Sunday, November 30, 2008

America Lacks a Newspaper of Record

I was just on the Fox News website to forward them my recent affirmation of Pamela Geller's Fox News obituary when I noticed a headline on their site that the New York Times has called for the resignation of George W. Bush. The Times's indifference to the importance of Constitutional provisions about the transition of power is characteristic of an unimportant, fringe newsletter. In days gone past the opinion of the Times mattered to some. Today, I, like many others, do not read the Times because of its unreliablity and biased reporting. A corollary is that the newsletter's opinions are unimportant.

A large percentage of people who reside in America are not Americans. They are elite "Progressives" who, although having spent considerable sums on vacuous "education" at expensive colleges, are ignorant of basic American principles of individualism, freedom and virtue. Progressives are to the Americans what Mao Tse Tung's communists are to the French. Sadly, much as barbarians came to dominate the Roman army, Progressives have come to dominate American institutions. Americans need to think about how to reclaim their institutions from Progressive thugs.

The Times has done systematic harm to this country throughout its history. The harm it has done includes Walter Duranty's lying about Stalin's crimes in the 1930s, downplaying the holocaust, supporting Fidel Castro, supporting the overthrow of Diem (which led to American defeat in Vietnam), and consistently supporting inflationary Federal Reserve Bank policies which have led to extraction of wealth from wage earners and dollar savers (the lower middle class) in favor of a booming stock market, the wealthy, the Ochs Sulzbergers and their friends. The New York Times and its sycophants, such as William Greider, have used every lie in the book to enhance profits for money center banks and Wall Street.

The coming inflation, and there is one coming because of the banking system and the Federal Reserve Bank, will be in part the result of the New York Times's recent propaganda campaign about a "crisis" that led to a corrupt "bailout" and tripling of the money supply.

Similarly, the Times supports the inheritance tax, but does not support it for family trusts. The Ochs Sulzbergers, the owners and publishers of the Times, have dodged the inheritance tax for five generations, even as they urge it for younger, more nimble family-owned firms that might pose a threat to them and their family friends.

In short, the New York Times should be viewed as fringe or foreign newsletter. The fact that Republicans of any category continue to pay attention to it is a mistake.


Anonymous said...

Of course New York Times wants Bush to resign now. They want payback from Obama in the form of a bailout for getting him elected.
They are holding on by a thread until Obama gets into office and they know he will oblige them just like the dems did with Obama's Wall Street buddies. Repeatedly Pelosi said they speak with Obama about everything so he is in control already anyway.

All of Obama's campaign funders received bailouts immediately. But Obama who is against the big 3, they have to tow the line and do as he says FIRST. The big 3 have to fit in with Obama's global warming scheme to bankrupt corporations and create government controlled green socialist corps in their place.

Rahmbo said, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste”.

"Until they show us the plan, we cannot show them the money," Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Pelosi's arrogance and her nazi like control as she sells out America is sickening. Pelosi, Just where is that money coming from you and Obama are throwing around?

Bush's 8 years Pelosi lying progressives screamed about the budget and the money being spent. Bush had 9/11, Katrina, Iraq and Afghanistan. The dems have their paybacks in the trillions.

Sorry for the rant.

Anonymous said...

Bleeding ‘Times’ Blood
Which is more important to a 25-year-old Ochs-Sulzberger heir: the sense of honor that comes with owning the New York Times, or enough money to do whatever he wants for the rest of his life?

From an estate in Southampton, 82-year-old Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the patriarch of the family and father of Arthur Jr., has watched as the company he bequeathed to his son has taken a perilous turn. A significant portion of the paper’s troubles can be attributed to the general difficulties of a business model based on print advertising in the Internet age. But the younger Sulzberger’s management stumbles have helped to speed the company stock price’s decline to around $15 a share from $45 at the start of the century.

First, there was Sulzberger’s decision to use the paper’s excess cash flow when it was making money in the nineties to buy back stock—a practice meant to improve investor confidence—instead of acquiring new properties that could have hedged against print losses. In the last decade, the Times bought back $3 billion of its own stock—more than the company’s present market value. Now that money is gone, and the company has sunk from surplus to deficit. (Sulzberger himself has acknowledged that the buybacks were “the stupidest thing” he’s done.)
Smelling weakness, Wall Street agitators have pressured the family to cut costs, squeeze more value out of the stock, and loosen its grip on management. Last year, London-based Morgan Stanley fund manager Hassan Elmasry presented the board of directors with a litany of criticisms of Sulzberger’s management, suggesting that the stock price might be improved with new leadership and an overhaul of the dual-class stock structure that allows the family to maintain monarchal control over the business. Not surprisingly, neither Sulzberger nor the family members on the board were interested in ceding control of the company. In retaliation, an angry Sulzberger pulled the family’s personal holdings, approximately $200 million in New York Times stock, from an account at Morgan Stanley.

So far, no one has been so bold as to openly question Sulzberger’s management, but it’s worth noting that it was a 42-year-old member of the Bancroft family, Elisabeth Goth Chelberg, who became a key agitator for selling The Wall Street Journal to Rupert Murdoch. After her mother died, she came to see with cold clarity the withering value of her inheritance. “On the one hand it is quite sad,” she told a newspaper, “but on the other it was the only reasonable thing to do.” Says a Times staffer who knows Sulzberger, “It seems completely reasonable that somewhere embedded in this [Sulzberger] family is someone saying the same thing Elisabeth is saying: ‘What the f**k is going on with my investment, Uncle Arthur?’ ”

Fantasies about a white-knight businessman who might “save” the Times with a cash infusion abound in the newsroom and in media circles across the city. Most of them feature Michael Bloomberg, who has denied interest in buying the paper, or Carlos Slim HelĂș, the Mexican telecommunications billionaire who bought $127 million in Times stock. Another notion floated in the newsroom is the hiring of a future-forward CEO, like Google’s Eric Schmidt, an executive who clearly “gets” the Internet and might just be able to reengineer the Times to profit from it.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if San Francsico Examiner could be built strong enough to our new Newspaper of Record?

America is at war overseas and in an economic crisis here at home. Many of her citizens believe the country is on the wrong track. It is for times such as these that men like John McCain are made, to put country first so that it can be put right in its time of need. For this reason, The Examiner endorses McCain for president and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, for vice president.

Anonymous said...

"They are elite "Progressives" who, although having spent considerable sums on vacuous "education" at expensive colleges..."

You mean people like you who have been trained at SLC, UCLA and Columbia and now hold a faculty position in the CUNY system ?

Mitchell Langbert said...

Dear Anonymous (who made the post about my education): well, yes. The real point isn't what schools someone attended. That has become fetishized to the point where one respondent to this blog claimed that Pastor Manning couldn't make valid points in an argument because he hadn't attended a prestigious college. That sort of fetishization of educational credentials is characteristic of the use of education as control.

Let us take a look for a moment at the left. In the early twentieth century a large percentage of the left was composed of people who came to America to flee the results of European communism, socialism, statism, monarchism and tyranny. This included the left of the 1930s, the New Left of the 1960s and their predecessors in various socialist and working class movements in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These were people who were ignorant of the American philosophy, but, like Walter Weyl, believed themselves to be smarter than Americans. Because Americans lacked intellectual credentials but believed education was important, they were taken in by these ignorant thugs, to include Weyl, the other Progressives, the German Historical School (institutionalist economists) and the later New Left radicals.

When they arrived, this crew's first response to the American way of life was not to attempt to understand it, which they emphatically did not and lacked the tools to do, but to establish socialist guilds, bunds, anarchist movements and communist parties in order to overthrow the American way of life and to institute the very European communism, socialism, statism, morarchism and tyranny that they had just fled, running for their lives. The response of American elites, to include Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and their supporters was to think about ways these ideologies could be used to further re-enforce the interests of big business, that is, how to dupe them into serving the very interests that they thought that they opposed. This was accomplished handily.

As Paul Johnson shows in his book the Intellectuals, virtually all western leftists have benefited directly from elite upbringings. They then used their privileges in order to agitate against liberalism and those who helped them and in favor of the various thuggish ideologies heretofore mentioned. Virtually all of the American radicals fall into that category.

I have come to the conclusions I have in spite of my education, not because of it. Having been through 25 years of American education, I can say unequivocally that social science as taught in American universities is propaganda. I can also say, as an associate professor at a northeastern university, that college students in America are NOT taught the principles on which
America was founded, are ignorant of Locke, are igorant of individualism, and have been largely brainwashed by the educational system, as far as this is possible in a society with remnants of freedom, to believe in the state and in socialism, views which are helpful to big business and its incompetent leadership.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"They are elite "Progressives" who, although having spent considerable sums on vacuous "education" at expensive colleges..."

You mean people like you who have been trained at SLC, UCLA and Columbia and now hold a faculty position in the CUNY system ?

November 30, 2008 3:38 PM

No, like the spoiled rich who turn into terrorists like Ayers and Dohrn. They were given everything by their parents and our education system but yet they turned traitor and murderers of the country who fought for their freedom to be the lousy, soulless people they are.

Like the 9/11 terrorists who killed 3000 Americans because of their hate. They were also educated here. They learned to fly the planes that would devastate the US and they sat next to our own children in the same classes.

Like the sleeper cells now living here being educated and just waiting for the call to create more carnage.

Like the progressives who hate America and decided to vote for Obama because they wanted change. Not once looking at who Obama was or what the change was to be. Racism, marxism and revenge are what his words would have told them.

Today Obama says change is what he decides it is to be. He told you fools it was about you when he needed your votes.

In case you did not get it, elite "Progressives" who, although having spent considerable sums on vacuous "education" at expensive colleges are
those who reap what America has to give,suck it dry with hate, give nothing back, do not care about its demise and are willing to help with its destruction.

Mitchell Langbert said...

"In case you did not get it, elite "Progressives" who, although having spent considerable sums on vacuous "education" at expensive colleges are those who reap what America has to give,suck it dry with hate, give nothing back, do not care about its demise and are willing to help with its destruction."

I'm with you there. American intellectuals are very cute. They live here, off the fat of the productive economy teaching a few courses at universities that charge massively inflated tuition, and then they condemn the free economy that makes their lifestyle possible. They are the ultimate exploitive con men.