They have declared war against every code and standard, while replacing them with themselves as the arbitrators. The absolute judges of right and wrong. This is tyranny. Cultural tyranny swiftly leads to political tyranny and we have both of those today in the form of a political priesthood of organizers, activists and leaders who are determined to control every aspect of our lives. Without any accountability of their own, says the Sultan.
Sulzberger’s dogged misrule of the Times was first characterized by his ejection of established newsmen who had built the Times brand since World War II in favor of more ideological writers. In 1999, he took former Times executive editor Abe Rosenthal’s column away, forcing him to retire. Rosenthal was a real newsman who had built a corps of reporters with a fierce desire to seek out stories. That creed conflicted with Pinch’s vision of the paper’s future.
In 2003, Sulzberger was embarrassed into firing executive editor Howell Raines when fabulist Jayson Blair’s contrived stories were exposed. By then, as Raines later wrote in the Atlantic, the Times newsroom was so union-dominated (the Newspaper Guild’s members are so work-resistant and hard to fire) that the reporters didn’t want to travel to get stories: they sit at their desks and “report” by searching the Internet.
Sulzberger replaced Raines with Bill Keller, an established newsman. “Pinch” chose Keller over investigative reporter and Washington editor Jill Abramson, who had been campaigning for the job. But, as sources close to the Times told me then, Keller wasn’t sufficiently liberal so Sulzberger invested Abramson (elevated to managing editor) and her close friend Maureen Dowd with the power to go around Keller’s decisions.
Under Keller — really, under Pinch — the Times published several stories that damaged national security. The biggest was James Risen’s 2006 stories on the top-secret National Security Agency terrorist surveillance program. The Times held the NSA story for almost a year while Risen wrote a book about it, then published the same day the book was offered for sale. The story and the book were published despite personal appeals from President Bush. Another, about the secret cooperation of the Belgian “SWIFT” consortium in tracing terrorist financing, was equally damaging.
This was pure Pinch: eagerly publishing top-secret information not out of traitorous intent, but in willful blindness to the effects on national security just to damage George W. Bush.
Risen, who should be rotting in jail until he discloses his sources for the NSA story, is now being subpoenaed to testify in the trial of alleged leaker James Sterling. In a sworn affidavit filed last week in support of a motion to quash the subpoena, Risen testifies that his reporting of the NSA stories drew personal praise from Sulzberger.
Paragraph 8 of the affidavit says that in 2007 Risen received a personal letter from Sulzberger. It said, “Your investigative reporting has been an extraordinary asset to the paper since the day you joined us…But it has now become a central reason that our Washington report is admired by our readers — not to mention leaders around the nation and the world.” High praise for reporting that damaged national security and falsely accused the Bush administration of acting illegally.
Sulzberger wanted to take no chances in 2012. He has pushed Keller aside in favor of the even more liberal Abramson.
Abramson is as committed to liberal dogma as is Sulzberger. In 1999, she co-wrote a front page story buying into Hillary Clinton’s “vast right wing conspiracy” theory with “proofs” of a “small secret clique of lawyers in their 30s who share a deep antipathy toward the President.” She and her long-time friend Jane Mayer wrote the book Strange Justice about Clarence Thomas. That book became famous twice: once for its assault on Thomas, and later for the sheer number of factual errors and apparent fabrications in it. (Her record of faith to the liberal media culture is too long to recount here, but the Media Research Center’s Clay Waters reported a few of her “greatest hits” here.)
Abramson is a fan of the über-liberal Huffington Post. According to the Nation, feminism “has always been an explicit part of Abramson’s career.” That accounts for both the book about Thomas and the recent failed ethics attack on the sitting justice. Feminism is part of Abramson’s persona as well as that of her close friend and Times columnist Maureen Dowd (who, as she proved redundantly in her Sunday column, is evidently the leader of the Times‘ anti-Catholic binge).
Before Dowd, the Times’ anti-Catholic crusader was Anna Quindlen. And there will be others. Pinch finds Catholic women who are anti-Catholic and promotes them. more via Spectator
“Among Nigerian Muslims, nearly the same percentage favor making segregation of men and women in the workplace the law in their country (49%) as oppose it (48%)”
sadly the West has proposed the fight vs. Islam to be allied with feminism, but the truth is that feminism is a polarity of a fundamentalist patriarchy
So what will the feminists say about PORN NOW? Anything that is good is oppressive to women is my guess. I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for any sensible response.
|There are Rumors circulating…
that this story is fake.
I have not seen any proof of that claim…
I also am fairly certain that
Common sense will always defy those that reject difference or those who think they can stop difference through technology ….Gloria Steinem just did not get it. I understand she had her feelings hurt… and certainly we should not hurt women’s feelings and even lie to them if they can’t take the truth, but we can not let these non human ideas rule us. We aren’t cyborgs! I would be willing to bet that breast visuals help. no public relations from Gloria Steinem and friends can convince me otherwise. it might be interesting to see if boobies can help women too. Though I would be willing to bet that in certain conditions that boobies can raise your blood pressure.
Porn Hating Feminists and their Bully Alpha Males Wrong AGAIN?: Five-hundred men participated in the German study. Half were told to refrain from looking at breasts for five years, the other half were told to ogle them daily.
So the “Women’s voices” at Cosmo are now saying that SHOPPING is healthy. Though the timing is suspect… they are probably right.
|In a primate
where there is no monogamy
the burden of raising children
is on the women.
What does that tell you
about single mothers?
|see also USA Cheerleaders Wear Pants for Sharia|
got it wrong again. And I’m willing to bet that this is how the study was attempted. The irony is the feminists won the last presidential election because of SNOPES… and now we see how influential the site is on public opinion. SNOPES apparently had public opinion contained against common sense. Of course women’s boobs are good for men.h/t allamericanblogger.com