New York Times bias #1231

Immediately after the Hamas massacre of hundreds of Israeli civilians, The New York Times and the Democratic establishment supported a strong Israeli response. Since then, however, there has been a groundswell of opposition to that response, and The Times and establishment Dems are shifting their position to mirror their political base. (Ernest Hemingway once described going bankrupt – “Gradually, then suddenly.”) Today, The Times is clearly past the “gradually” phase of deserting Israel and has moved to the “suddenly” phase.

The headline on the cover of The New York Times Magazine – “Israel’s Extremist Takeover. For decades, violence and terrorism by Jewish ultranationalists have gone unpunished – enabling the growth of a movement that now threatens the country itself.” For decades? Interesting timing to finally report on it.

Page Three column by Nicholas Kristof – “Invading Rafah Doesn’t Help Israel.” Kristof concludes his column by writing, “On balance, it seems to me that Biden is more clearly on Israel’s side than Netanyahu it.”

All of this new opposition to the Israeli government is apparently in the best interests of Israel, as determined not by Israelis, but by Biden, Kristof, and The Times.

New York Times bias #1230

Sunday headline, top, middle three columns – “The Antisemitic Tropes Echoed by Republicans.”

So despite reports to the contrary, The Times is plowing old ground to charge that the GOP is antisemitic, not the Dems. Hmmmm.

The four paragraphs of the article on the front page actually report on those contrary reports – i.e., prominent Republicans defending Jews and Israel and decrying Democratic antisemitism and protests. But as the article moves to Page 14, it finally attempts to substantiate the headline with allegations – “But far less attention has been paid to a trend on the right: For all of their rhetoric of the moment, increasingly through the Trump era, many Republicans have helped inject into the mainstream thinly veiled anti-Jewish messages with deep historical roots.

What follows is two full pages (14 and 15), mostly consisting of a diagram with repetitive quotes surrounding its restated allegation – “How Republicans Echo Antisemitic Tropes (Despite Declaring Support for Jews).” Of the seventeen quotes, ten include the term “globalist.” Six include the term “Soros.”

Apparently, The Times considers it antisemitic to rail against globalism and George Soros. Trump is quoted saying, “Soros believes that in 2024 he will cement his legacy as the architect behind the complete transformation of America into a Third World Marxist nation.” And, “I will not be silenced for calling out the billionaire puppeteer who has wreaked havoc on our borders, our justice system, and our nation.” And, “The man behind the curtain who’s destroying our country, endangering our citizens, and putting you dead last wants to obliterate the America First movement.” And, “Soros will stop at nothing to try and destroy our MAGA movement. You represent the greatest threat to the Left’s globalist regime. Or Speaker Mike Johnson says, “Soros-selected DA refuses to prosecute violent crimes.” Or Elise Stefanik says, “George Soros is trying to fund the downfall of America by buying elections for radical Far Left politicians and corrupting the next generation to support terror groups.”

The Times irrationally and falsely concludes, without evidence, that opposition to Far Left money-man George Soros, who happens to be Jewish, is antisemitic, and that opposition to globalism in favor of nationalism is antisemitic. There is no discussion of Soros’s involvement in the American political process, which is comparable to the Kochs, on the Right. There is no discussion of why America First would be antipathetic to globalism. See Brexit. It’s difficult to discuss issues with people who primarily base their thinking on emotion instead reason.

I wonder if Israel and Jews prefer GOP support that arguably includes some troubling code words and tropes over the Dems with their cease-fire protests and war-strategy interference?

p.s., The Times often uses the term “trope” in the context of antisemitism. In fact, it is almost exclusively used in that context. There is maybe some use associated with racial bigotry. Without bothering to look up its definition, I inferred it meant bigotry. One day, however, I looked up its meaning – “a common or overused theme or device: cliche.

I wonder if other readers of The Times are aware that a trope is not evil. I wonder if The Times knows.

Sunday Book Review #171 – “big, wonderful thing,” by Stephen Harrigan

The 2019 book, 829 pages, is subtitled, “A History of Texas.” I learned of Stephen Harrigan while reading “God Save Texas,” by Lawrence Wright. Both Harrigan and Wright spent much of their careers in Austin writing for the monthly Texas Monthly. While I found Wright like a typical jugmental liberal/progressive Austinite, I held out hope that Harrigan had more appreciation for Texas.

Unfortunately, “big, wonderful thing” disappointed me. Although Harrigan presents a more neutral attitude towards Texas’ history than ‘s Wright’s distaste, I sensed that he had to “bite his tongue” often to avoid interjecting his modern Austin sensibilities. The book felt like a journalist straining to be dispassionate.

Just as importantly, I never felt pulled into a narrative. Rather, the book seemed like a collection of vignettes. The 20th-century vignettes were more interesting because of my previous familiarity with most of them, but they didn’t seem to contribute to or advance any narrative:

• Audie Murphy
• Giant, the movie
• The Tower Shooting, at UT
• Roy Orbison, the singer
• Roe v. Wade, the abortion decision
• the Hunt brothers, cornering silver
• David Koresh, the Waco conflagration
• Ross Perot

Harrigan is not a professional historian, and he admits that he needed much persuasion before taking on the formidable task of writing a history book on Texas.

Before finalizing my judgment of this book, I decided to read a history written by a real historian, so I Googled “the definitive history of Texas.” The clear choice was “Lone Star,” by T.R. Fehrenback in 1980. Surprisingly, Fehrenback was not a professional historian, either, but rather a columnist for the SA Express-News when I moved to SA in 1987. I vaguely recall reading his column, but not giving him a lot of credibility because he was merely a local guy. I look forward to learning more about him.

New York Times bias #1228 & 1229

#1228 – Page A17 – Headline – “Mimicking ‘Former Guy,’ Biden Dishes Out the Insults.”

“Gone are the days of calling Mr. Trump ‘my predecessor.’ ‘We’ll never forget lying about Covid and telling the American people to inject bleach in their arms,’ Mr. Biden said at a fundraiser on Thursday evening.”

The Times described the above as needling, but not false. A fact-check by Newsweek had previously concluded this allegation is false:

• Trump did speculatively raise the question of medical experts researching disinfectants as a possible COVID treatment, which Psaki was alluding to. And though he initially touted an “injection inside or a cleaning,” he clarified in the same press conference that any treatment he was speculating on would not be through injections.
• Despite Trump’s dubious, conjectural and inarticulate comments, he did not directly suggest that people inject themselves with disinfectant.

#1229 – Page A17 – Headline – “In Howard Stern Interview, Biden Delves Into His Past With Defining Stories.”

“At another point, Mr. Biden appeared to once again stretch the truth about being arrests at a Delaware desegregation protest as a teenager. There is no evidence that he was ever arrested at a civil-rights protest.”

Notice the false statement is not modified by the Trumpian terms “falsely said” or “lied.” Instead, the benign modification of “stretching the truth” is used.

New York Times bias #1227

A huge article that consumed all of page A3 (other than an ad) was headlined – “Vilification of Muslims Is a Brazen Display of Modi’s Power.” Obviously, this article was intended to continue The Times’ battle against Modi for ostensibly preferring India’s majority Hindus over its minority Muslims.

The context for the article was set out in Paragraph Two – “His silence provided tacit backing as vigilante groups continued to target non-Hindu minority groups and as member’s of his party routinely used hateful and racist language…. With the pot kept boiling, Mr. Modi’s subtle dog whistles – with references to Muslim dress or burial places – could go a long way domestically while providing enough deniability to ensure that red carpets remained rolled out abroad for the man leading the world’s largest democracy.”

And Paragraph Three set out the specific allegation – “Just what drove the prime minister to break with this calculated pattern in a fiery speech on Sunday – when he referred to Muslims by name as ‘infiltrators’ with ‘more children’ who would get India’s wealth if his opponents took power – has been hotly debated.”

As I read Paragraphs Two and Three, I was reminded of the way The Times routinely attacks conservatives and especially former President Trump re: illegal immigration (and the replacement theory). So I wanted to know the specific rhetorical context for the specifically quoted terms – infiltrators and more children. But unfortunately, as I read the remainder of the article, the critical terms were not mentioned while The Times launched into a broad attack on Modi — until 15 paragraphs later when there was an explanation from a Modi-party spokesman – “Mr. Modi was referring to ‘intruders’ or ‘illegal immigrants’ who the party claims are being used by the political opposition to ‘redefine the demography.'” Inexplicably, The Times fails to respond to or explain this denial/explanation, and simply returns to its broad attack. I have previously read that the dispute concerns that fact that Hindu immigrants have an easier path to immigration from certain countries due to asylum-type issues, not unlike America doing the same thing with people from Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, etc.

This situation is amazingly similar to Trump making critical comments about illegal immigrants to America, and The Times distorting the comment to be directed at all 200 million Muslims in India. Instead of repetitively using Best Practices, The Times is repetitively using its worst practices.

New York Times bias #1226

My posts under this title typically involve discrete items in a specific paper. Today is an exception because I want to include two widespread items found across the mainstream media, including the New York Times.

The first item is the common portrayal of the southern border problem as something Biden wants to fix, but can’t because the House refused to accept the bipartisan Senate proposal. “My hands are tied,” Biden crows. But nowhere in the mainstream media does anyone ask why Biden’s hands were not tied when Congress refused to forgive the student debt of Biden’s partisan base – i.e., failed college students. Rarely a month passes without the Biden administration announcing some new education directive that serves as a work-around the Will of Congress. Why can’t he do the same to reduce illegal immigration?

Furthermore, the mainstream media ganged-up on the GOP House for failing to address the Senate immigration deal, but failed to note that Democratic Senate had declined to take up the GOP House-passed bill that addressed immigration. I wish the House passage of Ukraine foreign aid had required the Senate to take a vote on HR-2, although I suspect it would have failed due to disciplined Democrats in the Senate.

On the related issue, foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel, and South Korea, much is made of the cost of $80 billion, but I have not seen anyone in the mainstream media compare that cost to the cost of student-loan forgiveness, which is much greater. Even the latest directive, by itself alone, exceeded the cost of the foreign-aid bill. And more importantly, the mainstream media gives the Biden administration a free pass when the administration crows that the forgiveness will free-up its partisan base to resume the purchases of a normal consumer lifestyle. Nowhere in our world of troubling inflation is there any discussion of the effect of this renewed purchasing on our stubborn inflation. Why not?

The answer seems obvious when you consider the comment of the NPR critic/editor who recently said that it was common for storylines to be killed if they hurt Biden. Nothing is worth the price of hurting BIden or helping Trump.

New York Times bias #1225

An open letter to The Times on April 7:

Your headline reads, “Patients Hit With Big Bills….”  Your lede reveals a woman going to an out-of-network doctor for a complex hourslong procedure and getting balance-billed for more than $100k. 

The obvious questions – Why did the woman go out-of-network?  Why did the doctor bill more than $100k?  What did her insurance contract promise regarding out-of-network services?

Inexplicably, your three-page article failed to address any of those questions. Instead its entire focus was on the compensation of a firm that was paid by an insurer to determine how much was owed to the out-of-network doctor. 

I wish your articles were less concerned about creating outrage and more concerned about providing balanced, unbiased information. 

Sincerely, 

Mike Kueber mike.kueber@gmail.com

San Antonio, TX

210.380.7436

New York Times bias #1224

I have always been troubled by The Times proclivity for labeling Trump statements as “false.” Or even, “without evidence.” These labels are often tied to statements regarding 2020 election fraud, but are also used with other subjects. Who determines a particular statement is false? Swope? Politifact? The Times never bothers to say. And I have never heard The Times use the same labels when other politicians say something that is patently false.

The correct practice? The Times yesterday showed it knows how to handle this issue in the context of the Wall Street journalist detained in Russia for espionage. The Times reported, “The Journal and the US government have vehemently denied that Mr. Gershikovich is a spy.” I suspect The Times has taken care in this matter because The Journal and the US govt. may be lying and the reporter may be a spy.

The Times probably isn’t concerned that the 2020 election will be reversed because of fraud, but in any event it would be helpful to The Times’ credibility (and unbias) to attribute its lying characterization to some other organization. It’s not The Times’ job to tell readers when politicians are lying. (One of my favorite practices of theirs is to report that the Southern Poverty Center has labeled some group as racist.)

The media reports, readers decide.

p.s., in next day’s paper, The Times resorted to its past proclivities by declaring, “Ms. Lake made a name for herself by falsely claiming that Democrats stole the Arizona election for Mr. Biden in 2020, then falsely claiming that her Democratic opponent in the governor’s race, Katie Hobbs, stole her election.” No indication who made this determination. Perhaps The Times declares her position false because Kari Lake and others have been unable to prove a theft, but that doesn’t slow them from declaring January 6 participants from being insurrectionists although the Attorney General has not secured any convictions for insurrection.

Sunday Book Review #170 – How to Know a Person

“How to Know a Person” was written by David Brooks. Brooks used to be one of my favorite columnists at the NT Times. He replaced William Safire many years ago, and Safire was previously my favorite, not only because of his enlightened conservative bent, but his interest in words and writing. As Brooks notes in “How to Know a Person,” he was selected to replace Safire because Brooks was a so-called conservative, but just as importantly, not so conservative to irritate the Times’ rabid liberal base.

Since his hiring, Brooks has drifted left and I have drifted right. For that reason, I no longer appreciate his perspective on most things. As James Carville said earlier this week, the Democratic Party is losing its minority base because it has been subjugated by lecturing women and Wokeness. Count Brooks as part of that movement.

Brooks starts his book by describing Diminishers and Illuminators. Diminishers make people feel small and unseen; Illuminators make people feel respected, lit up. Funny story – Churchill’s mother dined with William Gladstone and left thinking he was the cleverest person in England. A few days later she dined with Benjamin Disraeli and left thinking she was the cleverest person in England. Brooks suggests it is better to be like Disraeli for a plethora of reasons, practically and spiritually, and this book is designed to show you the way.

First step – see each person as a unique individual:

1. Some obstacles to seeing – egotism (self-centered), anxiety and insecurity, failing to appreciate that everyone’s perspective is different and unique from ours, limited information about the other person, stereotyping, and failure to modify based on new information.
2. Some tools to becoming an Illuminator – tenderness, receptivity, active curiosity, affection, generosity, and a holistic attitude.

A small first step – “accompaniment.” “Small talk and just casually being around someone is a vastly underappreciated stage in the process of getting to know someone. Sometimes you learn more about a person by watching how they talk to a waiter than by asking some profound question about their philosophy of life.” I think Brooks could have made his point better by using a more subtle example than the too obvious “treatment of a waiter” example. I’ve heard the same point made about playing golf with someone, and I’m sure Brooks could list several mundane, prosaic examples that reveal one’s character.

The next step – “a good talk.” This reminds me of a concept I first learned from a Catholic philosopher whose name I can’t recall who talked about commonplace “encounters,” like sitting next to a stranger on a train/subway/airplane flight. Brooks focuses more on people that you probably already have a relationship with. In any event, he says that if you can engage in a good talk, you’ll be able to understand the people around you, and if you fail, you will constantly misread them and make them feel misread. “A good conversation is not a group of people making a series of statements at each other. A good conversation is an act of joint exploration.” Suggestions:

1. Treat attention as an on/off switch, not a dimmer (be there).
2. Be a loud (active) listener.
3. Favor familiarity.
4. Make them authors, not witnesses.
5. Don’t fear the pause.
6. Do the looping (repeat what was heard to ensure accuracy.

Asking the right questions.

After laying the groundwork for achieving a good talk in the context of healthy cultural environment, Brooks shifts to conversations in “an environment with political animosities, technological dehumanization, and social breakdown.” He suggests one strategy for so-called “hard conversations” – i.e., conversations across differences and across perceived inequalities. Instead of trying to win an argument by reframing the issue, it is better to avoid that temptation and discuss the matter from their perspective. That makes sense if you aren’t debating something and are more interested in making a connection.

Brooks has a separate chapter dealing with a severely depressed friend. Unfortunately, Brooks’s lifelong best friend recently committed suicide.

A separate chapter on empathy. Obstacles – avoidance, deprivation, overreactivity, and passive aggressive (indirect expression of anger). Ironically, most great men have one of these so-called “sacred flaws,” and it supports their lifetime success. Further, introspection does not cure these flaws; communication does. To improve your empathy:

1. Contact theory (get exposed to others; don’t isolate)
2. Literature
3. Emotion spotting
4. Suffering

Although Brooks hates the Myers-Briggs personality test, he strongly believes that it is easier to sense an individual’s uniqueness if you have a vocabulary for various personality traits. The Big Five:

1. Extroversion
2. Conscientiousness
3. Neuroticism
4. Agreeableness
5. Openness

We need to appreciate that each individual has a series of life tasks, usually engaged sequentially, and discerning an individual’s current life task facilitates understanding that individual:

1. The imperial task – show the world that we are in control of our lives. If we fail, we feel inferior; if we succeed, we have self-confidence.
2. The interpersonal task – we want to fit in.
3. Career consolidation.
4. The generative task – leaving an effect on the world.
5. Integrity v. despair – coming to terms with your life in the face of death.

Eliciting life stories from individuals can help you understand them and, ultimately, improve your life story, too.

Brooks’s penultimate chapter – “How do your ancestors show up in your life.” Brooks is a big proponent of an individual being inherently shaped by his family and his culture. Generation after generation. Especially his Jewishness, despite his abandoning the religion.

Final chapter – What is Wisdom? Brooks no longer thinks that wisdom is a great critical thinker. Rather wisdom is someone whose conversation leads others to think more critically.

A worthwhile read.

Sunday Book Review #169 – Outlive

My previous book review, “Good Save Texas,” indicated that I was planning next to read “big wonderful thing,” a lengthy history of Texas by Stephen Harrigan. But then I noticed that I had previously checked out two other books from my local library – “Outlive” by Peter Attia and “How to Know a Person” by David Brooks – and would need to quickly read those books before they were due to be returned. (The books are new and in demand, so renewals are not allowed.)

Although “Outlive” is 411 pages, plus voluminous Notes and References (unlike my previous unsatisfactory read, God Save Texas), it was a joy to read. Subtitled “Rethinking Medicine to Live Better Longer,” I can’t think of a better objective. (Well, Brooks’s “How to Know a Person” sounds like a wonderful objective, too, and I’m looking forward to reading that, too.)

There are so many useful insights in “Outlive”:

1. Our objective is to not only live longer (lifespan), but better (healthspan).
2. Historically, there have been three eras of medicine:
   • Medicine 1.0 starting 2000 years ago with Hippocrates and “do no harm,” with harm highly likely because it was based on nothing but observation and guesswork.
   • Medicine 2.0 starting mid-nineteenth century with the advent of germ theory of disease and antibiotics.
   • Medicine 3.0 starting now with a focus on avoiding the Four Horsemen (cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimers) instead of treating them.
3. Humans have evolved for thousands of years in a world with not enough to eat; now we need to mentally adjust to a “crisis of abundance.”
4. Metabolic Syndrome is achieved by three of five failing scores:
   • High blood pressure (130/85). I think I’m OK.
   • High triglycerides (150). I’m easily OK.
   • Low HDL cholesterol (40 for men). I’m barely OK.
   • Central adiposity (waste 40″ for men). I’m easily OK.
   • Elevated fasting glucose (110). I’m not OK since last year’s test.
5. There are five major tactics to affect our health:
   • Exercise is the most potent tactic:
     • Aerobic efficiency. I might need to increase my apt-gym cardio from 30 minutes to 45 when I’m not doing my 50-minute bike ride outdoors.
     • Maximum aerobic output. I suspect that my VO2 max is genetically lowered. I’m already pushing my VO2 max with Stairmaster and recumbent bike in my apt-gym – 30 minutes, 300 calories, 125-145 heart rate.
     • Strength. Grip strength is important and will be a new focus (kettle-bell walk, body weight for a minute is the goal), plus concentric (shortening) and eccentric (lengthening) loading, pulling motions (also helps grip strength) and hip-hinging movements.
     • Stability.
   • Diet or nutrition.
   • Sleep (something that I need to majorly work on despite issues with frequent urination and possibly insomnia possibly a side-effect of prednisone.
   • Emotional health.
   • Various drugs, supplements, and hormones; e.g., exogenous molecules, such as lipid-lowering drugs, rapamycin, and metformin. Metformin may be just what I need to deal with my elevated glucose/A1C.

I greatly appreciate this book and believe it provides invaluable information, so I ordered a copy on Amazon for each of my sons.