Maureen Dowd, "Night at the Opera?": Or For Whom the Bell Tolls?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Night at the Opera?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/opinion/maureen-dowd-night-at-the-opera.html), Maureen Dowd tells us of the budgetary travails of the Metropolitan Opera and the angst of its general manager, Peter Gelb. Dowd concludes her opinion piece by observing:

"As the clock ticks down, I’m rooting for Valhalla, not Götterdämmerung."

I don't know anything about opera, but I wonder whether Dowd shouldn't be training her eye on her own employer, The New York Times, instead of the Metropolitan. Yesterday, The New York Times reported its operating results for the second quarter of 2014, which included a decrease in print advertising revenue of 6.6 percent compared with the corresponding period in 2013, and an increase in operating costs of 5.2 percent.

Missing the earnings expectations of analysts, The New York Times was one of the 10 biggest percentage decliners on New York Stock Exchange (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nyse-stocks-posting-largest-percentage-174225999.html).

Regarding prospects for the third quarter of 2014, The New York Times stated (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/york-times-company-reports-2014-123000424.html):

"In the third quarter of 2014, total circulation revenues are expected to be flat compared with the third quarter of 2013.

Total advertising revenues in the third quarter of 2014 are expected to decrease in the mid-single digits compared with the third quarter of 2013.

Operating costs and adjusted operating costs are each expected to increase in the low- to mid-single digits in the third quarter of 2014 compared with the third quarter of 2013.

In addition, the Company expects the following on a pre-tax basis in 2014:

Results from joint ventures: loss of $1 to $3 million,

Depreciation and amortization: $75 to $80 million,

Interest expense, net: $53 to $57 million, and

Capital expenditures: $40 to $50 million."

These are indeed worrisome times for the Gray Lady, which is in desperate need of rejuvenation. Maybe, looking ahead, Obama can lend the Times some money. What a shame . . .

David Brooks, "Stairway to Wisdom": So Enlighten Us About Jill Abramson's Dismissal

"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge."

- Bertrand Russell

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Stairway to Wisdom" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/opinion/brooks-stairway-to-wisdom.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), David Brooks seeks to explain the nature of knowledge. Using as an example teen pregnancy and informing us that "[o]ur master-teacher here is Augustine," Brooks concludes:

"There is a tendency now, especially for those of us in the more affluent classes, to want to use education to make life more predictable, to seek control as the essential good, to emphasize data that masks the remorseless unpredictability of individual lives. But people engaged in direct contact with problems like teenage pregnancy are cured of those linear illusions. Those of us who work with data and for newspapers probably should be continually reminding ourselves to bow down before the knowledge of participation, to defer to the highest form of understanding, which is held by those who walk alongside others every day, who know the first names, who know the smells and fears."

Fascinating.

And given that Brooks almost certainly has "walked beside" Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of the Times, Jill Abramson, its former executive editor, and Dean Baquet, its new executive editor, and surely knows all three by their first names, perhaps he would care to inform us about the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of Abramson. Maybe he would care to describe the "smells and fears" surrounding this occurrence.

Was Abramson dismissed because she demanded to receive the same compensation package received by her predecessor, Bill Keller (see: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2014/05/why-jill-abramson-was-fired.html)?

Or, should we simply ignore Abramson's dismissal and pursue other, more abstract knowledge, less close to home, for its own sake?

Gail Collins, "My State’s Prettier Than Yours": What About Jill Abramson's Back?

Lydia, oh Lydia, that encyclopedia
Lydia, the queen of tattoo
On her back is the Battle of Waterloo
Beside it the Wreck of the Hesperus, too
And proudly above waves the red, white and blue
You can learn a lot from Lydia

- From "Lydia, The Tattooed Lady," sung by Groucho Marx in "At the Circus" (1939)

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "My State’s Prettier Than Yours" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/opinion/collins-my-states-prettier-than-yours.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), Gail Collins begins:

"Our topic for today is state tourism slogans. Perhaps that’s not what you had in mind. Perhaps you are from North Dakota ('Legendary') or North Carolina ('Beauty Amplified') and are already so self-satisfied you see no reason to worry about the subject at all."

Forgive me for being blunt, but who gives a rat's ass?

You feel the need to be cute, Gail? How about poking a little fun at the dismissal of Jill (the Tatooed Lady) Abramson as executive editor of The Times? Or is your own financially challenged newspaper off limits?

Will Abramson now seek to remove "the 'T' from the paper's logo tattooed on her back" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/14/jill-abramson-dean-baquet-new-york-times_n_5325138.html)?

Oh, the suspense!

You will recall that Abramson is "famous" for having told us, "In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion" (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/03/jill-abramsons-religion-slam-ny-times-substituted-for-religion-in-her-family.html). Unfortunately for Jill, she has now been tossed out of her alternative Garden of Eden. A bitter bite of apple to swallow, eh?

Not to worry, Jill! I've got your back!

Gail Collins, "Intelligence for Dummies": A Bronx Cheer for Obama from The New York Times

When was the last time Gail Collins wrote a serious op-ed? When was the last time Collins wrote an op-ed critical of the Obama administration? When was the last time I agreed with anything that Collins said? Well, it's happened. The New York Times, under the stewardship of Jill Abramson, is in open revolt against Obama.

In her latest Times op-ed entitled "Intelligence for Dummies" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/opinion/collins-intelligence-for-dummies.html?_r=0), Collins writes:

"'Nobody is listening to your telephone calls,' President Obama assured the American people on Friday. Well, probably nobody. And, if they are, it’s under an entirely different part of the program."

Collins is correct. Nobody is listening to your calls unless you say one of the "magic" words . . .

Collins continues:

"'Does the N.S.A. collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?' [Senator Ron Wyden] asked James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, at a public hearing.

'No sir,' said Clapper."

Okay, Obama lied. Clapper lied. Eric Holder lied. Lois Lerner took the Fifth. Almost everyone in government is busy lying, but why should that prevent the Obama administration from enhancing the omnipresence of an abusive federal government which the president has failed to oversee?

Collins concludes

"I wouldn’t rely on Congress to keep things under control. It’s really up to the president. As a candidate, Obama looked as if he would be great at riding herd on the N.S.A.’s excesses. But if he has ever seriously pushed back on the spy set, it’s been kept a secret. Meanwhile, the administration scarfs up reporters’ e-mails and phone records in its obsessive war against leaks.

And without the leaks to reporters, we would never be having discussions about whether it’s a good idea for the government to collect piles of records about our telephone calls every day.

'I welcome this debate,' Obama said Friday. 'I think it’s healthy for our democracy.' Under further questioning, he said that he definitely didn’t welcome the leaks. Without which, of course, there would be no debate.

Do you remember how enthusiastic people were about having a president who once taught constitutional law? I guess we’ve learned a lesson."

More to the point, Obama also said (see video at: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/07/Obama-press-conference-problems-here):

"Trust me. We're doing the right thing. We know who the bad guys are. And the reason that's not how it works is because we got Congressional oversight and judicial oversight. And if people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress, and don’t trust federal judges, to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution with due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here. But my observation is that the people who are involved in America's national security, they take this work very seriously. They cherish our Constitution. The last thing they'd be doing is taking programs like this to listen to somebody's phone calls."

Where to even begin?

Given his friendships with the likes of Erdogan and Putin, I don't think Obama knows who the bad guys are.

As observed by Collins, relatively few in Congress have known what his administration has done, thus preventing Congressional oversight.

And as far as people involved in America's national security "cherishing" the Constitution, many do, yet there are others who would be hard pressed to describe the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Not unlike the IRS, the NSA is an enormous organization, and not everyone there thinks alike. The IRS ran amok under the Obama administration, and the NSA is capable of the same.

Trust you, Mr. President? I don't.

David Brooks, "The Power Inversion": David Brooks Has Now Lost All Credibility . . . on This Issue

As I suggested yesterday, Jill Abramson of The New York Times has lost her patience with Obama (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/new-york-times-us-is-secretly.html). Alluding to a lead online Times article entitled "U.S. Is Secretly Collecting Records of Verizon Calls" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/us/us-secretly-collecting-logs-of-business-calls.html?_r=0) by Charlie Savage and Edward Wyatt, I observed:

"What has happened to The Times? After refusing to participate in Eric Holder's off-the-record discussion, they are now investigating violations of Americans' basic First Amendment rights? Is Jill Abramson finally getting wise to Obama's 'Little Shop of Horrors'?"

But who would have thought that The New York Times would then write an editorial entitled "President Obama’s Dragnet" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&pagewanted=all&) and declare:

"The administration has now lost all credibility. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it."

But not so fast! Needless to say, the language of this editorial was subsequently edited to read (italics added):

"The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue."

Was there a certain livid West Wing staffer who called The Times to demand this amendment? Easy enough to find out: Simply check the phone records collected by the NSA.

And of course, the redaction was necessary given how credible the Obama administration remains vis-à-vis the IRS scandal, the Benghazi travesty, the AP/Rosen horror, and its spurious overseas "red lines." Yeah, right.

Given all of the above, David Brooks today decides to wade into the fray (. . . not) with a Times op-ed entitled "The Power Inversion" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/brooks-the-power-inversion.html) in which he contends (yawn) that "city governments are likely to be more dynamic than the federal government." Brooks writes:

"There’s a weird calm around Washington these days. The Obama administration only has a year before the lame-duck status sets in. Yet you don’t get a sense of urgency. White House officials seem busy running the government, but they are not filling the public space with a transformational second-term agenda."

"A weird calm"? Sorry, David, this is not "sclerosis" but rather paralysis. The West Wing no longer knows where from where the next scandal is going to arise, and there is no place for a "transformational second-term agenda" when White House staff are worrying who will be forced to testify before Congress.

Write about PRISM, Verizon, Benghazi, the IRS, AP/Rosen, Syria, Iran? No way! David Brooks appears intent upon avoiding these topics like the plague, except to the extent that Benghazi tarnished the reputation of his friend Victoria Nuland (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/david-brooks-next-scapegoat-benghazi.html).

Time to wake up, David. Time to take a stand.

New York Times, "U.S. Is Secretly Collecting Records of Verizon Calls": Welcome to the Fascism of the New Left

After learning that Susan Rice would replace Thomas Donilon as national security adviser and that Samantha Power had been nominated by Obama to replace Rice as UN ambassador, I went to sleep feeling nauseous.

Rice, who happily lied to Americans on behalf of the Obama administration concerning the facts on the ground in Benghazi? Yes, I know, David Ignatius in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Susan Rice, a provocateur in the West Wing" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-susan-rice-a-provocateur-in-the-west-wing/2013/06/05/5b7f0e10-ce22-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html?hpid=z2) writes today:

"And then there’s Benghazi: Obama is swapping a man who generally avoided the Sunday talk shows for someone who nearly committed career suicide for delivering the famous talking points (for which she was otherwise blameless). Enough, already, about Benghazi."

Sorry David, but not enough already about Benghazi. Americans were spared having to see what was done to Ambassador Steven's body after the Obama administration refused to lift a finger to prevent his murder. Since that time, none of those responsible for this abomination have been made to pay the price. Forgive me - maybe it's my Posttraumatic Stress Disorder acting up - but I can't forget such outrages.

Samantha Power? The very same person who called for a massive US army presence to protect Palestinians from the Israel Defense Forces? The person who called Hillary Clinton a "monster"? The person who wrote of John Kerry (http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2008/03/barack-obama-interview-power):

"The lesson we got was that the only thing worse than John Kerry being Swiftboated was his being slow to respond. God love him, he must have thought that having got shrapnel in his ass out there bought him some credibility. It didn't."

Well, at least she was right concerning America's new secretary of state.

But as nauseous as I was last night, little did I know what would await me in the morning.

In its current lead online article entitled "U.S. Is Secretly Collecting Records of Verizon Calls" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/us/us-secretly-collecting-logs-of-business-calls.html?_r=0) by Charlie Savage and Edward Wyatt, The New York Times reports:

"The Obama administration is secretly carrying out a domestic surveillance program under which it is collecting business communications records involving Americans under a hotly debated section of the Patriot Act, according to a highly classified court order disclosed on Wednesday night.

The order, signed by Judge Roger Vinson of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in April, directs a Verizon Communications subsidiary, Verizon Business Network Services, to turn over 'on an ongoing daily basis' to the National Security Agency all call logs 'between the United States and abroad' or 'wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls.'"

The article concludes:

"The New York Times filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in 2011 for a report describing the government’s interpretation of its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act. But the Obama administration withheld the report, and a judge dismissed the case."

What has happened to The Times? After refusing to participate in Eric Holder's off-the-record discussion, they are now investigating violations of Americans' basic First Amendment rights? Is Jill Abramson finally getting wise to Obama's "Little Shop of Horrors"?

Sodom and Gomorrah: Plagiarism and Prevarication Go Unpunished at The New York Times and The Washington Post

Then the Lord said, 'How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin!'

- Genesis 18:20

No, I'm not religious in a traditional sense, but I can say with certainty that my religious perspective, which is a bit amorphous, differs vastly from that of Jill Abramson, executive editor of The New York Times, whose theological upbringing is described in her Times blurb (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/a/jill_abramson/index.html):

"Ms. Abramson said that as a born-and-raised New Yorker, she considered being named editor of The Times to be like 'ascending to Valhalla.'

'In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion,' she said. 'If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth.'"

Abramson has "ascended to Valhalla," where truth reigns supreme? In fact, given my own recent experience with the anti-Semitism and outright lies of The Times, I consider her being named editor of the The Times to be more akin to descending into Helheim (hell in Nordic mythology).

Let's ignore the recent manifestations of anti-Semitism at The Times, e.g., Kristof's retweet of a controversial message that referred to AIPAC as one of "the 2 most pig like lobbies" in America (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/nicholas-kristof-retweets-obama-told-2.html) and Friedman's op-ed assertion that Netanyahu's standing ovation after speaking before Congress was "bought and paid for by the Israel lobby" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/opinion/friedman-newt-mitt-bibi-and-vladimir.html?_r=0). Yup, as advanced by both "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and The New York Times, Jews pull all the strings.

Instead let's concentrate on Maureen Dowd's inadvertent lifting of language, i.e. plagiarism (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/17/maureen-dowd-admits-inadv_n_204418.html), which went unpunished by The Times.

Let's also focus on Thomas Friedman's recent December 4, 2012 flagrantly mistaken op-ed contention (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/opinion/iron-empires-iron-fists-iron-domes.html) that Israel's planned E1 construction "would sever any possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state." This was followed by a December 20, 2012 editorial entitled "The Fading Mideast Peace Dream" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/opinion/the-fading-mideast-peace-dream.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=1&), in which The Times went on record as stating:

"So far this week, Mr. Netanyahu’s hard-line government, defying the Western powers, has approved construction of more than 6,000 new housing units. The approvals follow an announcement late last month that Israel would continue planning for new development in the E1 area — a project northeast of Jerusalem that would split the West Bank and prevent the creation of a viable contiguous Palestinian state."

Unfortunately for both Friedman and the editorial board of The Times, E1 construction by Israel, if it ever happens, will not sever the West Bank. This is a fact.

As provided by Section 15 of "Ethical Journalism, A Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments" (italics added)  (http://www.nytco.com/pdf/NYT_Ethical_Journalism_0904.pdf), which puportedly guides the ethical conduct of The Times:

"The Times treats is readers as fairly and openly as possible. In print and online, we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. It is our policy to correct our errors large and small, as soon as we become aware of them."

As further provided Section 16 of the "Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments" of The Times:

"Simple courtesy suggests that we not alienate our readers by ignoring their letters and e-mails that warrant reply."

The New York Times did not bother to correct Friedman's op-ed piece or its editorial, notwithstanding my e-mails to Andrew Rosenthal, its editorial page editor, and Margaret Sullivan, its public editor. Moreover, both Rosenthal and Sullivan didn't bother to reply.

But not to worry, Jill, Andy and Margaret. The Times is in "good company."

Notwithstanding Fareed Zakaria's plagiarism scandal and his resignation from Yale University's governing board (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/fareed-zakaria-resigns-yale-board_n_1814199.html), The Washington Post continues to publish his opinion pieces.

Worse still, The Washington Post has now demonstrated that it is indifferent to prevarication penned by its opinion writing staff. Earlier this month, in a WaPo opinion piece entitled "Obama appeals to Israel's conscience" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-obama-appeals-to-israels-conscience/2013/03/27/a4365b18-96f5-11e2-b68f-dc5c4b47e519_story.html?hpid=z2), Zakaria claimed:

"After all, Israel has ruled millions of Palestinians without offering them citizenship or a state for 40 years."

Of course, as well known to Zakaria, Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert offered Arafat and Abbas an independent state along the 1967 lines with agreed upon land swaps, and Olmert even offered Palestinian control of east Jerusalem. Arafat and Abbas refused. I alerted WaPo to this lie, and Martin Baron, executive editor of the newspaper, sent me an e-mail saying that he was passing my complaint to Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor. Has Hiatt gotten back to me? Not yet, and I'm no longer holding my breath.

And so, we have reached a time when plagiarism and prevarication go unpunished by two of America's leading newspapers. Is it any wonder that their readership and finances are in a death spiral?

We all know what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, despite Abraham's best efforts at bargaining with God. Can ten righteous persons be found at The  New York Times and The Washington Post? I am beginning to have my doubts.

Is New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd Anti-Semitic?

Everyone knows that Maureen Dowd once lifted a paragraph from Josh Marshall without attribution. This is called plagiarism.

We also know that Maureen is a hypocrite. In the past she has devoted many of her columns to the molestation of young boys by Catholic priests. On the other hand, during the course of a 2010 trip to Saudi Arabia, during which she was hosted by Prince Saud al-Faisal at "his sprawling, glinting ranch house with its stable of Arabian horses," she reported that the Desert Kingdom is "chipping away at gender apartheid and cultural repression" (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/opinion/03dowd.html), but forgot to mention the horrors being perpetrated against Saudi women. When I complained to Andrew Rosenthal, editorial page editor of The New York Times, about this paradox, he quickly came to Dowd's defense:

"Maureen has denounced the barbaric policies in Saudi Arabia against women more than once, including on an earlier trip to that country as I recall."

My response to Rosenthal:

"Re Ms. Dowd's most recent series of op-eds concerning Saudi Arabia, I read all of them and do not recall a single instance where she denounced their 'barbaric policies'. Although there was castigation of Israel, did she did not once mention the practice of 'honor' killings in Saudi Arabia. She never described how women who are gang raped are sentenced to prison and lashings. She never mentioned the problem of 'child brides' in this country.

I recall reading her op-ed, 'Driving Miss Saudi' . . . where she observed how "Young women in Riyadh try to balance Islam and modernity as the stunted desert kingdom makes progress in 'Saudi Time'", but didn't dare breathe a word concerning any of the above obscenities.

Reading this op-ed, one was made to believe that Saudi oppression of women amounted to little more than a dress code."

Rosenthal did not respond.

More recently, following her Sunday op-ed entitled "Neocons Slither Back" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dowd-neocons-slither-back.html), Dowd has been accused of anti-Semitism. As summarized by Politico's Dylan Byers (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/maureen-dowd-meets-antisemitism-charge-135700.html):

"New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd set the Jewish political community on fire today with a column about the Republican ticket's foreign policy proposals that, according to her critics, peddled anti-Semitic imagery.

Dowd fairly observed that neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan are experts in the field of foreign policy, but asserted their strategy was orchestrated by a 'neocon puppet master' who was leading the neocon effort to 'slither back' into power.

Such language, to say nothing of the questionable legitimacy of her claims, struck experts on American-Israeli relations as an inappropriate (though perhaps unintentional) appeal to anti-Semitic stereotypes, and especially offensive ahead of the first night of the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah."

Observing the outrage expressed by Steven A. Cook, Jeffrey Goldberg, Blake Hounshell, Daniel Halper and Jonathan Tobin, Byers reported that Andrew Rosenthal had defended Dowd from these charges by declaring:

"No fair-minded reading of Maureen Dowd's column supports the allegations you and others are making. She makes no reference, direct or implied, to anyone's religion."

Yeah, right. Not one of these commentators from both the left and the right is "fair-minded."

But why is everyone suddenly ganging up on poor Maureen?

Not long ago, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/opinion/friedman-newt-mitt-bibi-and-vladimir.html?ref=opinion):

"I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."

Is this any less horrifying than what Maureen wrote?

And then there was Roger Cohen's New York Times op-ed "Obama in Netanyahu's Web" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinion/28iht-edcohen.html), whose title was painfully in keeping with the anti-Semitic tradition of depicting Jews as voracious spiders. As a "very senior" Times editor later acknowledged to me, this "was not a good headline."

More about Cohen? Earlier this year, following my complaint by e-mail to Andrew Rosenthal concerning the title of Roger Cohen's op-ed, "The Dilemmas of Jewish Power," the title was quickly changed online to "The Dilemmas of Israeli Power" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/opinion/cohen-the-dilemmas-of-jewish-power.html). Rosenthal did not write back to me, and when I protested to Jill Abramson, executive editor of the Times, she also failed to reply (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/02/stench-of-anti-semitism-at-new-york.html).

Also, we mustn't forget the "contribution" of New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof to this depravity. As I explained in an article entitled "Nicholas Kristof, Israel, and Double Standards" (http://www.jsantisemitism.org/essays/GrossmanJSA210(4).pdf) for The Journal for the Study of Antisemitism, Kristof routinely rails against purported Israeli injustices, while ignoring the improprities of other democracies:

"Ignorance, however, has never prevented Kristof from foisting twaddle upon the Times’s readership, particularly with respect to Israel. In an August 2011 op-ed, “Seeking Balance on the Mideast” (http://www.nytimes
.com/2011/08/04/opinion/seeking-balance-on-the-mideast.html?_r=1&hp), Kristof lambasted Israel at a time when Assad’s tanks were massacring the inhabitants of the Syrian city of Hama. Kristof sought to excuse himself by observing:

'Whenever I write about Israel, I get accused of double standards because I don’t spill as much ink denouncing worse abuses by, say, Syria. I plead guilty. I demand more of Israel partly because my tax dollars supply arms and aid to Israel. I hold democratic allies like Israel to a higher standard—just as I do the U.S.'

True, Syria has not been a recipient of U.S. aid. But whereas Egypt has received billions of dollars of American aid, Kristof doesn’t write about the persecution and murder of its Coptic Christian minority . . . And while Pakistan, a democracy of sorts, has also benefited from billions of dollars of U.S. aid while abetting the Taliban in Afghanistan, Kristof has been seeking a reduction of tariffs on Pakistani garment exports to the United States, purportedly in order to fight extremism.

. . . .

According to the 'working definition of antisemitism' of the European Forum on Antisemitism: 'Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include: . . . Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.'

. . . .

Kristof plainly has no problem ignoring the persecution of 30 million stateless Kurds, the oppression of Iran’s Baha’is, and the despair of Egypt’s Copts. He clearly holds Israel to rules unlike those that he would set for any other country, democratic or otherwise, be it Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, or the United States. Kristof worries over whether he will be accused of applying a double standard to Israel, to which concern I would observe that there is an old Jewish maxim applicable to Kristof’s angst: 'The hat burns on the head of the thief.' In the best-case scenario, Kristof is guilty of applying double standards to Israel, notwithstanding his protestations to the contrary. In the worst-case scenario, Kristof is guilty of something far more insidious."

More? The New York Times has persistently published the vilest imaginable anti-Semitic comments from its readers notwithstanding review by its "moderators," e.g., "There is no country called Israel, just the squatting of tribal criminals from the Eastern Bloc." Although I repeatedly brought this practice to the attention of past New York Times public editors, I was ignored (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-letter-no-2-to-clark-hoyt-public.html and http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/10/sanchez-dismissal-spawns-more-anti.html). When I showed specific examples of these readers' comments to Andrew Rosenthal, he personally removed some of them, but the phenomenon persisted. (I have long ceased reading these comments or submitting them, given that I was routinely censored by the Times's "moderators.")

Still more? When Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu responded to a Times request that he submit a guest op-ed for publication, his senior adviser, Ron Dermer, responded this past December by observing (http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=249724):

"Not to be accused of cherry-picking to prove a point, I discovered that during the last three months (September through November) you published 20 op-eds about Israel in the New York Times and International Herald Tribune. After dividing the op-eds into two categories, 'positive' and 'negative,' with 'negative' meaning an attack against the State of Israel or the policies of its democratically elected government, I found that 19 out of 20 columns were 'negative.'

The only 'positive' piece was penned by Richard Goldstone (of the infamous Goldstone Report), in which he defended Israel against the slanderous charge of Apartheid.

Yet your decision to publish that op-ed came a few months after your paper reportedly rejected Goldstone's previous submission. In that earlier piece, which was ultimately published in the Washington Post, the man who was quoted the world over for alleging that Israel had committed war crimes in Gaza, fundamentally changed his position. According to the New York Times op-ed page, that was apparently news unfit to print."

Well, over the past week leading up to Rosh Hashanah, The New York Times was again up to its old tricks. The Times published an Israel bashing guest op-ed entitled "Seven Lean Years of Peacemaking," written by Daniel Levy, whose inaccuracies are most kindly described as egregious (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/daniel-levy-seven-lean-years-of.html). The Times didn't bother to inform its readership that Levy was a founder of J Street and continues to serve on its advisory board (see: http://www.newamerica.net/people/daniel_levy).

On Rosh Hashanah, the Times "feted" its readers with another Israel bashing guest op-ed entitled "A Preventable Massacre," written by Seth Anziska, a Columbia University graduate student, whose casual attitude toward historical facts speaks volumes about his inclinations (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/seth-anziska-preventable-massacre-more.html). Again, the Times didn't take the trouble to inform its readers that Columbia lists Anziska's "Advisor" as Rashid Khalidi (see: http://history.columbia.edu/graduate/Anziska.html), a professor once linked to the PLO (see: http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/2008/10/khalidi-of-the-plo/). As known to all, a tape of Obama's 2003 tribute to Khalidi at a farewell party in Chicago is locked away in the offices of The Los Angeles Times (see: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226104/i-l-times-i-suppresses-obamas-khalidi-bash-tape/andrew-c-mccarthy).

In short, why is everyone beating up on poor Maureen Dowd when the stench of anti-Semitism permeates the entirety of the Times's edifice?

The Stench of Anti-Semitism at The New York Times

OPEN LETTER TO JILL ABRAMSON, EXECUTIVE EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES

Dear Ms. Abramson,

I remember in June, when you were named Executive Editor of The New York Times, you were quoted by The Times , following your promotion, as saying:

“In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion. If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth.”

This statement was subsequently retracted from the said article in The Times, after it apparently caused you no small amount of embarrassment. After all, how many people are of the belief in the divinity of a newspaper.

Well, let's talk about the so-called "divinity" of your newspaper, The New York Times. I would argue that in recent years, it has cast aside its wings and has instead embraced the profane adoration of anti-Semitism, as practiced by the new left.

You're a newspaper editor, so naturally you demand proof. No problem.

Just this week, following my complaint by e-mail to Andrew Rosenthal, your Editorial Page Editor, concerning the title of Roger Cohen's latest op-ed, "The Dilemmas of Jewish Power," the title was quickly changed online to "The Dilemmas of Israeli Power." Rosenthal did not write back to me.

Does the initial title of Cohen's op-ed remind you of something? It should. In a 1935 speech to the Reichstag introducing the Nuremberg Laws, Hitler stated:

"The third [law] is an attempt to regulate by law [the Jewish] problem, which, should this attempt fail, must then be handed over by law to the National-Socialist Party for a final solution."

"Jewish dilemmas"? "Jewish problem"? They sound frighteningly alike. Moreover, Hitler, like most other anti-Semites, believed that the Jews wielded too much power.

An isolated incident? Hardly. In May 2009, The New York Times published an op-ed by Roger Cohen entitled "Obama in Netanyahu's Web" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinion/28iht-edcohen.html). I quickly shot off an e-mail to a very senior editor of The Times:

"The Times should have given more thought to the title of Cohen's op-ed. As I tried to illustrate in my e-mail to Clark Hoyt, there is a long anti-Semitic history of depicting Jews as ugly voracious spiders. Netanyahu is no spider, and Obama is no butterfly. The title could only serve to inflame hatred."

The very senior editor, who requested to remain anonymous, replied:

"It was not a good headline, I agree. By the time this column gets to the times website it has already been published in the IHT [International Herald Tribune] on paper and online. This is not an excuse. It is an explanation. The headline should have been changes there [sic]."

Does the problem relate only to Roger Cohen? Hardly. Thomas Friedman let loose with an anti-Semitic tirade in his op-ed “Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/opinion/friedman-newt-mitt-bibi-and-vladimir.html?_r=1&hp), in which he declared:

"I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."

It now turns out that The New York Times was only willing to publish one letter-to-the-editor in response to Friedman's racist rant, which was submitted by the American Jewish Committee (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/us-support-for-israel.html). However, The New York Times "sanitized" this reply.

As reported by David Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, in The Jerusalem Post (http://blogs.jpost.com/content/new-york-times-columnist-tom-friedman-crossed-line), the following is the original letter-to-the-editor submitted by the AJC to The Times:

“Tom Friedman is entitled to his opinion about the pro-Israel statements of Republican presidential candidates. But his assertion that the standing ovation Congress gave Prime Minister Netanyahu a few months ago was ‘bought and paid for by the Israel lobby’ is both inaccurate and shockingly insidious. Public opinion polls consistently show a high level of American (and, yes, American Jewish) support for and identification with Israel. This indicates that the people’s elected representatives are fully reflecting the will of the voters. Friedman’s identification of a rich and powerful ‘Israel lobby’ conjures up the ugliest anti-Semitic stereotypes. Does he identify with those who traffic in such rhetoric, notably Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, who coauthored a book by that name? One surely hopes not.”

Now contrast the above with what was published by The Times:

“Thomas L. Friedman is entitled to his opinion about the pro-Israel statements of Republican presidential candidates. But we strongly object to his assertion that the standing ovation that Congress gave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a few months ago ‘was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.’ Public opinion polls consistently show a high level of American (and, yes, American Jewish) support for and identification with Israel. This indicates that the people’s elected representatives are fully reflecting the will of the people.”

In short, The New York Times redacted the AJC's observation that Friedman "conjures up the ugliest anti-Semitic stereotypes."

More, Jill? No problem. As observed by a senior adviser to Netanyahu, Ron Dermer, in a letter to The New York Times, in which he declined your newspaper's offer to publish a contributor op-ed to be written by Netanyahu (http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=249724), antagonism to Israel on the opinion pages of The New York Times has reached epidemic proportions:

"I discovered that during the last three months (September through November) you published 20 op-eds about Israel in the New York Times and International Herald Tribune. After dividing the op-eds into two categories, 'positive' and 'negative,' with 'negative' meaning an attack against the State of Israel or the policies of its democratically elected government, I found that 19 out of 20 columns were 'negative.'

The only 'positive' piece was penned by Richard Goldstone (of the infamous Goldstone Report), in which he defended Israel against the slanderous charge of Apartheid. Yet your decision to publish that op-ed came a few months after your paper reportedly rejected Goldstone's previous submission. In that earlier piece, which was ultimately published in the Washington Post, the man who was quoted the world over for alleging that Israel had committed war crimes in Gaza, fundamentally changed his position."

And then there was also Sarah Schulman's recent New York Times contributor op-ed entitled "Israel and 'Pinkwashing'" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/11/sarah-schulman-israel-and-pinkwashing.html), in which Israel is assailed for safeguarding gay rights allegedly in order to disguise abuse of Palestinian rights. Publication of this contributor op-ed caused me to wonder how even Andy Rosenthal and friends could reach this nadir.

Still want more, Jill? Again, no problem. Although online readers' comments to your op-eds and editorials are purportedly "moderated," your so-called moderators have repeatedly permitted the posting of the vilest expressions of anti-Semitism. Just one of many examples:

"There is no country called Israel, just the squatting of tribal criminals from the Eastern Bloc."

I sent repeated e-mails to your former Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, about this disgraceful phenomenon, but he ignored me. I also sent examples of this abuse to the "very senior editor," who removed many of the comments, long after they had been posted, but the posting of anti-Semitic online readers' comments at The Times continued. (See, for additional background and examples: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-letter-no-2-to-clark-hoyt-public.html; http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/10/sanchez-dismissal-spawns-more-anti.html; http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/08/charles-blows-obama-and-jews-part-2.html; http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/08/vicious-anti-semitic-readers-comment-in.html; http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/06/if-you-were-revolted-by-helen-thomas.html)

Have a good look in the mirror, Jill. You were brought up to believe that The New York Times is a beacon of truth and a substitute for religion? Obviously, you don't have a clue as to what monstrous depths your newspaper has descended.

Jill Abramson Answers Questions from New York Times Readers

The New York Times ceremoniously announced that "Jill Abramson, managing editor of The Times, is answering questions from readers Sept. 8-11, 2009" and that questions may be e-mailed to her. Apparently she was bombarded with inquiries concerning the lack of New York Times coverage of the Van Jones affair. Her response:

"One reason was that our Washington bureau was somewhat short-staffed during the height of the pre-Labor Day vacation period. . . . Another is that despite being a so-called 'czar,' Mr. Jones was not a high-ranking official."

Yeah, right. This also explains why The Times' op-ed writers have studiously avoided the Van Jones matter and President Obama's announcement of the resignation in the middle of the night on a holiday weekend.

Given that Jill Abramson was "answering questions", I, too, sent her an e-mail:

Dear Ms. Abramson,

As you can see from the correspondence below, I was promised an answer by the office of The New York Times' Public Editor whether Roger Cohen's op-ed, "What Iran's Jews Say", was in keeping with New York Times journalistic standards of ethics.

In a nutshell, Mr. Cohen failed to inform The Times' readership that his interviews with Iranian Jews were conducted with the assistance of an Iranian translator, hired from an Iranian government "agency", who, as acknowledged by Mr. Cohen, was reporting on these meetings back to the "agency". Moreover, it is unclear whether the said "agency" arranged these specific meetings in advance.

Notwithstanding the promise I received from the Public Editor's office and Mr. Hoyt's personal awareness of and involvement in this issue, I have never received an answer.

Perhaps you would care to reply.

Best regards,
Jeffrey Grossman

Will she reply? Given her Van Jones response, you can count on it.