The green czar affair should put the final lie to The Times’ ‘objectivity’

Sep 13, 2009 - Van Jones — unfit for print The green czar affair should put the final lie to The Times’ ‘objectivity’ By KYLE SMITH Last Updated: 3:51 AM, September 13, 2009 Posted: 1:10 AM, September 13, 2009 “This is not an excuse,” the managing editor of The New York Times said after offering the following excuse for completely missing the Van Jones story, except in a blog post: “Our Washington bureau was somewhat short-staffed during the height of the pre-Labor Day vacation period.”<p> </p><br> Here’s how long-staffed The New York Times actually is. Long after Glenn Beck reported — back in July — that Jones was history’s first communist czar, and even after Gateway Pundit reported, on Sept. 3, that Jones had signed a wackadoodle 9/11 “truther” petition, The Times sent two reporters to Boston (in a story published Friday, Sept. - 2 Comments

Misery math: Great Recession by the numbers

Oct 11, 2009 - NEW YORK - A year ago this weekend, the Dow Jones industrial average had just finished a slow-motion crash. Over eight days, it fell 2,400 points, or 22 percent, and stood at 8,451. One year later, the Dow is at 9,865. - 1 Comment

Is SNL right that Obama's accomplished 'nothing'?

Oct 06, 2009 - This is an opinion piece that I just happened to find interesting. I know there has been a lot of Obama bashing since Chicago lost the Olympics, but I didn't see the SNL piece until stuff started showing up on the internet. I'm just interested to hear everyone's opinions on the topic. - 93 Comments

poted on 4 sites.

Aug 31, 2009 - Michael Yon Online Magazine  

• About Michael
  • Thank You for Your Support
  • Spread the Word
  • Michael in the Media
  • How this Project is Funded
  • Linking Policy & Media Inquiries
• Online Store
  • Photo Gallery
  • Moment of Truth
  • Danger Close
  • Donations
• Support Next Dispatch
• Join Mailing List
• Guest Authors
• Archives
  • Archives 2005
  • Archives 2006
  • Archives 2007
  • Archives 2008
• RSS Feed

Home Michael's Dispatches Precision Voting Precision Voting Next > 31 August 2009Helmand Province, Afghanistan The historical Afghan elections scheduled for 20 August were days away.   While the west mostly continued to vote for Afghanistan, the big question was, “Will Afghanistan vote for itself?” The latest media wave splashed into the main voting centers in places like Kabul, Kandahar, Jalalabad, Herat and Lashkar Gah.  The larger cities only account for perhaps 20% of the Afghan population.  Whereas the easy and obvious stories are in the cities, a crucial and larger dimension—the other 80%—would unfold in the boonies.  Most Afghans would have no chance to vote. The election was to be run by Afghans.  In theory and in practice this would be a recipe for disaster.  The strategic thinkers cannot be faulted for this; after nearly eight years of war, if the west were still running the elections, the elections and government would be a failure to begin with.  By comparison, the Iraqi elections on 30 January 2005 (less than two years after invasion) were run mostly by Iraqis.  In the voting of October and December of that same year, Iraqis had two more runs at the ballots, which were increasingly successful.  Afghanistan, however, is different.  This would be only the second election in history. There are no good choices here.  Either we run the elections and the central government and in doing so undermine the same central government we are investing in, or we allow that central government to run the elections and probably watch it undermine itself.  But who knows? - 1 Comment