Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Times Puff Piece on New Chinese Dictator

The NYT (Never Yell Truth; Nikita, Yuriy, Trotsky; New Yankee Tragedy--you pick ), honoring their philosophy, "All the Leftist Propaganda News Fit to Print," found time in between working for the Obama reelection campaign to publish an obsequious piece analyzing the background of the new Chinese dictator. In the Times November 3, 2012 article, Close Army Ties of China’s New Leader Could Test the U.S (link here), reporter Jane Perlez catches the readers interest with new Communist Party leader's Xi Jinping's Mexico City criticism of American policy:
“There are a few foreigners, with full bellies, who have nothing better to do than try to point fingers at our country,” Mr. Xi said, according to a tape broadcast on Hong Kong television.  “China does not export revolution, hunger, poverty nor does China cause you any headaches. Just what else do you want?”
Oh, I can think of a few things: Quit supporting the murderous and terrorist regimes in North Korea and Iran. Stop building up your military and threatening U.S. allies. Let your currency float instead of violating trade regulations. But Perlez's article never challenges Xi's ludicrous statements. Instead, the article suggests that America is in decline and China is ascendant.
The Chinese military’s new buoyancy comes as America’s allies across Asia — Japan, South Korea, Australia and other friends, particularly Singapore and India — worry whether the United States has the money, and the will, to enhance its military presence in Asia, as President Obama has promised.  
The above may be true, but the Times' does not interview anyone critical of the Chinese regime. The last time I checked the New York Times was not affiliated with China's People's Daily. I'm having difficulty figuring out the difference between them.

China does not show the American public it's aggressive policy, the speech made in Mexico City and the leadership's real feelings. Instead, we are told to play with panda bears and enjoy inexpensive Chinese goods. The People's Daily editorializes, China’s Communist Paper Calls for Closer U.S. Ties Under Xi (link here). "China and the U.S. should deepen cooperation and become more interdependent, the Communist Party’s flagship newspaper said in a commentary today, signaling that new leader Xi Jinping may seek closer ties."

On whose terms?

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Gap Between Rich and Poor Widest in Berkeley

Communism still exists--not in Eastern Europe but in Berkeley, California. Thus I was intrigued when I read the New York Times article, Gap Between Rich and Poor in Area Is Widest in Berkeley.  Instead of planning protests about American foreign policy, maybe the aging Marxists should take a look in the mirror. Alas, I wasn't able to bask in schadenfreude for long. The NYT analysis has two major errors.
Mr. Berube’s research has shown that the area of central Berkeley bounded by University Avenue and Oxford Street [pictured partly in the background of the photo above--MS] has one of the highest concentrations of poverty in the Bay Area, on par with perennially distressed areas like West Oakland and the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood of San Francisco.
The University of California hosts about 30,000 students, most who live as close to campus as possible, that is, in central Berkeley. (The population of Berkeley is about 100,000.) Most college students live under circumstances of near-poverty, especially Cal's 10,000 graduate students. (As a Cal undergraduate, I survived off an income of less than $5,000 per year.) Mr. Berube is describing much of the student ghetto. I don't think these kids getting PhD's in engineering will be impoverished for long. All cities have chronic poor, those on the way up, and rich people. Berkeley has its poor, but the students shouldn't count as part of the city's Gini (inequality) score.
 Secondly, the reporter writes
Other observers said income inequality persisted in Berkeley because the city’s most progressive policies had been blocked by higher authorities. In 2009, for example, the California Supreme Court let stand a ruling voiding ordinances that require developers to set aside units for low-income residents when they build new apartment complexes.
Huh? Since developers weren't forced to build for low-income residents, fewer poor people were able to live in Berkeley, making incomes more equal, not less. Berkeley's "progressive policies" have nothing to do with income inequality.
But Councilman Kriss Worthington said officials were not giving up in efforts to reduce inequality.
I'm sure the Berkeley government will find ways of poorly combating a non-issue. After all, it is Berkeley.


Teacher by Day, Drummer by Night

Teacher by Day, Drummer by Night
Please recommend this blog to others

Popular Posts