Matt Taibbi savages the New York Times

Over Russiagate. It's brilliant. Go read the whole article, but here's a wonderful excerpt to whet your appetite: 

More irritating is Savage’s diatribe against Patel and the hoax “narrative,” offered without mentioning the roughly ten million instances in which the Times botched its coverage of Patel and Republican investigations into Russiagate. When Patel and then-House Intelligence Committee chair Devin Nunes released the much-denounced “Nunes memo” about FISA abuse in early 2018, Savage personally “annotated” the document, which would be vidicated more or less entirely by an Inspector General investigation nearly two years later.

The New York Times continue to operate as if their opinions rather than facts will DICTATE what people believe. It's beyond being propagandists at this point, the NYT has become pathological in their TDS leftism. If it weren't so worrisome it'd just be sad.

This does not matter

Calling out the New York Times does not matter. Mostly it doesn't matter to be more precise.  The New York Times will not change it's stripes because people who already thought they were vile, disgusting, manipulative and deceitful see this as vile, disgusting and manipulative (and probably deceitful too).  The New York Times is what it is: a radical left propaganda vehicle, and nothing more or less. It will not change, it's too late.  It will go down to absolute bankruptcy continuing to do what it has been doing for decades; lying for the left's ignoble cause.

Where this does matter, is to those who pay attention that they may be reminded of what the NYT is, and to those few who happen upon the story on Fox and are awakened to the ill intent and evil of that rag.

Truth hurts

Project Veritas exposes New York Times' over-reaction to the supposed January 6th cataclysm. The truth hurts because for the left, everything hurts, everything is bad.

Sarah Palin vs. New York Times and the judge

Bill Whittle and company discuss the judge throwing out Sarah Palin's lawsuit against the New York Times, while the jury was out deliberating a verdict. Just wow. That might be the most inept judge in history.

New York Times think they are above the law

Project Veritas is in the process of suing the New York Times. The judge in the case ordered the NYT to stop sharing private Project Veritas communications. The NYT has decided that a legal judicial order does not apply to them. Do they feel they are above the law.

New York Times is coming for Old Glory

 The flag redesign is next.

The New York Times is void of any valuable ideas.

Project Veritas 2 - New York Times 0

 Project Veritas wins again. A highlight real score too.

Evidence that the mainstream media is lying about the coronavirus

Washington Post and New York Times are calling recent reporting about the source of the coronavirus "already debunked".  Why because a Republican has said we should be open to all possibilities because China lies. 

It's politics over truth for these rags.

Trump Budget Search Engine Bias

*See link to this important article at bottom of this post.

This morning I had planned on detailing some opinion on president Trump's budget proposal.  I went on Google to get some details and did a search.  Actually I did two searches, and the second search gave me pause because it's probably the more common search term being used. The reason it troubled me was the results, which just provided me a sense of search engine bias.

The term I put in for that second search was "gop budget proposal 2017".  The top 2 returns were in regard to the proposal put forward from March 2016 by the GOP. Fair enough, because technically that was the budget proposal for 2017.  But look at the next set of results:

1) New York Times - Trump Budget Is Heavy Lift, Even For G.O.P. Congress

2) New York Times - Eyeing Trump's Budget Plan, Republican Governors Say 'No, Thanks

3) The Atlantic - Trump's Budget Proposal Threatens Democratic and Republican [Ambitions]

4) Washington Post - Capitol Hill Republicans not on board with Trump budget

5) Reuters - Trump's budget cuts to domestic, aid programs draw Republican scorn

6) Denver Post - Trump's first budget will test GOP's ability to keep promises

7) This is followed by a Forbes article on the 2016 GOP budget proposal, and then back to the current proposal with;

8) Politico - Trump budget faces GOP resistance

There's the Top 10 list of search results. 2 links to last year's proposal.  A conservative friendly view of the same, and 7 negative articles on how terrible president Trump's budget proposal is.  Look at the sources - clear a highly liberal group of search results - New York Times, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, Politico, Reuters and then a less obviously liberal source The Denver Post (read the article and tell me it is not a liberal bent article).

Search Engine Bias?  Intentional or not, yes, yes there is.

*Who would Google Vote For?

How do I know excommunicating Trump is a bad idea for the GOP?

I wrote yesterday that dis-inviting Donald Trump was a bad idea for the GOP whether it's the GOP or independent events that could be perceived as being a GOP handheld maneuver (i.e. done by Red State but perhaps orchestrated by the GOP) . I stand by that.

In fact I'm going to double down on it.  My reasoning is that, as Bluegrass Pundit points out, if the New York Times is on your side, you're doing something wrong.

As George Will said this morning referring to his polling status, Donald Trump will seek his own level.

Q3 GDP results are in and...

...at least the New York Times is thrilled:

The American economy grew last quarter at its fastest rate in more than a decade, providing the strongest evidence to date that the recovery is finally gaining sustained power more than five years after it began.

Bolstered by robust spending among consumers and businesses alike, economic output rose at an annual rate of 5 percent during the summer months, the Commerce Department said Tuesday, a sharp revision from its earlier estimate of 3.9 percent. The advance followed a second quarter where growth reached a rate of 4.6 percent after a decline last winter that was exacerbated by particularly harsh weather.

5% growth following 4.6% growth is pretty solid to be sur. In the view of the New York Times it no doubt proves that progressive, Keynesian Obama policy has worked. A bit late for them probably but successful nonetheless.

Here's the problem. On the heels of a dismal non-recovery for 5 years, it's to be expected. It's the least the economy should be doing at this point. Suffice it to say, I'm not impressed.

The additional caveat is that perhaps these are not the final revisions. I wouldn't be surprised if there is another revision in the future. And with the Congress controlled by the GOP, legislation will not continue to stand in the way of recovery any longer. At least if the president doesn't veto everything that gets sent his way.

Left-on-Left political correctness attacks?

As a conservative, my inclination when liberals are arguing with liberals over liberal-centered issues is to stand back and let them go at each other.  So when the New York Times decided to fire Jill Abramson for demanding equal pay for equal work as Executive Editor with her regards to her male predecessor, that was my first inclination.  Provided the fight stays on the left.  I don't know that it will stay there, because it seems to be a media hot-button issue right now. 

In fact, The New Yorker for example, jumped right on the story:

Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs. “She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect. Sulzberger is known to believe that the Times, as a financially beleaguered newspaper, needed to retreat on some of its generous pay and pension benefits; Abramson, who spent much of her career at the Wall Street Journal, had been at the Times for far fewer years than Keller, which accounted for some of the pension disparity. Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for the Times, said that Jill Abramson’s total compensation as executive editor “was directly comparable to Bill Keller’s”—though it was not actually the same.

The political correctness of equal pay is unequivocally a progressive agenda item.  Although equality is not a liberal-only issue.  Equality affects everyone.  But gender equality is, as every other form of equality, about equal opportunity, and not equal outcome.  Not every female would deserve equal pay with every other female in a given role, and to compare any two people, with different experience, and different skill sets will inevitably result in different value that they can offer in a role.  Therefore different pays are to be expected, always.  True equality comes from equal opportunity, not equal outcome. That would be a Marxist resolution.  Is the marketplace willing to hire female Executive Editors?  If so then equal opportunity exists.

Unless.....

That equal offer of employment comes with a clearly reduced level of compensation.  I'm not talking about 10% less - that could be attributable to a difference in experience. So too perhaps could a 30% difference in pay.  Maybe.  But a 50% difference in pay would seem to be a different scenario.  It could be gender based, or it could be a bias against Abramson individually.  Either way, the notion of equality is not being applied.

All that said, it is hard to argue that equal pay for equal work is some sort of unreasonable concept.  Within an acceptable range as defined by experience etc., it is likely the norm in most companies.  If women all end up at the bottom of the range and men all at the top, maybe there is still a problem, but proving that is not so simple.  Comparing women in company A to men in company B with similar roles is not necessarily an apples to apples comparison.   This is something that calls for a layered analysis, which is an expensive proposition to research and not necessarily even possible given the secrecy surrounding pay in many companies.  In other words, there is no easy answer, no A-HA, no "gotcha!" in this discussion.

Which is all the more reason as a conservative to step aside and watch the New York Times once again be subject to criticism and concern - especially on an issue that as a liberal media outlet, they should be championing.  Holding the NYT up to their own standards is something Alinsky might do if he were on the conservative side of the political spectrum.  I'm happy to do so, with the proviso that this doesn't turn into another attack on conservatives as per usual.  As a conservative, I believe in free markets - even when it comes to labor.  If Abramson is worth as much as her predecessor (or more, or less) she should be paid accordingly.  And if she isn't being paid what she is worth, she is free to leave and seek more gainful employment - the free market will see her get offers in accordance with what she has to offer. This should be true for every woman, and every man.  Underpaying someone will result in only being able to hire inferior employees.

As far as being able to leave for better employment, I suspect that is actually what is happening in this case already.

New York Times, SCOTUS docket news and/or editorializing

Yesterday, someone left a copy of the New York Times on the train.  I don't normally get to see the NYT, because (1) I'm in Canada, not New York, and (2) I certainly wouldn't buy one at a local newsstand here (yes, many do carry it, as well as USA Today and the Washington Post) because I'm well aware of their biases. 

 

So, out of curiosity I picked it up to peruse the articles.  A lot of what gets reported about the New York Times are their more liberal pieces.  I found out that the reason is because most of their articles are indeed from a very liberal bent.  That was certainly the case yesterday at least.

 

 

There's so much I could comment on and point out their liberal slant, but the effort would be tiresome.  Bias aside, there was one article about the docket for the Supreme Court in its term that started yesterday.  Strip out the bias and there is some important factual stuff in there about a number of precedents that are in play and could be overturned by the Supreme Court.  Among them are issues relating to political contributions, the First Amendment, government prayers, federal treaties, affirmative action (again) and abortion.

 

That is indeed news, and worth conservatives taking note over.  Good reporting in this instance, but bad editorializing.  Honestly though, who among us reads the NYT?  It's a shame they are so clearly liberal that conservatives that cannot stomach it, do not bother to read the NYT paper.  I found the article online, you can read it here, if you really want to do so.

NYT piece on Obamacare starts from wrong

Via strata-sphere.

The New York Times had a piece yesterday talking about the inevitable trade-off on Obamacare.  The premise, that lower healthcare costs would mean less choice, shockingly admits that there is indeed a downside to the plan.  The real problem is that the NYT starts from a place that isn't based in reality.

I would applaud the NYT for pointing out a flaw in legislation they so vehemently supported in the past.  I would, if that were really the case.

 

They have another agenda though.

 

NYT overlooks the sinister possibilities re: Egypt

 

The New York Times has an article today about the considerable leverage that the US Government has with the Egyptian military and how the Obama administration is reviewing that leverage.  But what the NYT overlooks, is that it is very possible that the leverage has already been applied and that the Egyptian military is already listening to Washington. Nevertheless, the Times does present some interesting facts.

In fact, Egypt is so enamored of Apache attack helicopters, M1A1 battle tanks and F-16 fighter jets that exasperated American military officials have been telling generals there for years that they need to expand beyond the hardware of bygone wars and spend more American money on border security, as well as counterterrorism and surveillance equipment and training that a truly modern military needs.

Either way, a close look at the details of American military aid to Egypt shows why the relatively modest $1.3 billion may give the United States more leverage over the Egyptian military than it may seem, although still not as much as it wants.

Even if Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf monarchies make up for any aid the United States may suspend, Washington would block Egypt from buying American weaponry with that money — a serious long-term problem for a military that is already viewed as sclerotic and has neglected pilot training so badly that the Egyptian air force has one of the worst crash rates of any F-16 fleet in the world.

What Egypt’s generals fear most is the cutoff of hundreds of millions of dollars in mundane but essential maintenance contracts that keep the tanks, fighter jets and helicopters running, American officials and lawmakers said. In the past, maintenance costs have represented roughly 15 percent of total American military aid to Egypt, according to the Government Accountability Office.

UPDATED: The Prism of a police state

It's not a prism like this.

Wow. This is not the America I thought I knew.  I bet you feel the same way if you've heard of the Prism project.  If you haven't, then you need to know about it.  Scandal number four for the Obama administration in the spring of 2013 may end up dwarfing the other three scandals.  It was recently revealed that the government had accessed Verizon's customer records. But that was just the tip of the iceberg. Prism has that eerie Nazi Germany police state feel to it.

Prism is detailed via Great Britain's The Guardian (providing the news that the American liberal media has refused to do with this president),

The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called PRISM, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.

The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers.

Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

In a statement, Google said: "Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data."

The liberal media didn't ever do it's job with this president.  But now that the cat is out of the bag and they have egg on their faces, they have to say something.  When you get the New York Times saying this about president Obama you know you've got a real issue that isn't going to go away.

Within hours of the disclosure that federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.

Those reassurances have never been persuasive — whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency’s phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of terrorism — especially coming from a president who once promised transparency and accountability.

The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue.

This comes on the heels of the the Justice Department thinking of journalists as the enemy and going after a Fox News reporter and the Associated Press.  It's ugly. And yet some in the media will still forgive this president.  That's another angle worth following as this thing unfolds.

It's possible that the press feels free to bash Obama now that he has won a second term and cannot be re-elected.  It doesn't hurt Hillary Clinton, whom many or most probably regard as the next president

Blaming Bush

It does not matter one bit whether this was started under president Bush and continued or even expanded under president Obama, it is wrong.  This president can no more blame Bush for PRISM this far into his tenure than David Letterman can blame Johnny Carson for low ratings in 2013.

It is the Obama administration, the one that was supposed to be the most transparent ever, that has carried out this Big Brother nightmare for the last four plus years.  If the president was honest about the transparency he promised none of these scandals he's facing would have surfaced.  Make no mistake, he owns this.

Focused here instead of the Arab Spring?

The ironic thing here is with all this focus on domestic terror, they completely missed Benghazi before, during and after the incident.  To say the focus was in the wrong direction is an understatement. Remember this?

She never backed down from this 2009 statement, and yet they never prevented the Boston Marathon bombers and only caught some of the other attempted domestic terrorism efforts because of the public's awareness.

Their focus seems like it has always been on these supposed right wing extremists.  There is a jihad going on and it is against conservatives.  What ties all of these scandals together?

1. They didn't have a clue of how to handle Benghazi.
2. They hedged endlessly on Libya.
3. They got it wrong on Iran and Syria.

YET,

1. They believe that domestic terrorism is fundamentally a right wing issue
2. They are using the IRS to harass and intimidate conservative groups
3. They are spying on journalists and the media and viewing them as the enemy.
4. They are spying on Americans. 

It sure seems to add up to an enemies list that is focused on the wrong targets - Americans and not radical Islamic jihadists.

More importantly, is this the liberty that you were promised in America?  The debate over whether the government should prioritize anti-terrorism over liberty never really happened.  We know this because all of these things were happening covertly.  Whatever debate happened in public never really mattered.  When you look at the situation through that prism, liberty seems more illusory than real.

UPDATE: Newt Gingrich was on Hannity last night making the same point about the government collecting all this data and not finding the Boston Marathon bombers. He seemed to argue that they are ineffective.  I would argue that they are ineffective because they are focusing in the wrong direction - domestic instead of overseas, and domestic conservative groups instead of domestic Islamic jihadists.

Liberal Gotcha Politics

[And I'm back from camping...tanned, with a significant number of mosquito bites and a smell of campfire about me].

The New York Times has a story today about the future Sarah Palin emails of every potential GOP candidate and the planned spin on the gaffes. Sickening, but it's their only hope.  President Obama's gaffes will be well documented (though not reported).  They are planning on fighting gaffes with gaffes.

NYT Headline spin on Obama

Here's a quick example of the New York Times spins the story to make President Obama look good.  In fact, in this case they are only spinning the headline in President Obama's favor. But it becomes clear after you read the first paragraph.

HELLO???? Republicans are not ending Medicare.

Clinton-Ryan. C'est what?

For Heaven's sake, the Republicans ARE NOT TRYING TO END MEDICARE.  The Ryan budget proposes no such thing.  The plan simply tries to propose a way to deal with a cost that cannot be sustained and will bankrupt America.  Whether you agree with the Ryan plan or not (and I'm willing to bet those same vocal people who are against it haven't read it, just like the people who voted for Obamacare are never really read it), at least it poses an idea.  Something HAS to be done, one way or another.

Obama head fake on offshore drilling

According to the New York Times, President Obama is planning on opening up oil drilling off of Alalska and the Gulf Coast.  Except, as Drudge points out, that was what the NYT said about the Obama plan over a year ago. Why is it being recycled?  2012. It's an election ploy.  Don't fall for it.  President Obama would rather see big oil in America go the way of Standard Oil.

There are other layers of consideration in this too - deep water drilling versus near shore drilling. There have been issues with existing licenses that Obama has glossed over.  And what about onshore drilling? Is that still off the table?  If so, why?

This is a transparent effort to come up with the next bump for Obama - don't let it fool anyone.