Category: New York Times

ZOMG! New York Times reports that President Obama is getting gray hairs!

Oh the horror of it all…. What will the Nation do? Our President is getting old. 🙄

You know damned well that it’s a slow news day when they start this business.

The New York Times:

Well, that didn’t take long. Just 44 days into the job, and President Obama is going gray.

It happens to all of them, of course — Bill Clinton still had about half a head of brown hair when he took office but was a silver fox two years later, and George W. Bush went from salt and pepper to just salt in what seemed like a blink of an eye.

But so soon? “I started noticing it toward the end of the campaign
and leading up to inauguration,” says Deborah Willis, who, as co-author
of “Obama: The Historic Campaign in Photographs,” pored through 5,000
photographs of the first head over the last year.

Mr. Obama’s graying is still of the flecked variety, and appears to
wax and wane depending on when he gets his hair cut, which he does
about every two weeks. His barber, who goes by only one name, Zariff,
takes umbrage with bloggers who alternately claim Mr. Obama, 47, is
dyeing his hair gray (to appear more distinguished) or dyeing it black
(to appear younger). “I can tell you that his hair is 100 percent
natural,” Zariff said. “He wouldn’t get it colored.”

And for all of his 16 years giving Mr. Obama his “quo vadis” haircut
— black parlance from the 1960s for close-cut locks — Zariff said he is
not about to start ribbing Mr. Obama. “We do not tease about the gray
at all,” he said.

For a guy who prides himself on projecting a stress-free demeanor,
the changes above his temples are speckled evidence that perhaps the
psychological and physical strains of the job — never mind the long
process of winning it — are in fact taking something of a toll.
(Experts say stress can contribute to whitening locks.)

Mr. Obama seems to have noticed it at least as far back as last
summer. “I’ve been running for president for about 19 months now,” he
told supporters at a campaign event in Virginia in August. “Folks are
noticing that I’ve got a lot more gray hair now than when I started.”

But with the economy struggling, two wars raging and countless other
pressures facing him, the president is very likely to see additional
signs of wear and tear in the mirror each morning.

Good Lord. The man is 47 years old. I am quite frankly surprised he did not start getting Gray sooner. Hell, I starting seeing my gray hairs when I was in my early 20’s or so. Did I flip out? For about a second, it was more of a sobering realization that my younger days were over and I was becoming a older man; and that I should at least try and act the part. I’m still working on that. 😉 😛 😀

I would sure as hell hate to see the poor man slip and break his arm or something. Damn news world would come to a screeching halt! 🙄 Not that I want him to really do all that, I’m just saying, that’s all. 😀

Of course, because I’m a Conservative; I must be the one to say it. If President Obama doesn’t do something here really quick and um, smart, to pull our economy out of the toilet and get our stock market out of the basement, He is really going to have some gray hairs coming pretty quick. I mean, Obama just started and he is really not getting off to a good start.

David Brooks says "Ooopsie! I was wrong about Bambi!"

I must confess, I find this to quite laughter provoking….:

Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”

Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between. On the left, there is a president who appears to be, as Crook says, “a conviction politician, a bold progressive liberal.” On the right, there are the Rush Limbaugh brigades. The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.

via Op-Ed Columnist, David Brooks – A Moderate Manifesto – NYTimes.com.

The smart mouthed punk part of me says, “Well then David… Why the fuck did you meet with that Communist shill for dinner then?!?!?”

However, I do try and conduct myself with a bit more decorum. (Well, I think so anyhow! 😉 :P)

The painful fact is that the Moderate Conservatives like Brooks and some Libertarians voted for the guy, because they were drawn into his slick style and smooth delivery of a speech.  I can cheerfully say, that I was not one of those people. I knew what Obama was about from day one. He was a Liberal. Any journalist or blogger who was not trying to swoon or slobber all over themselves about Obama could see this.

The facts are this; Obama tried to work with Conservatives, and tried the bipartisanship approach and it did not work. So, President Obama is going to further his agenda and quite frankly does not care what the Republican Party nor the Republicans and Conservatives who are in or out of power in D.C. think about it.

Is this wrong, evil, immoral, or fattening? Not necessarily.  Obama won the election. The Republican Party lost. Happens like that, when your past leader of eight years abandons his campaign promises and so forth.

The facts are that the Moderates got played, and played hard. Now they’re crying, “We were deceived!” Way I see it, that deception is a two way process. Takes actions on your part. Obama did not come by with a wand and go “Pwaaaang!” and put the Moderates under a spell and force them to vote for him. It took them to look at him and his record, and then they listened to his speeches, and decided to ignore his political record and voted for him.  I have zero pity for them, at all.

There’s ton of reaction to this on both sides of the political asle, and here it is: The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room, Donklephant, The Strata-Sphere, NO QUARTER, Right Wing News, The Other McCain, Grasping Reality …, Cold Fury, Crooked Timber, Commentary, NewsBusters.org, The Moderate Voice,  Matthew Yglesias, HotAir, Balloon Juice

Japan could serve as a lesson to the United States

Barack Obama could learn a lesson from Japan. There’s a very good article in the New York Times today, on the mistakes made by the country of Japan in the 1990’s to fix their failing economy:

The Hamada Marine Bridge soars majestically over this small fishing harbor, so much larger than the squid boats anchored below that it seems out of place.

And it is not just the bridge. Two decades of generous public works spending have showered this city of 61,000 mostly graying residents with a highway, a two-lane bypass, a university, a prison, a children’s art museum, the Sun Village Hamada sports center, a bright red welcome center, a ski resort and an aquarium featuring three ring-blowing Beluga whales.

Nor is this remote port in western Japan unusual. Japan’s rural areas have been paved over and filled in with roads, dams and other big infrastructure projects, the legacy of trillions of dollars spent to lift the economy from a severe downturn caused by the bursting of a real estate bubble in the late 1980s. During those nearly two decades, Japan accumulated the largest public debt in the developed world — totaling 180 percent of its $5.5 trillion economy — while failing to generate a convincing recovery.

Now, as the Obama administration embarks on a similar path, proposing to spend more than $820 billion to stimulate the sagging American economy, many economists are taking a fresh look at Japan’s troubled experience. While Japan is not exactly comparable to the United States — especially as a late developer with a history of heavy state investment in infrastructure — economists say it can still offer important lessons about the pitfalls, and chances for success, of a stimulus package in an advanced economy.

The Lesson to be learned here is:

“It is not enough just to hire workers to dig holes and then fill them in again,” said Toshihiro Ihori, an economics professor at the University of Tokyo. “One lesson from Japan is that public works get the best results when they create something useful for the future.

But the real lesson to be learned here is the follow and pay special close attention to what is said here:

In the end, say economists, it was not public works but an expensive cleanup of the debt-ridden banking system, combined with growing exports to China and the United States, that brought a close to Japan’s Lost Decade. This has led many to conclude that spending did little more than sink Japan deeply into debt, leaving an enormous tax burden for future generations.

Gee, is that not what Ron Paul said ALL ALONG, while he was running for President of the United States? For Ron Paul’s troubles and hard work he was slandered, maligned  and marginalized by the Neo-Conservatives who hated him and the Liberal Democrats who were sacred to death of him.

I highly suggest that you read the rest of this article. The United States could learn much from this lesson that Japan had to learn. We could very well end up causing more harm than good to our economy.

Others: Glenn Thrush’s Blogs, Hot Air, A Blog For All, Cafe Hayek, Weekly Standard and QandO

Panasonic to eliminate 15,000 Jobs

Another victim of the worldwide economic collapse:

Panasonic on Wednesday said that it was shedding 15,000 jobs, the second significant layoff in Japan’s electronics industry in less than a week, and the latest example of how Japanese companies, exporters in particular, are scrambling to cut costs as demand evaporates.

Panasonic, along with Mitsubishi Motors and Mazda, also joined the rapidly lengthening list of companies to sharply revise their full-year outlooks Wednesday, with Panasonic now projecting a net loss of 380 billion yen or $4.2 billion for the year ending March 31, rather than the 30 billion yen profit it forecast on Nov. 27. Mitsubishi expects a net loss of 60 billion yen and Mazda 13 billion.

The speed of the demand downturn in recent months has taken manufacturers and economists by surprise, and forced many companies to sharply lower profit warnings made only months or even weeks ago.

via Panasonic to Cut 15,000 Jobs – NYTimes.com.

I hate to sound like I am repeating myself. But this is more damage done by the Clinton Administration and the inaction of the Republican Majority of 2003. The easing of the housing loan regulations is what created all this, thus creating a economic bubble. Which has now burst. Of course, throwing money at it, will not fix it. Now, we have the tech sector taking the hit, because of the downturn in the economy. Expect more of this to come as time goes on.

New York Times turns on Daschle appointment

Now this is a switch!  It seems that the cheerleader section for the Obama Administration has basically thrown one of their own under the bus. How quaint.

Via the Ol’ Gray Lady:

When President Obama nominated former Senator Tom Daschle to be his secretary of health and human services, it seemed to be a good choice. Mr. Daschle, as the co-author of a book on health care reform, knew a lot about one of the president’s signature issues. As a former Senate majority leader, he also knew a lot about guiding controversial bills through Congress, where he remains liked and respected by former colleagues.

Unfortunately, new facts have come to light — involving his failure to pay substantial taxes that were owed and his sizable income from health-related companies while he worked in the private sector — that call into question his suitability for the job. We believe that Mr. Daschle ought to step aside and let the president choose a less-blemished successor.

Mr. Daschle’s tax shortfall is particularly troubling because it comes on the heels of another nominee’s failure to pay taxes due. We were not pleased when the president’s Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, admitted that he had failed to pay tens of thousands of dollars in federal self-employment taxes while working for the International Monetary Fund despite having signed paperwork acknowledging the obligation.

Now we are confronted with an even larger lapse by Mr. Daschle, who failed to pay $128,000 in taxes, primarily for personal use of a car and driver provided to him by a private equity firm for which he consulted. Although the firm — headed by a major Democratic donor — had not issued a form 1099 for the value of the car service, Mr. Daschle said he became concerned last June that he might owe taxes on it and instructed his accountant to investigate. Neither was concerned enough to actually pay the taxes.

[……]

In both the Geithner and Daschle cases, the failure to pay taxes is attributed to unintentional oversights. But Mr. Daschle is one oversight case too many. The American tax system depends heavily on voluntary compliance. It would send a terrible message to the public if we ignore the failure of yet another high-level nominee to comply with the tax laws.

[…..]

Mr. Daschle is another in a long line of politicians who move cozily between government and industry. We don’t know that his industry ties would influence his judgments on health issues, but they could potentially throw a cloud over health care reform. Mr. Daschle could clear the atmosphere by withdrawing his name.

I could sit here and tell you, that I am shocked that the New York Times is turning on this appointment. But honestly? I am not, and I will tell you why. Honesty and integrity go a long way in Government. It would be derelict of me, however not to point out that a few other Senators are guilty of the same thing. Like Al Franken and Charlie Rangel for instance. As this article above says, our tax system, as unfair and heavy handed as it might seem to some, does rely heavily on a voluntary compliance. The question is what kind of message does it sent to the American people, if we have tax cheats in our high ranking offices in the United States Government? Not a very good one, I am afraid.

The real question is; will President Obama heed the advice of the New York Times? Something tells me that he will not, because Obama has said in the past, that he is not going to make decisions based upon what other people think. (Kind of like the guy that proceeded him….) So, it will be interesting to watch this unfold. Obama, the man whom basically the New York Times and other Liberal media outlets elected basically tells those same people to stow it and does what he wants to. Now that will make for some interesting blogging!

Update: It is being reported now, by various outlets that Tom Daschle has withdrawn his name.

Others on the subject:  Commentary,  Hot Air, , Soccer Dad, Power Line,  Riehl World View

(Via Memeorandum)

Kristol gets the boot from the New York Times

Yes, I know about the story, and yes, I even read his final column.

I did not read Kristol much, I did not care for his writing style. Where Peggy Noonan‘s writings are thoughtful, wistful and draw one back to an era of Conservative goodness in America; which appeals to the history buff in me. Kristol’s writings were more jaunted, vengeful and frankly, a bit screechy for my tastes.  In essense, his writings were more of a Ann Coulter vein, than anything else.

..and Yes, the facts were wrong at times. This why I tended to avoid his column. Not to mention the fact that he seemed to be “Sucking up” to Obama at the end.

So, while I am suprised at his leaving the Times, I cannot say that I did not see it coming.

Others on the subject: (Color coded as to thier politics) The New Republic, Firedoglake, Michael Calderone’s Blogs, Guardian, RedState, The Corner, Newsweek, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Ben Smith’s Blogs, BuzzFlash.org, TPMCafe, The Mahablog, The Reaction, Gawker, AmSpecBlog, theheretik.us, driftglass, Political Machine, TBogg, Liberal Values, Sister Toldjah, If I Ran the Zoo, ATTACKERMAN, Discourse.net, Prairie Weather and No More Mister Nice Blog

(via Memeorandum)

New York Times Co. in Talks With Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim for needed much needed money

Now this is quite interesting:

The New York Times Co. is in discussions with Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim about investing in the newspaper publisher to help ease its financial problems, according to people familiar with the matter.

The talks are ongoing and may yet fall apart but one of the options being discussed is a preferred-stock issue. Under this scenario, the Times Co. would issue Mr. Slim preferred stock, which carries no voting right but pays an annual dividend, in return for his investment. The investment would be similar to a loan. Preferred shares are often convertible into common stock after a defined period.

via New York Times Co. in Talks With Carlos Slim on Preferred Stock Investment – WSJ.com (Sub Required).

Interesting…. The New York Post picks it up:

The 68-year-old telecommunications tycoon is said to be discussing a large purchase of preferred shares. The talks are ongoing and may fall apart, as they probably would need the consent of the Sulzberger family, including publisher Arthur Sulzberger, who control the media powerhouse through its ownership of preferred shares.

The preferred shares under discussion would carry no voting rights, but pay a dividend, according to the report. His current stake puts Slim among the largest non-Sulzberger owners of the Times.

The Times is under the gun to raise cash as a $400 million credit line expires in May. The recession has squeezed the paper, which reported a 21 percent drop in ad revenue in November.

The newspaper has made some drastic moves recently to increase cash flow and to raise the needed money, including:

* An ongoing attempt to raise $225 million by selling its 58 percent stake in the new 52-story Midtown skyscraper and then leasing the office space.

* Putting its 17.5 percent stake in New England Sports Ventures, the parent of the Boston Red Sox, on the block. That could raise about $150 million.

* Layoffs and buyouts at the flagship New York Times and its Boston Globe property.

* Cutting back its dividend to investors for three years.

* The recent move to reduce the number of standalone sections and to sell advertising for the first time on Page 1 of the Times.

For Slim, fattening up his stake in the Times would expand his already sizeable holdings. The mogul controls Telmex, which handles about 90 percent of Mexico’s land-based telephone service, and Telcel, which has an 80 percent market share on the country’s cell business.

In 1997, just before Apple launched its iMac line, Slim bought a 3 percent stake in the tech company at a split-adjusted price of about $4.50 a share. Apple closed Friday at $82.33.

Just Warren Buffet, worth about $62 billion, according to Forbes, is richer than Slim. Bill Gates, for years the richest man in the world, is worth about $58 billion, the magazine said.

Very interesting indeed, it is indeed a sign of the times. It does kind of bother me, that the NYT would go south of the border to get someone to put money into their company. Is there not any millionaires here in America? Where’s all those Liberal Hollywood celebrities that cater to those mindless loons that make that newspaper?

I would go off on a “Bill O’Rielly” sounding rant and say it’s because of their bias. But I won’t, because I’m just a bit more honest than that. The Economy is bad, old Media is become the thing of the past, the internet is killing traditional media. hey, times change, either you keep up or your outmoded. Just that simple.

But, damn, what the hell are they gonna call the old gray lady now? The Taco-Head Times? D’oh!  Doh

Others: Yourish.com, Gawker, Gothamist, Don Surber, MediaMemo, Doug Ross, Silicon Alley Insider, 24Ahead, Don Surber and JammieWearingFool

US Rejects Aid to Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuke Site

This is quite the interesting read.

Via the NYT:

President Bush deflected a secret request by Israel last year for specialized bunker-busting bombs it wanted for an attack on Iran’s main nuclear complex and told the Israelis that he had authorized new covert action intended to sabotage Iran’s suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons, according to senior American and foreign officials.

White House officials never conclusively determined whether Israel had decided to go ahead with the strike before the United States protested, or whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel was trying to goad the White House into more decisive action before Mr. Bush left office. But the Bush administration was particularly alarmed by an Israeli request to fly over Iraq to reach Iran’s major nuclear complex at Natanz, where the country’s only known uranium enrichment plant is located.

The White House denied that request outright, American officials said, and the Israelis backed off their plans, at least temporarily. But the tense exchanges also prompted the White House to step up intelligence-sharing with Israel and brief Israeli officials on new American efforts to subtly sabotage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a major covert program that Mr. Bush is about to hand off to President-elect Barack Obama.

This account of the expanded American covert program and the Bush administration’s efforts to dissuade Israel from an aerial attack on Iran emerged in interviews over the past 15 months with current and former American officials, outside experts, international nuclear inspectors and European and Israeli officials. None would speak on the record because of the great secrecy surrounding the intelligence developed on Iran.

For some reason or another, I feel like the New York Times has just sold the United States right to secrecy up the river by revealing this. But on the other hand, I can see why Bush would do something like this. Bush was already mired in the war in Iraq. He knew our presence in Iraq was already causing tension in the middle east and knew also that sending these sort of bombs over to Israel to be used in Iran would just add to that tension. I give Bush a point here, he may have just done the right thing, but just telling Israel “no go” on these type of weapons. As it could have caused more problems that it might have fixed.

The interviews also indicate that Mr. Bush was convinced by top administration officials, led by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, that any overt attack on Iran would probably prove ineffective, lead to the expulsion of international inspectors and drive Iran’s nuclear effort further out of view. Mr. Bush and his aides also discussed the possibility that an airstrike could ignite a broad Middle East war in which America’s 140,000 troops in Iraq would inevitably become involved.

Instead, Mr. Bush embraced more intensive covert operations actions aimed at Iran, the interviews show, having concluded that the sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies were failing to slow the uranium enrichment efforts. Those covert operations, and the question of whether Israel will settle for something less than a conventional attack on Iran, pose immediate and wrenching decisions for Mr. Obama.

The covert American program, started in early 2008, includes renewed American efforts to penetrate Iran’s nuclear supply chain abroad, along with new efforts, some of them experimental, to undermine electrical systems, computer systems and other networks on which Iran relies. It is aimed at delaying the day that Iran can produce the weapons-grade fuel and designs it needs to produce a workable nuclear weapon.

Knowledge of the program has been closely held, yet inside the Bush administration some officials are skeptical about its chances of success, arguing that past efforts to undermine Iran’s nuclear program have been detected by the Iranians and have only delayed, not derailed, their drive to unlock the secrets of uranium enrichment.

[…]

Early in his presidency, Mr. Obama must decide whether the covert actions begun by Mr. Bush are worth the risks of disrupting what he has pledged will be a more active diplomatic effort to engage with Iran.

Either course could carry risks for Mr. Obama. An inherited intelligence or military mission that went wrong could backfire, as happened to President Kennedy with the Bay of Pigs operation in Cuba. But a decision to pull back on operations aimed at Iran could leave Mr. Obama vulnerable to charges that he is allowing Iran to speed ahead toward a nuclear capacity, one that could change the contours of power in the Middle East.

Which proves what I have said time and again, our Government is not stupid, we know what we can get away with and what we cannot. Bush was not going to send our troops into a bloodbath. So, I give Bush credit here, he averted a major problem. However, I do see that Obama is going to have his work cut out for him in the White House. Iran is not going to go away quietly. If anything, with the gas market collapsing, Iran might just get a bit worse during Obama tenure. I just hope that, unlike Kennedy; Obama makes the right call on this issues, because if he does not, The United States could have some serious problems on its hands.

I strongly encourage you to go over to the NYT and read the rest of that report. It is quite the interesting read. Some would take away from it, that Bush was showing deference to the Arabs, but I think that it is much more than just that; in the sense that Bush knew that he would be getting in over his head. This is why he refused the Israelis permission to do flyovers and target Iranian targets.

Others: Associated Press, The Muqata, Israel Matzav, The Moderate Voice, RBO, Power Line, Hot Air, Israpundit, The Raw Story, Jihad Watch, Lawyers, Guns and Money, Weekly Standard, Balloon Juice and THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS

Toyota is feeling the pinch too.

So much for that stupid  Neo-Con line saying that the slump in auto sales is the automakers fault.

Via the New York Times:

TOKYO — Toyota Motor will idle its plants in Japan for 11 days in February and March to reduce output in the face of steeply declining global vehicle sales, the company said Tuesday.

The Japanese auto giant said the suspension would affect production at all 12 of its directly operated domestic plants, which include four vehicle assembly plants and also factories that make transmissions, engines and other parts. The closings are in addition to a three-day shutdown this month at these plants that Toyota had already announced.

The move is unusual for a company that just a few months ago seemed unable to keep up with voracious global demand for its fuel-efficient vehicles. But even strong players like Toyota have failed to escape the drastic slowdown in the global auto industry.

The company said it would idle the plants to reduce stocks of unsold vehicles amid a relentless slide in sales, particularly in the United States, its biggest market. Last month, Toyota’s sales there dropped 37 percent, a larger decline than at its struggling American rivals General Motors and Ford.

Plunging sales and a stronger Japanese yen, which reduces the yen value of overseas profits, forced Toyota to forecast last month its first annual loss in 70 years at its vehicle-making operations.

Toyota did not say how many vehicles would be affected by the suspension announced Tuesday. The company said its four domestic assembly plants produced 1.5 million vehicles in 2007, the most recent year for which the company has figures. Toyota-brand cars are also made by other companies in the Toyota group.

The company had already announced that it would shut down truck production at two United States plants for three months

Its American rivals — General Motors, Ford Motor and Chrysler — have also idled plants across North America in response to the slowdown.

For once, I am in agreement with a Liberal, and yes, it is the same knuckle-headed liberal that insulted Conservatives. Hey, I am one that praises when it’s due and bitches when it’s due too; At least I’m fair. 😉 😀 😛

Matthew Yglesias Weighs in:

This is the conceptual problem with efforts to “save” the car industry through bailouts or union busting or whatever you like. One assumes demand for cars will get higher than it is right now, but the industry has a whole just has more capacity to build cars than there is demand for new cars. Which is fine. When you look across the developed world and try to take stock of the medium- and long-run problems facing the OECD nations there’s just no way you’re going to reach the conclusion that an automobile shortage is a big concern. But obviously it’s not fine for the companies that make cars. There’s going to be a need for some shrinkage.

Yeah, I know, most likely some of the Conservatives who are basically scraping my blog for content are going to try and deride me as a fake conservative, because I stick up for the middle class and because I happen to be the son of retired General Motors Worker and U.A.W. member. Well, I got two words; screw you and the rest of the asshole Madison Ave. Conservatives. 😡

Anyhow, I happen to agree with Matthew here, I live here in the Detroit Area. If the auto industry dies, so does this area. That will cause my parents to suffer, they need the health insurance, as they are both diabetic and the amount of medications that they take is staggering.  Anyhow, this article above disproves and basically strikes down the “Meme” that was going around in the Conservative Blogosphere that the issues with the auto industry was the fault of the automakers. Which I totally dismissed as abject bullshit of the highest order. It was the fault of President Clinton for putting pressure on the loan companies to give those toxic subprime loans to those who were considered high risk. That is what started this whole thing. Of course, equal blame can be given to the Republican Congress of 2003 for not changing the laws, after all, they were warned by the Bush White House to do something; and they did nothing at all.

Best thing they could do, was have a hearing, of which the CEO of Freddie Mac pulled the race card, and congress backed off. So, all the blaming of the Auto Companies was nothing more than a feeble attempt by the Republicans at scapegoating the wrong damned people.

Here’s hoping that Japan’s auto industry totally collapses and people, both American and otherwise, have to buy American products, for a change!

Harpy White Bitch Sues New York Times

Wonderful. As if the gray lady did not have enough trouble. Some Ann Coulter wanna-be is filing a lawsuit for getting smeared by the New York Times:

Washington lobbyist Vicki L. Iseman has filed a $27 million defamation lawsuit against The New York Times for a February article about Iseman and her relationship with Sen. John McCain.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond on Tuesday, alleges the article falsely communicated that Iseman and McCain had an illicit “romantic” relationship in 1999 when he was chair of the Senate Commerce Committee and she was a lobbyist representing clients before Congress.

The suit also names the executive editor of the Times, its Washington bureau chief and four reporters who wrote the story as defendants.

William Keller, the paper’s executive editor, did not respond to an e-mail requesting comment on the suit.

The New York Times has responded:

“We fully stand behind the article.  We continue to believe it to be true and accurate, and that we will prevail. As we said at the time, it was an important piece that raised questions about a presidential contender and the perception that he had been engaged in conflicts of interest.”

Roger L. Simon says this could spell trouble:

I have no direct knowledge of the case or of Iseman, but if I were the Times, I would be afraid. I would be very afraid. They have a lot more to lose than the 27 million bucks in the suit. Their reputation is already tarnished and their bottom line diminishing. If Iseman can prove her case to the public’s satisfaction, it will constitute yet more bruising and a serious humiliation for the sometime “newspaper of record”.  Those who have been accusing them of being nothing more than a scandal sheet – and a biased one at that, unlike the National Enquirer –  will be vindicated.  Indeed, if Ms. Iseman wins her case, the Times’ editors and publisher will be revealed to have been simultaneously boneheaded and despicable – an ugly combination indeed.

I just wonder, if she happens to win and takes over ownership of the paper, whom will she make the Editor? Ann Coulter? 🙄

Way I see it, if she wasn’t bobbing the knob. Then honestly, what is the problem?

Can you say, cashing in? I knew you could! 😀

(Via Memeornadum)