al Gore crowd that has decided for all of us that the case is closed and his movie is the final word. And, may I add your beloved CNN is in accord with him. Indeed. the other side wants to make skepticism on the issue a human rights crime. Nobody on the right has ever been that extreme on any issue. Only Fox is where you might see a report that gives a skeptic a hearing I might add. By the way Bob, these wall street clowns who bundled up all the mortgages etc were mostly swank set, liberal democrats, and their trophy wives were uber airhead lefties, ala Ms. Larry David.

tonypal| 12.26.08 @ 10:38AM

Bob:

You're a popular guy here.

ed| 12.26.08 @ 10:51AM

Yes, most if not all news organizations have a public editor. However, most refer to them as what they really are...Ombusdman.

malm| 12.26.08 @ 11:00AM

Tonypal, the guy is so smug. Mark Twain said a lie can travel most of the world before truth can put on its' shoes. The people who challenge Bob are aware of this kind of menace in modern society, and see the ny times as a major power center in a dangerous lie machine. Bob just can't fathom that major institutions can be so devious, indeed evil and traitors to the good. It is a hard thing to contemplate. But I have sadly concluded the worst about the left is true.

Bob| 12.26.08 @ 11:27AM

Tony, I have looked at the data regarding the causes of global warming and am also skeptical about claims on both sides of the argument. Is it methane from cows or carbon emissions or longer term trends relating to the decay of the earth's orbit. These arguments tend to be more political than scientific depending on your point of view. I'm a big proponent of spending money on research to determine the facts rather than coming to conclusions on either side. Research is far cheaper than actual projects that may do little good. Therefore, I reject the dire predictions of Gore and company, but also reject dumb and blind statements of Rush and the like who show little objective scientific evidence. There was a recent statement put out by 650 "scientists" talking about global warming not existing. However, there were only 1 or 2 real scientists in that group when you took a look at their credentials. On the other hand, the scientific organizations of virtually all major countries agree that there is global warming including oil producing countries. These are mainstream, highly credentialed scientists. The graphing data supports their conclusions.

Tom, I totally agree with you that borrowers also need more skin in the game. Having been in that business, I can tell you that if the mortgage originators had more skin in the game, the borrowers would also have been required to do so because those companies would have required it.

Malm, ideologues tend to demonize the opposition as you are doing. Do I believe that the NY Times has a liberal agenda? Absolutely. Do I believe that Fox News has a conservative agenda? Absolutely. That's why I check the facts on both of them in areas where I have some interest. They are both "lie machines" in some sense in that they do not present the underlying data, only non-objective conclusions. I don't see either of these institutions as "evil" -- that is something I leave to the social conservatives who see everything in terms of good and evil. They just come to biased conclusions because they are not news outlets, they are entertainment and want to make their listener/reader bases like them so they either watch or buy more from them. That's business. There is no such thing anymore that I would consider a real news outlet. Furthermore, Rush does say that global warming does not exist when all of the real data says it does. And yes, from everything I have read, Al Gore is an environmental whacko and has gone off the deep end on this. But that doesn't mean he isn't partially right.

malm| 12.26.08 @ 12:10PM

Keep in mind bob that Limbaugh has no desire to put you in jail for not seeing an issue his way. Al Gore and company on the other hand might burn you a the stake for suggesting he is only partly right. Also, look at the childish ploys of the Gorish side of this matter in the propaganda war. They persuade with the tale of polar bears, or penguins, or Santa's reindeers being wiped from the earth. They treat us all like mindless children they can mold , and manipulate into their little subjects. This is what evil fprces and people do. It is how dictators who control the media in a state blind their masses. This is the story of history.By the way Bob I am not a social conservative. I am an American,and patriotic. An Army of chattering class mediocrities are out to ruin my country. You do not see it, so be it. And by the way who told you only one or two of these 650 were real scientist? Somebody at CNN ? CNN being your media gold standard.Please give me a break. Is the late Michael Crichton a real scientist in your book ? He challenged the GW consensus. And airheads like dame Hillary and Crackpot Boxer had the gaul to debase him when he testified before the US Senate on the issue. Are those two vile pols your idea of real scientists? One of the things Crichton challenged was the whole "hockey stick" scenario. The " real" scientists condemned him and others. Guess what Bob ? He and they were correct. Gee maybe the 650 you debunk actually do have a clue.

Bob| 12.26.08 @ 12:48PM

Malm -- Michael Crichton is an M.D., not a climatologist or physicist. He may know where your liver is located and about genetics, but would not be an expert in global warming. The questioning of the 650 "experts" came in an interview with a Senator who was backing this opinion. He was asked who among the "scientists" were experts in this field and he admitted that only one or two were real experts. The rest were just "concerned scientists". A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK) said:

"The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified."

You can doubt all you want to but it is based on a group of non-experts in the field. If you wish to believe that, there is nothing I can do to help you. Perhaps you should gain admission to the flat earth society and still believe the sun revolves around the earth.

And please don't give me the "American" and "patriot" thing. Being an "American" simply means you are a citizen. True patriots, in my opinion, offer their lives in defense of their country. I enlisted in the Army to fight communism in Vietnam and spent a year being shot at. What did you do?

Jeremiah| 12.26.08 @ 1:16PM

I'm glad to hear many of you say that you listen to Rush skeptically.

He is, in the end, a satirist. Nothing is more noble than satire: Horace was a satirist, so was Jonathan Swift and HL Menken -- and often Mark Twain.

However, satirists are NOT journalists. Rush does not report. He does not go out and find out what's going on.

He sits in a room, reads the Times, the Post, and watches television -- a lot of television. Then he makes fun of them.

He's very good at his job. But remember: he's never gotten one source to talk, never risked his life covering a story in a dangerous, far away place, never done anything painful to protect his integrity or reputation -- something real journalists do all the time.

He's not fundamentally different than Jon Stewart, although most of you probably like the direction of his satire better.

malm| 12.26.08 @ 2:28PM

First of all Bob time has already proven Cricton right on the fallacy of the hockey stick effect. Second he was far more than an M.D. In particular he was an expert on computer modeling, and as he scrutinized the work of all the above you so charitably award a blank check he found undeniable flaws in their work. By the way Bab what really is a climatologist ? Who made them so smart and of course so beyond approach ? Like these clowns can't be bought ? Crichton took most issue with the idea that the issue was a closed matter. He was a true agnostic who constantly dug for the truth, and pointed out that Al Gore and a bunch of crazed leftist with some degrees claiming the debate is closed are not at all scientific. Crichton left behind a series of lectures Bob on the net.You canFind them if you want a truly educated and informed opinion on these matters Bob. But the likes of you and Gore debunking Crichton is like me claiming I am better basketball player than Mike Jordan. By the way, there are many esteemed climatologists and others who join Crichton in his contentions. They would love to debate your side, your experts on this matter Bob. But guess which side will not debate Bob ? Why your side. The closed minded side, including the NY Times side and the network tv and CNN side and the Hollywood crowd and the NGO crowd and on and on. They own the media and many of us see brainwashing for the purpose of sinister power grabbing and control of our liberty. we will find a way to fight back all said and done. Meanwhile Bob you go on and bless their good intentions. and superior wisdom.Gore is the King of flat earth Bob and you are one of his toady minions, so impressed with the credentials of UN experts and this international leftist elite. To me they are the enemy plain and simple. Finally Bob, those 650 are saying these other so called experts are not even following the basic scientific method. They are jamming up with crap their computer models. They see this much rather easily. Bob just the contoversy involving surface tempature stations is enough to make one more than a bit skeptical. These people you rebuke are trying to wake you up. You have a closed mind,and should spend time looking up basic definitions of words and concepts like skepticism and scientific method, also read or reread The True Believer. Save yourself old boy. One can have an open and honest mind at any age. And once again Bob, who really are your experts ? And, why won"t they debate ? Instead they wanna jail people who cast doubt on anything they proclaim. What more of a tip off to their true nature do you need Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaab, you little sheep.

Bob| 12.26.08 @ 3:32PM

Malm -- I see that you don't understand Crichton's work. Later in life, he didn't debunk global warming, but simply agreed it needed more research. Secondly, most global warming scientists agree that the data shows a cooling effect in Antarctica due to increased precipitation and changing weather patterns. He also improperly used the urban heat island effect and satellite temperature measurements. In regards to debate, scientists are more prone to producing scientific papers in which details can be verified and explained. Debates are not a good forum for science as they tend to be collections of sound bites rather than good data analysis. There are lots of papers back and forth that discuss most of the debate issues. While I've read a lot, I am certainly not an expert on this issue. But Crichton, a person who utilized psychics through much of his life, is not a person I'd be tempted to listen to on this particular issue. I've read most of his books, however, and think he was an absolutely great writer of fiction. Crichton was not a stable guy having married five times. I would not be tempted to use him as a reliable source on global warming. By the way, I don't look at Gore as an expert either. I find his views out of the mainstream of the science that I've seen.

Regarding the 650 so-called "scientists". They were the ones trying to debunk global warming, not the ones supporting the facts. They were the ones who were not using scientific method, not the ones who are in the mainstream of science. My degrees are in mathematics, chemistry, business and economics -- not in global warming. I understand computer modeling and scientific methods and know enough to see that Crichton's theories are flawed.

I wouldn't have studied both sides of the issue if I had a closed mind. There are extremists on both sides of this issue which is why I would like to see is more money spent on research than on expensive solutions that may not do much.

Derek P| 12.26.08 @ 3:47PM

Jeremiah (the bleeding heart): "The right wants you to shut up, go to your megachurch, and know nothing. "

As a life long conservative, you sir have no f**king clue as to which you speak. Disagree with the right all you like but at least disagree with what we are and not what YOU have been spoon fed by the same rad you defend.

Derek P| 12.26.08 @ 3:59PM

Bob, you sure are a genius, all that I have to do is ask you. In truth, to me, you sound just like every other nutless moderate......

On a different note, I saw Olbermann referenced. You know I thought that guy was just a complete prick on his laughable show on Democratic National TV but his is the same enourmous prick on NBC's Sunday night football as well. He makes everything except the game completely unwatchable. What a complete and total self absorbed a**hole.

Jeremiah| 12.26.08 @ 4:51PM

Derek --

First of all, I'd like to disagree with the liberality with which you employ the dangling modifier: "As a conservative, you sir..." (Remember, you're the conservative; I'm the bleeding heart.)

I think I have a fairly good idea of the nature of ideas propounded on the so-called "conservative" coporatist right. I refuse to back down from my claim: Limbaugh and Hannity and many others want you to ignore the insights of science, schools, and journalism because they'd prefer your continued investment in "faith-based" governance. In this way of seeing things, any institution that attempts to supply information about the world is "liberal" and therefore corrupt -- not because of any skewed political bias, but on the basis of its attempt to supply information alone.

This is a logical outcome of the subversion of Englightenment values that began on the left in the 60s and migrated to the right in the 80s.

It doesn't matter if the goals are reactionary or progressive: a disdain for study, evidence-seeking, and rational analysis is disgusting.

malm| 12.26.08 @ 4:58PM

Bob, stop being so stubbornly wrong. The 650 scientist, as well as Crichton are not the ones stopping the debate. And, the debate is that we do not have all the answers and have more to learn. It is your side that insists there is no debate . You are the absolutist. You are the one stuck in the box. You are the one willing to let some Royal Academy from Brazil dictate your lifestyle. Saying we need more research as Crichton stated, and saying the research to date was woefully flawed is not allowed in the circles you champion. This is not science at all. Science must always ask questions. Crichton was not stable ? This attack on him by you further shows how much your ilk feared him. Are the global warming fanatics you believe in stable ? Crichton by the way was quite wealthy, and thus not subject to monetary considerations in the course of his work. many of the global hysterics do have wealth to gain if the dreams and schemes of the greens go forth. And, going back to your 650 skeptics who you say the facts do not support, Bob they simply question the facts themselves. Sure if they thought the facts were correct they might agree, but the facts you insist are facts they dispute. They have strong arguments to make and the fact that nobody on your side will debate them is proof of your sides weakness. To say science can never be debated is nonsense. The people pushing global warming are simply not superior beings and for the most part they and their beliefs have avoided serious scrutiny. These people want to control the entire world based on some theory that planet is gonna be cooked is we do not live like primitives. People who challenge them, like Crichton did are heroes. By the way I believe Crichton was well grounded in Anthropology also, and he make a good case that envirormentalisn is very much a religion of high fervor. By the way it would have been great watching you debate Crichton on the flaws in his work. By the way did you believe in the China Syndrome back in the 70's ? Be honest. Jane Fonda had you going there didn't she?

Jeremiah| 12.26.08 @ 4:58PM

I will not be troubling any of you any longer with defenses of the NY Times. Rather than attack your criticisms, therefore, I will add only why I like the paper.

1. The reporting is generally solid. There are investigative pieces of the highest quality. The prose is usually intelligent and thoughtful.

2. The coverage of the arts and literature is excellent. It's not as good as, say, the NYRB, but it's a daily and the best for that.

3. The op-ed pieces are exceptionally well written and submitted by people from diverse backgrounds -- conservative and liberal. The editorials themselves are usually well-written and provocative. William Kristol is a terrible disappointment; his pieces are sloppy and usually repeat whatever he said on that moronic Fox talk show he appears on the night before. Other than that, the columnists are great. David Brooks -- despite what you people generally believe -- is the best conservative writer in the country, now that Buckley has moved on -- surely to heaven, where he can play his harpsichord all he likes, free from his increasingly anti-intellectual and resentment-fueled brothers-in-arms.

Derek P| 12.26.08 @ 5:01PM

Jeremiah - Thanks for undoubtedly confirming that you, as I stated eariler, have no f**king clue as to which you speak. While certainly faith plays a much more central role in most conservative lives than the average liberal, that by no means proves that simply having a greater faith is the REASON that one is conservative. I am conservative and while Catholic I am far from a holy roller and may attend mass 5-10 per year (at the constant consternation of my wife). My conservative views are mostly in line with my relgious beliefs but were formed well before I made the decision as an adult to become Catholic.

Jeremiah| 12.26.08 @ 8:30PM

Derek --

Does the "f**king" intensifier really make your argument more effective?

ruth| 12.27.08 @ 2:54AM

Jeremiah, admit it; you like the NYT because they are liberals like you, plain and simple. If they lie to make their point, so much the better, right?

John Dietrich| 12.27.08 @ 8:31AM

The problem with people I disagree with is that they lie and the people who follow them are are lemmings.
Hang on to that global warming meme. Good stats. We know that NASA, which is a scientific organization, would never mislead us.
But remember how we ran out of oil in the 1990's and we all died of AIDs (the scientists at the Club of Rome and various AIDS experts).
Beware of tingling leg syndrome (when everyone you listen to says their leg tingles you believe that this is the norm, when in fact you have restricted you listening pool to prepubescent girls or adults who think like them.) The solution is always "more power to the government"
To the defender of the NYT: Is your real name Salzburger? The NYT has a history of distortion going back to "Uncle Joe", when their motto was "All the news that Joseph Stalin thinks is fit to print." ref State Department memo on conversation with Walter Duranty. U. S. Embassy Berlin June 4, 1931
"In agreement with the New York Times and the Soviet authorities," his (Duranty's) official despatches always reflect the official opinion of the Soviet regime and not his own." A.W. Kliefoth

tonypal| 12.27.08 @ 12:15PM

Bob:

Actually, Rush presents quite a bit of scientific evidence in order to debunk the man made global warmimg alarmist. I know because I listen to his show on a daily basis. Time and again he has presented contrary evidence, not assertions, to support his view that global warming is a naturally occuring event.

Everyone Else:

We can sit here and debate the NY Times and never reach an agreement. I believe it has become a worthless rag that should have been brought up on charges of revealing classified information. Others, like Jeremiah, will defend the Times because they express views on both the front page and op ed page that coincide with his leftist world view.

However, there is one thing that is irrefutable, not to mention lovely to contemplate. The NY Times is in absolute financial freefall. The mismanagement by that little man-child "Pinch" has brought the Times to the brink of extinction. Every 3 months I take delight in reading about sinking quarterly ad revenues. Of course, I don't like all the layoffs of the people who have nothing to do with what is written, but I'm quite certain that sooner or later the so-called "talent" at the paper will start feeling the squeeze. The shame of it all is that soon we will have one less thing to debate on this board.

Jeremiah| 12.27.08 @ 12:25PM

Tonypal --

Is it so impossible to believe that a person reads a newspaper for reasons other than its bias?

I think that Fox viewers have become so accustomed to watching a "news" agency confirm their ideological expectations that they can know longer imagine approaching news in any other way.

Of course, financial difficulties are NO comment on quality. People magazine and Vogue would otherwise have to be considered paragons of journalistic integrity, since they are doing quite well.

It's just impossible for me to read your comment and believe you have any other reason for disliking the Times than that Rush told you to, and that's just not good enough.

(Rush, by the way, clearly reads the Times everyday. There was a time when I admired him for at least getting his fans to read, since he consistently uses print media for material and even cites sources. But I think in recent years Rush has turned from skewering the mighty -- the true function of the satirist -- to flattering the mighty and skewering the one institution left that protects us from them. W was the worst thing that ever happened to Rush.)

I read the Times this morning and am amazed: I see not the slightest "agenda" on its front page. Go there and show me some: offer some evidence to substantiate your claim.

Also answer me this: why do Senators of both parties and lobbyists and lawyers and intellectuals and CEOs read the Times and scoff at Fox News?

Like I said, they won't let a day go past without reading it.

My desire is that you shouldn't either because I don't like the idea that they know more than you do.

You have nothing to lose but your chains, comrade. Read widely.

John| 12.27.08 @ 1:56PM

The Times had Abu Ghraib on the front page EVERYDAY for weeks.Talk about a "jihad".The press is controlled and done by a bunch of liberals.They do journalism rather suckily.They just hate Fox because they don't take part in their liberal agenda.

Mattled| 12.27.08 @ 2:25PM

Jeremiah,
Why don't you try reading The Wall Street Journal once in a while. To the best of my knowledge they have not been duped by a fake Parisian mayor, had the Abu Graib hooded guy on the front page (BZZ-wasn't him), a poor Katrina victim blaming George Bush for everything (BZZ-she has never stepped foot in LA), and a woman who was "jailed" in Chile because she had an abortion (BZZ-she was in jail for murdering her three month old---but I guess to the NYT, what's the difference, right?). All front page agenda journalism which they got nailed for.

You need Snopes and Factcheck and other sources every time you read the Times. They are that bad.

CNN? Left of Center? Yeah, right. Bill Bennett may "balance" the weight of the panels (with apologies to Bill), but one conservative and 7 libs isn't balance. What I've noticed about CNN lately is they start in on a story and don't finish it, leaving out many relevant points.

And what's with Lev Scheib using the non-partisan Tax Policy Center? It IS a partisan organization, a combination of Brookings and Urban Institute. CNN takes it's viewers for morons, and the left eats it up. The latest show (obviously feeling the "love" for their Obama bias) No Bias No Bull is really New Bias New Bull.

Fox News, with it's one-two percent reach, scares the hell out of liberals. Ailes could name it the Republican News Channel and it would out perform all the others. Why? Because after CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NYT, WaPo, and on and on, there aren't a lot of alternatives.

Liberals claim to love free speech as long as it adheres to their church of liberalism.

Conservative talk radio is wildly successful because of a simple formula; just play what the Democrats said in their own words and let people hear how ridiculous they sound and it is solid entertainment for hours. You can't make that stuff up.

Haunyocker| 12.27.08 @ 2:53PM

The Jeremiahs of the world write as though they are the ones in the center when their own words convict them as obviously on the far left. I don't mind opinions on either side, but please, at least admit it. When you defend the NYT as an unbiased media source, you reveal yourself as just as leftist as they. You and they are not centerists or moderates, but just as far left as you claim conservatives are on the right. The Times both in the news and editorially is as far on the left as Bill O'Reilly is said to be on the right. It just gets terribly tedious to continue to hear the Jeremiah-left attempt to assume themselves to be the center of the spectrum when nothing could be farther from the truth. Go ahead, Jeremiah, admit it, you're a far lefty. It's alright to have that opinion, but I always wonder why your kind are so you afraid to admit it.

Jeremiah| 12.27.08 @ 3:23PM

Haunyocker -

I've never once in my life since the time I could speak pretended to be anything but a tax and spend liberal leftie.

Believe me, I'm not hear to fool you.

The Times IS biased to the left, no doubt about it, just as the WSJ is biased to the right. I highly encourage you to read BOTH. Print journalism is invariably better than broadcast journalism -- convervative or liberal.

My particular problem with Fox is that it treats its viewers like they're a bunch of morons.

I remembering tuning into Fox back in 2002 and having the experience of a young woman wearing too much make-up informing me that the terrorist alert system had been coded orange for that day.
The "global war on terror" was being announced against a nameless, faceless enemy. It's secret agents were everywhere, and we could expect perpetual war for the rest of our lives.

Something snapped inside me that day, and it was then that I realized the Enlightenment had ended and stupidity reigned supreme.

Here was this woman no more qualified to report the news than to wait tables reporting -- almost gleefully -- the completely irrational and mystifying news that our danger of terrorist attack was at a level "orange." What could it mean? What was the point? No one asked or cared; we were simply to understand that a) danger was everywhere; and b) the president would keep us safe -- as if the two ideas were logically related.

No, I cannot take it anymore, and Fox is quite out of the question. So is MSNBC and CNN. Don't worry. Russert was the best commercial television had. The News Hour on PBS is excellent, but I'm sure the long stories about third world countries make most of you think of it as a communist conspiracy.

So -- there. I've admitted it. You have my credo.

tony | 12.27.08 @ 3:35PM

Jeremiah:

Is it impossible to believe that a person reads the papers, 0r at least certain papers, because they like what they read? Because it confirms their views?

As for today's Times, I'm sure that if I wanted to contribute that their bottom line, I would read it. I will take your (unbiased) word for it and accept that somehow, the Times was able to write a front page story without injecting it's own worldview. But I wonder if you would even notice. You see, the same criticism you make of Fox viewers (you know, the morons) is easily made of you and your ilk. You've become so accustomed to hearing or reading the news packaged and presented in a certain way, anything to the contrary comes across as odd or biased.

Lastly, I may be your friend, but I am not your comrade.

Tony| 12.27.08 @ 3:42PM

Jeremiah:

I would be remiss if I didn't respond to your "financial difficulties are No comment on quality" remark. This is the mindset of someone who doesn't seem to understand free markets. I don't know you personally, so I can only go by what I read here.

The Times was floundering long before the current financial crises set in. The reason is indeed the quality. Fewer and fewer people are reading the Times because they can get their news elsewhere as well as the fact that the Times publishes, quite frankly, writing by a bunch of clowns. Maureen Dowd, Bob Herbert, Frank Rich, etc., are not exactly top caliber writers.

Aside from their shoddy work, they all have one thing in common; their all bed-wetting lefties. Other news agencies are flourishing right now, such as Fox, even in spite of the economic conditions we face. So please spare me the excuses. The Times is failing because they simply do not offer a quality product anymore. Nothing is forever.

Jeremiah| 12.27.08 @ 4:22PM

First, Tony, I'll not have it said that Maureen Dowd isn't a great writer. I'll tilt with you at dawn if that's what it takes to defend her honor: depend upon it.

Secondly, I am familiar with but impressed by your "free market" argument, and it underscores the nihilism of capitalist ideology: a thing is worth what people are willing to pay for it.

By that logic, the novels of James Joyce have less merit than those of Stephen King, and the television has more aesthetic merit than the opera.

If that's good enough for you, you have my sympathies, and you should ask how it is you came to be a Philistine.

Nowhere did I claim that Fox viewers are morons. If you'd read what I wrote, you'd see I said that Fox News treats its viewers as though they are morons, and that offends me.

I am offended by the smug stupidity of Fox News; I am offended by the brazen, proudly ignorant honking and braying that goes on all cable news.

If you think that there more quality to Sean Hannity than the NY Times or the New Yorker, or the Atlantic, or Harpers, or the Journal, or the Economist, or the New Republic or the National Review -- then it's a free country. Retreat into a demented Fox Newsopia where the War is Always Being Won and where no questions need be asked of the powerful -- because they're always right.

I suspect that sooner or later people are going to wake up with a terrific hangover after the last eight years in which the Idiot Wind prevailed: that hangover is going to be painful and thirsty, but it's going to be damn good for us and about time.

All men are my comrades, comrade.

mickey| 12.27.08 @ 4:49PM

It has been a year of political whitewashes by the NYT. Why expect anything else?
Let us hope the new President and Congress doesn't bail out the liberal newspapers in pursuit of the Fairness Doctrine. I probably shouldn't say that out load.

Jeremiah| 12.27.08 @ 7:41PM

Mickey --

That's silly.

In a capitalist system, government bail outs are for the wealthy and powerful only.

The Times doesn't qualify, I'm afraid.

If you make tens of millions a year, expect help. If you make 50,000 or so a year, like the union workers in Detroit, expect no help and the Republicans to blame the troubled on economy on you. You and teachers, and people who lost their homes. That's who the Republicans blame.

Truthteller| 12.27.08 @ 9:14PM

Jeremiah,

I do get the Sunday Times, and I can say I love the crossword puzzles. The Sunday crossword alone is worth the price.

But having read your postings here, I think your argument boils down to this- The Times may be left leaning, but they do it with a class and panache that should be the envy of the Foxnews fanbase.

And you are right, everything about the Times is classy, from the typeface on up. Kind of like the New York Yankees of newspaperdom.

But that doesn't excuse their omnipresent bias. As a self-described lefty, you must in all honesty realize that much of the bias will be invisible to you, will seem self-evident or lend itself to your high regard for the author's intelligence.

For the intelligent rightists, however, the class and writing style are all the more grating. All the more treacherous for the excellent vocabulary and engaging prose.

Compared to Fox TV news, you are right, the Times has it won, it is the more intellectual. But you really can't compare an ancient newspaper with a young TV network, it's apples and oranges.

You claim to read everything, so I assume you read NRO and American Spectator. I find the writing here equal to or superior to the Times, and it should take a little swelling off that head of yours to know there is a rightist intelligentsia.

You are right when you point out that this is not the same kind of daily news offered by the Times. It's more opinion and analysis.

So by all means get your daily fix from the reliable lefty Times, but come here for the equally stylish counterpoint, and maybe when you read the Times you will see with clearer vision where its style can be perceived as casuistry of the most subtle sort.

elhombrelibre| 12.28.08 @ 3:44AM

Jeremiah, The NYT has a long history of political activism in favor of tyrants and false gods. It’s reporter Herbert Matthews purposely duped America on Castro and his agenda. Before Matthews, there was the depraved liar Walter Duranty who knowingly did his best to hide Stalin’s genocide in the Ukraine. He also gave favorable coverage to Stalin’s show trials. Matthews was rewarded for his propaganda efforts with a Pulitzer Prize, which naturally and tellingly to this day the NYT has not returned. Well, why would they? Jayson Blair was an insignificant liar compared to these distinguished bamboozlers. Oh yes, but tell us how bad Rush and FOX NEWS are.

Ammo Guy| 12.28.08 @ 5:46AM

God love ya, Jeremiah...you had worn me down with your Sisyphus-like responses to our slings and arrows, but I couldn't let the MoDo comment go - have you ever watched her read her own stuff? It's like a teenage girl reading her diary out loud - look how clever I am, check out this turn of the phrase, aren't I witty and how come men don't like me...oops, the last bit is mere conjecture on my part based upon some Oprah clip I once glimpsed before I could grab the remote control. Compared to RET, she is merely a giggly airhead who managed to land a good gig with a dying newspaper. I wonder what she'll do when that boat no longer floats...you can only do Larry King and Oprah for so long.

Jeremiah| 12.28.08 @ 6:42AM

Elhombre --

The Times has made ghastly errors it is true, and you needn't go back so far: the weeks leading up to the Iraq War comes to mind, when this "liberal newspaper" inexplicably and just about single-handedly convinced the country -- or, rather, the country's newspaper reading terrorist sympathizers -- to go to war.

It's not holy writ, it's a newspaper. As far as I know, there are three known uses: reading, wrapping fish, and -- I'll leave that to you. What it's primary function is should be determined on a day to day basis.

Still, it's much better than Fox News. But again, not because of politics.

Let me put it this way: the medium, the printed word, is healthier for the national discourse than the broadcasted image.

A stupid tart telling me that the terrorist code level is orange is a form of cultural insanity; a liberal "bias" in covering news events that can be checked in dozens of other sources does not by comparison seem like such a big deal.

The Duranty business, alas, is beyond me. I know nothing about it, but I'll be sure to go look it up.

My local tax payer funded librarian will be solving that problem soon enough. Libraries are one of the things I love most about my country. You tax people, you take the money, you build a big, beautiful building, you fill it with books containing the wisdom of the ages, and useful information, and you call it "public."

Credo stated.

Jeremiah| 12.28.08 @ 6:49AM

AmmoGuy --

Shall we say, "Pistols at dawn"?

You know, back in the nineties, Maureen Dowd skewered and tormented Bill Clinton more savagely than Rush Limbaugh. She was to my knowledge the harshest and funniest liberal critic, and she never let him off the hook on Monica Lewinski. I think I read somewhere that Clinton actually called her and genuinely asked her to give him a break, which she didn't. On Hillary Clinton, she was no softer.

She's a writer, though, not a performer, I'll give you that.

Jeremiah| 12.28.08 @ 6:54AM

Truthteller --
If it were just a matter of style and panache, the Times would win -- it is true. Although there are great writers at any number of conservative publications. I still think many people here don't give David Brooks a fair reading. I read George F Will of course, too -- although he's not with the whole Empire building of recent years.

You mention other sources I think are good to read.

But I wouldn't take it so far: there's not a news relativism entirely: the Times can hire the best young reporters because everyone -- everyone -- outside the Rush-listening community (and his few peers) thinks of the Times as the greatest newspaper on earth.

There is a reason why we're not talking about "newspapers" but using "the Times" almost metonymically. It really is that good. Including the crossword puzzle.

Ammo Guy| 12.28.08 @ 7:02AM

Jeremiah, I'm not really a morning person, but in your case, I guess I could make an exception. I prefer the Lincoln approach to dueling - shotguns at 10 paces with each of us standing on a barrel of gunpowder. I'll nominate MoDo as my second - she's good at picking up the pieces. Toujours l'audace!

Jeremiah| 12.28.08 @ 7:21AM

The Times' front page Obama piece:

I've linked here to a lengthy piece about Obama that ran on the front page of the Times this summer. It is a fair, well-written article that is probably the strongest critique of Obama I've read.

Notice there is no hysteria, no coded insinuation about his religion or his "associations." Rather, this article contains fair, good reporting about his actual life at the University of Chicago, where he spent many years.

It illustrates what I will bet will come to be seen as Obama's greatest weaknesses (we all have them) -- his evasiveness, his unwillingness to join in controversy, etc.

Jeremiah| 12.28.08 @ 7:23AM

Ammo --

OK, OK. You win. Shotguns at 10 paces is too much for me.

I abjure the Times; I renounce Lady Dowd. Henceforth I will accept news only from the Great Neil Cavuto, herald of truth.

mattled| 12.28.08 @ 8:25AM

WSJ biased to the right? Evidence please. One example would be nice. NOT the editorial page, that is opinion. A front page biased example.
I would venture to say you can't think of one Jeremiah let alone produce one. This is a leftists whole argument; just say it and everyone should believe it. It is the equivalent of a child putting their hands over their eyes and saying "you can't see me". It is ridiculous and breathtakingly weak.
I gave three off the top of my head on NYT bias (and I'm sure there's one today).

WSJ gives plenty of ink to opposing views, NYT not so much.

Question; what was the only newspaper to gain subscriptions in 2008? WSJ. The other one was USA Today, but heck, build a hotel and they gain subscribers by dropping a copy at a guests door.

This whole Fox News is the bogeyman shows how intolerant the left really is. Just change the channel will you? How about some nice Prairie Dog Companion ?

Jeremiah| 12.28.08 @ 10:05AM

Mattled --

I don't know what you base your charge of intolerance on. I urge you to read the WSJ, and I have no questions or troubles if you want to tell me it's straight down the middle and "objective."

I don't think "objectivity" is conducive to the best journalism. A young reporter digging into a government cover-up may well be motivated by a desire to reveal the corruption of a political party. As long as the reporting is accurate, I see no problem with that.

You'll retort that political agendas distort reporting, which is no doubt true. But I find it odd how easily conservatives forget the purgative or purifying property of their precious ideal, competition.

Reporters, I will go on insisting, are in ferocious competition with one another. You may think that reporters at the Times are out to get Bush and Cheney. There you'd be totally wrong. They're "out to get" reporters at the Post and CBS news and so on.

Journalists -- good journalists -- pride themselves on scooping the opposition (other journalists, not Republicans) AND writing stories that stand up to subsequent reporting. It's the beauty of journalism.

Do they always get it right? Absolutely not. In fact, I'd go further: they NEVER get it right, just as historians and scientists never get it right. The work goes on and on. It's a noble thing, if you think about it.

mattled| 12.28.08 @ 10:10AM

Yes of course Jeremiah. Name the date and time in the Clinton administration when the Times exposed major tools in combating terror. When did the WSJ do it to Clinton? The whole point of this story is the NYT. You have been shooting blanks at defending that poor rag of a newspaper.

mattled| 12.28.08 @ 10:18AM

For your reading enjoyment.
http://timeswatch.org/

Jeremiah| 12.28.08 @ 11:20AM

Mattled --

The time when people can invoke the spectar of "terrorism" to justify any absurdity is passed.

Journalists are ethically prohibited from revealing troop movements and nuclear secrets. The executive has every right to appeal to journalists on the grounds of "national security," and journalists should take those appeals seriously.

However, since the revelations of the Pentagon Papers (which Nixon tried to prevent the Times from publishing and failed), we've known that Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson used "national security" as a tool for covering up foreign policies they knew the American people would reject.

Nixon, Reagan, and Bush did the same.

These men don't possess any sanctified right to hold secrets.

There is simply no such thing nor could there be of a "global war on terror." This term is just a pretense for covering up sneaky grabs at power and almost mind-boggling incompetence.

The Fox Newsopia is finished. and the Decider has fallen, thank God Almighty.

Jeremiah| 12.28.08 @ 1:04PM

As a matter of fact...

In honor of the Times, and despite the desires of that horrid tyrant, Nixon, I've linked here to the Pentagon Papers themselves.

Enjoy!

elhombrelibre| 12.28.08 @ 3:27PM

Jeremiah,

Sites below are provided for your edification, if possible.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-10-22-ny-times-pulitzer_x.htm

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/791vwuaz.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Matthews

mattled| 12.28.08 @ 4:38PM

Jeremiah,
The NYT committed nothing short of treason by printing the wiretapping and financial tracking that was being successfully executed, legally, by the Bush administration. Gosh, what patriots!!

You mentioned Nixon, Reagan and Bush in your post. Carter started the wiretapping program. He did it=good. Now Bush does it=bad.

elhombrelibre,
Liberals will not read anything fact-based. If they did, they would be Republicans.

stmichrick| 12.28.08 @ 6:25PM

I see that St. Bob the Condescender has help on this tread in the form of Jeremiah of Jonestown (the KoolAid place).

Don't you all know they were both sent by Ariana Huffington and David Brock to either annoy or amuse readers of Bob Tyrrell?

I would like to point out that both of these tormentors undermine their credibility by routinely dismissing Rush, Sean and O'Reilly as fact-challenged. These three commentators are all successful because they are both amusing and insightful most of the time, something that MSNBC and other leftist outlets can never be because their hosts are mostly angry and spew emotional opinions based on false premise(es).

The marketplace of ideas has spoken.

Jeremiah| 12.28.08 @ 7:18PM

Mattled --

If the Times committed treason, the Bush administration scoffed at its duty by not prosecuting it for that crime, which makes it worse.

The truth is, of course, the Times did nothing of the kind. Again, the First Amendment does not contain exceptions, and other than a few very simple rules (outlined above) they can print what they wish.

Stmichrick --

"The marketplace of ideas has spoken."

What an odd thing to say. At any rate, just because Sean Hannity, Britney Spears, and the publishers of Hustler magazine make a million dollars a year doesn't make them valuable.

The source of ideas (a human being) has spoken.

stmichrick| 12.28.08 @ 8:15PM

Jeremiah; you're serious, right?

I was comparing apples to apples; not to meadow muffins.

mattled| 12.28.08 @ 9:31PM

Jeremiah,
The Bush administration didn't pursue charges because every Lib-MSM outlet would scream "censorship!". Why bother.

Just by doing nothing, the wiretaps were ruled legal by SCOTUS, with many Dems voting for it I might add.

Now GW can sit back and laugh at junk bond status, mortgaging their brand new building which they can only get about 215M (They need over 400 by mid-'09), and another front page hit piece that can be debunked by a college freshman with Google.

Good God man, how many shovels do you have to keep digging your own hole?

BTW; where is the "bias" example for the WSJ?

Chirp. Chirp.

Didn't think so.

ruth| 12.28.08 @ 10:01PM

I don't know who sent the Conservative Cavalry--but I like it! Even if it's only for one skinny little Liberal.

Acornomics Sux| 12.28.08 @ 10:56PM

The New York times is nothing but an anti American platform for the enemies of our country to spout off their vomitus. The Times should have been shut down and their "journalists" taken out and SHOT for trying to reaveal the secret bases and prisons where we were holding captured terrorists. The Times even in liberal New York is loosing readership because it is nothing more than a cheerleading section for the stupid left, not even for the decent left. The sooner this piece of crap goes down the better! It will be awesome to see it's Obamaniacal cheerleaders, er "journalists" scrounging for jobs during this economic time of Obama! Enjoy!

Jeremiah| 12.28.08 @ 11:29PM

Acornomics Sux --

First, let me compliment you on your witty nom de plume. It is pithy, elegant, and vibrant with a kind of moral significance lacking in today's liberally dominated media. I just wish there were more philosophers like you to show us all the path to wisdom.

As to your comments, I find them to be insightful, well-expressed, and very original. Your idea that journalists who question the government should be shot speaks a timeless truth that in America we've gotten away from.

Woe to the country that permits journalists to print news that might embarrass a government official. What's next? Elections?

Finally, -- although my praises could go on like the mighty Mississippi itself, winding through the heartland in proud ever-changing majesty -- finally, I say, I wish to commend you for observing that in the end these journalists, rightfully to be shot, are just "Obamaniacal cheerleaders," which nails exactly the reality of the situation -- but not with plodding cliches. Rather, you capture the essential nature of these treasonous wretches with Joycean exuberance. Vive le Acornomics Sux! A poet and philosopher!

Jeremiah| 12.28.08 @ 11:36PM

Mattled --

If Bush can be prevented from protecting this country from traitors by a fear that he'll be criticized on MSNBC, he's not a very effective chief executive, I'd say.

You are correct, however. Many Democrats (for whom to vote, we were informed by Republicans in 04, was tantamount to supporting Al Quaeda) joined the president and other Republicans in creating a legal wire-tapping program.

What's your point? The Times reported a program in which the US government was tapping the phones of its citizens. I'd say this is news. The government defended the program. Congressional Republicans and Democrats tried to work with the administration on bringing it more closely in line with FISA, but the administration refused and simply cancelled the whole thing. Presumably such monitoring is still going on, and I'm glad I know about it.

This is not North Korea, my authoritarian friend.

Osamas Pajamas| 12.28.08 @ 11:37PM

Gee whiz. A phony newspaper, the NYT, owns up to publishing a fake letter before someone else [like the original author, for example?] busts them for it. For this, the writer Jeremiah believes we should praise the NYT?

Jeremiah| 12.28.08 @ 11:41PM

"Patriotism" as it is usually described is a disgusting emotional attachment to a Daddy-figure government. It's the love of wretched weak men for their masters, and it is contemptible in the extreme.

Love of country in America is properly a readiness -- an eagerness -- to expose corruption in government, abuses of power, rashness and folly in foreign policy, incompetence in administration of the laws, greediness on the part of the wealthy, stupidity in high office, vanity and arrogance of those favored by the trust of the people, and the endless supply of dopes desperate to believe that the Decider is always right.

A true American is always a bit of traitor.

Osamas Pajamas| 12.28.08 @ 11:45PM

We afre indebted to Jeremiah for his comments on the subject of patriotism, immediately above. Byh his standards, therefore, I should be preparing a rope for the neck of the entire Democrat party ---- and this is as good as it gets, in life.

Osams Pajamas| 12.28.08 @ 11:47PM

OBTW, I have fat fingers, too.

elhombrelibre| 12.29.08 @ 12:10AM

Jeremiah,

Clearly by your definitions of patriotism and its required oxymoronic linkage to being a bit of a traitor, the NYT is the right news paper for real Democrats and America's enemies abroad.

elhombrelibre| 12.29.08 @ 12:10AM

Jeremiah,

Clearly by your definitions of patriotism and its required oxymoronic linkage to being a bit of a traitor, the NYT is the right news paper for real Democrats and America's enemies abroad.

Jeremiah| 12.29.08 @ 12:49AM

Elhombrelibre

No sir, I just reject all this reactionary braying.

If the president requires the NY Times to keep us safe from terrorist, then we're in worse trouble than I thought.

But of course this isn't true. This president, like others, uses the screen of "national security" to prevent criticism and questioning of his power.

The real disgrace is that we let him get away with it. It's a terrible failure on our part that we let him get away with it -- and a disservice to our country at a time when it needed us most.

The First Amendment is there to protect the press during times of crisis and war. Precisely when the government is attempted to abuse its power and the enormous trust we place in it, the Constitution stands as a brace against over-reaching.

Conservatives claim they dislike government, journalism, schools -- in short, all the institutions of civil society.

But this is not true. The opposite is the case.

Conservatives idealize these institutions -- especially government -- like children idealize their father.

Naturally these institutions cannot live up to childish expectations of purity, and so conservatives are soon wounded into postures of resentment and the belief that they have been betrayed. This accounts for their tearful and miserable protests about their own "patriotism" and their cynicism about the ability of government (or journalism) to do anything well.

elhombrelibre| 12.29.08 @ 4:15AM

Jeremiah,

You obviously know as much about conservatism as you do about patriotism. Do you think a nation is ever entitled to have any secrets that its newspapers do not print and make available to its enemies? Did FDR, whom I assume you do not consider a braying reactionary, allow the press to inform the NAZIS where we and our allies would land on D-Day?

Ammo Guy| 12.29.08 @ 7:00AM

Whew, 5 days and counting - this has to be the longest thread since Algore invented the Internet. And, Jeremiah has to be the most indefatigable defender of a citadel (real or imagined) since Masada. All I can say is that it's a good thing that at least two of us are posting from Europe so we can respond around the clock - that is why our musings show 3 AM...Jeremiah, what's your excuse? I don't know what kind of caffeinated energy drink you are imbibing to hang on this long, but if you ever decide to embrace capitalism and market your secret beverage, count me in for a couple hundred shares. Happy New Year to all, I'm worn out.

stmichrick| 12.29.08 @ 7:59AM

What is amusing about this exchange with Jeremiah is that all his reservations about executive power in the hands of Bush will be reversed when the Messiah assumes the office.

Derek P| 12.29.08 @ 9:29AM

Jeremiah: "Derek -- Does the "f**king" intensifier really make your argument more effective?"

Absolutely not. I just like it.......It does make it stand out though for better or worse...........and it got you to respond......

Jeremiah| 12.29.08 @ 11:46AM

Ammoguy --

My defense of the Times being compared to the defenders of the Masada --

I'm pretty sure that's the best compliment I could hope to receive around here, so I'm going to thank you for that, and wish you and yours a Happy Years as well.

Ammo Guy| 12.29.08 @ 1:40PM

Jeremiah, no problem - I hope you found the repartee at this site to be more witty than $h!tty and, remember, you owe me a rematch a year from now when we look back over the premiere annee of coverage of our new President...provided the NYT is still in business. Otherwise, we can use the National Enquirer. Bonne Annee, y'all.

Gene Car| 12.31.08 @ 6:17AM

THe NYT is an organ, which express the ideology of what Professor Carlton Hayes called 'sectarian liberalism'--much in the same way as Pravda was an expression of Soviet Communism and Das Shwarze Korps was an expression of National Socialism. As with policies towards those death dealing cults, conservatives should not parley with 'sectarian liberalism'. It should be confronted, rolled back and finally defeated; and like the others dropped into the 'dustbin of history'.

Judith Ingram| 1.28.09 @ 7:47PM

Have been looking unsuccessfully on this website for the Wallison article cited by E Tyrell in this piece. Can you help me find it?

jiner| 8.10.09 @ 11:41PM

Nike Air jordan
Dunk SB Shoes
Dunk SB Shoes
NBA Basketball Shoes
Cheap Nike shoes
Air jordan 23
cheap jordan shoes
air max tn
dunk shoes