Apr 27, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 31 • By THE SCRAPBOOK
The New York Times recently declared, citing the release of a University of California study, that companies with employees earning an annual wage so low as to qualify them for government aid of some sort are effectively being subsidized by the federal government and implied that this is an odious situation that should be rectified at once.
The study should be troubling: Our present panoply of programs for low-income assistance doesn’t phase out until somewhere north of $50,000 for an employee with two children filing jointly. But here’s the conundrum for the Times: Are we to believe that if we looked at their roster of receptionists, janitorial staff, interns, and various entry-level workers, there wouldn’t be at least a few earning below $50,000 a year? And if there are a few people working for the Times and receiving government assistance—being subsidized by the federal government, as the editors see it—shouldn’t that be more troubling for an ostensibly independent paper than it would be for a Walmart or McDonald’s?
The larger question is whether the Times thinks that the minimum wage should be set so that no one working a 40-hour week would qualify for any government assistance. If so, that would necessitate a minimum wage of at least $25 an hour, or more than three times the current level. Does the Times believe that the minimum wage has so little impact on employment that an increase this extreme wouldn’t increase unemployment in the slightest?
If that is indeed what it holds to be true, it behooves the paper to certify that every single employee—as well as those employed by its contractors—receives a full-time salary that is at least $50,000 a year. Given that newspapers seem to be minting money these days, it shouldn’t be too difficult for it to raise wages a bit—unless it doesn’t care about its workers.
The banal argument that the Times bought lock, stock, and barrel is asinine: Providing wage subsidies or government aid to working men and women isn’t remotely the same as subsidizing their employers, and to imply that it is is facile and disingenuous. Facile, disingenuous, and par for the course, for the paper of record.
Dec 1, 2014, Vol. 20, No. 12 • By THE SCRAPBOOK
"Brain drain” is a phrase that first appeared in the 1950s, when London’s Royal Society expressed concern about the number of British scientists, engineers, and physicians being lured to the United States. Its concern was not misplaced: The Second World War had essentially bankrupted Britain, and in the wake of postwar privations and the nationalization of health care, the number of British professionals crossing the Atlantic to affluent America was substantial.
Nov 3, 2014, Vol. 20, No. 08 • By THE SCRAPBOOK
Frank Bruni, the restaurant critic-turned-op-ed columnist for the New York Times, traveled to Texas recently to attend the Austin City Limits Music Festival—and did he have a miserable time! The music seems to have been enjoyable enough, but Bruni’s own pleasure was seriously diminished by ubiquitous commercialism. During the concerts, Honda and Samsung Galaxy ads could be seen, as well as a Miller Lite banner hovering near the stage. “Someone shoved a free sample of Cinnamon Toast Crunch cereal at me on my way in,” he complained in his column last week.
Don’t waste time writing a Letter to the Editor unless it’s adulatory.Aug 18, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 46 • By KENNETH L. WOODWARD
On June 23, something very rare appeared in the pages of the New York Times: an admission by a Times columnist that he had made a reporting mistake. The columnist was David Carr, who acknowledged that he had erred in an earlier piece which implied that the Washington Post had not paid sufficient attention to Eric Cantor’s upset in the Virginia primary.
The New York Times’s animal-rights crusade.May 26, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 35 • By WESLEY J. SMITH
That the New York Times is a subversive cultural force can readily be seen in its unremitting assault on human exceptionalism, the philosophical backbone of Western civilization.
In the old view, every human being has intrinsic dignity and equal moral worth. The United Nations’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”
Hosted by Michael Graham.4:40 PM, Apr 23, 2014 • By TWS PODCAST
THE WEEKLY STANDARD Podcast with editor William Kristol on his recent piece about why the NYT Arkansas Senate poll is bogus, and why the GOP still shouldn't be complacent.
Oct 14, 2013, Vol. 19, No. 06 • By THE SCRAPBOOK
"What is at stake in this government shutdown forced by a radical Tea Party minority is nothing less than the principle upon which our democracy is based: majority rule. President Obama must not give in to this hostage taking . . . ” (Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, Oct. 1).
Oct 15, 2012, Vol. 18, No. 05 • By THE SCRAPBOOK
"The first debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney, so long anticipated, quickly sunk into an unenlightening recitation of tired talking points and mendacity.
‹‹ More Recent