Right Sentiment. Woefully Wrong Approach.

You have got to be fucking kidding me...

This is one of the worst. Front. Pages. Ever.

The Editors of the New York Daily News thought it would be appropriate to blame President Obama on the front page of their rag today, in the aftermath of the Aurora shootings.

They continue in their editorial to point fingers at the NRA and its Vice President Wayne LaPierre, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and the "millions of zealots who would sooner see blood flow and lives end than have to check a box on a gun registration form."

They have a point, but man, do they go about it in a strange way. The first half of their editorial comes across as hacky, amateurish and way over the top, describing the scene in Aurora as if the President and his opponent were right by the shooter's side.

While I understand their sentiment in pointing out the lack of enthusiasm among most politicians in legislating stricter gun laws, attempting to cast blame on Obama or Romney for not taking the opportunity to pull an Andrew Shepard "I'm gonna get the guns"moment the second they got in front of the cameras while the country was still in shock is simply ludicrous.

Look, we all know the NRA has Washington DC by the balls, but to blame 535 people on the hill and one in the Oval Office is complete misdirection. There are 4.3 million members of the National Rifle Association and staggeringly, that is a fraction of the approximately 47% of American adults that self report ownership of a gun, let alone the possibly millions of unregistered firearms in this country. But I suppose if you want to sell papers in a dying industry, it wouldn't be quite so powerful putting a crowd of a 100 million gun waving people on the cover.

I'm not happy with the Obama Administration's grade when it comes to gun laws, and yes, I wish someone would take the lead on this, whether it be Obama or Congress. But I don't remember the editors putting George W. Bush's face on the front page of the paper when the Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to expire in 2004.

And let's not forget that at this point in time, the gun crazies - LaPierre included - think (or want the rubes to believe) that there's some vast Obama conspiracy to take away everyone's guns when there are absolutely no facts to back it up. And it continues to work. Since the 2008 election, gun sales have shot through the roof (no pun intended) for fear that Big Brother is coming for their guns and restrict or flat out revoke their precious 2nd Amendment rights. Can you imagine the wall to wall pout-rage by the RWNJs if the President had even broached the subject legislating a curb or ban of assault weapons due to the most recent tragedy? And the backlash and accusations for making political hay out of it?

We don't live in a vacuum. As much as I'd like to live in an Aaron Sorkin world, the reality is that politics plays a role in everything, including the timing of when to take on certain issues. And while I still believe that there's some time to turn the gun issue around for the Obama administration - after November 7th in a second term? - the day of a national tragedy is not the time for pulling the gun control card. And the editors of the New York Daily News know that, but chose to take a cheap shot anyway.

(Cross-posted at ABLC)

Broadway Carl to NY Daily News Editors: Grow Up!

Here's today's cover of the NY Daily News:



Seriously, NY Daily News editors? Have we become so pathetic as a people that we can't even mention Osama Bin Laden's name on the same hallowed grounds where plans for the Freedom Tower include a shopping mall?

The editorial does go on to commend both Navy SEAL VI and President Obama for getting the job done and regretting that said military must remain anonymous. But come on, people, you want to see gruesome post-mortem death photos of Bin Laden but can't stand the thought of mentioning his name at Ground Zero? Grow a set.

More Tabloid Rag Ranting

I know I've been a little obsessed with the inanity that are the local papers, specifically the Daily News here in New York City, first with sports columnist Mike Lupica's op-ed piece, because we all want to know what a sports writer thinks about the Not-At-Ground-Zero-Not-A-Mosque, and then raging over the ridiculous editorial that takes credit for forcing President Obama to make a statement regarding HR847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, as if somehow the president was secretly against it because he hadn't commented on it.

Usually I don't bother with their crappy coverage, but I stopped by to see if my letter had been published (...heh...) and caught a couple of letters written by others in the Daily News' "Voice of the People" section. I suppose the editors don't bother fact checking anything written by their readers before publishing because what I read was pretty appalling.

Here are a few goodies:

Move the mosque

Fairfield, N.J.: Mayor Bloomberg has it wrong. Today's soldiers are not fighting for our country's religious freedoms but to keep Islamic terrorists out. Respect is a two-way street. The mosque builders should build somewhere else.

Beth Evans

Really, Beth? So I suppose the soldiers don't mean it when they say, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." in the first line of their oath?

Sickened by health plan

Brooklyn: Besides President Obama's support for the Islamic center and not giving seniors the $250 raise promised, there might be an even worse controversy awaiting him. Although promising that his health care reform wouldn't impose any new middle-class taxes, buried in the law it states that workers' health care premiums paid for by employers must be declared on W-2 forms starting in 2011 and be taxed. This would put many middle-class workers and retirees into higher tax brackets. Our taxes would rise by thousands a year. Nice going, Mr. Obama!

Myron Shulman

Oh, Myron. You really must stop believing everything Rush tells you, or what you see on Fox News.

If Myron had just taken 30 seconds to fact check his claims (like I did), he'd know he was dead wrong. 750,000 checks have already been sent out to alleviate the Medicare donut hole written into the law back in 2003 (what party was in Congressional majority at that time? Please remind me, Myron) with another 3 million checks estimated to go out over the next fiscal year.

And while it is true that employer health care premiums will be added as an informational line on your W-2s, it will not be considered taxable income. By the way, as FactCheck.org notes...

Those who followed the 2008 presidential campaign may recall that it was Republican candidate John McCain who proposed to make the value of employer-sponsored health insurance taxable. Democrats hated that idea; Barack Obama ran an ad claiming, falsely, that it would be the "largest middle-class tax increase in history."

So it is ironic that some of President Obama’s critics now claim that the bill he signed would do what his opponent proposed and he denounced. Ironic, but false.

It took 30 seconds, Myron. Check your facts before assuming the smear e-mails you're receiving are true.

An open wound

Sunnyside: We are not saying they can't build their mosque. We are saying they can't build it there. We will never fully heal from 9/11. I still cry.

Lynn Ward

We know what you're saying, Lynn, and it's still wrong. As long as they are abiding by zoning laws and city ordinances, it's perfectly legal. As I've said before, would you prevent the Roman Catholic church from building near the Oklahoma City bombing site because Timothy McVeigh was raised Catholic?

Over his head

Monroe, N.J.: President Obama's lack of experience is showing. He has taken a bad economy and made it much worse. Now he's in favor of the "victory mosque" at Ground Zero. America has proven that it's not a racist country by electing him, but he is not meant for this job.

Tom Scott

The economy is bad, but in my opinion, President Obama hasn't made it worse. Although we are technically out of a recession (GDP growth for two consecutive quarters), unemployment continues to hover between 9.5 and 10%. However, had it not been for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we could be currently looking at an unemployment rate of up to 16%.



Red lines: Bush's job "growth" in his last 13 months in office. Blue lines: Obama's first 15 months. Although we're not out of the woods yet, it looks like positive job growth to me. But all you have to do is read the "victory mosque" comment to know where Tom Scott's head is, and no matter how hard he looks, he's not going to find any common sense up his ass.

You see where I'm headed with all this so I'll stop now and there are more than a few common sense letters in this "people's editorial" section. But what's the point of publishing them if they're not fact based? There are not two equal sides to every argument. Sometimes, actually most times, one side is right and one side is wrong. I just wish there were more vetting by the common man before deciding which side they chose to believe.

NY Rag Takes Credit For WH 9/11 Responder Bill Comment

I am speechless. Well, almost speechless or I wouldn't be writing with fury right now.

I just came across this headline in the New York Daily News:

Wham! And thanks, Bam: At last, Obama backs health bill for 9/11 responders

It seems that the editors at this bastion of journalistic excellence are taking credit for what they see as putting pressure on President Obama with the headline, "9/11 SLAM ON BAM," to make a statement in favor of a bill providing health care and compensation to sickened Ground Zero rescue and recovery workers. Yes, the same bill that the Republicans in the House voted against on procedural grounds. The same bill Rep. Anthony Weiner freaked about when co-sponsor of the bill, Rep. Peter King, accused the Democrats of playing politics with the bill, while not bothering to whip up votes for his own legislation.

Are the Daily News editors high, stupid or both? Every Democrat save four voted for the bill. We have a Democratic president. 12 out of 178 Republicans voted for it. Logic would dictate that the White House would obviously be in favor of the bill and would sign it into law. But that would mean that logic would have to enter into the minds of these hapless editors.

Oh, they do acknowledge that the Republicans should have the "decency" to stand for what is right and vote in favor of the bill... in the very last line of the piece. Up until then, no comment from the White House meant an assumption by the Daily News that, for some insane reason, President Obama wouldn't be in favor of such a measure. After all, he spoke about the Not-In-Ground-Zero-Not-A-Mosque, why didn't he weigh in on this?

Maybe because legislation passed by a Democratically led Congress on such an issue is a no-brainer and ANY president in Obama's position would be committing political suicide if he vetoed it. But then again, why educate the reader when you can stir up faux controversies to sell your rags?

NY Daily News: Letter to the Editor

Dear Editors:

I used to be a Mike Lupica fan, that is until I read his column in your Monday, August 16th, 2010 edition, "Ground Zero mosque debate is about common sense, sensitivity to 9/11 vics, not religious freedom."

In and of itself, the title alone shows that Mr. Lupica could not be more wrong. I would write to him myself but he doesn't have the courtesy to leave leave an e-mail address or provide a comments section for responses as do most other opinion columnists.

Where do I begin?

If we are to make this issue about "common sense" and about "sensitivity" as Mr. Lupica states, then how much more common sense do we need to demonstrate than showing the world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, that regardless of the tragedy of September 11th and its victims, regardless of the scar that remains a gaping hole in downtown Manhattan after nine long years, that our country and the resolve of its citizens is strong enough to refuse to allow our emotions to cloud our judgement and compromise our principles? How do we stand tall in the eyes of the world and more importantly, how do we look at ourselves in the mirror if we decide to abandon Constitutional rights of our fellow Americans when it is emotionally convenient?

There is no contradiction in President Obama's statements, as Mr. Lupica would lead us to believe. There was no walkback of his stance. President Obama was affirming our First Amendment rights when he said, "I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country." Whether or not it's a good idea is not for him to say, as it ultimately doesn't matter. Not commenting on the "wisdom" of the decision is irrelevant as it is a local decision. I find it interesting how those in favor of limited government and states' rights look for a federal response or intervention when it suits their needs.

If we forego our rights just this one time for sensitivity's sake, what is the next step? Do we forbid the building of a Roman Catholic church near the Oklahoma City bombing site because of Timothy McVeigh's religious upbringing? Should we prevent Muslims from worshipping just two blocks further north than the proposed site, as they've done for the last 40 years? Is that still too close and insensitive? Do we shut down the mosque at the Penatgon? After all, it's not two blocks away but in the very building that was hit on 9/11. Is Mr. Lupica suggesting we base our decisions on mob rule and not the rule of law? Is that how we should conduct trials as well? Should we have the families of rape or murder victims pronounce sentencing for sensitivity's sake?

The government has no authority or right to tell any religion where they can or cannot build places of worship as long as they adhere to local laws and ordinances. Not a church, not a synagogue and not a mosque. It's been this way since the founding of the country. It should be this way now.

And again, let's call this construction plan what it actually is: this is a community center equivalent to a YMCA, complete with a basketball court and culinary school, with Muslim prayer rooms in its upper two floors. It is not a mosque.

But where Mr. Lupica flies off the rails is in comparing the opinion of Obama's thoughts on LeBron James to defending a religious group's First Amendment rights. You know, because they're so equivalent. Maybe the President should create March Madness pool with all the world's religions and decide who'll be in the Final Four? We can call it  Mecca Madness.

But the topper has to be his last sentence.

Everything Bloomberg and Barack Obama say about this sounds right. But if the only constituency that matters here - the ones left behind by the victims of Sept. 11 - think they're wrong, they are.

So according to Mr. Lupica, two plus two equal four unless a majority disagrees, and because they're the only ones "that matter" (we'll just forget about the hundreds of American Muslims that died on 9/11) they'll just insist the answer is wrong. And Lupica will agree with them.

Stick to the sports pages, Mike. You'll embarrass yourself a little less.

The Republican Response