Friday, September 30, 2005
Dear Sir:
While reading Mr. Kirkpatrick's article on Bill Bennet's abortion comments, I was struck by the apparent laziness of the writer to verify whether Dr. Leavit had, in fact, participated in a debate about the value of abortion to reduced crime rates.
This seems to be an easily verifiable fact. Since it was not, as implied by the author's statement:"That debate, involving Steven D. Levitt, an author of the best-seller "Freakonomics," apparently appeared in Slate six years ago." questions are raised as to why.
With the current furor over the reliability of the Times reporting, I would think there would be extra attention to easily verifiable statements such as whether or not Dr. Leavitt did participate in a discussion about legalized abortion and crime rates.
The author's use of "apparent" seems weasel-esque.
Thank you for your time.
While reading Mr. Kirkpatrick's article on Bill Bennet's abortion comments, I was struck by the apparent laziness of the writer to verify whether Dr. Leavit had, in fact, participated in a debate about the value of abortion to reduced crime rates.
This seems to be an easily verifiable fact. Since it was not, as implied by the author's statement:"That debate, involving Steven D. Levitt, an author of the best-seller "Freakonomics," apparently appeared in Slate six years ago." questions are raised as to why.
With the current furor over the reliability of the Times reporting, I would think there would be extra attention to easily verifiable statements such as whether or not Dr. Leavitt did participate in a discussion about legalized abortion and crime rates.
The author's use of "apparent" seems weasel-esque.
Thank you for your time.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Mr. York,
On the train ride into NYC this morning, I saw a full-page ad in the NYT deriding UN Ambassador John Bolten.
The ad was placed by globalexchange.org I noted this because I saw a pretty blond from the organization on the O'Reilly Factor during a segment about Pat Robertson and his Hugo Chavez comments.
It turned out the pretty talking head was previously in the employ of Sr. Chavez.
Since then, I have kept the name of her organization in mind.
As you have developed an understanding of the funding of the Left, I was hoping you'd be able to expound upon this organization and comment upon the wisdom of the NYT allowing a full page anti-Bolton ad to be run by it.
On the train ride into NYC this morning, I saw a full-page ad in the NYT deriding UN Ambassador John Bolten.
The ad was placed by globalexchange.org I noted this because I saw a pretty blond from the organization on the O'Reilly Factor during a segment about Pat Robertson and his Hugo Chavez comments.
It turned out the pretty talking head was previously in the employ of Sr. Chavez.
Since then, I have kept the name of her organization in mind.
As you have developed an understanding of the funding of the Left, I was hoping you'd be able to expound upon this organization and comment upon the wisdom of the NYT allowing a full page anti-Bolton ad to be run by it.
Monday, September 12, 2005
The NYT is implementing a pay-subscriber service that gives "...exclusive online access to many of our most influential columnists in Op-Ed, Business, New York/Region and Sports. In addition to reading the columns, TimesSelect subscribers can also engage with our columnists through video interviews and Web-only postings....also opening up its vast archive of articles reaching back 25 years and eventually back to the paper's founding in 1851. TimesSelect subscribers can read up to 100 articles from the archive a month...."
Yet "...All of our news, features, editorials and analysis will remain free to readers of NYTimes.com..."
So for $49.95, I can read past examples of Lefty reporting????
My guess is the NYT has something else up their sleeves and it relates to its archives.
Until then, I'll still be able to read their interpretations of the news for "free".
Yet "...All of our news, features, editorials and analysis will remain free to readers of NYTimes.com..."
So for $49.95, I can read past examples of Lefty reporting????
My guess is the NYT has something else up their sleeves and it relates to its archives.
Until then, I'll still be able to read their interpretations of the news for "free".
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Gas prices under fire
Gas is now $3.499 at my usual station.
Of course, I now fill-up wherever gas is cheaper so I haven't been back to that stattion since my fill-up last week.
I get the sense that "gouging" has become the buzzword of the herd. No one knows what it is or means but it is what is happening.
Of course, this is the fault of demagoguery, as any herd mentality often is, but it is also a failure of the meida to explain what goes into the pricing of gas.
Gas is now $3.499 at my usual station.
Of course, I now fill-up wherever gas is cheaper so I haven't been back to that stattion since my fill-up last week.
I get the sense that "gouging" has become the buzzword of the herd. No one knows what it is or means but it is what is happening.
Of course, this is the fault of demagoguery, as any herd mentality often is, but it is also a failure of the meida to explain what goes into the pricing of gas.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Right now, gas is $3.069 for regular.
I feel so smart filling the tanks of the Malibu and Odyssey on Tuesday for $2.899!
The family will definitely make adjustments. The $40 monthly reload of my Starbucks card is looking like the biggest target right now.
The $20/eight week NY Sun paper subscription is next. I can subscribe to the NYPost for half that price or pick-up the Sun in the City for half that price.
I feel so smart filling the tanks of the Malibu and Odyssey on Tuesday for $2.899!
The family will definitely make adjustments. The $40 monthly reload of my Starbucks card is looking like the biggest target right now.
The $20/eight week NY Sun paper subscription is next. I can subscribe to the NYPost for half that price or pick-up the Sun in the City for half that price.
