The Discerning Texan

• AND EVEN WAY BACK THEN, WHEN THE WORLD'S POPULATION WAS HALF WHAT IT IS NOW,
  
• AND ITS INDUSTRIALIZED PORTION A TENTH OF WHAT IT IS NOW,
  
• AND ITS MAN-MADE CO2 ONE-ONE-HUNDREDTH OF WHAT IT IS NOW...
  
• ... WELL, THEY DIDN'T ALWAYS HAVE A WHITE CHRISTMAS IN VERMONT.

Labels: NY Times

The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org's ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Headlined "Cooking the Books for the White House," the ad which ran in Monday's Times says Petraeus is "a military man constantly at war with the facts" and concluded - even before he testified before Congress - that "General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."

According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."

A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.

A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.

Rudy Giuliani blasted Hillary Clinton and MoveOn.org for "smearing General Petraeus" today!
Rudy is demanding he get the same discount from The New York Times for his ad that will appear tomorrow.

Yes!-- Here's the TERRIFIC AD...

Click to Enlarge

FRED THOMPSON also attacked the Democrats and MoveOn for their campaign against General Petraeus today:

Fred Thompson fired back on Hillary and democrats for their despicable attacks on General Petraeus:

"It’s more and more apparent to me every day that the average 20 year old who is serving us in Iraq knows more about national security than many of the 20 year veterans in Congress."

Amen.
And... The GOP came out with an ad today against the democratic attacks on Petraeus:

HotAir has the video.

Labels: Media Bias, Media War, MoveOn.Org, NY Times, Petreaus

In the WHO rankings, the United States finished 37th, behind nations like Morocco, Cyprus and Costa Rica. Finishing first and second were France and Italy. Michael Moore makes much of this in his movie "Sicko."

[...]

So the verdict is in. The vaunted U.S. medical system is one of the worst.

But there's less to these studies than meets the eye. They measure something other than quality of medical care. So saying that the U.S. finished behind those other countries is misleading.

First let's acknowledge that the U.S. medical system has serious problems. But the problems stem from departures from free-market principles. The system is riddled with tax manipulation, costly insurance mandates and bureaucratic interference. Most important, six out of seven health-care dollars are spent by third parties, which means that most consumers exercise no cost-consciousness. As Milton Friedman always pointed out, no one spends other people's money as carefully as he spends his own.

Even with all that, it strains credulity to hear that the U.S. ranks far from the top. Sick people come to the United States for treatment. When was the last time you heard of someone leaving this country to get medical care? The last famous case I can remember is Rock Hudson, who went to France in the 1980s to seek treatment for AIDS.

So what's wrong with the WHO and Commonwealth Fund studies? Let me count the ways.

The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy. But that's a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That's not a health-care problem.

Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.

When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.

[...]

Another reason the U.S. didn't score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it's crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.

It's when this so-called "fairness," a highly subjective standard, is factored in that the U.S. scores go south.

The U.S. ranking is influenced heavily by the number of people -- 45 million -- without medical insurance. As I reported in previous columns, our government aggravates that problem by making insurance artificially expensive with, for example, mandates for coverage that many people would not choose and forbidding us to buy policies from companies in another state.

Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.

For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine.

Labels: Democrat, Media Bias, NY Times, Socialism, Socialized Medicine, The Left

Labels: Media Bias, NY Times, The Left, Wikipedia Bias

Labels: Democrat Sabotage, Media Bias, NY Times

Labels: Media Bias, Media War, NY Times

There was considerable dissent among the various Bancroft heirs over Murdoch's offer to buy them out. Murdoch's $60-a-share bid was a 67% premium over what the stock had been trading for. Many family members took the attitude that they are duty-bound to guard the independence of the newspaper, regardless of the personal financial cost. The same concept that inspired and has governed the Ochs/Sulzberger voting trust arrangements.

But enough Bancrofts listened to one of their own, Crawford Hill, to swing the balance over to those who want to authorize a sale of their stock. Hill wrote family members a nearly 4,000-word email that stated it was time for a "reality check" - that the days of being able to go it alone as an independent newspaper publisher are drawing to an end. An appeal to greed alone was probably not enough. The Bancrofts have other money besides the Dow Jones stock. But an argument that merger would allow the proud heritage of the paper to flourish as it could not under independent management had to ease at least some of the pangs that would accompany a big cash payout.

This sets a very, very bad example for Pinch's aunts, uncles, cousins, and other assorted relatives.

In the short run, it is unlikely that enough Sulzbergers will become interested in selling their company to enable Murdoch or anyone else to make a successful bid. And the Sulzbergers arranged their family trusts differently than the Bancrofts, so that it will be more difficult for any potential acquirer to persuade enough of them to carry the day and enable a sale. But Pinch's glaring failures as a business leader will chafe at family members if the acquisition of the Wall Street Journal maintains the paper's standards and standing and enhances its business performance.

If Pinch cannot deliver better business results, he may see his cousin Michael Golden, vice-chairman and publisher of the subsidiary International Herald-Tribune, move out of the wings where he has been waiting into the chairman's office in the lavish new headquarters Pinch built for his shrinking company, probably forcing Pinch into a lesser role, or maybe into a face-saving early retirement. An outright sale of the company is unlikely for now, unless it consists of a friendly sale to one or more wealthy leftists, who conceivably could take the company private, buying out the public shareholders and dispensing with the embarrassment of publicly reporting financial results.

Labels: Media War, NY Times, Wall Street Journal

Labels: Hearts and Minds, Media Bias, Media War, NY Times

Labels: Media Bias, Media War, NY Times

The New York Times today called for U.S. troops to surrender Iraq to the insurgents and al-Qaida in an editorial, “The Road Home,” that was long on words, short on logic, and absent of heart.

In calling for abandoning Iraq, the Times has abandoned the underpinnings of liberal principles: that the government exists to protect the poor, the elderly, the infirm and women.

While I believe that government exists to protect the rights of its citizenry, I respect that contrarian position.

The Times would leave that principle on the battlefield in its bizarre call to flee at once — “It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.”

The Times argument is the war is unpopular so we should. That is childish. Was the war right because it was popular at the time? Should we execute criminals because that is popular? The Times has too long a history of unpopular things that it supports to make the “applause-o-meter argument.”

War is not a television game show to be cancelled after 4 seasons.

The consequences of suddenly abandoning 25 million people to cutthroats and jihadists would make Darfur, Sudan, look like a weekend in Disney World. Yet the Times wrote:

That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

By “could” the Times means “will.”

This is madness. It is lunacy to suggest that UN peacekeepers drawn randomly from other countries and thrown into the maelstrom with no leadership skills or experience will do a better job than 150,000 professional soldiers with 4 years experience in Iraq.

Africa burns while UN blue helmets look askance and indulge themselves in child porn and petty theft. That is the Times prescription for Iraq.

Read the remainder here (h/t Glenn Reynolds).

Labels: Iraq, Media War, NY Times, The Long War, WaPo

Labels: Cartoons, Media Bias, Media War, NY Times

The SurrenderMedia is perplexed and confused. Yet again the Islamo Fascists have failed to bring on the quagmire. Again, they have failed to show they can withstand the focused efforts of the West. Again, they have failed to make the case they are too strong for America to stop:

The killing of the one-legged Dadullah is a major victory against the Taliban, which is trying to overthrow the government after being driven out of power in late 2001. Dadullah’s death could disrupt the insurgency over the next few months, although it’s not clear whether the movement will be hurt in the long run.

[…]

But his death, and the Taliban’s failure to deliver the sort of fighting promised for months, raises questions about what is happening with the movement. Although there have been pockets of harsh fighting in Helmand province and almost daily suicide attacks in Afghanistan, the violence has not been at the levels anticipated by many this year nor the levels vowed by the Taliban.

Only defeatists were expecting the Taliban surge. Only Surrendercrats were waiting - with palatable anticiptation - the spanking of America and her allies by these brutal fascists. But the reality is our position is one of strength, not faltering weakness (H/T Salon on noting the typos). Freedom does shine a powerful light that rots the support of these fascist movements. The Taliban, and al Qaeda, are finding brutality does not bring support - it brings out self defense. al Qaeda is penned into Diyala province and desperately trying to strike back. But their efforts in the face of up 7,000 trained and well equipped troops heading to the Province are tragically laughable.

Labels: Hearts and Minds, Islamic Fascism, Media Bias, Media War, NY Times, PC, Thought Police

Labels: Afghanistan, Media Bias, Media War, NY Times

Labels: Iraq, Media Bias, Media War, NY Times, Sedition, War Successes