Posts with the tag New York Times

Stanley Fish: Bush Wasn't a Bad Prez, 'Cause I Say So

Jake Blumgart — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:40:12 EST

Stanley Fish has done it again. The bane of my college career has a new Times column up, and he proves still capable of making eloquently nonsensical arguments for the sheer sake of contrarianism.

Fish has always seemed to pride himself on the ability to deflate popular wisdom. Where there are heated emotions around a common consensus (particularly among people who may have actually heard of him, i.e. urban liberals) he has taken great delight in arguing the opposite side. Sometimes that has merits (see: his writings on the “war” between science and religion), but sometimes he does it just to do it. Today’s column on the merits of George W. Bush is a case in point.

Fish argues that W’s legacy is already being revived (just as the good professor predicted, natch). His proof? There is one billboard in Minnesota, that great bellwether state, along I-35, that great bellwether highway, with a picture of our ex-president asking “Miss Me Yet”? Also, Obama’s popularity is way down, because he hasn’t been able to keep all his campaign promises while constrained by an antimajoritarian Senate, a poisonously obstructionist political climate, the continuing fallout from a recession, and a ballooning deficit his predecessor created. Because of this completely unprecedented occurrence (that’s sarcasm, by the way, his numbers still edge out Reagan’s at this point is his presidency) people must now embrace the fact that Fish was right all along, um, I mean, that Bush wasn’t such a bad guy.

He contention that Bush-haters are “indistinguishable in temperament from the professional Obama-haters” is simply insupportable. Fish argues that things in Iraq may be looking up. Sure, compared to the last more-than-half-decade of carnage. No one knows how things will end up in Iraq, but there can be no doubt that George W. Bush sent this country to war on a lie. He sacrificed many thousands of American lives, and countless Iraqis, for a poorly planned, poorly executed mission with no coherent end goal. And that doesn't even touch on unneeded tax cuts for the rich or his disastrously unpopular plans to privatize Social Security. Or his abandonment of low-income Americans and middle income Americans, not to mention our mission in Afghanistan, any semblance of fiscal responsibility, and our most cherished ideals. The Obama-haters don’t like countercyclical spending and a healthcare plan they cheerily proposed in 1994. It’s not quite the same thing Fish, old boy. Better luck with the next column.

Does David Brooks Have an Editor?

Pema Levy — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:55:41 EST

I just read David Brook's column today in the New York Times and I'm a bit flabbergasted. Brooks, who is known to be the smart, alternative voice for the right, has produced, in policy terms, a liberal column: calling for more jobs in order to stabilize the desperate situation of the working class. The reason: Brooks read an article in The Atlantic which alerted him to the widely-known fact that men have lost the most jobs in the recession. O the horror!

A lot of people and organizations have been writing about this for a while, but now that Brooks is in-the-know, he has awakened to an impending crisis for men and masculinity that can only be saved by job creation and a safety net. Of course, Brooks doesn't mention, nor seem to care, that the group which actually suffers most is black men, whose high unemployment numbers have been a huge burden to black men and their communities for years. Brooks fears that rising unemployment among men will cause the working class to melt socially and morally. In his words: "Now the working class is in danger of descending into underclass-style dysfunction." I'm not sure what this means, but it is in keeping with the generally cryptic and offensive tone of the whole piece.

Next, Brooks turns his attention to poverty programs. Generally not the pet project of conservatives, Brooks now needs poverty programs and social workers to shift their focus from the "inner cities" to conservative, working class white areas like "central Pennsylvania and rural Michigan" because, and I quote, "if the working class disintegrates, then look out." Again, when the people suffering are in the "inner city" i.e. a racial minority, you never mention poverty programs. But when conservative white folk start losing their jobs, all of a sudden the programs of bleeding-heart liberals are urgent.

Am I saving the best for last? Yes, but only because Brooks did too.

Campus Conservatives ‘Smash Left-Wing Scum’ Again

Erin Rosa — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:25:50 EST

At least one high-profile conservative activist group wants to continue smashing "left-wing scum," and they're not afraid to admit it.

When Campus Progress first reported on Campus Reform, the right-leaning social networking Web site funded by the conservative Leadership Institute to confront “leftist abuse” in higher education, it was discovered that one of the organization’s staff members had written on the site that one of his goals was to “smash left-wing scum.”

Shortly after the report, the comment was removed, and when asked about the incident, Campus Reform’s national director, Bryan Bernys, chalked the incendiary rhetoric up to the nature of social networking. “I don’t know where that is on the site or anything,” Brenys said. “Obviously with all Web sites you can post anything. Nobody at CampusReform can go through every single post.”

But now a few months after the incident, smashing left-wing scum is apparently back in fashion for Campus Reform—in fact, it’s alive and well on the group’s own YouTube page.

A video, posted four days ago, shows a group of Campus Reformers holding a “Global Warming Beach Party” to protest a speech by New York Times contributor Thomas Friedman that was taking place at George Washington University. (Yeah, I still haven’t quite figured that one out either.) Anyway, along with a furrie dressed up as polar bear and the backing of the archconservative Young America's Foundation, there was also a sign that encouraged others to—that’s right—“Smash Left-Wing Scum.”

Look, obviously students shouldn’t be discriminated against because of their political beliefs. But really, if Campus Reform’s goal is to combat what it perceives as “leftist bias” in classrooms, and the organization’s mission is to bring more ideological diversity to educational institutions, then how, exactly, is that accomplished by such a confrontational and polarizing statement like “smash left-wing scum?” Is that kind of rhetoric really supposed to make anyone empathic to the plight of the young Reaganites?

Either way, there’s a chance that the video—like the last incendiary comment—may mysteriously disappear from the Web site. After all, it was just a few days ago that somebody at Campus Reform tried to remove praise of James O'Keefe from the Web site, shortly after the former Leadership Institute employee and some of his friends were arrested by the FBI for allegedly plotting to illegally enter the downtown New Orleans office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) under the guise of repairing the building’s telephones.

I Was Wrong...

WhoKnew... — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:42:26 EDT

So I'll admit that my blog yesterday was more than a little snarky. Although the overall point I was making (that David Brooks and other dispassionate observers of politics are almost allergic to pragmatic ideas from liberals) was a fair one, my disdain for the arrogance of the Washington intelligensia poisoned my argument. That fact was on full display today during lunch...

The Pentagon's Sleight of Hand in Crafting War Propaganda

Kate — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:16:33 EDT

As an Internet Organizer for Progressive Future, I've been busily spreading the otherwise buried reports of the atrocities and abuses committed by military contractors in Iraq. As outraged as they made me, I had to wonder why these stories failed to reach the mainstream American public. Now I know why.

Gold-plated Recession

Annika — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:41:36 EDT

This morning, the New York Times story reporting the loss of 80,000 jobs is flanked by ads for Tiffany & Co.'s "celebration rings." According to Tiffany, "There are times to celebrate...Maybe just because."

Right. Americans lost far more jobs in March than economists had predicted, and I'm going to commemorate the event with a $7,500 diamond ring.

The Science of Binge Drinking

Kayla — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:44:51 EST

The New York Times' Health page has an interesting article up that discusses different studies done on binge drinking. Before heading out to a tropical destination for spring break, check it out.

In a series of studies in the 1970s and ’80s, psychologists at the University of Washington put more than 300 students into a study room outfitted like a bar with mirrors, music and a stretch of polished pine. The researchers served alcoholic drinks, most often icy vodka tonics, to some of the students and nonalcoholic ones, usually icy tonic water, to others. The drinks looked and tasted the same, and the students typically drank five in an hour or two.
The studies found that people who thought they were drinking alcohol behaved exactly as aggressively, or as affectionately, or as merrily as they expected to when drunk. “No significant difference between those who got alcohol and those who didn’t,” Alan Marlatt, the senior author, said. “Their behavior was totally determined by their expectations of how they would behave.”

A great example of the power of suggestion.

Times Needs Better Fact-Checkers

Justin Elliott — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 02:21:28 EST

First, Bill Kristol cites Michelle Malkin when he meant Michael Medved. Now we get this embarrassing (and still uncorrected, as of this writing) error from the latest David Brooks column:

All the habits of verbal thuggery that have long been used against critics of affirmative action, like Ward Churchill and Thomas Sowell, and critics of the radical feminism, like Christina Hoff Summers, are now being turned inward by the Democratic front-runners.

Ward Churchill? The Native-American Marxist "chickens-coming-home-to-roost" dude? I'm pretty sure he means Ward Connerly. Lesson for the fact-checkers here: you gotta check the name beyond the initials.

p.s. an alternative explanation: Could this be some kind of subversive act of neocon solidarity from Brooks?

Oh, Bill

Annika — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:33:05 EST

I'll leave the dissection of the arguments in Bill Kristol's column today to those more qualified to discuss the myriad failings and instabilities of the war in Iraq.

I will, however, comment on the correction posted to his column last week--turns out that quote he attributed to Michelle Malkin really belonged to Michael Medved. What a relief! The thinking world was up in arms that Kristol would quote so reviled a source of mindless conservative rhetoric in his examination of Republican presidential nominees—turns out he was quoting a guy who thinks “Happy Feet” was part of the evil gay agenda that’s invading America. A big step up, I’d say.

Kristol's First Times Column

Annika — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:50:41 EST

The premiere of Bill Kristol’s New York Times column, unsurprisingly, leaves much to be desired. It seems that in the face of so much frothing anticipation, Kristol opted for the kind of ordinary primary season piece that’s dominated op-ed pages in recent weeks (ok, months). If you’re looking for the Kristol we all love to hate, look elsewhere.

Instead of doing anything interesting, Kristol, like many conservatives, bemoans the slim pickings in the Republican primary. Worried that a Democratic president would, among other things, "snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in Iraq," Kristol tries to build up Huckabee as a looming threat that Democrats are too dumb to understand. But instead of selling the candidate, he offers up a very safe “maybe he is, maybe he isn’t” argument about Huckabee’s chances as the Republicans’ strongest nominee.

Despite its unoriginal thesis, it’s worth reading just to say you did. Check it out here.

Going Timesless

Justin Elliott — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 05:31:52 EST

Struggling with the egregiousness of Bill Kristol's appointment as a Times colulmnist, I turned in desperation to National Review, where a few years back editor Jay Nordlinger wrote up a serviceable little guide to "going Timesless." It's written from a right perspective, naturally, but makes some good points: the paper can be pompous and dull and pretentious; and why must Maureen Dowd or (the now deceased) R.W. Apple direct the day's conversation? We can add to that list the fact that, as Jesse pointed out, the paper is ridiculously elitist (my favorite recent headline in that regard:"Not Down and Out in Moscow"). Nordlinger writes:

The proliferation of media has lessened the importance of the Times; so have the newspaper's mistakes (which include too great a kinship with the Democratic National Committee). To be sure, there are some unmissable individuals in the paper, such as John F. Burns in Iraq. But, seemingly every day, journalists and others are discovering that they don't have to consume the whole deal.

Nordlinger also cites the good counsel--now freshly relevant--of George Seldes, the great investigative reporter of the last century. One of Seldes' books had a chapter titled "How to Read the Editorial Pages." There was just one word: "Don't."

Big Times Fumble On Gender And Race

Justin Elliott — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:59:40 EST

I can't decide whether this passage, from a Patrick Healy/Adam Nagourney story on Hillary Clinton and the so-called gender card, is the result of shoddy editing or a laughable assumption on the part of the authors:

In a campaign in which a woman is leading the Democratic field, it was perhaps inevitable that the question would arise: would or should she be treated any differently from her rivals? The situation is that much more complicated given that second place in most polls goes to Mr. Obama, who is black. It means that both race and sex have been added to the mix of substance and imagery that makes up presidential politics.

Right, as if the virtually total domination of presidential politics by white men for the past 200+ years suggests that race and sex have been absent from that domain. Rather than completely and overwhelmingly present. Unbelievable.

Condensation by editors often drains nuance from writers' copy, but this seems way beyond that. Thoughts?

Yes, But How Do IMPORTANT People Feel About The Wildfires?

Jesse Singal — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:35:34 EDT

Leave it to the Times: "Stars, and Their Industry, Watch Fires Warily."

CNN reports that 1,436 people have lost their homes in the fires. One person was killed in the fires, five died post-evacuation, and 78 people were injured, 36 of them firefighters. At the peak of the disaster, a million people were under evacuation orders. But, thanks to the Times, we can at least take comfort in the fact that, among Hollywood's millionaires and billionaires, "Reports of actual losses were few. Disruptions and inconveniences were easier to track."

There was a link to this story on the front page of nytimes.com.

Next Week In The Times: How To Save On Your Butler's Summer Home

Jesse Singal — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:06:59 EDT

Reason #32432 to hate The New York Times, even as you love it.

(Reminder: Reason #32431 came just a short time ago.)

The Cringe-Inducing New York Times

Jesse Singal — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:01:07 EDT

I know it's not productive or original for me to get annoyed at the New York Times's ridiculously elitist tendencies, but, still, this article about the realities of women "dating down" (women in their 20s now make more than men of the same age, on average, in cities like New York, Chicago, Boston, and Minneapolis) really took it too far.

Yes, the piece does make some good points about how men and women are expected to react to having money. But the interesting sociological observations are drowned out by stuff like this:

Ms. Rowland, like some other women interviewed, said that she has come to the conclusion that it would be easier to date someone in the same economic bracket.
“I love traveling, going to the opera and good restaurants,” she said. “It doesn’t have to be Per Se, but good food is important in my life. It’s sometimes hard to maintain the lifestyle I’m used to when I’m in a relationship with a guy who makes less than me, since I don’t want to be paying for the guy I’m with all the time.”

That's rough. Good luck with that. I think my fundamental problem with the Times is that I forget that, despite the fact that it's considered a national paper, when it comes to lifestyle reporting it's still catering to New York City and Manhattan in particular -- a Never-Never Land where the average salary is over $75,500.

Dowd, Krugman, Friedman for All!

Ramya — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:28:50 EDT

I got an exciting email in my inbox today from the New York Times. TimesSelect is no more. All NYT columns and op-eds, as well as News Tracker and Times File, will be available to everyone free of charge.

A few months ago, the Times started offering free subscriptions to TimesSelect to college students or folks with a .edu address. Today's announcement marks a shift towards an even more open environment. I'd say that's a pretty neat thing.

Also, check out CP's Five Minutes With Paul Krugman for his thoughts on TimesSelect...

NYT gender discussion in the science section has regressed

Jenny Odegard — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:44:11 EDT

New York Times online science section posts psychologist Roy Baumeister's comments on gender, as a part of an ongoing online discussion on his new speech "Is There Anything Good About Men?" Baumeister's opinions are certainly valid, but lack in acknowledgment of the academic discourse already surrounding this issue, which leaves his post somewhat surface and disappointing.

Here is the link to the full post.

The article focuses on how far we’ve come as a society, what with medical advances, walking on the moon, and over populating the earth. The author muses on what could be so wrong with such a tremendously successful civilization. And while I can appreciate that as a group, people have accomplished a lot, I find it shallow and unsatisfying to simply attempt to address the fact that men are continually put down and scolded for being oppressive, even if they’re perfectly nice people.

What's The Matter With College?

Jesse Singal — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:53:45 EDT

The New York Times Magazine is running a contest that may interest CP readers. All you have to do is read an essay by Rick Perlstein entitled "What's the Matter With College?" and write a response to it. What are you waiting for? Get to it.

It's open to all college students. More details here.

The New York Times Still Doesn't Get It

Jesse Singal — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:19:43 EDT

Glenn Greenwald posted this morning on something that should be receiving far more attention: the Bush administration’s borderline-desperate, last-minute attempts to link the Iraq war to the fight against Al Qaeda, and the media’s alarming pliability on this topic. Greenwald references an important column written by the New York Times’s public editor, Clark Hoyt.

TimesSelect Now Free for Students

niralshah — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:40:43 EDT

As far as I can tell, this is a new thing. The old system involved free access for students whose University was in a Times Readership program and required some kind of access code, and a 50% discount for other students.

They seem to now be offering completely free access for all university students and faculty. If anybody knows different, please comment. Until then, I'm waiting for my confirmation e-mail, and all the ~~mind-shatteringly insightful~~ overly-simplistic tripe Thomas Friedman can churn out.

Now if they'd only get rid of that damned double-click definition pop-up feature.