Today The New York Times had another surprising front page headline--surprising because it was rather gossipy, coming from the publisher of "all the news that's fit to print" (haven't heard that in a while, have you?) The article, longer than a full page, was all about France's Socialist Prime Minister Francois Hollande and his amours. The big news for me, which was no news at all, was that M. Hollande separated from the mother of his four children, a woman he never married, to consort with a younger woman. That news goes back to 2007! Apparently this second woman is now on shaky grounds with the PM, and he has been not-so-secretly visiting a third young woman, an actress who has done nude scenes. This is news, says the New York Times, because the French are unhappy with their PM anyway, and this will make them even more unhappy. Front page news! Why, you may ask?
Here's why: M. Hollande has done an about-face on his doctrinaire socialist policies, finding that, can you believe it, they don't work! France's economy is not recovering, and the country is burdened with Europe's highest government costs. No, this isn't coming from me or some right-wing blogger, it's from the Economist, a left-leaning and respected magazine. The Times decision to do a front-page article trashing M. Hollande was actually telegraphed last week, in an editorial by the indomitable Paul Krugman, whose editorial denounced the Socialist PM's about-face in the most scathing Krugmanesque terms. What can I say but, Vive la France! More to the point, vive someone in power who is intelligent and open-minded enough to change from a losing strategy to one which has a chance to work. Lower taxes and lower government expenses in France would preserve their welfare state while giving free markets a chance to do their thing.
Keep an eye on the Times' coverage of France and its Prime Minister over the next few months.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
misleading headline
Hi folks,
I'm beginning to notice that the most misleading parts of the New York Times news articles are the headlines. That may be true for newspapers generally. Today's Business section has an item entitled "Overhaul of Israel's Economy has lessons for United States". The headline should read "Overhaul of Israel's Economy does not have lessons for United States". Briefly, Israel, a small country, has 30% of its economy controlled by a small number of very successful entrepreneurs. In an effort to reduce income inequality, Israel is breaking up these tightly controlled companies.
If you read to the very end of the page-long article, the author admits that "the American economy is very different from Israel's". Our economy is much more diverse and non-concentrated, and even the largest conglomerates like General Electric don't have the kind of monopolistic power that Israel's elite apparently has, or had before passage of the law that breaks them up. In fact, Israel's action reminds me of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, and of Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting at the turn of the 20th century. This activity preceded America's transformation from a weak small nation to a world power. I don't know if economic historians give credit to trust-busting, but a first-year economics course teaches you that monopolies and oligopolies weaken economies. Israel's goal may have been to reduce income inequality, but the result may be a stronger economy for all. In fact, couldn't the headline have read, "Overhaul of Israel's Economy learned lessons from the United States history"?
This is another topic, but income inequality has worsened under Obama, despite the massive increase in spending on food stamps, stimulus programs, and now Obamacare. Why is that? Obama's being upset about income inequality sounds similar to his being upset about the IRS targeting tea party groups. Really! When will this administration and its allies take responsibility for their own actions?
Along the same lines, yesterday's Washington Post had a blog post which blames Republicans for the woes of the Obamacare website. You see, if the Republicans had supported Medicaid expansion, then the Federal website would not have been needed, and state websites have done a better job of enrolling people. There's a lesson in this that nobody discusses; namely, that state-run programs work better than Federally-run programs. And nobody but nobody mentions the achievement of Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, who got Romneycare up and running without all this pain and suffering. More to come.
I'm beginning to notice that the most misleading parts of the New York Times news articles are the headlines. That may be true for newspapers generally. Today's Business section has an item entitled "Overhaul of Israel's Economy has lessons for United States". The headline should read "Overhaul of Israel's Economy does not have lessons for United States". Briefly, Israel, a small country, has 30% of its economy controlled by a small number of very successful entrepreneurs. In an effort to reduce income inequality, Israel is breaking up these tightly controlled companies.
If you read to the very end of the page-long article, the author admits that "the American economy is very different from Israel's". Our economy is much more diverse and non-concentrated, and even the largest conglomerates like General Electric don't have the kind of monopolistic power that Israel's elite apparently has, or had before passage of the law that breaks them up. In fact, Israel's action reminds me of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, and of Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting at the turn of the 20th century. This activity preceded America's transformation from a weak small nation to a world power. I don't know if economic historians give credit to trust-busting, but a first-year economics course teaches you that monopolies and oligopolies weaken economies. Israel's goal may have been to reduce income inequality, but the result may be a stronger economy for all. In fact, couldn't the headline have read, "Overhaul of Israel's Economy learned lessons from the United States history"?
This is another topic, but income inequality has worsened under Obama, despite the massive increase in spending on food stamps, stimulus programs, and now Obamacare. Why is that? Obama's being upset about income inequality sounds similar to his being upset about the IRS targeting tea party groups. Really! When will this administration and its allies take responsibility for their own actions?
Along the same lines, yesterday's Washington Post had a blog post which blames Republicans for the woes of the Obamacare website. You see, if the Republicans had supported Medicaid expansion, then the Federal website would not have been needed, and state websites have done a better job of enrolling people. There's a lesson in this that nobody discusses; namely, that state-run programs work better than Federally-run programs. And nobody but nobody mentions the achievement of Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, who got Romneycare up and running without all this pain and suffering. More to come.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Dear Friends,
Here are my thoughts on today's (Jan. 2, 2014) New York Times:
Front page headline: "For Prostitutes Jailed in China, Forced Labor with No Recourse".
A sob story about a 39 year old prostitute in China, a single mother of two, who said she would kill herself if arrested again. Apparently she spent six months in a detention center making ornamental paper flowers and reciting the list of regulations that criminalize prostitution. As a "final indignity", she had to reimburse the jail for her stay, about $60 a month.
Let's go back to the headline: "No Recourse". My wife said it best: "What about closing her legs?"
This article, perhaps not the most important news item to an American audience, is a good illustration of why I'm starting this blog. It's a front-page news item, and why? I don't know, and I invite you to post suggestions. Secondly, the point of view of the headline writer, if not the article writer, is absurd. "No recourse?" People do have choices in life, not always, but at least sometimes. When you read a news item (or hear it on TV or radio), you have to do more than blithely accept the reporter's point of view. At least recognize that point of view before you decide to accept it or develop you own point of view.
It's late--good night folks.
Here are my thoughts on today's (Jan. 2, 2014) New York Times:
Front page headline: "For Prostitutes Jailed in China, Forced Labor with No Recourse".
A sob story about a 39 year old prostitute in China, a single mother of two, who said she would kill herself if arrested again. Apparently she spent six months in a detention center making ornamental paper flowers and reciting the list of regulations that criminalize prostitution. As a "final indignity", she had to reimburse the jail for her stay, about $60 a month.
Let's go back to the headline: "No Recourse". My wife said it best: "What about closing her legs?"
This article, perhaps not the most important news item to an American audience, is a good illustration of why I'm starting this blog. It's a front-page news item, and why? I don't know, and I invite you to post suggestions. Secondly, the point of view of the headline writer, if not the article writer, is absurd. "No recourse?" People do have choices in life, not always, but at least sometimes. When you read a news item (or hear it on TV or radio), you have to do more than blithely accept the reporter's point of view. At least recognize that point of view before you decide to accept it or develop you own point of view.
It's late--good night folks.
Introducing a new blog: the New York Times Commentary
Dear Friends,
This is a new blog, which will help you figure out what's going on in the world. So much of the news these days isn't news--it's CNN, Fox News, ABC, NBC, CBS, all of them repeating and rehashing the same few items. The newspapers these days mostly do the same thing--they reprint short blurbs from Associated Press or some other agency. There are a handful of sources in America at least that do more. They still have news organizations that dig for news, and report it in depth. The American news source that still does that and is widely read is the New York Times.
So what? The New York Times is not paying me to advertise for them, heaven knows. And when they learn about this blog, they definitely would not want to pay me. Why? Because if all you do is read the Times and take what they write at face value, you will have a most distorted view of the world. Not worse than the many people who get news from TV, radio or heaven help us, the Internet, but not much better. You see, the Times is biased. Oh yes they are. Not only that, sometimes the most important news is buried near the bottom of an article. There are nuggets of gold in that newspaper, but some are hidden. This blog will try to find them for you.
And there's another benefit: if you read this blog, you'll begin reading the newspaper with a more discerning eye. You may see things that I've missed--in fact, I'm sure you will. Share it with us! I hope to make this blog a community of informed American citizens, the kind Jefferson said are needed in order to make democracy work. So let's all work for democracy!
I'm not promising to post daily. I'm hoping to post at least once a week, and more often if possible. But I'm not a professional blogger or retiree--I have a full-time job, plus family responsibilities. You understand, don't you? So bear with me.
This is a new blog, which will help you figure out what's going on in the world. So much of the news these days isn't news--it's CNN, Fox News, ABC, NBC, CBS, all of them repeating and rehashing the same few items. The newspapers these days mostly do the same thing--they reprint short blurbs from Associated Press or some other agency. There are a handful of sources in America at least that do more. They still have news organizations that dig for news, and report it in depth. The American news source that still does that and is widely read is the New York Times.
So what? The New York Times is not paying me to advertise for them, heaven knows. And when they learn about this blog, they definitely would not want to pay me. Why? Because if all you do is read the Times and take what they write at face value, you will have a most distorted view of the world. Not worse than the many people who get news from TV, radio or heaven help us, the Internet, but not much better. You see, the Times is biased. Oh yes they are. Not only that, sometimes the most important news is buried near the bottom of an article. There are nuggets of gold in that newspaper, but some are hidden. This blog will try to find them for you.
And there's another benefit: if you read this blog, you'll begin reading the newspaper with a more discerning eye. You may see things that I've missed--in fact, I'm sure you will. Share it with us! I hope to make this blog a community of informed American citizens, the kind Jefferson said are needed in order to make democracy work. So let's all work for democracy!
I'm not promising to post daily. I'm hoping to post at least once a week, and more often if possible. But I'm not a professional blogger or retiree--I have a full-time job, plus family responsibilities. You understand, don't you? So bear with me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)