Frank Rich's "Confessions of a Recovering Op-Ed Columnist": He Was Never Censored by The New York Times

Frank Rich will no longer be writing op-eds for The New York Times, and in his valedictory entitled "Confessions of a Recovering Op-Ed Columnist" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/opinion/13rich.html), Rich proudly asserts that he was never censored by The Times. Forgive me for asking, but why should he have been censored? Rich made a career of writing diatribes against Republicans every Sunday, and there was no reason for these op-eds, very much in keeping with the political philosophy of The Times, to have been set aside.

On the other hand, my online comments in response to Rich and other New York Times columnists are regularly censored, particularly when they express a contradictory opinion.

In fact, the following comment in response to Rich's op-ed of today's date was - you guessed it - censored:

Mr. Rich writes: "During my time on the page, the most frequent question I’ve been asked by readers is: Did The Times ever censor you, or try to censor you? The answer is no."

As someone who submits online comments in response to New York Times op-eds and editorials, and who often disagrees with the New York Times's columnists and editorial staff, I wish I could also say that my comments, particularly when in conflict with the op-ed or editorial, are usually posted.

We are told that "Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive," however, although my opposing views are certainly on-topic and not abusive, many are rejected.

I complained to the New York Times and was informed [by a very senior editor] that a newspaper chooses every day what to print and what not to print and that this is not censorship. However, I observed that this is also not in accordace with the guideline appearing below the comment box.

Censorship or otherwise, I find it disturbing that my opposing views submitted online are often quashed.

I am certain that Rich will be missed by those addicted to attacks upon Republicans, but fortunately for them Gail Collins will continue to supply them with political vitriol, which feeds on people's anger and hatred.

[Is Jeffrey just a neocon with an ax to grind? Sorry, but Jeffrey was once a registered Democrat, who, inter alia, continues to be pro-choice, opposed the Second Gulf War, refused to vote for McCain when he chose Palin as a running mate, and strongly opposes U.S. ground involvement in Afghanistan. Sorry to disappoint . . .]

Nicholas Kristof's "A Hedge Fund Republic?": Let's Raffle Off Tom Friedman's Home

In an op-ed entitled "A Hedge Fund Republic?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/opinion/18kristof.html?hp) in today's New York Times, Nicholas Kristof complains that the U.S. has become more rapacious than a banana republic and is now mostly owned by the richest one percent of the nation's populace. Kristof's epistle follows on the heels of Frank Rich's Sunday NYT op-ed, "Who Will Stand Up to the Superrich?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/opinion/14rich.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), in which Rich also deplores fiscal inequity in America.

Not to worry! JG, Caesarea has the solution!

As a first step to end this horrifying inequality, I propose that we raffle off the estate (as seen from above) of fellow NYT columnist Tom Friedman to the homeless. Personally, I think it will do any homeless person proud!

Are you homeless and wish to participate in the raffle? Obviously, I first need Tom's approval, but meanwhile you can send me your CV together with an essay of 500 words or less explaining why transfer of title over this estate to you will best remedy the disparity between rich and poor in the United States.

Where will Tom go? No problem. JG, Caesarea is sending him to live half the year with Nicholas Kristof, who shouldn't be troubled, given the time he spends traveling around the third world. The other half of the year will be spent by Friedman with Rich.

Given their compatible politics and similar social views, I am certain Friedman, Kristof and Rich will live happily ever after.

Or not.

Frank Rich's "The Very Useful Idiocy of Christine O’Donnell": What Then Is Obama?

Another Sunday and another Frank Rich diatribe, "The Very Useful Idiocy of Christine O’Donnell" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/opinion/03rich.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), condemning those nasty, conniving Republicans. This week, Christine O’Donnell, who opposes masturbation, has Frank in a dither.

Me? I'm more troubled by the half-hearted decision of Democrat Obama, as described by Bob Woodward in "Obama's Wars", to escalate the Afghanistan war and send brave young Americans to their graves for no reason other than to promote Obama's image as something more than a wuss.

Christine O'Donnell is a "useful idiot" providing weekly material for the nation's comedy series? Maybe. But what then is Obama? Neither useful nor an idiot, he must nevertheless take responsibility for an inane, burgeoning, heart breaking tragedy which America can no longer afford.

"Time for This Big Dog to Bite Back": Is Frank Rich Delusional?

In an op-ed entitled "Time for This Big Dog to Bite Back" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/opinion/12rich.html?pagewanted=all) in today's New York Times, Frank Rich writes:

"Obama’s approval rating, for months a consistent (not imploding) 45-ish percent, still makes him arguably America’s most popular national politician.

. . . .

Obama must also call out the powerful interests who are pulling the G.O.P.’s strings (and filling its coffers), whether on Wall Street or in Big Oil or any other sector where special interests are aligned against reform in the public interest."

Peculiar. When I examine Obama's approval ratings in recent months, I don't see a stable horizontal line (http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx). Rather I see the makings of a brain dead flatline, trending south.

No one is more popular than Obama? Hillary's popularity exceeds that of Obama by double digits (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/14/AR2010061404756.html).

"Obama must also call out the powerful interests who are pulling the G.O.P.’s strings (and filling its coffers)"? Really? And what about BP's contributions to Obama? And those of Soros?

According to Rich, Obama is a "big dog", which leaves me to wonder what exactly Frank is smoking. He is mistaking Obama, a feathered animal combining the attributes of a turkey (flightless), goose (feckless) and chicken (fainthearted), with a canine.

This time it's Pancake's turn to be offended.

Obama, Soros, Petrobras: Time for a Congressional Investigation

In an op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?hp), Frank Rich establishes a new benchmark for naivete combined with bias. Asserting that the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch have personal agendas that extend beyond the interests of the conservative elements whom they support, Rich would have us believe that this alleged phenomenon is unique to the Right and makes light of the financial support provided by George Soros to the Left:

"Soros is a publicity hound who is transparent about where he shovels his money. And like many liberals — selflessly or foolishly, depending on your point of view — he supports causes that are unrelated to his business interests and that, if anything, raise his taxes."

Ultra-rich Leftists support causes that are entirely unrelated to their business interests? Rich should have at least mentioned the controversy that has erupted involving the multi-billion dollar U.S. loan to Petrobras for Brazilian offshore oil drilling. Yes, I know: Glenn Beck raised the issue on Fox (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YICGV7XuLrs), but regardless of what you think of Beck, in this instance there is something involving this loan that doesn't seem wholesome.

I don't have all the facts (this would require an investigation which I would be delighted to manage); however, it is known that the Export-Import Bank of the United States is lending up to $2 billion to finance exports to the Brazilian oil company Petróleo Brasileiro S.A., known as Petrobras, over the next several years, and George Soros is heavily invested in Petrobras.

It has been argued that the commitment of the Export-Import Bank of the United States to this loan was bipartisan and predated the arrival of Obama’s appointees to the Ex-Im board (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/bogus-brazilian-oil-claims/); however, as noted by the Wall Street Journal, Brazilian officials met with White House National Security Adviser James Jones to discuss the matter (http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html).

Will this arrangement create American jobs? Maybe. I would need to see the agreement. However, a host of other questions arise:

• Couldn't $2 billion be better used to create U.S. jobs to improve U.S. infrastructure?

• Why is one of the largest, wealthiest companies in the world the beneficiary of American largesse at a time when the U.S. economy is in such a dire way?

• Why is the U.S. providing this assistance given Brazil's support of Iran's nuclear aspirations?

I am not suggesting that something illegal has occurred, but I certainly doubt its desirability.

Moreover, there is nothing angelic about either liberal or conservative benefactors, and as sadly demonstrated by the Obama administration, there is no altruism in politics.

Ground Zero Mosque: Confessions of an Islamophobe

Time to be politically incorrect.

Yesterday in a New York Times op-ed entitled "How Fox Betrayed Petraeus" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22rich.html?ref=frankrich), drama critic Frank Rich excoriated those who oppose the Ground Zero Mosque:

"The 'ground zero mosque,' as you may well know by now, is not at ground zero. It’s not a mosque but an Islamic cultural center containing a prayer room.

. . . .

So virulent is the Islamophobic hysteria of the neocon and Fox News right — abetted by the useful idiocy of the Anti-Defamation League, Harry Reid and other cowed Democrats — that it has also rendered Gen. David Petraeus’s last-ditch counterinsurgency strategy for fighting the war inoperative. How do you win Muslim hearts and minds in Kandahar when you are calling Muslims every filthy name in the book in New York?"

The Ground Zero Mosque is not a mosque? Peculiar. Rich would have us believe that within the $100 million, 13-story complex only one tiny room is intended for prayer, when in fact the "prayer space" is intended for up to 2,000 Muslims. Does Harvard educated Rich take us all for idiots? Perhaps.

Rich appears to divide those opposing the Ground Zero Mosque into two categories: the Islamophobic neocon Right and the "useful idiots", which has me asking, into which of these two categories do I personally fall?

I have consistently opposed U.S. ground involvement in Afghanistan and am pro-choice, so the totality of the first of these two possibilities appears inapplicable to me. So then, am I a "useful idiot"? Of course, I might be deemed a fool by Frank, but on the other hand, I have two university degrees, speak several languages, worked in the past for a leading M&A law firm, and my IQ exceeds that of Forrest Gump.

According to Rich, the only remaining possibility seems to be that although not a neocon, I am still an Islamophobe, but if this is indeed the case, I can't help wondering if my fear is irrational.

Charles Krauthammer, hardly a Neanderthal, but who would probably be placed by Rich in the neocon category, observed in a August 20 Washington Post op-ed entitled "Moral myopia at Ground Zero" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/19/AR2010081904769.html):

"Radical Islam is not, by any means, a majority of Islam. But with its financiers, clerics, propagandists, trainers, leaders, operatives and sympathizers -- according to a conservative estimate, it commands the allegiance of 7 percent of Muslims, i.e., more than 80 million souls -- it is a very powerful strain within Islam. It has changed the course of nations and affected the lives of millions. It is the reason every airport in the West is an armed camp and every land is on constant alert."

Forgive me for asking whether that radical 7 percent of Muslims also includes those who condone "honor killings"? Throughout the entire Muslim Middle East, women are being murdered by male relatives for so-called affronts such as using a cell phone to call a man outside the family. Each year some 5,000 Muslim women fall victim to "honor killings", which are now also occurring in the U.S., Canada and Western Europe (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/honor%20killings).

Do honor killings also just belong to Islam's radical fringe?

In addition, let's look at Libya, where Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi, convicted in connection with the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 above Lockerbie, is roaming free after being released from a Scottish prison on August 20 last year on compassionate grounds. Although we were told that Al-Megrahi, suffering from prostate cancer, had less than three months to live, he is still very much alive, and the U.K. recently warned Libya not to engage again in celebrations over his release (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wirestory?id=11442584&page=1).

Not frightening enough for you? Consider Qaddafi's plans for Europe, enunciated in a speech broadcast by Al Jazeera on April 10, 2006 (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/05/qaddafi-europe-and-the-us-should-agree-to-become-islamic-or-declare-war-on-the-muslims.html):

"Some people believe that Muhammad is the prophet of the Arabs or the Muslims alone. This is a mistake. Muhammad is the Prophet of all people. He superseded all previous religions. If Jesus were alive when Muhammad was sent, he would have followed him. All people must be Muslims. . . . We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades. . . Allah mobilizes the Muslim nation of Turkey and adds it to the European Union. That's another 50 million Muslims. There will be 100 million Muslims in Europe. Albania, which is a Muslim country, has already entered the EU. Fifty percent of its citizens are Muslims."

No reason for concern? Qaddafi is again just Islam's fringe?

No one will forget the pictures of President Obama bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. No, this act of obeisance doesn't have me worried, but I am extremely troubled when women who are gang raped are sentenced to lashings and prison (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/Abdullah). Moreover, this week's report that a Saudi judge, pursuant to Islamic law, is seeking a hospital willing to paralyze a person convicted of paralyzing another person, does not leave me with a warm fuzzy feeling (http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/saudi-judge-considers-paralysis-punishment-1.309494).

Yeah, I know: only Islam's fringe.

Should the calls of Iran's Ahmadinejad to wipe Israel off the face of the map and his threats against the U.S. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7590529/Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-threatens-US-over-Mid-East-peace-plans.html) just be ignored? Are Iran's stoning of female "adulterers", its savage persecution of its Baha'is, and, together with Syria and Turkey, its abuse of the region's 35 million Kurds of little consequence? Again, I know, I'm being paranoid: it's just the fringe, having nothing to do with mainstream Islam.

Then, also, there are the interminable wars involving almost all of the Muslim Middle East countries, the vast majority not involving Israel (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/09/roger-cohen-again-demonizes-israel.html). In this regard, I would feel much better if occasionally I heard calls for brotherhood from the two mosques situated within earshot of my home, but it's just not the case.

Of course, I'm not saying that Christianity and Judaism didn't have their extremely violent pasts, and maybe in another century Islam will find the route to tolerance and coexistence, but that time has yet to come.

So before the Ground Zero Mosque is built, notwithstanding testimonials to Rauf's sterling character, forgive me if I ask from where the funds for the construction of this "Islamic cultural center with a prayer room" are coming.

Maybe a little honesty will do much to allay my irrational Islamophobic concerns.

An Act of Terror in the Theater District (Pun Intended)

In retrospect, the car bomb driven into Times Square by Faisal Shahzad earlier this month probably would not have caused many casualties had it ignited, although even one death would have been one too many. The primitive bomb, consisting of propane, gasoline and fireworks, would have caused a fireball, but it was not designed to shower shrapnel on those gathered in this crowded New York tourist mecca or to bring down a building. Why then was Times Square chosen as the locus for this attack?

As observed by Brian M. Jenkins in a 1974 Rand Corporation Paper entitled "International Terrorism: A New Kind of Warfare":

"Terrorist attacks are often carefully choreographed to attract the attention of the electronic media and the international press. . . . Terrorism is aimed at the people watching, not at the actual victims. Terrorism is theater."

http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/2008/P5261.pdf

But even as "theater", this attempt at an explosion in New York's theater district bombed. As correctly observed today by theater critic Frank Rich in a New York Times op-ed entitled "They Don’t Report. You Don’t Have to Decide." (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/opinion/09rich.html), the occurrence went largely ignored by the U.S. news media, which was busy reporting/enjoying the festive White House Correspondents Dinner. The correspondents at the Washington dinner were apparently unwilling to have their event upstaged by some trite Manhattan event.

On the one hand this lack of media attention surely must have frustrated those who produced the New York event (you can be certain that this was not a one-man show given the evidence surrounding the would-be spectacular). On the other hand, the ease with which this car was positioned should give the Obama administration - battling economic ills, oil spills and generally poor reviews - cause for reflection: the war on terror is not over, and the Osama Ensemble will regrettably be back soon enough with a "better rehearsed" revival aimed at a much larger audience.

Frank Rich's "Fight On, Goldman Sachs!": The S.E.C. to the Rescue?

In an op-ed entitled "Fight On, Goldman Sachs!" in today's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/opinion/25rich.html), columnist Frank Rich would have us believe that an S.E.C. civil action against Goldman Sachs will curtail the cult of greed and corruption that has come to characterize the U.S. financial scene. Rich writes:

"And it’s that S.E.C. legal action that has, in a single week, radically transformed the politics and prospects for financial reform in America."

Theater critic Rich does not bother to mention that the S.E.C. is currently beset with its own porn scandal, and apparently unbeknownst to him, the legal action of which he speaks will wind its way through the courts over the course of many years at a cost of tens of millions of dollars to U.S. taxpayers before it is ultimately settled at a future time when it has been long forgotten by the American public.

I wish I could share Rich's faith in the S.E.C. A trading day doesn't go by without manipulation of share prices, e.g., "painting the tape", as a result of the 2007 cancellation of the Uptick Rule, which had protected small investors for 70 years. Given the opportunity to reinstate this critical regulation responsible for safeguarding the financial markets, the S.E.C. recently settled upon some watered down, toothless constraint, which continues to allow fear merchants to short sell start-up, micro cap companies, i.e. the economic future of the U.S., with few limitations and to fleece stockholders.

Even more absurd was the New York Times editorial on Thursday entitled "Mr. Karzai Might Even Agree," which propounded:

"[Obama] should urge Mr. Karzai to ask the United Nations . . . to hand responsibility for overseeing Afghanistan’s economic development to others more proficient in handling money."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/opinion/23fri1.html

Given the scandals brewing at home, Obama is hardly in a position to tell Karzai where he should be seeking economic and financial advice.

A Sunday doesn't go by without Frank Rich introducing partisan venom into issues of critical national concern. I realize that this is Rich's stock in trade, but isn't it time to recognize that the economic future of the U.S. transcends politics and requires an appeal for unity and cooperation among America's lawmakers?

A Mind Altering Substance in The New York Times Water Cooler?

It started with The New York Times January 20 editorial, "The Massachusetts Election" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/opinion/21thur1.html?em), which posited:

"To our minds, [Scott Brown’s upset victory] is not remotely a verdict on Mr. Obama’s presidency, nor does it amount to a national referendum on health care reform — even though it has upended the effort to pass a reform bill, which Mr. Obama made the centerpiece of his first year."

Today, NYT pundit Frank Rich in an op-ed entitled "After the Massachusetts Massacre" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/opinion/24Rich.html?hp), likewise would have us believe:

"It was not a referendum on Barack Obama, who in every poll remains one of the most popular politicians in America. It was not a rejection of universal health care, which Massachusetts mandated (with Scott Brown’s State Senate vote) in 2006."

All of which leaves us with three possibilities:

1. New York Times staffers are seeking to delude themselves.
2. New York Times staffers are seeking to delude their readership.
3. Someone introduced a mind altering substance into The Times water cooler.

If Obama loses in 2012, The Times will surely continue to claim that "this is not a verdict on Obama's presidency."

One thing is for certain: The New York Times has not fooled the triumvirate of Obama, Axelrod and Rahm, who today announced that they are bringing back political strategist David Plouffe to bolster the Democrats' flagging fortunes. No need to find a world class economist to deal with the economy, no need to hire a health administration specialist to rejuvenate Obama's sagging health care program, and no need to find an international affairs specialist to assist a thoroughly incompetent Hillary. The answer lies in David Plouffe.

Not coincidentally, a source from within the White House, who asked to remain anonymous, reported to me that he had overheard Obama singing in the shower early this morning:

When all goes poof,
Bring back Plouffe!

They may not have a clue how to govern, but the boys from Chicago sure know how to run a campaign.

The Declining Fortunes of The New York Times

In his New York Times op-ed of today's date entitled "Hollywood’s Brilliant Coda to America’s Dark Year", Frank Rich, inter alia, bewails the declining fortunes of his employer:

"Meanwhile, at the company where I work, as at many others, the latest round of layoffs will be completed by Christmas. Even for the survivors it feels a little like serial deaths in the family. And who believes we’re near the end of this story?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/opinion/13rich.html

The New York Times may or may not be "near the end of this story", but given that we are fast approaching the end of 2009, perhaps it is befitting that Rich and the rest of The Times' staff reflect on how it reached this quandary. Indeed, not all U.S. news organizations are faced with such bleak prospects. Is it possible that The Times has grown out of touch with its readership? Were there instances in 2009 where The Times forgot its basic journalistic standards? Did many of The Times' op-ed writers and members of its editorial board identify so strongly with the president's election campaign that they subsequently lost their independence and objectivity?

During much of 2009, The Times tolerated the most vile expressions of anti-Semitism posted in online comments. The Public Editor's office ignored my complaints, until a very senior editor, who asked to remain anonymous, verified my accusations and acted to put an end to this phenomenon.

During much of 2009, The Times provided Roger Cohen with a platform to promote the preposterous proposition that "Iran is not totalitarian" (in keeping with then prevalent Obama administration sentiment) and provided Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett with space for two op-eds demanding "rapprochement" with Iran. Apart from one fleeting sentence, these op-eds never made mention of persecution against Iran's Baha'is and entirely ignored oppression directed against Sunni Muslims, Christians and Kurds. Personally, I will never forgive or forget Cohen's attempt to whitewash Iran's treatment of its tiny Jewish community. Did The Times permit contrary opinion to that of Cohen and the Leveretts? No.

During 2009, The Times provided Qaddafi with an op-ed, which, on its face, appeared to promote conciliation between Arabs and Jews. However, The Times failed to observe that the prior day Qaddafi had recommended a conciliatory dialogue between Obama and bin Laden and to move Jews, who did not accept his one-state solution, to Hawaii, Alaska or an island in the Pacific, where "they could live peacefully in an isolated setting." My comment in response to this op-ed, which noted the foregoing, was censored by The Times.

During 2009, The Times provided Obama with space for an op-ed promoting his health care plan, soon after The Times editorial board lauded his foreign policy following a derisive editorial in the Washington Post. The Times defended Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, while the rest of the nation snickered, and rallied behind his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan.

Is this a new variety of liberalism, blind subservience or a lack of objectivity? Bottom line: the misfortunes of The New York Times stem not only from a declining economy and reduced demand for its print edition, but also from alienation of its readership. Perhaps The Times has grown too opinionated to listen. It is an important news gathering organization, and it would be a pity if it were to fail.

Censored Again by The New York Times: Should I Contact the Guiness Book of World Records?

In response to Frank Rich's August 23 op-ed, "The Guns of August", I submitted the comment, below, which needless to say was censored. What a surprise!

What Frank Rich labels "irrational radicalism" is not restricted to the right.

In response to Maureen Dowd's April 29 op-ed, "Vice's Secret Vices", an online comment, no. 8, was posted which could be interpreted as a call to murder a former, very senior, U.S. government official.

This comment, which made it past The New York Times' moderators, was ultimately removed after I contacted a very senior editor of The New York Times.

As that same editor can attest, The New York Times also permitted anti-Semitic online comments until several months ago, when I brought this phenomenon to the attention of this editor, and he quickly intervened.

These comments made their way past the moderators of The New York Times, at a time when I was often witnessing the rejection of my comments. My complaint to the Public Editor elicited the following response, dated June 29, 2009, from Clark Hoyt:

"I have inquired about why your comments have not been posted and have been told that those that were rejected were considered off the topic. Times editors agreed that some of the comments you objected to should not have been posted, and it is my understanding that they were taken down."

Clark Hoyt had "been told" that my comments were "off the topic"? Why didn't he take the time personally to examine the examples that I sent to him?

Clark Hoyt stated in his e-mail to me that "I am considering a public editor column on the subject of comments on the Web site of The Times." In July 2008 I had also been informed by the Public Editor's office that "Mr. Hoyt is thinking about addressing the issue of comment moderation in an upcoming column" and was requested to provide examples of comments that I submitted but were rejected. Over the past year, I provided many examples, but the long awaited column has yet to appear.

In short, radicalism and intolerance extend to both the right and left, and the breathing space allotted to those of us in the "middle" often appears to be shrinking.

I should mention that I also sent the above, including the text of the threatening comment that was posted by The Times' "moderators", to Frank Rich by e-mail. No response yet from Rich, and I'm not holding my breath.