Ignorance and bigotry at the New York Times

The following (in the box) was the second main news item in the second column
at nytimes.com on 2014-10-30 at 1830 EDT:

Thomas M. Menino, Mayor Who Revamped Boston, Dies
Leading from 1993 to this year,
Mr. Menino helped transform Boston
from a parochial, gritty town
to an economic and cultural hub.

Evidently their slogan should be "All the Deceit we can put out".

Here are some news for their web page staff:

Boston has long been known at "The Athens of America".

The Handel and Haydn Society,
familiarly known as H&H,
is an American chorus and period instrument orchestra
based in Boston, Massachusetts.
Founded in 1815,
it is the second oldest musical organization in the United States
after the U.S. Marine Band (founded 1798)
and the oldest continuously performing arts organization in the United States.
In particular, in existence long before anything in what is now New York City.



WaPo's prostitution obsession

It seems to me that the Washington Post
has an obsession with making an issue out of male
government officials caught being involved with prostitution.
Here are some examples.

Aides knew of possible White House link to Cartagena, Colombia, prostitution scandal
By Carol D. Leonnig and David Nakamura
Washington Post, 2014-10-09
(Page 1, above the fold, spanning multiple columns)

As nearly two dozen Secret Service agents and members of the military
were punished or fired
following a 2012 prostitution scandal in Colombia,
Obama administration officials repeatedly denied that
anyone from the White House was involved.

But new details drawn from government documents and interviews show that
senior White House aides were given information at the time suggesting that
a prostitute was an overnight guest
in the hotel room of a presidential advance-team member —

yet that information was never thoroughly investigated or publicly acknowledged.


[Let's try returning to sanity for a minute.
What if it were provably true that a White House aide,
while on a White House trip
had paid sex with a prostitute in Columbia (where prostitution is legal).
Why would this information be of sufficient importance
to justify a front page, above the fold, story
in the Washington Post?
Let us recall that when then-President Clinton
received oral sex from an intern, in the Oval Office,
there were legions of women quoted in the media declaring that
  1. this was an issue between him and his wife, and
  2. if it did not affect the performance of his official duties,
    then it did not deserve any punishment, in particular, impeachment.
Recall that a common statement from feminists
(which I do not happen to believe)
is that
there is no such thing as consensual sex
between a superior and a subordinate.
By that feminist standard, the sex was not consensual.
And the feminist definition of rape is any sexual act without the consent of the woman.
But did you ever hear a feminist calling for Clinton to resign?
I do not recall any such requests.

Where did the Washington Post stand on that?
I am not sure, but I don't believe they called for Clinton to leave office,
for this reason or any other reason.
(For a review of overall editorial opinion on the matter, click here.)
So why are they making such a big issue out merely
government professionals having sex with prostitutes in a country where that is legal?
Why is that any of their business?

And as to the case of Jonathan Dach, the White House aide in question here,
he had no evident role with White House security,
so the not-very-credible argument that contact with prostitutes
could harm the security of the president
is not relevant here.]

White House disputes report that aides had not thoroughly investigated Cartagena link
By David Nakamura and Katie Zezima
Washington Post, 2014-10-10


The reverberations from the 2012 scandal,
in which 10 Secret Service agents and 10 members of the military lost their jobs,
have continued to echo through Washington more than two years after the incident.

[Let us recall that the incident where Omar J. Gonzalez entered the White House
made plain the consequences of the Secret Service being understaffed in 2014.
Part of the reason for that understaffing is
the dismissal of 10 valued Secret Service agents
for no better reason than that their activities in Cartagena.
I very sincerely doubt that dismissing them for no better reason than that
was a wise move in the overall scheme of things.]

Labels: ,


Washington Post's homosexual agenda

Here we go again.
Yet another op-ed or article in the Washington Post
supporting the homosexual agenda:

Even though the Supreme Court struck down DOMA, it’s still hurting gays every day
By Stacey Schuett
Washington Post web site, 2014-10-03
[Author information on the web site:]
Stacey Schuett is a proud mother of two,
author and illustrator living in Sebastopol, California.
Her wife Lesly died in June 2013.

Yeah, right.
The article title gives its point of view right away.

When have you ever seen anything in WaPo critical of the homo agenda?
They call themselves "objective".
They're as objective as the grossly misnamed "Human Rights Coalition".
What's the difference?

Let's get to a central issue:
The sexual orientation of the "leading ladies" of the Washington Post:
Katharine Graham
and her grand-daughter, Katharine Weymouth.
Both of them were married long enough to give legitimacy to their children,
but not much longer.
Surely women with their social and economic status
could have found highly desirable husbands,
if they had the slightest interest in sex with men.
I think the fact that they did not remarry suggest very strongly that
they had no interest in sex with men.
(And Katharine Graham certainly had a well-publicized close relation, of some sort,
with the never-married Meg Greenfield.
Meg's Wikipedia biography, as of 2014-10-03, says:
"She never married, something she came to regret."
Well, let me suggest that if she was interested in sex with men,
it would not take until old age for her to decide
she was missing out on something by not being married.)
But of course I could be wrong.
So prove me wrong, if I am.

As to the propriety of asking this question,
I certainly agree that for the average Joe or Jane,
the people you encounter in your daily life,
their sexual orientation is nobody's business but their own,
and those to whom they care to divulge that information.

But the Katharine's, Graham and Weymouth,
are most certainly not that average person.
They had immense power, of the sort available to only a handful of others,
to influence American opinion.

And influence American opinion the Post certainly has,
in a strongly pro-homosexual direction.

My opinion is that,
for those people in America who either influence or determine public policy
(e.g., high-ranking elected officials and members of the judiciary
and the various opinion leaders in the media),
that their sexual orientation is very much "fair game" for inquiry.

Labels: ,