NYT on Science, Sex and Children

New York Times: Teaching Children to Delay Having Sex is ‘Anti-Science’

“The administration’s approach defies all common sense,” the editors write, claiming there is no evidence that teaching young people to make healthy decisions about sex will reduce teen pregnancies or STDs.

The Times continues that comprehensive sex education (CSE) programs of the sort promoted by the Obama administration are the reason why teen pregnancy has declined in the United States in recent years.

A senior HHS official, however, recently told Breitbart News that this narrative is not supported by research data from the federal government itself.

Morals and NYT subscribers

Do New York Times Subscribers Have the Morals of an Alley Cat?

It seems so. In the NYTMagazine from 11-12-17, I read about the results of a study conducted online in June by the New York Time's research-and-analytics department "reflecting the opinions of 2,903 subscribers who chose to participate":

This week's question: Would you rather have done a horrible thing that only you know about, or have everyone think you did a horrible thing that you didn't do?

Not surprisingly, 72% of these paragons of morality would rather "have done a horrible thing that only I know about," while only 28% of the subscribers would rather "have everyone think I did a horrible thing I didn't do."

So, these people would choose to do something horrible as long as no one knows about it rather than be shamed by people for something they did not do. Wow, what are they willing to do, I wonder? Assault a senator? Sexually assault others?

Or possibly NYT subscribers enjoy jerking the chains of pollsters.

NYT Lets It Slip, But Covers It Up Quickly

NY Times Reporter Admits Antifa Protesters In Charlottesville Were 'Hate-Filled' And Violent Before Left Forces Her To Backtrack
"I saw club-wielding 'antifa' beating white nationalists being led out of the park."

New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg made the mistake of admitting that along with the abhorrent, violent, white supremacists who terrorized Charlottesville over the weekend, many Antifa protesters were also enacting "hate-filled" violence, as they've done in several other cities in recent months. For noting that the "hard left seemed as hate-filled as the alt-right" — citing "club-wielding 'antifa' beating white nationalists being led out of the park" — Stolberg was hammered online, even after repenting and issuing a correction that depicted the violent left in more heroic terms..

Uh Oh. Some Truth Leaks Out at the NYT, (Half a Century Late)

Truth is what happens when all the "editors" get fired:

Lessons from History
Breaking at NYT: Communists Were Anti-American Soviet Tools

As part of its weekly essay series on the legacy of the Russian Revolution, the New York Times has earnestly broken the news to its readers that the American Communist Party wasn’t a principled and well-meaning organization but an anti-American espionage operation:

From its founding in 1919 in the wake of the Russian Revolution until the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Communist Party of the United States of America was an instrument of Soviet foreign policy. […]

The C.P.U.S.A. dutifully spread the lies put out by Moscow. The party thus insisted that the show trials during Stalin’s purges had uncovered a vast capitalist plot against the Soviet leader. Party members dutifully repeated Soviet fabrications that Trotsky had been in the pay of the Nazis. Worst of all, many Communists applauded the execution of tens of thousands of Soviet comrades, denouncing those who were executed as bourgeois spies and provocateurs.

It will be interesting to read the pieces that come out 25 to 50 years too late, as the august Gray Lady awakens to other important news:

The Muslim Brotherhood hated Western ideas of freedom.

Iran was a committed enemy of the United States.

Cuban communists were anti-democratic thugs.

Abortion was an unspeakable tragedy that led to millions of unnecessary deaths.

Press bias and lack of self-awareness plus elite policy failures made the Trump presidency possible.

Social programs like Medicare were actually bankrupting the country.

Public service unions blighted the prospects of generations of immigrants and poor people of color in American cities.

Anti-Asian discrimination dominated college admissions offices under the guise of ‘racial justice’.

The collapse of free speech on college campuses was abetted by cowards and time servers who betrayed fundamental American principles.

Better late than never, we suppose…

Well, I dunno. I'm guessing there will be pushback from the Band of Useful Idiots who still exist, even today.

The Leftist Terrorism Against Mike Cernovich

This will like escalate. The NYT has normalized Leftist violence.

America has been welcoming, taking in tens of millions of refugees from war-torn nations. As part of this trade, we’ve seen ourselves called hateful by those whose families we saved.

My grandfather fought in WWII against Nazis. His reward is to be called a Nazi – which is the modern way of saying white – by the left.

If people are serious are uniting rather than dividing, there are two steps to take:

Stop calling people Nazis.
Stop hating white people.

As the sucker punch of Richard Spencer showed, calling someone a Nazi is not a loose insult. It’s an incitement of violence. Spencer himself isn’t even a Nazi, and there may be a few dozen at most in the U.S.

Similarly, racism and bigotry against whites is back firing. For decades people have said, “White are garbage.” College professors have openly called for a “white genocide.” Hashtags like #KillAllWhiteMen are shared gleefully.

If people keep telling whites that they hate them, then they shouldn’t feign outrage when the native population listens, and closes to the doors to the U.S.

The outlook for America’s future is grim. Hatred from the left will only continue, and violence will increase.

While the left wears the symbols of the Soviets, they lack their secret police. While the left has the media, the right has the guns. The U.S. is not the U.S.S.R. We will not go silently into the gulags.

People wonder why I’m so militant, and now you see why. We are in a war, and it’s one declared by the left. I am a target for violence in my own country. A domestic terrorist group even planned on putting acid in the ventilation system of the Press Club, where we hosted the Deploraball. Drew Carey’s 11-year old son committed arson outside of the event.

I am not without compassion, as these issues people protest against today impact my own family. Yet my own physical safety is an issue impacting my family, as the left has seen fit to make me a target for domestic terrorists.

America is going through an awakening. A negotiation requires give-and-take from both sides. Those who expect unilateral capitulation in the name of “compassion” are in for a rough eight years. Those who incite violence against us are going to find themselves receiving a few (legal) surprises of their own.

Perhaps it’s too late for a call for peace, and perhaps it’s hopeless to seek peace against the feral left, who has declared war.

The violence is not coming from both sides. It’s coming from the left. This travel ban, while flawed in many ways, is one of the first legal steps coming from the New Right in response. There will be more.

Those who care about peace can make peace. Those on the left who want war will find themselves getting more than bargained for.

Fake News from the Leftist MSM

The Cathedral Interprets The Chicago Attack

Concealment of facts is a journalistic professional crime of bias toward phony conclusions. We expect it now; they are morally unable to act ethically. That's a feature of Leftism, one they think works to their advantage. It did, until the internet.

Go there for the whole story.

Book:

The Appearance of Impropriety: How the Ethics Wars Have Undermined American Government, Business, and Society.

NYT Goes Full Fake News With Israel Hatred Boiling to the Surface

The NYT Is Having a Meltdown Over Trump’s Israel Nominee

"For a moment this week it felt as if the sneering, embittered media hysteria surrounding Donald Trump was starting ever so slightly to subside. But not so fast. The New York Times, the paper of record of urban liberal contempt for Deplorable America, discovered a fresh new outrage: Trump’s nominee for ambassador to Israel.

David Friedman is a prominent and successful attorney in New York who has spent 20 years representing Donald Trump, among other clients. He is also a proud Jew who holds unapologetic pro-Israel views that are heretical in Times-world, and he has also expressed acid disdain for the kind of Jewish anti-Israel activism regularly glorified in the pages of the Times.

So he must be destroyed—and to destroy him he must be lied about. Which is what the Times did."

The Left can't and won't stop, regardless of their promises of whatever kind. They are fully infected with the Narrative of Moral Supremacy, and it defines them, permeates them completely.

The battle against Evil is joined by both sides. The difference between sides is two-fold: how Evil is defined; and what actions are Moral in pursuing the conflict.

Riiiiight. Sure You Will.

New York Times publisher vows to 'rededicate' paper to reporting honestly

The NYT cannot discern honesty from dishonesty, and has not done so for many decades. For the NYT, honestly following the Leftist Progressive Narrative is as close as they know how to approach honesty, truth, and valid reporting.

Like the Democrat Political Machine, the NYT would have to be "reduced to rubble" and rebuilt from scratch, intellectually and morally, before a policy of "honesty" could be implemented. The chances of that happening seem remote.

Well, Then; It's a True-Fact-Principle-Natural-Law

NYT said this in 1987:

New York Times, 1987: Party That Won the Senate Has ‘Every Right to Resist’

This refers, of course, to the "Borking" of Bork, the infamous Leftist smear campaign. But now it's different, morally under Leftist Consequentialism, which is driven by the Democrat LOSS of the senate, and their current inability to ram stuff through even by perverting senate rules.

NYT Accidentally Pulls Its Pants Down

And there's nothing there...

Alert from Sarah Hoyt:

"OKAY, NOW, THIS REALLY IS MY SHOCKED FACE: After Lying For 30 Years, New York Times Admits “Assault Weapons Are A Myth”."

"In an amazing editorial the NY Times admits that “assault weapon” is a made up term created by anti-gun Democrats to scare low information voters. Stunningly they also admit there’s no proof the “assault weapons” ban had any impact on crime.

"It was much the same in the early 1990s when Democrats created and then banned a category of guns they called “assault weapons.” America was then suffering from a spike in gun crime and it seemed like a problem threatening everyone. Gun murders each year had been climbing: 11,000, then 13,000, then 17,000.

Democrats decided to push for a ban of what seemed like the most dangerous guns in America: assault weapons, which were presented by the media as the gun of choice for drug dealers and criminals, and which many in law enforcement wanted to get off the streets.

This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban.

Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of murders each year, but gun control advocates had failed to interest enough of the public in a handgun ban. Handguns were the weapons most likely to kill you, but they were associated by the public with self-defense. (In 2008, the Supreme Court said there was a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.)

Banning sales of military-style weapons resonated with both legislators and the public: Civilians did not need to own guns designed for use in war zones.

On Sept. 13, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban into law. It barred the manufacture and sale of new guns with military features and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. But the law allowed those who already owned these guns — an estimated 1.5 million of them — to keep their weapons.

The policy proved costly. Mr. Clinton blamed the ban for Democratic losses in 1994. Crime fell, but when the ban expired, a detailed study found no proof that it had contributed to the decline."

The Left Eats Itself; Hillary/NYT Edition

Hillary camp rips NY Times, but email story still dogs her

"Hillary Clinton’s email mess has been like a low-grade fever that keeps returning in nastier form.

And the problem is she’s never taken the cure—by answering all the outstanding questions—as part of her media-averse approach.

Now the Clinton campaign is on the offense against the New York Times, branding its latest story on the controversy “false” and “discredited.”

“This incident shows the danger of relying on reckless, inaccurate leaks from partisan sources," the campaign says.

Leftist journalism seems to be turning on Clinton; this time it is the NYT. But Clinton still has some juice, and the NYT backed up into passive mode:

The paper has been taking a lot of heat for softening the wording of the lead paragraph after a complaint from the Clinton camp.

This regularly happens with newspapers, by the way, and changes are made between editions if the editors and reporters feel they have gotten something wrong or used overstated language. Now it happens instantaneously online—but in that culture, the Times had a responsibility to tell readers that it was weakening the story. This was hardly a routine change in a routine story, and that undermines faith in the paper.

The original story said that two inspectors general were asking Justice to consider a criminal probe of “whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of State.”

The revised version had the investigators making the referral based on “whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of State.”

The passive construction might seem minor, since any probe would involve the same private Hillary emails. But the wording of the first version does insinuate that Hillary might be a target of such a probe; the second does not.

After nearly a day of being hammered by journalists and media critics, the Times did post a correction:

“An earlier version of this article and an earlier headline, ​using information from senior government officials, misstated the nature of the referral to the Justice Department regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state. The referral addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with that personal email account. It did not specifically request an investigation into Mrs. Clinton.”

This only fuels the controversy surrounding the nature of emails she was sending from a private server rather than using a State Department account."

So if they are not investigating Clinton, then who, exactly, are they investigating? Who must fall on their sword to protect the queen this time? And will the NYT be kind to Clinton in the future, after this public kick in the nether parts? Stay tuned...

The NYT

From Vox Popoli:

The First Law and the NYT
Instapundit calls it correctly:

THAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU LIE AND GET CAUGHT: NY Times Taking a Beating In Its Battle With Ted Cruz.

We wrote here about Ted Cruz’s feud with the New York Times. Cruz’s new book, A Time for Truth, is a hot seller, apparently #3 among hard cover nonfiction books. But the Times refused to list it on its best seller list, claiming that its “sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases.” Both Cruz and his publisher, HarperCollins, have denied the charge, and Cruz has challenged the Times either to provide evidence to back up its claim, or else apologize.

Now Amazon has entered the fray, stating publicly that there is “is no evidence of unusual bulk purchase activity in our sales data.” As of last report, A Time for Truth is #13 at Amazon among all books, not just hard cover nonfiction. Other sources that track book sales evidently agree that there is nothing fishy about Cruz’s book’s sales.

The Times is run by Social Justice Warrior types, and Social Justice Warrior types always lie.

Because SJWs focus on taking the public high ground specifically so they can act as gatekeepers and narrative-controllers, they always have a difficult time when there is an objective measure that is not subject to their control. That's why they hate Amazon so much; Amazon destroys their ability to sell the story that their authors and books are vastly popular while no one reads the authors and books of which they disapprove.

But because SJWs always lie, you know, you absolutely know, that the lie is in there somewhere. You have only got to look for it, and soon enough, you'll find it.

How the NYT SJWs an Article

New York Times’ account of Reddit CEO’s resignation too factual, rewritten as ‘funhouse distortion’

"The site newsdiffs.org shows how this:

Ellen Pao, the interim chief executive of Reddit, resigned from the online message board on Friday after a week of ceaseless criticism from scores of angry users over the handling of an employee departure.

…

Her exit, which the company described as a mutual agreement between her and Reddit’s board, follows a week of unrest in the Reddit community, which is made up of more than 160 million regular users who use the site to talk about anything from current events to viral cat photos.

At one point became this:

Ellen Pao became a hero to many when she took on the entrenched sexist culture of Silicon Valley. But sentiment is a fickle thing, and late Friday the entrepreneur fell victim to a shrill crowd demanding her ouster as chief executive of the popular social media site Reddit.

Ms. Pao’s abrupt downfall in the face of a torrent of sexist and racist attacks, many of them on Reddit itself, is likely to renew charges that bullying, harrassment and ugly behavior are out of control on the web — and that Silicon Valley’s well-publicized lack of interest in hiring anyone who is not male and white is contributing to the problem."

Usually the NYT gets its articles all SJWed before publication. This one apparently slipped through for a couple of hours. The full rewrite comparison is at NewsDiffs

Only The NYT Could Be This Out To Lunch

Communists Don’t Like Him? NY Times Gives Rubio Candidacy More Help

The New York Times thinks that Communists not liking Rubio would be a negative for Rubio. But that is only the case... inside the Times.

Admitting that you are fundamentally Communist is, well, rather stupid, unless you think that you have turned all your readers into Communists too. And maybe those actually are the only remaining readers of the Times, along with pundits on the Right who are looking for Stupid Leftist Tricks to report (and find them regularly in the NYT).

"The conceit of the piece was to probe the reaction of Cubans to the possibility that the son of a couple that fled the island for a better life in the 1950s might be elected president. The responses were entirely predictable. While the Obama administration has decided to re-open a U.S. embassy in Havana as part of a historic rapprochement, the repressive nature of the Castro regime is unchanged. As I wrote last week, though President Obama think U.S.-Cuba policy should not be “imprisoned by the past,” the Communist rulers of the nation have no compunction about jailing dissidents, including prominent artists who speak out for human rights and democracy. Thus, the idea that either ordinary Cubans or government officials speaking on the record would do anything but echo the Communist party line about Rubio is absurd. A Cuban-American like Rubio who has spent his career advocating for Cuban freedom rather than détente with tyrants is always going to be denounced by any resident of the island nation who wants to stay out of jail.

Thus, the predictable denunciations of Rubio by those interviewed by the Times as an “enemy” of the Cuban people “who wants to kill us” ought to be taken with a truckload of salt. But as, Rubio indicated both in his comments to the Times as well as on Twitter after the piece ran, he’s proud that the regime views him as a threat to its continued rule. He rightly pointed out that the rote recitations of regime talking points the Times recorded and dutifully published merely reflects the truth of what he has been asserting about the unchanged nature of life in Cuba. Despite President Obama’s confidence that his engagement with the Castros will open up a new chapter of history, the only thing we can be sure of is that the regime and its supporters will profit from the move and the Cuban people will remain silenced. Moreover, does anyone at the Times think such barbs thrown at Rubio from regime operatives harms his chances of the presidency or diminishes his popularity among Cuban-Americans who largely share his views on the subject? Do they think it helps mobilize more support for President Obama’s proposal to end the embargo on Cuba?

But, as with the other hit pieces on Rubio, there is another unintended benefit to Rubio. Even as Times reporter Jason Horowitz collected attack quotes on the senator wherever he went, he also crafted a narrative that shows just how humble Rubio’s origins truly are. The notion that the son and grandson of working class Cubans could be president of the United States is a “storybook” scenario that awes even those who have been instructed to denounce Rubio."