Thursday, September 17, 2015

Common Dreams:
"A ProPublica analysis of newly available federal data shows that some of the nation’s wealthiest colleges are leaving their poorest students with plenty of debt. More than a quarter of the nation’s 60 wealthiest universities leave their low-income students owing an average of more than $20,000 in federal loans.

New York University is among the country’s wealthiest schools. Backed by its $3.5 billion endowment, the school has built campuses in Abu Dhabi and Shanghai, invested billions in SoHo real estate, and given its star faculty loans to buy summer homes. But the university does less than many other schools when it comes to one thing: helping its poor students.

A ProPublica analysis based on new data from the U.S. Department of Education shows that students from low-income families graduate from NYU saddled with huge federal loans. The school’s Pell Grant recipients – students from families that make less than $30,000 a year – owe an average of $23,250 in federal loans after graduation."

-->This report shows how little the wealth, heavily endowed colleges do for their poorer students. It is all part of the gross disparity in income and assets that leaves most of the nation's working people with very little. As the newspaper of the rich elite, The NYT decided not to print the story.

———

Common Dreams:
"When the U.S. Department of Defense published a new Law of War Manual this past summer, editorialists at the New York Times sat up and took notice. Their concern was that the manual stated that journalists could be deemed 'unprivileged belligerents.' The editorial explained that as a legal term 'that applies to fighters that are afforded fewer protections than the declared combatants in a war.' In fact, it is far more insidious than that innocuous description. ...

The key phrase here is 'being made the object of attack.' For slow-witted New York Times editorialists, that means journalists can be killed as can any enemy soldier in wartime. 'Subject to detention' means a journalist deemed an unprivileged belligerent will be put into military detention if captured. As with any enemy belligerent, however, if 'capture is not feasible,' they would be killed if possible, by drone perhaps if in a foreign country.

Currently, most U.S. captives deemed 'unprivileged belligerents' are imprisoned in Guantanamo although some may be held in Afghanistan. It must be noted that the United States deems as an 'unprivileged belligerent' anyone they target for capture or choose to kill."

-->Well there it is, the US police state where anyone the government chooses to capture or kill is automatically categorized as an 'unprivileged belligerent' and denied all Constitutional rights. We would have to go back to before the Magna Carta (1215) to find a time when a nation's citizens had no rights at all. The NYT skips over this destruction of our Constitutional rights, and refuses to acknowledge the power our government is now claiming.  

———

FAIR:
"On Sunday, the New York Times maintained a long, proud tradition of uncritically repeating official claims that the US—despite having twice the population, eight times the military budget and a nominal economy almost ten times as large—is 'lagging behind' Russia on a key military strategic objective [the Artic]. ...

The original front-page headline uses the classic New York Times passive voice: 'Seen as.' As does much of the article’s framing: 'In Washington and other NATO capitals, Russia’s military moves are seen as provocative — and potentially destabilizing.'

'Seen' by whom and why? As it turns out, it’s 'seen' this way entirely by the United States military and its partisan think tanks. The story overwhelmingly quotes Western military brass, anonymous White House officials and Western think tanks, namely the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Cold War holdover that published a paper dubiously titled 'The New Ice Curtain' to warn of the pending threat of Russian presence in the Arctic."

-->The NYT distorting news for the Pentagon again. The question is really why the American people keep trusting our newspaper of record.

No comments: