Tuesday, July 22, 2008

A Special Message from the New York Times

Hello, my name is David Shipley. As Op-Ed page editor of the New York Times I would like to take this opportunity to talk to you, the American reading public.

As journalists we take very seriously our obligation to present a diverse group of voices on our op-ed page from Hamas terrorists to Anti-war activists to 9/11 Truthers to Holocaust deniers to Osama Bin Laden. While we may occasionally face criticism for the editorials we choose to present in our forum, we continue to believe that the best hope for understanding one another lies in communication. In the spirit of that openness, we would like to explain why we refused to run an editorial written by Senator John McCain.

While we did endorse Senator McCain during the Republican primary because of his faith in global warming and illegal immigration, his continuing support for the War in Iraq makes it unconscionable for us to provide a forum for his hateful views. As the voice of the American people, if they would just shut up and listen to us, it is our solemn and sacred oblgiation to tell them who to vote for. And what to vote for. We take our responsibility to select the future President of the United States very seriously and it is our duty to prevent abuses of power by the American electorate that threaten to destabilize the Hamptons housing market and the value of our GreenTech stock.

There were a number of problems with Senator McCain's editorial, which we dutifully pointed out to him. Should he correct these errors in judgment, the New York Times will be pleased to run his editorial, pat him on the head nicely and smirk knowingly when he is defeated in the fall.

First of all McCain's editorial insists that American forces are winning in Iraq and that the Surge is working. As all constant readers of the New York Times know, Iraq is a second Vietnam and a hopeless disaster that unravels the morale of our military and depresses the hell out of the press corps. As responsible journalists we cannot permit views within our pages which contradict the known facts reported by us.

Secondly McCain's staff has refused to allow us to color in devil horns on his photo. This is a grave mistake and one that makes it impossible for us to properly display our hatred and contempt for him. While we offered to compromise with a burning swastika and a Hitler mustache or a montage of dead Iraqi or some sort of babies, the McCain campaign has refused to work with us to find a reasonable compromise on this issue.

Finally Senator McCain continues to insist that he intends to win the Presidency. We find this to be grossly and wholly unacceptable. The New York Times along with the rest of the legitimate press has already determined that Barack No Middle Name Obama is to be our appointed President and we will tolerate no dissent whatsoever from our position. Not from the American people. Not from Senator McCain and not from anyone.

As dedicated journalists, we at the New York Times have grown adept at reporting our views to you. We believe that you need our views because we are smarter than you, because we are better than you and because some of us like David Carr, are fat crackheads who beat our girlfriends, we can also print anything we make up. Because what is truth anyway? Truth is what we decide it is.

Therefore we cannot print Senator McCain's editorial because it fails to meet our standards. Our standards of truth. Our standards of integrity. Our standard of creating the news and deciding what you are allowed to think.

Yours in Obama

David Shipley


Anonymous said...

I know this may seem to have nothing to do with the article. But, I still would like people to think about this.

Why is everyone screaming about crude oil? Some demand drilling all over the earth. Some demand that we sell Israel for more oil.

The facts are that supplies of oil is not the long term cause of the petrol cost.

Do a search and you will see that no new refinery has been built for almost 30 years in the US. Does anyone think that 25 years ago we know what the 2008 needs would be?

We are currently refining several millions of gallons less then what we need. Simply law of supply and demand is what is the long term cause of the current prices.

Even if magically we could double the availability of crude oil you will not have a major effect on the cost of gasoline. Since we cannot make enough of the stuff no matter how much crude we bring in.

Any government effort to increase crude oil will help control the bidding war in the market. But, this is out of fear not need. Nevertheless the cost of gasoline will stay up.

If we drop holes in the ground and find some oil the cost will force us to sell the stuff overseas. Simply because we cannot use any more. Or we will have to cap it off for future use (which may be the only justification to dig). But, then who is to pay for the effort. Why should big oil pay to dig and cap the wells?

So let us not ruin the envirnment for the fear factor. This reminds me of your recent article about being "green."

Keli Ata said...

"Yours in Obama" I love that finishing touch and all that it implies.

If journalists/editors/media outlets were licensed this paper's license would get yanked for violating one of the three cardinal sins in journalism--bias. Even the most lenient of newspaper allow rebuttals to editorial content.

(Other cardinal sins of a journalis? plagarism and falsifying information ala Jayson Blair in the Jessica Lynch story).

Keli Ata said...

Anonymous--you bring up some good points. Now if the whole 'green' movmement is up in arms over crude oil why aren't they calling for sanctions against OPEC?

It's intersting that this frenzy over carbon footprints and going green reached a frenzy once the war started. Al Gore on Meet the Press was asked where all the money for alternative forms of energy/fuel would come from the the economy in a mess and the country spending so much on the war.

Ding ding ding. Now the frenzy makes sense.

Lemon said...

GRRRR.. hijackers..
get back on topic.
Well the press has thrills up its leg over obama as that drunky put it.
They are mostly liberal socialist wannabes also and as I call them the American *Erev Rav(mixed multitude)who cause most of its *tsouris in the long run.

*look them up in your Funk and Wagnalls.

Keli Ata said...

Sorry. I was on topic on the first comment and veered on the second.

Anonymous said...

To Keli ata. Why should the "green" movement be up in arms over crhde oil and why should they be calling for sanctions against OPEC.

The green movement want to limit the use of fossil fuels. So OPEC and the current situation is actually favorable for the "greens."

Even the conservationist understand the need for some fuel, but by making it expensive is a very effective way of lowering demand.

The only problem is the money flowing to the major oil industry and Arab countries. Concerning the former, the "greens" are angry. Concerning the later the leftist love damaging western countries.

So you see the only people called to explain before congress has been the oil bigwigs.

However, money given to oil is also neccessary. You see you need a lot of money to develope alternative energy. See what Picken's has been saying. He just gave a talk to congress in support of wind energy.

I cannot say if wind energy is the perfect answer, but I know a lot of money being put into the area.

I am not much in favor of ethinol. Unless a process can be found to use the stalks that are thrown away. There is more potential sugars locked in the junky part of plants then in corm. But, it is very hard to break down cellulose.

I think verious forms of solar energy is good, but solar panels and solar heating needs a lot of work. Today there is a large hot water solar generator built by Luz (defunct Israeli company) making energy at low cost in Southern California. The CEO of Luz is back in business and trying again.

Water power is also tremendous, but salt water is very corrosive.

Geothermal is another area but has its difficulties.

There is a tremendous amount of tar sands in America and Canada. The total may be more then all the proven oil in Saudi Arabia. But, it is difficult to pull it out. I think Shell oil is working on a way to heat the area in situ and loosen the oil. Then steam it out.

So there is a lot going on but all these things take money and some time.

I hope that answered your question and offer a possible plan for the future.

Lemon said...

Keli, you are not a problemo!

Post a Comment