In an editorial in today's New York Times entitled "Mistrust and the Mosque", dissatisfaction is expressed with the findings of a poll which has determined that "New York City sadly harbors a robust disapproval of the proposal to build a mosque near ground zero" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03fri1.html?hp). My response to my friends at The Times:
Economists often examine the risk of various situations by performing what is called a "stress test": they introduce extreme variables and determine how the system will react.
Suppose we perform a "stress test" in this situation and postulate that Osama bin Laden is funding the mosque and community center. Would The New York Times editorial board still support this construction project? Answer: No.
Ridiculous? Sure, Osama bin Laden is almost certainly not funding the construction. Fine, so tell me who are the mysterious donors providing $100 million - funds which could be better used for Pakistani flood victims - for this 15-story building?
Without the names of the donors, I believe the opposition of an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers is entirely rational.
The editorial board of The New York Times refuses to recognize that there might be an inkling of reason underlying majority opposition to the construction at this location, and it is no wonder that the Grey Lady, bled white by readers who have canceled their subscriptions, already has one foot in the grave.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Would The New York Times editorial board still support this construction project? Answer: No."
ReplyDeleteHow do you know? I would say "YES, they would!".
They justified attack on 4 Israelis in the car, because they were "militant settlers"!
They do not see a problem with imam, who can not classify Hamas as terrorists. They just published an editorial from Saudi Gazette, whitewashing Hamas. Of course, they would have nothing against Saudis funding for the mosque, and in particular, Osama's funding.
Anti-semitism, pandering to Islamc fascists are in the core the newspaper's position.
The NYT/CBS poll that makes the NYT editorial board so sad? They actually skewed the respondents to be more likely to read the NYT, more Protestant, more African-American, less Catholic or Jewish, than is actually representative of NYC demographics. And STILL could not rig the approval to be a "majority".
ReplyDeleteNo one knows who the Imam will be, what sect of Islam he will represent, or where the money will now come from due to the daily revelations about El-Gamal, Rauf, and Daisy's mosque in a bedroom on West 85th Street.
The NYT can not even figure out what the real story is.
I am SO looking forward to voting in NYC this year. The NYT might just have a collective stroke trying to analyze the results, both after the primary on 9/14, and the general on 11/2.
Marina - I hope you are considering a vote for Richard Brodsky for the Dem nominee for AG - he had my vote even before his position on GZM because of Brodsky's efforts at exposing the shadow government of all the Public Authorities mountains of hidden debt.
K2K
K2K: Thank you for the hint on Brodsky.
ReplyDeleteIn NY TImes video, they actually show their pollster pressures somebody on the phone to give a "correct answer"!
Marina, I agree with you: The New York Times is being driven over a cliff.
ReplyDeleteK2K, your comment in response to this editorial (which I just recommended), inspired me to open a small box of "treasures", which I have preserved from my childhood and examine a round musket ball that I was given by my father at Gettysberg almost 50 years ago, two minie balls from Charleston, and an inscribed pendent awarded to my grandmother in 1909 "for merit in essay on Abraham Lincoln" by . . . The New York Times.
For a moment, I could recall the hope and optimism that I once knew and a heartfelt belief in the exceptionalism of America.
The times (particularly The New York Times) they are a'changing.
Thank you JG. I just reciprocated by recommending your comment at #58.
ReplyDeleteI admit to being very happy the NYT moderator approved my comment, which I had written in early August as a conscious refinement of my thoughts after digging through the historical maps of NYC and reading as much as I could find about Paul Spofford and Thomas Tileston.
When the NYT used Gettysburg to prove their point, I was ready.
The part of this story that no one has dug into is whether Bloomberg abused his power in influencing the Landmarks Preservation Commission vote. Timothy Brown's lawsuit WILL be heard as he does have grounds for challenging that vote as arbitrary and ignoring established precedents. Brown's dilemma was that the preservationistas failed to speak in support. Not only are all the LPC members appointed by Bloomberg, but the preservationistas do care about whose dinner parties they get invites to. It is all very political.
You can google Paul Spofford and Thomas Tileston to find the googlebooks entries from “Portrait gallery of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New-York” ... By George Wilson, New York Chamber of Commerce 1890 pp 192-195.
Anyway, the NYT gave me a triple play week. My other comment on the settlements got approved for both the NYT editorial and Friedman's op-ed.
BTW, the NY Post, that Murdoch tabloid, continues to break the real news on Park51. Their editorial today was the opposite of the NYT, tying most of the key points (so far) together:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/more_mosque_revelations_yMtNnRzphiKKAGJQAksoQN
Watch for more on Hisham Elzanaty - the money man so far. When his name first popped up, it occurred to me that his participation might mean all this IS linked to Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas due to the circumstances of the death of Hisham's parents in 1999.
Too bad I am not a journalist - this is such a multi-layered story, not least of which is the near absence of real journalism connecting the actual dots.
K2K