The Right Wing Media

Most people read only the articles and the media that they expect will reflect their own political predilections. I think that is a mistake that I try to avoid making. We can learn as much, if not more, from reading the media that does not reflect our philosophical bent.

I regularly read such Right Wing publications as the National Review and Newsmax which frequently link me to articles in the Rupert Murdoch owned New York Post.

Thus in the article that I posted on my blog on April 30, entitled: “Facts, Facts, Facts! They are pesky things,” I set forth an article that first appeared in the NY Post, and then was reprised by the National Review, which contained, not just distortions, but out and out lies about the Clintons and their foundations. I urge the reader to reread that post.

I refer back to that because I have now come across another article that appeared in Newsmax that distorts and is racist to boot. The article under the heading: “Blacks Attack Carson for Being Conservative” and is reproduced below:

Blacks Attack Carson for Being Conservative

By Clarence V. McKee

 Pulitzer Prize-winning black columnist Cynthia Tucker is one of the first black liberals to attempt to politically lynch Dr. Ben Carson because his political views are out of tune with the black liberal Democratic chorus.

 In a recent column, forced to admit the truth about Carson’s “brilliant” career as a pediatric neurosurgeon and his “awe-inspiring tale of a poor black boy in Detroit who overcame daunting obstacles,” she proceeded to mercilessly plunge the dagger of political correctness into his back. 

 “But the good doctor's foray into Republican presidential politics threatens to become his epitaph, to overshadow — perhaps even to overwhelm — his academic and surgical accomplishments. He will likely be remembered as the GOP's latest black mascot, a court jester, a minstrel show.”

Black “mascot,” “court jester,” “minstrel show”? What a disgusting, despicable, hateful choice of words as she figuratively hoisted Carson up the tree of political correctness with a rope of intolerance. His crime — daring to stray from the Democratic liberal plantation, think for himself and not mimic the liberal Democratic script as blacks are supposed to do. 

 Tucker is like other “overseers” — black and white — of that plantation. They drive the nails and tighten the rope to crucify and lynch any black conservative who dares challenge the orthodoxy of liberal establishment policies. They judge blacks like Carson not by the content of their character, accomplishments, and deeds but rather by their racist perspective of how they think blacks should think.

 As Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., has said, “one of the most threatening places to be in politics is a black conservative.” 

 Overseers like Tucker don't dare denigrate Jewish or Hispanic conservative politicians with such language — that's reserved for blacks like Carson — so he had better get ready for more.

 Talk-show host and author Tavis Smiley told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly that Carson was "a black bull in a Republican china shop," and that “if he's not careful, he is going to do himself irreparable damage."

 He went on to say that if he were close to Carson he would “call for intervention to stop him, what he is doing to himself and his reputation."

 How patronizing.

 Unlike other ethnic groups, blacks like Tucker enjoy the “political blood sport” of tearing down other blacks just because they have different political philosophies and solutions to our country’s social and urban problems. 

Other groups — at least in public — respect their own. For example, Hispanic journalists and Democrats, to the best of my knowledge, haven’t demeaned Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., or Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, just because they seek the GOP nomination and have a conservative message. 

 They understand the wisdom of not putting all of their Hispanic political eggs into one Democratic Party basket.

 Unfortunately, most of the black liberal democratic establishment appear to have kinder words and empathy for blacks who burned down black and minority-owned businesses in Ferguson and Baltimore than they do for blacks who dare express different political viewpoints and solutions to the very problems creating frustration in places like Baltimore and other cities.

 How dare Tucker stoop so low and defame this great man of accomplishment and vision who has given so much back to society including his Carson Scholarship Fund, which has awarded nearly 7,000 scholarships to youth for academic excellence? She should be ashamed.

 If she cares so much about blacks, especially youth, she has a heck of a way of showing it by using her pen to politically deride such a great role model. They will notice how he is being treated by Tucker and most likely her cohorts in the black media and liberal democratic establishments and they'll think, “If they do that to him after all he has done, why should I not finish school and take the easy way out — sell drugs, make quick money, and produce babies?"

 Tucker’s message to them is: “No matter how much you accomplish, just don’t think for yourself and stray from the Democratic plantation or we will get you.” 

 Don’t hold your breath waiting for the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, or the National Urban League, or most black and white liberal journalists and pundits to condemn such racist and vicious attacks. So the question is, Who will?

 After all, it’s easier to attack Carson that admit to the fact that in Baltimore city schools 84 percent of eighth graders score below grade level in reading and 87 percent below grade level in math. That’s not Carson’s fault!

 © 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

But even among those who might read such attacks, how many will actually read the article that is the subject of the venom, which was written by Cynthia Tucker who used to be the “editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper for 17 years, and more recently, …was that newspaper’s Washington-based political columnist. She maintains a syndicated column, which is published in dozens of newspapers around the country.” See here.

So here it is. It appears under the heading "Ben Carson,admirable man with a mistaken philosophy":

Ben Carson, admirable man with a mistaken philosophyBy Cynthia Tucker, Special to CNN

 Updated 8:44 AM ET, Tue March 26, 2013

 Like giddy teenagers, Republican activists have fallen for another charming, personable and accomplished black conservative. Dr. Ben Carson is the newest object of their crush, which was born of a desperate need to attract more black men and women as high-profile standard-bearers.

 You can't blame Republican loyalists for swooning over the doc, a renowned surgeon who rose from poverty to head pediatric neurosurgery at Baltimore's famed Johns Hopkins Hospital. If wooing voters of color were simply a matter of finding an attractive black face with an inspiring personal story and an impressive resume, Carson would be hard to beat.

 But black voters tend to be more discerning than that. They have shown an unerring instinct for rejecting condescension and dismissing tokenism. There are many black Americans who admire Carson for his professional accomplishments (I'm one of them), but that admiration is unlikely to translate into votes.

 One of the reasons is that Carson doesn't seem to know black Americans' political values very well. In his most recent book -- a political tract called "America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great" -- he writes: "Many African-Americans voted for Obama simply because he was a black man and not because they resonated philosophically with his policies." In fact, black voters have been increasingly allied with the Democratic Party since the 1960s when Lyndon Johnson pushed through significant civil rights legislation. Al Gore received about 95% of the black vote in 2000, John Kerry about 93% in 2004.

 Moreover, Carson seems to have adopted the view, popular among so many ultra-conservatives, that the Democratic Party appeals to voters who shun the work ethic.

Talking to The New York Times recently about his conservative views, Carson described himself as a "flaming liberal" in college who later became disaffected with the Democratic Party. "One thing I always believed strongly in was personal responsibility and hard work," he said. "I found the Democrat Party leaving me behind on that particular issue."

 That notion -- fallacious though it is -- is at least as popular among black conservatives as among white ones. I've been hearing it from black Republicans for at least two decades. Several years ago, I interviewed a black conservative running a doomed campaign for a suburban Atlanta congressional district. She had no prior political experience, no policies to advance, no program to sell. Her platform consisted of her belief in hard work, which she contrasted, at least implicitly, with black Democrats' supposed preference for sloth.

 That view is as puzzling as it is infuriating. It may charm those white conservatives who hold stereotypical views of black Americans, but it bears little resemblance to the realities that inform their choices at the ballot box.

 In his memoir, "Gifted Hands," and in his motivational speeches, Carson talks about his impoverished childhood and his remarkable semiliterate mother. Married at 13 only to later divorce her philandering husband, she enforced high academic standards for Carson and his brother while working two or three jobs as a maid or nanny -- and battling debilitating depression.

 Carson eventually got into Yale and became, at 33, the youngest person to head a department at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He is famous for separating conjoined twins.

 That's a compelling and powerful tale. But it differs from those of other hardworking black people I know only in the degree of success that Carson attained as a result, not in the measures of ambition, industriousness, discipline and self-respect his mother instilled in her children.

 Yet black Americans know better than to believe those traits are enough to guarantee success. History taught us better. Just look back over the last decade and a half. In 2000, according to the U.S. census, less than a quarter of black Americans -- 22.5% -- lived in poverty. By 2010, that number had risen to 27.4%. Was there a sudden outbreak of indolence among black folk over that period? Or were there outside forces that conspired to knock them back down the economic ladder?

 As long as the Republican Party refuses to acknowledge that, it will have little to offer workers of color -- and declining appeal to younger whites. They, too, understand the limits of self-reliance.

 To be helpful to the GOP, Carson would have to remind them of the caprice of capitalism and the generational reach of racism's barriers. Instead, he sounds like the standard-issue Ayn Rand acolyte, no different from Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan. He opposes the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and supports a flat tax. For good measure, he's also a religious conservative who disputes evolution.

 It's no wonder that conservatives have started to trumpet him as their Great Black Hope. Psychologists believe that romantic interest increases when people mirror each other's gestures. Carson perfectly reflects the beliefs of his suitors.

 Still, this romance is unlikely to blossom into a long-lasting love affair. There are too many misunderstandings, too many unspoken expectations, too many half-baked assumptions. And some of those half-based assumptions are Carson's.

I share this with my readers without comment and hope that they will supply it. But in any case I will have some comment in my next post.

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

Facts, Facts, Facts! They are pesky things

In my last posting to my blog "People Can’t Seem To Get Their Facts Right! (Comments)," I shared with my readers the reaction to my posting of two Letters to the Editor, the first of which set forth certain erroneous “facts,” and the second was my responding letter setting the record straight.

Not long after another letter appeared in The Record again setting forth facts, which I found to be erroneous. A transcript of the letter follows:

Obama hurting U.S. prestige

 What is apparent to me regarding the progress of the negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which are to be "fully" spelled out by June 30, is that the United States' status and perception as a superpower worldwide has been vastly diminished. Iran's quest for regional hegemony has been greatly enhanced.

 There is little doubt that American military and economic strength was unable to secure significant concessions from a low-grade military power and economically stressed nation.

 On this president's watch we have witnessed political chaos in Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Tunisia. Need I point out how the president has bowed to the will of Vladimir Putin in his aggressive goals toward Ukraine?

 Jerrold Terdiman 

Woodcliff Lake, April 8

It did not take me long to respond, as set forth below:

The Letter to the Editor “Obama hurting U.S. prestige" (Record April 11) is way off the mark.

It ignores history. Did the US do better under past Administrations in dealing with an even lower grade power, North Korea, which continues to be a greater threat then Iran is, or  will ever be.

Also focusing on the President in office as the culprit when things go wrong is naïve.

As Shakespeare said: “What’s past is prologue”.

Iran is the power that it is as a direct result of our ill-advised invasion of Iraq. Before that invasion Iraq was a counterweight to Iran and fought a long and bitter war against that country. Now it is an ally.

Iran used to be a democratic state, until the Eisenhower Administration overthrew the government, and installed the hated Shah, which led to his overthrow by the present regime.

Reagan strengthened the Ayatollah in the infamous Iran/Contra scandal.

Russian aggression was encouraged when the G.W. Bush Administration did nothing in response to the invasion by Russia of Georgia in 2008.

And of even greater importance are the slanders and the lies that are now directed at Hillary Clinton, and particularly the Clinton family’s great achievements in dealing with a variety of problems both Domestic and International through the Clinton Foundation.

Thus the Right Wing publication The National Review published a smear of the foundation under the heading "The Clinton Foundation Is Not a Charity" and then among its many unsupported and false allegations there appears this:

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities.

Wow! That’s pretty damning, if that reputable organization had said that, but here is what they in fact did say:

Why isn't this organization rated?

 …this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity.

 What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

 A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

Charity Navigator then goes on the explain:

Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation is on Charity Navigator's Watchlist. Here's why:

 On February 18, 2015, The Washington Post reported that, "the foundation has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support, with members of the George W. Bush administration often participating in its programs."

The article also states that:

...in posting its donor data, the foundation goes beyond legal requirements, and experts say its transparency level exceeds that of most philanthropies.

(The link attached to the quote from the National Review about Charity Navigator simply takes you to the National Review website, if you want to see the actual Charity Navigator comments I suggest this link.

What an incredible difference between what the National Review claimed and the truth.

Finally, the reader might ask where did the National Review get this story? it was taken verbatim from an article in the Murdoch-owned New York Post (I assume with permission) but none of it is true, as a quick check with the Navigator site reveals.

And what do we find out about the Clinton foundation. Let us look at Wikipedia.

It has some negative things to say in quoting from the Right Wing lawyers association The Federalist, but it then goes on to say:

The Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) is a global health organization committed to strengthening integrated health systems in the developing world and expanding access to care and treatment for HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Organizations such as the Clinton Foundation continue to supply anti-malarial drugs to Africa and other affected areas; according to director Inder Singh, in 2011 more than 12 million individuals will be supplied with subsidized anti-malarial drugs. As of January 1, 2010, the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative, an initiative of the Clinton Foundation, became a separate nonprofit organization called the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI).

 CHAI strives to make treatment for HIV/AIDS more affordable and to implement large-scale integrated care, treatment, and prevention programs. Since its inception, CHAI has helped bring AIDS care and treatment to over 750,000 people living with HIV/Aids around the world. Its activities have included AIDS care and treatment in Africa, including the brokering of drug distribution agreements. During President Clinton's 2006 trip to Africa, CHAI signed agreements with several new countries. Over the course of the past year, CHAI has expanded its partner countries and members of the Procurement Consortium to over 70 including 22 governments, who are now able to purchase AIDS medicines and diagnostic equipment at CHAI's reduced prices.

 CHAI launched the Pediatric and Rural Initiatives in 2005 to focus on bringing AIDS care and treatment to those most often marginalized— children and those living in rural areas. CHAI also negotiated agreements that reduce the prices of second-line drugs and rapid diagnostic tests. In May 2007, CHAI and UNITAID announced agreements that help middle-income and low-income countries save money on second-line drugs. The partnership also reduced the price of a once-daily first-line treatment to less than $1 per day.

 In addition to drug access programs, CHAI also focuses on country operations, with programs that help governments with pediatric care and treatment, improving rural health care and human resources for health and the prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT). In 2008, approximately 185,000 children benefited from increased access to infant diagnosis aided by the training of 8,500 health care workers who offered pediatric antiretroviral treatment (ART). 2008 also saw six PMTCT country programs launched which ensured that every HIV pregnant woman in the program catchment area was provided with prevention, care and treatment services including counseling, testing and feeding recommendations.

 In the Summer of 2008, CHAI's Executive Vice President, Inder Singh, announced the closing of cost-reduction agreements with several suppliers of malaria medication, which will be extended to CHAI partners as part of its care and treatment program.

Does that sound like an organization that should be criticized and condemned ? Its legitimacy questioned? Why is the media, looking for points of criticism?

Would anyone criticize and condemn it, if it were not associated with the Clintons?

But as is often said: “No good deed goes unpunished.”

One of the leading contributors to this foundation, which is one of many foundations the Clintons support, is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

Borrowing, Taxes & Deficits – A Discussion Continued

In my post of November 2, 2011 entitled "Borrowing, Taxes & Deficits – A Discussion," I referred the reader to an article written by Professor Robert Malchman and posted on his blog entitled "Real Interest Rates," and the exchange that followed, which appears as four comments below the post. In my post referred to above, I rebutted the view of Professor Malchman, and to a greater extent those of Bunny42.

(I interrupted that exchange to focus on the controversy regarding "Contraception, Abortion and Komen.")

My rebuttal was reproduced on that blog and provoked two more rebuttals by Bunny42 below the post, which you can find here.

I thought that her rebuttal was so misguided that I feel it incumbent upon me to respond to it, and so here is my rebuttal:

Bunny, you have every right to be taken seriously because you do not run away from opinions that are contrary to yours. I can assure you that most people close their ears when confronted with contrary views, and only want to hear opinion, and indeed facts, that reinforce their views.

Furthermore, you are far more knowledgeable than most people. You are familiar with the Keynesian economic theory. Please watch this video on YouTube. You say that “(Your) impression has been (and still is) that reducing taxes on industry allows for expansion, and that includes new jobs.” It is no wonder that this is your impression, since this has been the message repeated over and over again. It is part of what is known as staying on message. But that doesn’t make it true and it isn’t. Right now corporations are sitting on $2 trillion and are not investing according to a New York Post, [a News Corporation subsidiary (i.e. Rupert Murdoch's)] article that goes on to say: “US consumers are stretched financially. Rosenblatt says there's no incentive for many companies to expand. Why go out and make 110 widgets when I can only sell 100?" he asked. Which sums up the situation.” See here. See also here.

Taxes have nothing to do with it. In fact right now we have one of the lowest tax rates in our history. When Eisenhower (R) was President (1960) the top rate for all those making over $400,000 was 91% and our economy did very nicely, thank you very much. When Ronald Reagan was President and after he sharply reduced taxes (1985) the top tax rate was 50% on incomes over $169,000 (See here) and our economy did very nicely, thank you very much. When Clinton became President he inherited a slow down and increased taxes and the economy boomed. But I said all this in my previous posts, but apparently it didn’t sink in. Impressions are hard to shake.

Consumer spending accounts for 70% of US economic activity. See here. When consumers spend, businesses make products to sell. When consumers don’t have the money to buy, business contracts, and jobs are lost. During inflationary times, when consumers want to buy more than business can produce the emphasis must be on increasing production. During deflationary times or during recessions when business capacity is greater than the demand, emphasis must be on increasing demand, not supply. That is not only economic theory. It is common sense.

It is not a coincidence that in 1929 just before the great depression the income disparity was huge just as it is now, or to quote from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Taken together with prior research, the new data suggest greater income concentration at the top than at any time since 1929.” See here. Henry Ford, not known as a left wing radical said, “One's own employees ought to be one's own best customers. Paying high wages is behind the prosperity of this country.” See here.

But as I write this, I begin to wonder if I am giving you too much credit, Bunny. It seems like I am going over much of what I covered in my last post, which essentially you ignored, as undoubtedly you will ignore the facts here, because they do not comport with your “impressions.”

You say that, “One of our problems involves not having enough skilled labor available to fill those jobs.” This is not the major problem in our economic malaise, but it illustrates another problem in our society – we are not spending enough money on education, we have fallen way behind the rest of the world in educating our young, and college education, has become far too expensive. When I climbed out of poverty to a prosperous upper middle class existence, my college was free. Without that I could not have moved up. But we no longer have those rungs on the ladder.

Bunny, you are entitled to your opinions, but not if they are based on misconceptions. You talk about a slippery slope. But you ignore that the slippery slope has been in the opposite direction. It’s not a little tax there and a little tax here. It a big tax cut and another big tax cut. I have shown you how much taxes have been reduced over the years, but it makes no impression on you. You refuse to focus on the facts.

“Remove Incentive” worries you. But nothing in the present or the past would remove incentive. Look at the facts!!! “(You) dispute my assertion that most of the wealthy have inherited their money. According to Forbes “The top 0.1% -- about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million -- are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.” What does that mean. It means that the very rich are making their money, not by working, but from the returns on their wealth. Now where did they get their wealth? By working? Not likely! Even the “captains of industry” make only millions. Billions are acquired on a multigenerational basis, i.e. through inheritance. Yes, some like George Soros and Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have made it in one lifetime, but most inherit it and they live off their money. Nothing makes money more easily than money, and because of that more and more wealth concentrates at the top, and when we tax such money at a lower rate than money earned working, it exacerbates it all the more.

What we are getting is something very similar to the inherited monarchies that we rebelled against. A permanent, wealthy aristocracy and their subjects, with elections getting more and more meaningless because money controls that too. Power goes to money, and money goes to power, ad infinitum.

From the Gotham Gazette:

The median personal income of those who do not receive any unearned income is $15,000 while for those that do, it is at least $191,200 (and may be much higher.) Only about one-quarter of those who are receiving such income are working, and about 10 percent are making more than $100,000, so many members of the group choose to spend their time in other ways. Indeed, very few report social security income, business or farm income, retirement income or wages and salaries. In short, their investment income is their main source of income. They are substantially older than all New Yorkers older than 15, but even among the younger ones only a small fraction work.

Unfortunately, we can not put together a picture based on the statistical data of how they spend their time, though we know that only a few are working full-time. Some undoubtedly volunteer their time, spend time at vacation spots, or work at jobs that pay relatively low wages, such as docents in art museums or other rewarding pursuits. There are very few surveys that would have enough information to even begin to depict the idle rich.

Donald Trump pretends that he made his money, but what he shows is how to “make yourself richer when you inherit an established business and have millions of dollars plunked into your waiting hands after your Dad has sent you to Wharton.” See here.

You mention that your mother depended on Medicaid. Do you really want that eliminated? It’s taxes on the rich that make it possible. It isn’t funded by Bill Gates, nor could it be. Nor could our schools, or our libraries, or the agencies that protect our health, and our food and our children’s toys. Yes, you are entitled to whatever philosophy suits you, but you shouldn’t base a philosophy on total misconceptions of facts.

Now let me take your comments on Social Security and Medicare, and how you paid into them all your life. Yes you did, but unless you die early you would get a multiple of what you paid in. The way it works is that each succeeding generation supports a previous generation. You are not being paid out of the money you paid in. That was used to pay another generation. Your payments come out the money accumulated by generations later than yours and that money is there. They have not been “pillaged, misused and depleted.” How can you have sound opinions when your facts are so wrong? That money has been invested in Treasury bonds, the safest investment in the world with the Full Faith and Credit of the US behind it. The same bonds China invests in. The problem Social Security faces is that with people living longer, the baby boomers coming into the age where they draw on Social Security, and our young population not growing fast enough to meet the demands, the disbursements of the trust fund are projected for the first time ever to become larger then the income being generated. This means that the SS payment are coming out of the trust fund, or soon will be, and the trust funds assets will slowly be depleted.

Thus unless we find a way to either decrease the disbursements, e.g. increase the retirement age, or increase its income, i.e. increasing the top income from which taxes must be paid, (it is now capped at $106,800 of gross wages, and capital gains income is exempt) it will not be possible to continue paying the benefits after a certain time. No Bunny, “Government run amok has (not) created this problem.”

Your idea of voluntarism sounds wonderful, but it doesn’t work in the real world. If taxes were voluntary, very few would pay them. Social Security could not exist if all people were not required to pay their FICA taxes. The military could not function, if only volunteers were sent to the front. They obey orders. Our government could not exist with voluntary taxes, and could never get enough revenue without getting it from those who can afford to pay it, without hardship.

Bunny, it isn’t a question of your being entitled to have whatever opinion you choose. But your opinions should be based on an understanding of the facts, not on misconceptions. Horatio Alger was an author who wrote fictitious stories of people coming out of poverty into the middle class. These happen occasionally in real life, but the chance I had, was because of a government that gave me my chance with a free education, and cheap public transportation. Sadly, this is long behind us, and Republicans are trying to make it harder and harder to succeed unless you are born into it or, as Rick Santorum did, by being elected to Congress, and after retiring from it, selling your connections. See here.

If you truly want a country where your status in life is determined by who your ancestors are, and where very few overcome the barriers keeping them from rising up in our class structure, then I have no problem with your views. What do you think your chances, or those your children, of making it to the top are?

Comments are welcome and will be distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

The Media – A Final Comment

Over time I have posted a number of articles critical of the media in general and the New York Times in particular. I don’t want to beat a dead horse, and I certainly don’t want to discourage people from reading the New York Times or the rest of the media.

I personally read the Times for about two hours every morning before turning to the web, where I read portions of the Washington Post, The Economist and Haaretz which are delivered to me free of charge by e-mail. In addition I get countless liberal solicitations to contribute money, sign petitions and send e-mails to my members of Congress. Misstatements are not uncommon in all of these communications, and being retired, I search for truth through Google, though if care is not taken that too can lead to erroneous facts, particularly since Right Wing blogs seem to get priority on what is supposed to be an unbiased search engine. I am not suggesting that Google has a deliberate bias, but rather that for whatever reason, those are the results. But one should be particularly wary about facts that fit ones predilections. Just because they fit our political philosophy, doesn’t mean they are true.

But the New York Times, which is the standard by which all others are supposed to be measured, most frequently draws my ire. And now I am not talking about its columns, or its editorials, but its news articles, and what drew my ire today was one that appeared on the Front page of the Times on October 7, 2011 with the headline: “Some Unemployed Find Fault in Extension of Jobless Benefits." This the Times considers to be such startling news that it makes page one with a colored photograph, no less. Now there are 14 million unemployed in the US and the Times found one person who doesn’t think unemployment insurance should be extended. That is news? And Front Page News at that? Now if they had found a majority feeling that way, that would be news! 10% might be news! But one?

In fairness to the article it goes on to discuss some of the ramifications of unemployment insurance and Republican position on the question. But is that an appropriate lead–in? Or does that sound more like the New York Post or Fox?

Aside of how this reflects on the Times it should send a warning to all as to how a paper, any paper should be read. A headline is frequently misleading! The reporter who writes the article does not write the headline, and so the headline may or may not reflect what the reporter intended the article to convey. It is often misleading!

Many articles in any newspaper try to be balanced, but one view may be in the first part of the article, and the opposite view in the latter part. If you don’t read the continuation, you are likely to get only one view, rather than a balanced one.

Beware of quotes from unnamed sources, something that the Times, and other media indulge in more and more frequently. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for it, but often the source is unreliable or does not exist. Even where the source is named be skeptical. Remember, how Chalabi was quoted as the authority on all things Iraqi. All wrong!!!

As for unnamed, or even named sources without a pedigree, should be suspect. I remember a time when I became an expert on EZ Pass for the Newark Star Ledger. I had written a Letter to the Editor on this subject and for a long time thereafter, whenever the reporter covering that subject wanted a quote from someone, anyone, he would phone me and ask my opinion. The article would appear as “Emil Scheller a resident of Montclair, NJ expressed the view, “…” Should anyone have cared what that view was?

The New York Times is assumed to be a liberal paper and so when they print a front page article critical of the Obama Administration one tends to give it credence. But it “aint necessarily so”! One article, in November of 2010, so outraged me so much that I made it a point to save it. The headline read “While Warning About Fat, U.S. Pushes Cheese Sales," which it seemed to me to be a pretty hypocritical position for the Administration to take, and I read it with deep misgivings. Guess what? Every single instance cited in the article in support of the headline was one that occurred in the Bush Administration. I wouldn’t have known that if I had read the article only in the print edition, but I was sufficiently bothered by the allegations in the article to go to the web edition, where I could, by the magic of links, find the underlying facts. Every instance cited, but one, was years old and under the Bush Administration.

Now I have two major problems with this. Why was the Times printing old, years old, news as though it was current news? Was the reporter busy with other things and told to write an article by a short deadline, dug out an old article that had never been printed, up-dated it with one recent example, and he had earned his salary. Did any editor check the citations as I did?

I took the time to write to the author of the article as follows:

I just finished reading your article in the Times of today and am deeply disturbed at its misleading character. Almost everything in the article is old and no longer newsworthy. Most of the material dates back to the Bush Administration and one of the few items from the Obama Administration, dated July 15, 2010 reads, “The NDC commends the 2010 DGAC’s science‐based conclusions that include increasing consumption of nutrient‐dense foods, including low‐fat and fat‐free milk and milk products, decreasing consumption of solid fats and added sugars, and increasing regular physical activity to improve the health of Americans. Higher dairy food consumption is associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, poor bone health and related diseases. Because Americans are consuming only 60% of the recommended amounts of milk and milk products, research supports the committee’s conclusion that efforts are warranted to promote consumption of three servings of low fat and fat free milk and milk products for individuals ages 9 years and older." (Emphasis added).

For the documents cited in the article see here and for the only document issued by the Obama Administration see here.

I never received a reply. I guess I should have written to the Editor, or the Public Editor, but I doubt if it would have made a difference.

Until we the public demand something better and are satisfied with titillation, sensationalism, and superficiality, we will get what we deserve.

What we are most interested in is the Knox murder trial (Foxy Knoxy) – sex and murder- its much more fun, or the Casey Anthony murder trial in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, but in the end we get from our media and from our government what we deserve.

In the end – WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND THEY ARE US!

Health Insurance Reform - Lies and Damned Lies

In my last commentary, entitled: ”Health Insurance Reform," I addressed some misconceptions about our health care. I pointed out that it is far from the best system in the world. Depending on the criterion we use it ranks 24th, 72nd and 30th according to our own CDC. Lately the UK system has come in for some bashing but it comes in 14th on life expectancy, a lot better than the US, but it is severely under funded.

According the conservative British newspaper, The Guardian that has a cross-reference under the heading, Data: health spending around the world the per capita expenditure on health in the UK is $ 2,784. For the US it is $6,714 and when measured by total expenditure on health as a percentage of gross domestic product, we find that the UK spends 8.4% while the US spends 15.3%. We spend two to three times what Britain spends and get poorer result and then critics of US reform bash the British. Nobody is proposing adopting the British system but we could do worst. It is certainly better than the one we have.

The bashing of the British system got to be such a sport that Investor's Business Daily wrote an editorial saying, “People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.” When Stephen Hawking, upon hearing of this, pointed out that he is British, and it is the British Health Service that has kept him alive, the paper pulled this nonsense from its pages and blog. But the right wing, Rupert Murdoch-owned NY Post, stuck to the lie by writing:

“One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

Scary, and a boldface lie, despite the reference to page numbers in the bill. The section referred to according to the Associated Press was authored by Republican Reps. Charles Boustany of Louisiana, Geoff Davis of Kentucky and Patrick Tiberi of Ohio and would authorize Medicare to pay for counseling if desired in the preparation of Living Wills. The AP article goes on to point out that “just a year ago, Congress overwhelmingly approved legislation requiring doctors to discuss issues like living wills and advance directives with new Medicare enrollees. And the government already requires hospitals and nursing homes to help patients with those legal documents if they want support, under a 1992 law passed under Republican President George H.W. Bush.”

But just about any lie will do to stop reform because in the words Republican Senator Jim DeMint "If we are to stop Obama on this, (referring to Health Care Reform) it would be his Waterloo. It will break him."

What is good for the country doesn’t matter. What matters is “breaking Obama.” They wouldn’t debate on the merits. On the merits they lose. And we know they don’t have a case when they start putting out boldface outrageous lies. And so what used to be something they were for, now becomes something that is euthanasia. And they all jump on the bandwagon. It started with that sterling Republican leader Sarah Palin when she put on her Facebook page, “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.” 

Such a system would be downright evil, but no such system is, was, or ever will be considered. What is evil is the lie. One might hope other Republicans would immediately repudiate it, but no, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich defended the bizarre claim by Palin.

Well, I don’t know if such outlandish lies will stop needed reform, but they have succeeded in killing the provision that would allow being reimbursed for the cost of getting advice from your physician on what provisions you want in a Living Will, that, by the way, can provide that you want to live no matter what the state of your health is. If you want to live in a vegetative state for decades you can provide for that in a Living Will. All it does is tell providers what your wishes are when you are not able to do so any more. It avoids the situation that occurred in the infamous Schiavo case.

But the outrageous get even worse, if that is possible. Glen Beck on Fox News actually went into detail on the Nazi extermination programs suggesting the Health reform mimics the Nazis and Rush Limbaugh proceeded to describe the ways Democrats are like Nazis -- a list that included their dedication to animal rights and their opposition to smoking and pollution. 

Jewish groups including the Israeli lobby, AIPAC were outraged, but nothing seems to be too low for people whose only allegiance is to the insurance companies and the drug companies and who will use any tactics to defeat what is not an option but a necessity.

I have questions about the cost of the bill and how it will be paid for. We all have questions of one kind or another. Some, particularly the very rich, the insurance companies and the drug companies, may be better off without reform and they are entitled to be against it. But when outrageous lies are used, we know that the opposition is bankrupt. An honest and civil debate is called for. Lies, smears, and scare tactics have no place in a discussion of such a crucial subject.