Mark Blumsky

NY Times doesn't get it

From BoingBoing.

Not much more I can add to Cory’s summation

Scott from Apartment Therapy sez,

Apartment Therapy New York received a DMCA take-down notice from the NY Times demanding removal of a long list of blog posts containing images from the Times (in posts about relevant Times articles).

We love the Times and write about them (and link to them) frequently. We are shocked & disappointed their first contact with concerns about our use of their images (in posts about their stories!) was a threatening letter & DMCA takedown notice to our ISP who have warned us they will disable our servers if we don’t comply with the NY Times request.

Pop quiz: You’re a troubled media dinosaur struggling to find your way on the Web. What steps can you take to actively discourage people from linking to you, thus reducing your pageviews and revenue? DMCA Take Down Notice: The NYTimes Goes to War & Wants to Shut us Down (Thanks, Scott!)

Is it any wonder that their share price is on a constant 5 year slide to nothing? Morons!

‘Yes we can'? Make that: ‘Oops, we may not'

Has the Barack Hussein Obama bubble burst? It may well have. There is a great article at the Times Online by Gerard Baker about what may happening to the great Obama-messiah.

There’s trouble in paradise. Cancel the coronation. Send back the commemorative medals. Put those “Yes We Can” T-shirts up on eBay. Keep the Change.

Barack Obama’s historic procession to the American presidency has been rudely interrupted. The global healing he promised is in jeopardy. If you’re prone to emotional breakdown, you might want to take a seat before I say this. He might not win.

How can it be, you ask? Didn’t we see him just last month speaking to 200,000 adoring Germans in Berlin? Didn’t he get the red carpet treatment in France – France of all places? Doesn’t every British politician want to be seen clutching the hem of his garment?

All true. But as cruel geography and the selfish designs of the American Founding Fathers would have it, Europeans don’t get to choose the US president. Somewhere along the way to the Obama presidency, somebody forgot to ask the American people.

All too true, plus of course there were barely 20,000 watching Obama try to be John F. Kennedy not the 200,000 purported by the leftist MSM. Hell even here in little ole New Zealand we got 100,000 to watch a bunch of fake titties prance down Queen Street, arguably more people to watch more boobs.

The fact is that the 47-year-old Democrat, less than four years in the Senate, is still largely a blank page for American voters: a great orator and an attractive figure, but unknown and untested. The Republicans have been filling in some of the gaps and pointing out how thin his real biography is.

The second problem is that Senator Obama is having difficulty – curiously enough – with Democratic voters. Polls indicate that while Senator McCain has just about locked up the votes of those who supported other Republicans in the primary election, Senator Obama is still regarded with mistrust and dislike by large numbers of Hillary Clinton’s former supporters.

Indeed, he still is largely a blank page. Right now the Democratic plan that “He isn’t George W. Bush” has failed because the Democrats forgot that GWB isn’t standing. Now they have changed only their title and substituted GWB for John McCain. The problem they have is that John McCain has been around for a hell of a lot longer than Obama has pretended to be, he is deeper and more convincing. He still has to contend with Shrillary.

The last paragraph succinctly explains why Obama hasn’t kicked on in the polls.

But the uncomfortable truth for the many devoted fans of Senator Obama is that the more the race is about him, the less likely he is to win it.

As the pressure mounts it will be interesting to see how Obama reacts. My prediction is that he will falter.

Michelle Malkin gets stuck into the NY Times

Michelle Malkin via RealClearPolitics gets stuck into the NY Times. Meanwhile Sir Humphreys reports a major slump in their share price.

December 28, 2005
The New York Times vs. America
By Michelle Malkin

2005 was a banner year for the nation’s Idiotarian newspaper of record, The New York Times.

What’s "Idiotarian"? Popular warblogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs (littlegreenfootballs.com) and Pajamas Media (pajamasmedia.com) coined the useful term to describe stubborn blame-America ideologues hopelessly stuck in a pre-September 11 mindset. The Times crusaded tirelessly this year for the cut-and-run, troop-undermining, Bush-bashing, reality-denying cause. Let’s review:

On July 6, Army reserve officer Phillip Carter authored a freelance op-ed for the Times calling on President Bush to promote military recruitment efforts. The next day, the paper was forced to admit that one of its editors had inserted misleading language into the piece against Carter’s wishes. The "correction":

"The Op-Ed page in some copies yesterday carried an incorrect version of an article about military recruitment. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, ‘Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday,’ nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a ‘surprise tour of Iraq.’ That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error."

Carter told Times ombudsman Byron Calame: "Those were not words I would have said. It left the impression that I was conscripted" when, in fact, Carter volunteered for active duty.

Funny how the "production errors" of the Times’ truth doctors always put the Bush administration and the war in the worst light.

Not content to meddle with the words of a living soldier, the Times published a disgraceful distortion of a fallen soldier’s last words on Oct. 26. As reported in this column and in the news pages of the New York Post, Times reporter James Dao unapologetically abused the late Corporal Jeffrey B. Starr, whose letter to his girlfriend in case of death in Iraq was selectively edited to convey a bogus sense of "fatalism" for a massive piece marking the anti-war movement’s "2,000 dead in Iraq" campaign. The Times added insult to injury by ignoring President Bush’s tribute to Starr on Nov. 30 during his Naval Academy speech defending the war in Iraq.

After Starr died, Bush said, "a letter was found on his laptop computer. Here’s what he wrote. He said, ‘[I]f you’re reading this, then I’ve died in Iraq. I don’t regret going. Everybody dies, but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we’re in Iraq; it’s not to me. I’m here helping these people so they can live the way we live, not to have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. Others have died for my freedom; now this is my mark.’"

Stirring words deemed unfit to print by the Times.

The Times did find space to print the year’s most insipid op-ed piece by paranoid Harvard student Fatina Abdrabboh, who praised Al Gore for overcoming America’s allegedly rampant anti-Muslim bias by picking up her car keys, which she dropped while running on a gym treadmill:

" . . . Mr. Gore’s act represented all that I yearned for — acceptance and acknowledgment. . . . I left the gym with a renewed sense of spirit, reassured that I belong to America and that America belongs to me."

I kid you not.

In June, Debra Burlingame, sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, pilot of downed American Airlines Flight 77, blew the whistle on plans by civil liberties zealots to turn Ground Zero in New York into a Blame America monument. On July 29, the Times editorial page, stocked with liberals who snort and stamp whenever their patriotism is questioned, slammed Burlingame and her supporters at Take Back the Memorial as "un-American" — for exercising their free speech rights.

Yes, "un-American." This from a newspaper that smeared female interrogators at Guantanamo Bay as "sex workers," sympathetically portrayed military deserters as "un-volunteers," apologized for terror suspects and illegal aliens at every turn, enabled the Bush Derangement Syndrome-driven crusade of the lying Joe Wilson, and recklessly endangered national security by publishing illegally obtained information about classified counterterrorism programs.

So, which side is The New York Times on? Let 2005 go down as the year the Gray Lady wrapped herself permanently in a White Flag.