Crying Out

Battle of Nerves
Reprehensible behavior, combat veterans and military experts say, is an ever-present risk when troops in their teens and early 20s are thrown into nerve-racking battle for months at a time. And if there are weaknesses in their leadership or breakdowns in discipline, that behavior can easily spill over into acts that might be considered war crimes. (NYT, 1/14/2012)


It is now undeniable: the New York Times is THE most dishonestly biased publication masquarading as an objective purveyor of news in the country. Under an Obama presidency, soldiers urinate on enemy corpses and we get this: a nuanced analysis of the psychological stress of war. Under a Bush presidency, soldiers abuse enemy prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison and we get journalistic outrage, calls for Bush, Cheney Rumsfeld, Rice, and various others to  resign or be impeached, calls for investigations, court martials, tribunals, demands for reparations, release of prisoners, etc, etc. 


Channeling
Not that President Obama won’t have enough money to buy a channel of his own, if he wants one. So far, the president is behind Mitt in the billionaire donor sweepstakes, but he is still doing fine, thank you very much. So well, in fact, that a spokesman for the re-election campaign has been forced to denounce the idea that Obama will raise $1 billion. There’s that number again. (Gail Collins, NYT, 1/14/2012)


This is what qualifies for balance in the New York Times: Collins writes a fifteen paragraph op-ed column decrying Super PACs and billionaire donors to Republicans. To be fair she includes one paragraph about Obama's billionaire donors.  But, of course, she fails to name them. So we will. Last time around Obama counted on the support of billionaires including Jobs, Buffett, Lewis and Soros.