Sarah Palin and the New York Times, The Real Bastards and Whores

So many years, so much sanctimony, and all the time the "Gray Lady" was nothing but a duplicitous bitch. The lectures, the indignation, the snide insinuations, the double standards, the pious "All the news that's fit to print.", the averted eyes of a smirking trollop, now so obvious, now so vile.

Her journalistic styles and integrity best exemplified by the rouged drag queen Frank Rich. Expensive perfume on an unclean body and filthy sheets her new signature. There is no gutter smelly enough nor sewer fowl enough for the New York Times. The New York Times exposes, with glee and on page one, above the fold and far to the left, the repeated tale of an unwed pregnant seventeen year old girl. The seventeen year old, picked by fate and the New York Times to be the subject of scrutiny and barely repressed delight.

God damn them all.
__________________

The top three stains on the Ho's sheets:

Disclosures on Palin Raise Questions on Vetting Process
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
The disclosure that Gov. Sarah Palin’s daughter was pregnant was one of several revelations that called into question how thoroughly Senator John McCain had screened her.

NEWS ANALYSIS
In Political Realm, ‘Family Problem’ Emerges as Test
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Republicans rallied around Gov. Sarah Palin, but the disclosure of her teenage daughter’s pregnancy brought uncertainty.

Palin Daughter’s Pregnancy Interrupts Script
By MONICA DAVEY
As people began learning about Gov. Sarah Palin, they were piecing together a portrait of her family life. it helps prolong life or prevent heart attacks.
Previous Articles in the Series »

The Road Home, and The Road Less Travelled

Splashed across yesterday's New York Times's editorial pages:

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit. . .We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage — with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.

Debating or criticizing the errors, incorrect suppositions, missteps, and false assumptions that turned the occupation and later (attempted) reconstruction into the morass that it is today is low hanging fruit (c.f. most of Congress, the Democratic Presidential candidates, Doonesbury, et al), so the venerable Times opts for cutting the whole tree down, and shredding it in a wood chipper for good measure.

Let's venture into the scenario marginally sketched out in this populist editorial for a moment, and see what the world looks like:

the Pentagon needs enough force to stage effective raids and airstrikes against terrorist forces in Iraq, but not enough to resume large-scale combat. . .Meaningless strategury; this combat force is too big, this one too small, but this package (poised on the airstrip and ready to venture forth from Okinawa or something) is just right. Why advocate utter withdrawal from a besieged nation, where your forces have provided nearly all of the stability and rule of law (marginal though it may be), only to leave military units to strike with little to no effect at the terrorist camps and jihadist vacation areas that sprout in the wake of your departure? The cruise missile strikes of the booming nineties did little to deter Bin Laden and his ilk, or to weaken Sadaam Hussein for that matter. This paragraph was likely inserted after much editorial hand-wringing to appeal to the dozen or so Times subscribers who feel guilt pangs when they ponder abandoning Iraq (whose evil but functioning government we overthrew in 2003). Ignore it and keep reading down. . .

Iraq’s leaders — knowing that they can no longer rely on the Americans to guarantee their survival — might be more open to compromise, perhaps to a Bosnian-style partition, with economic resources fairly shared but with millions of Iraqis forced to relocate. . . Or they might not be willing to compromise (c.f. the former Yugoslavia before intervention, Rwanda, Afghanistan, et al), and a precipitous withdrawal may well lead to an exponentially higher level of death, suffering, and deprivation for the Iraqi people and neighboring countries as well. A responsible editorial page should be critical of wishful thinking disguised as a solution, not proffer it up like it is a sure thing.

One of the trickiest tasks will be avoiding excessive meddling in Iraq by its neighbors — America’s friends as well as its adversaries. . . Tricky indeed, since many of Iraq's neighbors are already meddling in the country, DESPITE the fact 160,000 U.S. troops are there now. The problem of influencing the regional powers and transnational terrorist groups with designs on Iraq only increases with a U.S. withdrawal, and our ability to influence them (or anyone else in the region for that matter) is marginalized. Once again, the Iraqi people (did I mention that the U.S. overthrew their evil but functioning government in 2003 yet?) are left to pay the bill.

The Times could have saved gallons of expensive ink and sold a heck of a bunch more ads by deleting this unreasonable editorial and simply written 'We cannot stand George W. Bush and his stupid Iraq War and want them both to go away, and the sooner the better'. Wishful thinking on their part once again, but at least no one could fault them for their honesty.

The Facts Behind the Immigration Liars at The New York Times

The NY Times headlines, widely quoted by the MSM read, "Immigration Bill Provisions Gain Wide Support in Poll".

Not too encouraging to the opponents of this bill. Could it be that it was printed to encourage our masters and rulers in DC, who will not read the details behind the headlines, as they will probably not read the bill itself? I asked myself, how is this possible?

I decided to do something quaint. Read the data.

The poll itself covers many subjects. It contains over one hundred questions. The published pdf version has been edited.

I simply highlight some of the questions in the same poll that would point to a far different picture from the propaganda and outrageous distortion portrayed by the New York Times. Could it be that the New York Times has an agenda?

8. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the issue of
immigration?

approve 27% disapprove 60%

41. Which comes closer to your opinion: 1) America should always welcome all immigrants, OR 2) America should always welcome some immigrants, but not others, OR 3) America cannot afford to open its doors to any newcomers?

Welcome all 24% Welcome some 48% No newcomers 24%

42. Which of the following three statements comes closest to expressing your overall view of immigration policy in the United States? 1) On the whole, our immigrationpolicy works pretty well and only minor changes are necessary to make it work better. 2) There are some good things in our immigration policy, but fundamental changes are needed. 3) Our immigration policy has so much wrong with it that we need to completely rebuild it.

Only minor changes 8% Fundamental changes 41% Completely rebuild 49%

46. In the long run, do you think the people who are emigrating to the United States
today will make American society better, will make American society worse, or do you
ink today's immigrants won't affect American society one way or the other? th

Better 28% Worse 35% Won’t affect society 29%


51. What about ILLEGAL immigration – How serious a problem do you think the issue of
ILLEGAL immigration is for the country right now — very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious, or not at all serious?

Very 61% Somewhat 30% Not too 6% Not at all 1%

52. What, if anything, is your main concern about immigrants in the U.S.?

They use public services 17%
They don’t pay taxes 8%
Terrorism/security threat 8%
Take jobs away from residents 13%
Breaking law by being here 11%
Don’t learn to speak English 5%
Commit crimes 6%

56.Do you think illegal immigrants do more to strengthen the U.S. economy because they provide low-cost labor and they spend money or do illegal immigrants do more to weaken the U.S. economy because they don't all pay taxes but can use public services?

Strengthen 23% Weaken 70%


59. As a result of LEGAL immigration into the United States, do you think the threat of terrorism against the United States has increased, decreased, or stayed about the same? ASKED OF HALF THE RESPONDENTS N=568

Increased 42% Decreased 3%

60. As a result of ILLEGAL immigration into the United States, do you think the threat of terrorism against the United States has increased, decreased, or stayed about the same? ASKED OF HALF THE RESPONDENTS N=564

Increased 45% Decreased 2%

74. Should illegal immigrants be prosecuted and deported for being in the U.S. illegally, or shouldn't they?

Should be prosecuted 69% Should not 24%

The full poll pdf here