David Brooks wrote an Op-Ed in The New York Times on January 16th that opined that the "poor deserved their fate", and that "income inequallity...is being misconceved".
You can read this at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/opinion/brooks-the-inequality-problem.html?_r=2
Let ask ourselves - just what has David Brooks done that he deserves any more than you and I?
Last Year I posted two essays here on Room 8 on the topic of "actual crime" versus "perception of crime" and the media's portrayal of and impact on both. The current indicator of crime by the NYPD is the CompStat report, which tallies seven crimes weekly and does a comparative of these numbers in a variety of ways. These reports are readily available to the public via each police precinct's webpage, found here.
The New York Times has endorsed Bill de Blasio for a position that no one's sure should even exist. It's a position so embarrassing that it can only be released in a lightly read Saturday newspaper.
My opinion (shared by many) is that the Public Advocate position should not exist.
My "public advocate moment of zen" happened way back in the 1990s, when I was championing appreciation for model Audrey Munson. Miss Munson had posed for the statue "Civic Fame" on top of the Municipal Building (and just a few floors above the Public Advocate's office). I discovered that Miss Munson had also posed for "Miss Manhattan" for the Manhattan Bridge (now at the Brooklyn Museum), Miss Munson was the lady in the Plaza Hotel Fountain, and she was very much else. Munson was the first person to pose nude in film (re-creating her famous poses), but had fallen into obscurity and had lived that last 60 years of her life (she died at age 104 in 1996) in a mental institution. The New York Times had just written a Munson piece about my research for its City section.
"I never killed or injured anyone." -- William Ayers in The New York Times, December 6, 2008.
The New York Times has no shame.
On June 9, 1970, New York City's police headquarters was bombed. Seven people were injured. Thousands of dollars of property damage was inflicted.
The Weather Underground--Ayers' group--was behind this bombing. We do not know if Ayers himself planned, assisted, and/or conducted the bombing. (We know that Jane Alpert was involved.) Personally, I believe that Ayers knew in advance about this bombing that injured several New Yorkers. Maybe in Ayers' mind this was a "protest of the Vietnam War," but this was a violent attack on New York City.
An article in the business section of the Sunday New York Times is: "Just What This Downturn Demands: A Consumption Tax." It is completely, utterly wrong.
A recession/depression economy needs fewer taxes, for the simple reason that people have less money and can't pay them.
A consumption tax would kill consumption. New York City's many stores would be hard hit. An ailing Detroit would be knocked out. Who wants to buy a car--even a new, energy-efficient car--only to be socked with taxes? Who would buy a new advanced computer or a new advanced tv? More people would hang on to old, outdated, energy-inefficient clunkers.
WHY WOULD RUDY AND THE OTHERS WANT TO ADVERTIZE IN THE NEW YORK TRAITOR TIMES
I am at loss for words why you "ALL" would want to give money to the NEW YORK TRAITOR TIMES.
Thats like buying "EVIL", "ROAD SIDE BOMBS" to kill our troops with.
What you "ALL" should do is ask people not to "BUY" the paper.
What you "ALL" should do is ask advertisers not to advertize in the paper.
I believe that the New York Traitor Times could have, and should have said NO to the AD.
Now if you "ALL" want to "GIVE" money I suggest the two groups below
NAVY SEAL WARRIOR FUND
Special Operations Warriors Foundation" WWW.SPECIALOPS.ORG
We were all wondering what the New York Times would do. Wonder no more.
Hevesi has reached that "Nixon moment," that time when even your friends tell you to pack it in. Wow!:
In case you missed it, we thought it worth noting that prolific Room Eight contributor, Jerry Skurnik, makes an appearance in today's New York Observer Wise Guys column.
The Observer folk were apparently quite taken by Jerry's earlier analysis on the extent campaigns go to crack The New York Times endorsement code - a piece that appeared on Room Eight this past weekend.
Jerry elaborates further on this point today...
There is a general belief among people active in politics that a candidate who challenges his or her opponent’s petitions forfeits any chance of receiving the New York Times endorsement or at the very least guarantees criticism by The Times of such “undemocratic” tactics.
Many, including me, think that fear is what prevented the Ferrer campaign from challenging the petitions of Christopher Brodeur & Art Piccolo for Mayor even though leaving them on the ballot increased the likelihood of a Primary Run-off.
I don’t agree with this view. I think that the Times Editorial Board considers a number of factors in deciding whom to endorse and whether a candidate takes advantage of the election law is a relatively minor one.
Bienvenidos a la blogosphere!
To the most mystified of readers, here's what Healy and the gang at The New York Times have in store for you every minute of every day:
Daily Gotham coups this sneak peak of the yet-to-be-published New York Times local political blog ...
One doesn’t have to be a friend of Al D’Amato to think that this NY Times story about Bill Weld and Al is unfair to D’Amato - starting with the headline - Hints of Truth-Stretching in Weld-D'Amato Feud and continuing throughout.
The premise that both Weld & D’Amato are not telling the whole truth is probably technically correct. But whereas Al is wrong about a relatively minor point - when they first met, Mr. Weld is shown to be telling whoppers about everything else. He is wrong about when Al gave him money, about how much money Al gave him and about whether Al threatened him.
A show of Republican consolidation reports Patrick Healy of The New York Times.