Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘New York Times’

While the Obama Administration and the State Department are trying to keep a lid on what really happened in the U.S. consulate in Benghazi — because they are treating it as a “crime scene” — the news media is doing its job.

CNN has an article about warnings that purportedly were given to U.S. officials in Libya about the deteriorating security situation there.  The New York Times reports on the “problem of Libya’s militias,” which indicates that since the overthrow of Muammar el-Qaddafi Libya has become a fractionalized, lawless place dominated by heavily armed, autonomous “miliitias” with little sense of central control.  A BBC story quotes the president of the Libya’s interim assembly as saying that the Benghazi incident was carefully planned by foreigners who came to Libya months ago and have been plotting the attack since then.  The latter story, of course, undercuts the notion that the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens was a spontaneous reaction to an inflammatory internet video.  And the photos of the burnt-out remains of the consulate, published in newspapers and on websites across the globe, demonstrate how devastating the attack was.

These reports raise obvious questions about the real cause of the Benghazi attack and whether the Obama Administration, the U.S. State Department, and the intelligence community ignored clear danger signs — or even explicit advance warnings — about the security situation in Libya.  These questions can’t be adequately answered by spin-oriented flacks like White House press secretary Jay Carney.  Instead, those questions need to be asked, in a public forum, and answered under oath by knowledgeable Administration officials whose jobs involve collecting intelligence, ensuring that our diplomatic outposts are adequately safeguarded, and communicating with host countries about embassy security.  We deserve to know how this fiasco happened.

Read Full Post »

The New York Times ran an interesting story on Sunday about President Obama.  Headlined “The Competitor in Chief,” the article addressed the President’s competitive nature and provided some perspective on his personality.

The article depicts the President as a proud man and perfectionist who wants to be the best at everything — and who apparently thinks he is the best or close to the best, whether it is playing pool, or reading children’s stories, or writing speeches.  He practices regularly and works hard to improve, even at things like bowling or golf.

I feel I have a better understanding of President Obama, the person, having read this article.  I’m impressed by his work ethic — but I also question whether hyper-competitiveness and believing you know more than any of your advisers really are positive qualities for a President of the United States.

Read Full Post »

Our bright and gifted nephew and godson, Andrew, put up a Facebook post stating that the David Brooks’ column The Age of Innocence in the New York Times was “great fodder for Webner House.”  I agree.

In fact, I’d like to try a kind of experiment with Andrew’s suggestion that we really haven’t done before — at least, not intentionally.  Anyone who reads our blog knows that the Webner House posters approach issues from very different parts of the political spectrum.  We frequently disagree on things, but try to do so reasonably and respectfully.  Therefore, I’d like to invite Richard, Russell, UJ, and Uncle Mack to post their own views on the David Brooks column, and then see what Andrew’s thoughts are in response.

As we move closer to the election, there undoubtedly will be other issues where we might want to take the temperature of our contributors, just to see how the far-flung branches of the Webner clan are reacting.  I think everyone, regardless of their political inclination, believes that this election will be a very important one.  Our little discussions can be like family talks at the kitchen table after dinner — except that our table will be the Webner House blog, accessible to anyone who is interested.  I’ll post my thoughts on the David Brooks column later tonight.

Read Full Post »

Kish brought this story to my attention.  It’s another example of why running for President in America would suck.

Mitt Romney is flying coach class to Boston and is seated next to Carolyn McClanahan of Jacksonville, Florida.  He poses for a photo, then puts on headphones, reads a newspaper, and works on his iPad.  But Ms. McClanahan has other ideas.  She’s a doctor who “heads a financial planning company” and boasts of having read every page of the “health care reform” bill.  She decides to tell Romney of her idea for improving health care by “switching to an electronic billing system.”  Romney says “I understand” and goes back to his reading.

What is the lesson from this episode?  Why, according to Ms. McClanahan, it is that Romney is “out of touch” and “wooden” — all because he didn’t listen appreciatively to her views.  Indeed, the New York Times blogger who reports the incident says it offers “a glimpse of a widening gulf between Americans and politicians.”

Huh?  I get just the opposite message.  I applaud Romney for ignoring some droning busybody who wanted to lecture him about her health care ideas.  If Romney were wooden and programmed, he would have let Ms. McClanahan monopolize his time.  The fact that he ignored her bad manners shows he isn’t a robot.

Any criticism should be directed at Ms. McClanahan, for pestering a fellow passenger who just wants some down time.  Any business traveler knows how frustrating it can be when the total stranger in the next seat over is dead set on boring you with their views, despite every non-verbal signal you are sending.  Perhaps Ms. McClanahan has never had that experience.  I hope that the next time she flies she is seated next to a hypochondriac who learns that she is a doctor and spends the entire flight talking about his bowel problems.  Maybe then Ms. McClanahan will learn some manners.

Read Full Post »

Yesterday the New York Times published an interesting story about “green jobs.”  It found that, despite being the focus of government subsidies and targeted jobs creation efforts, “green” businesses really haven’t produced much green — in the form of cash payments to new workers and employees.

The article found that “clean technology” jobs account for only a small fraction of jobs nationwide, and that government programs to subsidize and stimulate creation of “green jobs” have largely failed.  Job training efforts also have not borne fruit.  And this story comes on top of other stories that show that much of the employment generated by “green energy” subsidies occurs in other countries, like China, that actually manufacture the wind turbines and solar panel devices that typically are the centerpiece of green jobs initiatives and the photo op backdrop for political speeches about those initiatives.

Amazingly — to me, at least — some green energy advocates say federal and state governments haven’t done enough to encourage green energy.  They bemoan the fact that Congress did not enact “cap and trade” legislation that would have made use of fossil fuels more expensive and therefore made green energy alternatives more competitive.  For now, however, people are paying attention to their pocketbooks when they are making energy choices, and green energy is losing out.

The article is a good illustration of how government forecasts and promises frequently end up for naught.  It also demonstrates that government efforts to redirect consumer sentiments are doomed to fail — at least when they ask consumers to spend more for unfamiliar technology that doesn’t seem to work as well as what they were using before.

Read Full Post »

The BBC is reporting that some of the sons of Osama bin Laden have given a statement to the New York Times protesting that their father was not captured alive and put on trial.  They say that a trial was needed so that “truth is revealed to the people of the world.”

Sorry, boys, but you’re not going to find any sympathy for that position from this quarter.  Osama bin Laden himself was a mass killer who showed no regard for international law or the rights of the innocent victims of 9/11 who were killed in cold blood for no reason — or the rights of any of the other victims of the many terrorist acts that al Qaeda planned, bankrolled, or executed over the years at bin Laden’s direction.  Nor do I think old mumble-mouth was much known for “truth.”  For his many confessed crimes, Osama bin Laden deserved to die.  I’m not among those who are squeamish about the circumstances of his death or the way in which his remains were disposed of.

There’s not only a silly double standard at play here.  I suspect that many of those who argue that the United States should have engaged in heroic measures to take bin Laden alive and should have put him on trial are simply sorry that bin Laden, ever the egoist who enjoyed watching himself pontificate, did not get a final chance to occupy the world’s stage in a protracted trial that would become a circus and a forum for his violent, anti-western philosophies.  I’m glad that he didn’t get that opportunity, and that he left this world without so much as a whimper.  It was a fitting end for a bad, bad man.

Read Full Post »

Check out this excellent article I read a couple of weeks ago in the New York Times about corporate taxes. After reading the article it left me shaking my head wondering when things went astray.

A CEO begging for tax shelters crucial to the company bottom line, employees urged to divide their time evenly between ensuring compliance with the law and looking to exploit opportunities to reduce the taxes the company pays, company lawyers and lobbyists involved in rewriting portions of the corporate tax code and the list goes on and on.

I bet hearing about this type of thing would be frustrating to our president. It will take a monumental effort to get things back on the right track if it isn’t already too late !

Read Full Post »

I don’t usually read Maureen Dowd’s columns, but I happened to stumble across this one. Her thesis is that a significant part of the opposition to President Obama’s health care reform proposals and some of his other initiatives is based on his race. She intimates that the stupid and juvenile “You lie” outburst from South Carolina Republican Congressman Joe Wilson during the President’s recent speech on health care has some racial component. New York Times op-ed columnists apparently have a supernatural ability to read the depths of a person’s soul and determine whether his actions are motivated by race. I don’t claim to have supernatural powers, and I don’t doubt that there are still benighted, abject racists in American society. I don’t sense, however, that race has anything to do with why many people are concerned about some of President Obama’s proposals.

The fact is that President Obama’s campaign for the presidency promised change, and he is now, by his own admission, trying to bring about very significant changes to American society. It is not at all surprising that the President’s efforts to fundamentally change how Americans get and pay for health care have attracted attention and opposition, because those efforts target an area that poses highly personal issues of choice and control. People who oppose the President’s proposed reforms recognize that he means what he says; they oppose the changes he is pursuing because they recognize that the changes are significant and they are concerned about how those change could affect them. Suggesting that President Obama’s proposals are minor and uncontroversial — and therefore that the only reason people could have for opposing the proposals must be racism — does a disservice both to those who oppose his policies for legitimate reasons and to the magnitude of President Obama’s proposals.

President Obama seems perfectly willing to engage in the war of ideas about health care reform and to advocate for his proposals on their merits. Those of his defenders who, like Maureen Dowd, contend that his opponents must be reacting to President Obama’s race are cheapening and undercutting the President’s efforts. President Obama does not need their paternalism.

Read Full Post »

Van Jones, a top adviser to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, has resigned. The story of Jones’ resignation is interesting for at least two reasons. The first is that although Jones’ past statements and associations have been fodder for The Drudge Report and conservative radio talk-shows and websites for days, they have received very little attention from the establishment news media. Indeed, the New York Times’ first mention of the controversy swirling about Jones came when the Times reported on his resignation. You would think the Times, which holds itself out as the newspaper of record, would be embarrassed to have totally failed to report on, much less to uncover itself, any of the incidents and activities that ultimately led to Jones’ resignation.

The second interesting aspect of Jones’s resignation is the apparently dismal failure of the White House vetting process. It is hard to believe that those in the Administration responsible for checking the background of Administration officials would not have uncovered Jones’ involvement with radical groups and his decision to sign on to a “Truther” petition, among other controversial activities. If those activities were, in fact, overlooked during the vetting process, then the Obama Administration should revisit its procedures and fire the individual who dropped the ball. An equally plausible explanation, however, is that Jones’ activities were uncovered, but Administration officials didn’t find them particularly problematic. Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean, for example, expressed regret at Jones’ resignation because he considers Jones to be a “star.” If Obama Administration officials weren’t troubled by Jones’ past actions, then the Administration may have a more significant problem to address — that of being out of touch with how ordinary Americans may react to radical activities.

Read Full Post »

Yesterday’s New York Times featured an interesting piece comparing President Obama to Lyndon Johnson (“Could Afghanistan Become Obama’s Vietnam?”). The article speculated that Obama’s ambitious domestic programs could end up being derailed by an unwinnable war in Afghanistan, just as LBJ’s Great Society was by the Vietnam War. According to the article, President Obama himself has compared his situation to LBJ’s.

LBJ

LBJ

I doubt Afghanistan will ever become as big a pain in the ass for Obama as Vietnam was for LBJ, but the article made me think. I just read an excellent presidential biography of Lyndon Johnson by Doris Kearns Goodwin that led me to reconsider the former president. Despite his horrible handling of Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson was a brilliant, good-hearted man whom Obama could take a few lessons from.

Everyone’s talking about how Obama’s poll numbers are slipping as a result of the current Healthcare debate. What’s really hurting him, however, isn’t the debate itself but his mismanagement of it. President Obama has lost control over the national dialogue over healthcare reforms, despite calling numerous town halls and press conferences to dispel rumors and clarify his goals. He seems to have even less control over Congress, as Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats, and left-wing Democrats seek out their own policy goals, showing little willingness to compromise.

President Obama should consult the playbook of LBJ, perhaps the most skillful manipulator of Congress in American history. In her biography of LBJ, Goodwin notes that, contrary to popular belief,  his handling of Congress consisted of more than strong-arming. LBJ had a genius for reading people, discovering in the course of a conversation their fears and desires, and responding to them. To reward members of Congress for “good behavior” he promised them positions of importance, mustered up the support they felt they needed to vote a certain way (from newspaper editors, organizations, other members of Congress, etc.), or allowed them access to his personal popularity as president (which was, like Obama’s, originally quite considerable). To punish them, LBJ would withdraw his affection to make them feel isolated from his circle of power. Of course, strong-arming could be a component of LBJ’s “treatment”, but only when it was the most effective way, which LBJ somehow knew instinctively.

Instead of giving control of healthcare reform to Congress, I wish Obama would put himself in a position like LBJ. While LBJ’s legislation responded to the needs of Congress, it was always under his ultimate control. Like LBJ, Obama should also set clear objectives for his domestic programs, instead of adding or removing vital parts of legislation when passage appears uncertain, such as in the case of the public policy option in the current healthcare bill. Most of all, Obama should use his personal popularity to manipulate congressmen, while it still lasts.

Also like LBJ, President Obama should never forget the human element of his programs. While in action on the floor of Congress, LBJ might have seemed like a political machine, but behind all his machinations was a desire to spread the American dream to as many as possible. I’m sure Obama has the same desire, but he hasn’t been talking much about it lately. Obama needs to remind the American people that healthcare reform isn’t about politics or socialism or health insurance companies – it’s about spreading happiness, health and opportunity to as many Americans as possible.

Read Full Post »

The New York Times has reported that one of its reporters who was captured by the Taliban and has been held captive for seven months has escaped. What makes the story particularly interesting is that the Times kept the story of the reporter’s capture confidential during that entire time because it was advised that disclosure of the capture would endanger the reporter. The Times therefore was confronted with a choice between printing what was a newsworthy story or refraining from doing so because printing the story could be fatal to its subject. The situation presented a question of journalistic ethics, and I think the Times clearly made the right choice.

When I attended the Ohio State University School of Journalism, ethics was part of the curriculum — not a major part, but at least a topic that was discussed. I was surprised to learn that there really are no hard and fast standards that apply to all members of the news media. Instead, every newspaper and every reporter had to make their own rough cuts. One of my journalism professors said his particular rule of thumb was never to accept a gift that could not be consumed in one sitting.

For reporters, the ethical questions can arise in countless different scenarios. If a kidnapping occurs, do you follow the requests of the police and the family on what to print and when? I think most journalists and editors would agree to do so, because no story is worth a life. Do you offer a source anonymity when you suspect that they may be leaking to pursue a political agenda? I think most journalists would say yes, if the reporter had done enough checking to believe in the truth of the source’s information and there was no other way to get the story. Do you accept a free meal or round of golf from someone trying to garner some favorable press? I think most reporters would permit themselves to do so, and believe that they could maintain their objectivity — but what if it turns into many meals, rounds of golf, and maybe a junket to an exotic location? Some lines are easier to draw than others.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,084 other followers