Tag: nyt

The Heavy Pot Taxes Favored by The New York Times Would Undermine Legalization

The New York Times embraced legalization of recreational marijuana in 2014, two years after Colorado and Washington became the first states to take that step. By that point, most Americans opposed pot prohibition, and that majority has grown since then.

Although the Times does not regret endorsing legalization, its editorial board now says stricter regulation and heavier taxation are necessary to curtail the costs associated with marijuana abuse. Those recommendations elide two inconvenient facts: Cannabis is still federally prohibited, and states are still struggling to replace unauthorized pot peddlers with government-licensed marijuana merchants.

The Times emphasizes that “occasional marijuana use is no more a problem than drinking a glass of wine with dinner or smoking a celebratory cigar.” But while marijuana “is safer than alcohol and tobacco in some ways,” the Times says, “it is not harmless.”

Frequent cannabis consumption has increased substantially in recent years, the Times notes, and roughly one in 10 marijuana users “develops an addiction.” Even nonaddicted cannabis consumers “can still use it too much,” it says, since “people who are frequently stoned can struggle to hold a job or take care of their families.”

The Times also mentions cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, “marijuana-linked paranoia,” and the danger posed by stoned drivers. “Any product that brings both pleasures and problems requires a balancing act,” the Times says, which means “personal freedom” must be curtailed to protect “public health.”

That formulation is inherently paternalistic, since the “public health” burden to which the Times refers is borne mainly by cannabis consumers themselves. And the moral logic of the hefty marijuana taxes that the Times favors is questionable.

Those taxes would add to the difficulties that some heavy consumers face while punishing the occasional use that the paper says is no big deal. Although “adults should have the freedom to use” marijuana, the Times says, they must pay the government for that privilege.

A tax-based “balancing act” also raises practical difficulties. “The first step in a strategy to reduce marijuana abuse should be a federal tax on pot,” the Times says, gliding over the point that Congress cannot impose an excise tax on marijuana products unless it is prepared to legalize them.

The editorial does not explicitly acknowledge the need for that step. To the contrary, it implicitly criticizes President Donald Trump’s decision to reclassify marijuana under federal law, which falls far short of legalization.

Keep reading

New York Times accidentally proves Deep State is a 100% REAL evil supervillain…

Way before people started calling it the “Deep State,” Washington had a built-in system that never changed no matter who won the White House. It is the permanent bureaucracy, entrenched military brass, intelligence chiefs, and federal powers that outlast presidents and shape outcomes.

And according to newly unsealed testimony, Richard Nixon didn’t just believe that machine existed. He walked straight into this buzz saw and was shredded.

The New York Times just published a very interesting piece divulging that while Nixon was drowning in Watergate hell, there was something else happening behind the scenes… something way more explosive and dangerous. It was a wartime espionage operation run by senior military officials inside the Pentagon. This was the actual Deep State running an operation against the President of The United States.

The Joint Chiefs had a mole inside the White House, stealing classified docs and handing them over to senior military commanders.

This is the New York Times admitting that entrenched bureaucratic forces (Deep State) respond aggressively when they feel threatened.

Moorer-Radford exposed a hidden feature of the American political system that endures: When excluded from their spheres of interest, entrenched bureaucratic forces will, almost as a biological reflex, respond aggressively.

Just look at all the people spying. It’s a literal free-for-all.

The NYT piece explains:

Declassified documents and scholarship published since 1974 have established that the F.B.I., under its director, J. Edgar Hoover, spied on Mitchell, the attorney general, and that the C.I.A. detailed its personnel to various units associated with Nixon, including the Watergate burglary team and “components intimately associated with the office of the president,” as the agency admitted in 1975.

Think about this… the Joint Chiefs is spying, the FBI is spying, and the CIA is embedded. And all of this is connected to a sitting US president.

And Nixon knew exactly what was happening, but he decided not to expose it.

Why?

Because blowing it wide open would’ve ripped the military apart smack in the middle of the Cold War.

So Nixon swallowed it.

Watergate became the headline, and the spy operation disappeared into a black hole somewhere, stamped classified, and forgotten.

That was 1971.

Keep reading

David Sacks Exposes New York Times For Shielding Reid Hoffman In Epstein Files

Venture capitalist David Sacks has slammed The New York Times for its glaring failure to scrutinize Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn co-founder emerging as the top Silicon Valley figure in the explosive Jeffrey Epstein files.

In a scathing segment on the All-In Podcast, Sacks highlighted how the establishment media targets right-leaning tech moguls while giving a free pass to left-wing donors deeply entangled with Epstein.

“Brad, you speak about the corruption of power centers. I think a major one has to be The New York Times,” Sacks urged.

“The number-one person in the Epstein files from Silicon Valley which is Reid Hoffman mentioned 2,600 times had a multiyear relationship with Epstein and they call each other very good friends. They did deals together,” Sacks explained.

He continued, “Reid stayed at the trifecta which is not just the island but the townhouse and the New Mexico ranch. And if you’re gonna write about Mark Zuckerberg organize that famous dinner how can you not mention that as the root of Epstein’s involvement in Silicon Valley?”

“And yet Reid just gets a mentioned in one sentence of article along with several other people,” Sacks stressed.

He accused the Times of selective outrage, noting “It is crazy. I mean The New York Times clearly has a list people they consider approved targets. They are all right coded people like Elon or Peter Thiel.”

“And they become targets but the people who have donated hundreds millions dollars to the Democrat Party and have paid for dirty tricks against Trump, they basically are spared. Honestly this is just emblematic of the whole institutional rot in a distrust in the country right there,” Sacks explained.

“Part of the cabal, it’s part of the institutions that people are losing faith in, and you know Epstein was a scumbag and the fact of matter is we’re not seeing equal play on both sides,” Sacks further urged.

The remarks come amid fresh revelations from the Justice Department’s massive Epstein document dump, which includes emails showing Hoffman’s ongoing interactions with the convicted sex offender long after his 2008 plea deal.

Newly unsealed emails reveal Hoffman discussing visits to Epstein’s notorious private island, his New Mexico ranch, and his New York apartment. One 2015 message has Epstein boasting about a “wild dinner” with Hoffman, Mark Zuckerberg, and others.

Keep reading

GOP senator excoriates NY Times for bad reporting on Arctic Frost, IDs reporters by name

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on Thursday slammed the New York Times over its reporting on whistleblowers, which he claimed intended to discredit real whistleblowers who were shedding light on misconduct.

Grassley said the series of reports, which were done by New York Times reporters Glenn Thrush, Alan Feuer and Adam Goldman, date back to 2023 when Goldman wrote a report that was “designed to undermine my exposure of former FBI agent [Timothy] Thibault’s political conduct.”

“Goldman wrote his article before knowing all the facts,” Grassley claimed during floor remarks. “For one, Thibault was found to have violated the Hatch Act for anti-Trump political conduct at work. Second, Goldman’s article didn’t account for emails I released last year showing Thibault violated the FBI’s rules in opening and advancing Arctic Frost.”

Grassley said another article from last year attempted to dismiss Arctic Frost concerns by stating the FBI “took normal bureaucratic steps and precautions” when looking into the case. 

“Was this supposed to be an opinion piece on behalf of terminated FBI agents or a real news article?” Grassley questioned. “Normal steps weren’t taken.”

The senator admitted that the House and Senate are now receiving oversight documents they requested years ago, but that the production was because of cooperation from the Trump administration.

“To Attorney General [Pam] Bondi and [FBI] Director [Kash] Patel’s credit, they’ve done better in that regard than any of their predecessors,” Grassley said. “Am I fully satisfied? Of course not. But Bondi and Patel deserve credit, and if the Biden administration had done the same, I’d give them credit, too.”

Grassley also slammed the New York Times for its coverage of the Mar-a-Lago raid, accusing the outlet of mischaracterizing his post that the raid was a “miscarriage of justice,” because it did not include his full comment.

The senator additionally claimed the outlet accused his trusted whistleblowers of violating the law by disclosing subpoenas from Jack Smith, which they shared with Congress and not the media. 

Keep reading

How the Public Feels Post-Covid

Some people wonder why I look at the New York Times. It’s because I want to see what narratives the “newspaper of record” is pushing. I read an article about ten years ago by an ex-NYT editor, who said that at the beginning of the year, the editors were given a list of the themes to be followed that year. I think he was making clear that they were told which narratives they were intended to push.

Below, I critique an “Opinion Piece” by a journalist who knows nothing about the subject of pandemic countermeasures, except that it is his job to pan whatever the current administration is doing, especially if it will save taxpayers money and reduce the risks of Gain-of-Function research.

Let’s look at the NYT author first, best known for exaggerating the effects of global warming. No science background. But he did beat up RFK in an August 13 opinion piece—well, that probably trumps a PhD in the subject matter at the NYT.

His book and article on climate change are described as terrifying. And he attempts to terrify us with his straw man argument today. (FYI, a straw man argument misrepresents what the opposer actually said, and argues against the misrepresentation.)

Keep reading

New York Times Insists ‘No One Knows’ What is Behind ‘Staggering Fall’ in U.S. Murder Rate

The New York Times is dumbfounded as to what could be causing the fall in murder rates across the United States.

The Times was the first to report on the news that the U.S. murder rate had hit a 125-year low after President Donald Trump’s first year back in office.

According to data from the nonpartisan think tank, The Council on Criminal Justice, it is estimated that the homicide rate dropped 21 percent from 2024 to 2025.

“When nationwide data for jurisdictions of all sizes is reported by the FBI later this year, there is a strong possibility that homicides in 2025 will drop to about 4.0 per 100,000 residents,” the organization said.

”That would be the lowest rate ever recorded in law enforcement or public health data going back to 1900, and would mark the largest single-year percentage drop in the homicide rate on record,” they continued.

However, the paper has now claimed that “no one knows for sure” what is causing the massive decline.

While the Times asserted that Trump would try to take credit for the figures because of his tough approach to law and order, it has suggested that the two things are not correlated.

Keep reading

Here’s How The Media Are Lying Right Now: New York Times ‘Analysis’ Edition

There’s a helpful new way to determine whether the dying news media are lying: Simply look for some variation of the phrase, “according to a New York Times analysis.”

The Times itself has repeatedly relied on that little trick to cast blame on the Trump administration in the death of the angry anti-ICE leftist now identified as Renee Nicole Good. She was shot in Minneapolis last week after recklessly flooring it in her SUV in the middle of the street while disrupting a law enforcement operation.

“A New York Times analysis of videos of the shooting contradicts the Trump administration’s account.” (Jan. 7)

“But a Times analysis of video calls into question key aspects of the government’s account.” (Jan. 7)

“But our analysis of bystander footage, filmed from different angles, appears to show the agent was not in the path of the victim’s SUV when he fired three shots at close range.” (Jan. 8)

“[A] Times analysis of footage from three camera angles showed the motorist was driving away from — not toward — a federal officer when he opened fire.” (Jan. 8)

By “a Times analysis,” what the paper means is that a handful of content creators who work there looked at the same videos everyone else saw. There’s no reason to believe their eyes are any better than mine, and what I saw was clear. While officials were posted up in their vehicles, pedestrians were blowing whistles and yelling in protest. Good, the now-deceased woman, had her Honda Pilot parked longways in the center of the street, obstructing traffic. When three officers approached Good and commanded her to exit the vehicle, she threw her car into reverse before shifting forward and slamming the gas pedal, apparently striking one of the agents on his left side. That officer had his weapon drawn for her to see, and when she failed to brake, he fired multiple rounds. The SUV then crashed at high speed into another parked car on the road’s left shoulder.

It doesn’t matter whether Good was trying to avoid arrest or whether she suddenly remembered she forgot to blow out the candles before leaving her house. It doesn’t matter whether she was deliberately turning toward any of the agents or away from them. The fact remains that she broke the law by interfering with law enforcement and that she put the lives of everyone on scene at risk when she chose to hit the gas in her two-ton vehicle.

Keep reading

Once Again, the New York Times Sells Israel’s Genocide in Gaza as Law Enforcement

This is another masterclass from the New York Times in how to sell genocide as law enforcement.

According to today’s headline, “new Israeli rules” mean “suspensions” of aid groups from Gaza – that is, the forced expulsion of 37 humanitarian organizations from Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel.

These aid groups organize most of the field hospitals currently operating in Gaza and set up after Israel destroyed the enclave’s proper hospitals. The groups also run emergency shelters, water and sanitation services, and treatment centers for children with acute malnutrition.

Israel’s “registration rules” are a death sentence for a homeless, destitute Palestinian population left vulnerable to starvation, floods, winter cold and disease by Israel’s two-year destruction of their homeland.

Who is to blame? Apparently groups like Doctors Without Borders, Medical Aid for Palestinians and CARE. Why? Because they are “resisting” Israel’s “rules” to “provide detailed information” on their staff in Gaza – information Israel has used time and again to kill those aid workers.

As Doctors Without Borders point out, “we support one in five hospital beds and one in three births” in Gaza. Israel, it added, was “cutting off life-saving medical assistance for hundreds of thousands of people”.

Another organization affected by the new “rules”, the Norwegian Refugee Council, noted that Israel had killed hundreds of aid workers in the past two years. “For us, it is a safety concern for our staff. And acknowledging who they are – it puts them at risk.”

The New York Times wants you to forget who is the criminal here.

It is Israel that’s illegally occupying Gaza and other Palestinian territories – and has been for decades.

It is Israel that has bombed Gaza into the Stone Age.

It is Israel that has ethnically cleansed Gaza’s people from their lands, driving them into ever smaller concentration camps on those ruins, surrounded by Israel’s “yellow line”.

It is Israel that has starved the people of Gaza for months on end by blocking all aid.

It is Israel that’s killed at least 600 aid workers, 1,700 medical staff and 250 journalists in Gaza over the past two years.

It is Israel that has eradicated all Gaza’s hospitals and health care facilities, leaving its maimed and starved population vulnerable to infection and disease.

And it is Israel now expelling aid organizations vital to keep this homeless, bombed, maimed, starved, orphaned, traumatized population alive.

Criminals don’t get to set the “rules” – because the rules they set will, by definition, serve their criminal agenda.

Israel has not hidden that agenda. It wants to eradicate Gaza and its population. It has destroyed the people of Gaza’s homes and the infrastructure they need to survive – from hospitals and schools to sanitation services. It has blocked aid and food, and is now driving out the emergency aid organizations that served as a sticking plaster to keep this population just barely alive.

Israel’s goal is to make life so desperate, so impossible, that the rest of the world will consent to the expulsion of the Palestinian people from Gaza on “humanitarian” grounds.

The New York Times, like the rest of the media, are using language to persuade you that none of this is happening.

Keep reading

NY Times Editorial Board Member Has Possibly the Dumbest Take of All on Somali Fraud in Minnesota

Mara Gay of the New York Times is a special kind of stupid. Whenever she is brought on to cable news to comment on an issue, you know you’re in for a hot take.

In this case, she was on Morning Joe, offering her opinion on the Somali fraud scandal that is still unfolding in Minnesota.

She suggested that this was the result of the ‘weaponization’ of government, which doesn’t even make any sense.

Transcript via Real Clear Politics:

JONATHAN LEMIRE: And, Mara, this is a story that’s really gained a lot of traction among conservative media members, among MAGA folks online, including members of the Trump administration. Vice President JD Vance was posting about it the other day. There’s a lot we don’t know here just yet, but it does give off at least a sense—and we’ll see where the facts take us—but at least we can safely say this: it seems like Republicans are eager to be talking about something else amid a lot of the bad news surrounding the president right now.

MARA GAY, NEW YORK TIMES COLUMNIST: Right. Well, sure. These were funds that were meant to help feed hungry people during the COVID pandemic, to help keep people in their homes who were at risk of homelessness. So, first of all, if there is fraud there, that should be fully investigated—no matter where it is, whether it’s in a Democratic-led state or a Republican-led state. Absolutely, it should be investigated.

The question is, why is this a priority in a different kind of way? The politicization of the DOJ and the FBI is undeniable. So whether they are reliable narrators is the big question. This is what happens when you weaponize and politicize federal agencies that are not meant to be politicized.

I think the American people are right to ask the question: can we trust you? And that’s a sad thing to say as an American.

Keep reading

The New York Times ignores an essential part of the Jeffrey Epstein story — Israel

If you want to understand why conspiracy theories about Jeffrey Epstein flourish, then you must read the interminable investigation the New York Times published, purporting to explain how Jeffrey Epstein clawed himself to the pinnacle of the financial/political/social world. “The Untold Story of How Jeffrey Epstein Got Rich” concludes that Epstein was the greatest conman and swindler that ever lived, and charmed the pants off of every powerful man he met. Some of his marks still curse Epstein for fleecing them. But the paradigm of the article is the execs at Bear Stearns back in the 70s who found out that the former math teacher at Dalton School had invented college degrees from “two California universities” but didn’t fire him because they wanted to give a humble kid from the outer boros a second chance. 

“You lied about your education,” [senior exec Michael] Tennenbaum said.

“Yes, I know,” Epstein calmly replied. He had never graduated from college. Tennenbaum recalls being disarmed by the admission. Decades later, he would regard it as an example of Epstein’s ability to manipulate his marks — in this case, him.

“Why did you do it?” Tennenbaum stammered.

Without an impressive degree or two, Epstein said, “I knew nobody would give me a chance.”

This resonated with Tennenbaum.

That’s a great story, and there is great reporting in this article. But the premise of the article is a stupid myth the NYT wants to believe– That Epstein was just the canniest, boldest con man that ever lived, and he left everybody swooning. The talented Mr Ripley. 

It’s a myth not because Epstein was not a bold and crafty con man – no doubt he was. But even a conman can have an ethos. Look at Gatsby, a mobster with romance. Look at Trump’s fascistic populism. And Jeffrey Epstein had an ethos that he played on over and over again as his racket grew; and that ethos was the love of Israel in the rising Jewish meritocratic establishment of the 70s. 

Almost every player in the Times story is a Jewish success story who lobbied for Israel in prestigious circles, from Dershowitz to Larry Summers, Leon Black, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, and Epstein’s most famous associations, Robert Maxwell and Les Wexner.  

Love of Israel was a lead criterion for inclusion in Epstein’s circle. I don’t think Epstein’s “marks” were even fooled by him. They knew he was a conman who played fast and loose. But they also knew that the Israel lobby has a need for charmers who break the rules, so they looked the other way.   

Epstein did numerous chores for Israel that investigative sites have documented and the Times does not touch: he helped Israel broker financial deals with neighbors, he had an Israeli spy living in his house for a time, and he had a close relationship with former Israeli PM Ehud Barak that included business ventures and politics in Israel.

“It’s well past time to ask questions about the billionaire pedophile’s links to Israel,” Jacobin says. 

Keep reading