Many of my conservative friends long ago gave up their subscriptions to The New York Times because reading it simply drove them crazy. With all the other sources of news available to them, they decided they didn’t need to start their days with stomachs churning. I can relate. The bias in the Times is staggering at times, but I (try to) read it regularly. It gives me a sense of where the cultural elite is coming from, so to speak, and often provides grist for commentary. The Times, like so many other mainstream media outlets, is biased not only in its reporting, but also in what it chooses to include (and not include) in its pages.

The Sunday magazine section has a regular feature called “The Ethicist.” Yes, I hear your groans and I feel your pain. Nonetheless, if one isn’t prone to ulcers, this question-and-answer-style column often provides a window onto a brave (or should I say brazen) new world.

The most recent installment included the following question from a reader in San Francisco:

“My husband and I practice polyamory, aka ethical nonmonogamy. We are open about this to friends but are unsure what to disclose to others. Our housekeeper might have seen me in bed with my boyfriend. Must I explain? When I travel for business, I sometimes take my boyfriend. Must I fill in a co-worker I see only occasionally? I don’t want to hide my affection for my boyfriend or make anyone uncomfortable.”

Starting with the obvious here, if this woman has no ethical qualms about being unfaithful to her husband, why should she care in the least what her housekeeper and co-worker think? She’s obviously decided to live life her way and not according to societal norms.

But the ethicist is obviously much further “evolved” than I am. The issue of her polyamorous relationships is of no interest or concern to him. It’s a given, an accepted, acceptable given.

He advises “name withheld” to “act as comfortable as possible” to help put others at ease, and to close the bedroom door on days when the housekeeper comes.

Problem solved!

The New York Times can be relied upon to tell us where liberals want to take the country—to tell us what they really want. In an editorial last Thursday, the Times said:

“[I]n a rational system of medical care, there would be virtually no restrictions on financing abortions. But abortion is not a rational issue.”

Not rational? Medical science has known since 1857 that human life begins at conception. It was the medical profession—not the churches—that vigorously lobbied for protective laws against abortion in the 1850s and 1860s. Those laws upheld the highest form of rationality and morality. Those protective laws said simply: Innocent human life may not be directly attacked.

Another influential journal—maybe not as influential as The New York Times, but influential all the same—is California Medicine. Its editors told us in their pro-abortion editorial of 1970 why the Times is wrong to say opposition to abortion is not rational:

The traditional Western ethic has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition. This ethic has had the blessing of the Judeo-Christian heritage and has been the basis for most of our laws and much of our social policy. The reverence for each and every human life has also been a keystone of Western medicine. . . . Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices.

The slaughter of innocents is unjust. It will not matter that it has the backing of the Supreme Court, the president, the Congress, or The New York Times.

Our opposition to liberal abortion is based on this fundamental truth, this self evident truth. This nation—of all nations—proclaimed the right to life as the first among rights, the first human right endowed by our Creator. Jefferson said it well: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.”

Even if you do not believe in God—as apparently The New York Times does not—medical science has incontrovertibly told us when human life begins. “To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,” says the Declaration of Independence, including primarily the right to life.

Does The New York Times believe that the Declaration, too, is irrational? Do they think the United States should be adjourned?

Our opposition to abortion is as rational and as deeply ingrained as our opposition to slavery or to segregation. For centuries, slavery was “legal” in all too many parts of our country. Our Supreme Court, in an earlier act of “raw judicial power,” affirmed slavery as a right of property and explicitly declared it constitutionally protected. That gross injustice brought the nation to the brink of dissolution. Lincoln used the words of Jesus to warn that “a house divided could not stand.” Was Lincoln’s opposition to the spread of this evil also irrational?

We hear that The New York Times has had to mortgage its headquarters, that this once-great newspaper is in financial peril. I do not want to see this American institution go under. But if it does die, the obituary for the powerful paper they call “the Gray Lady” will read: Suicide.

William Safire, the New York Times columnist who died of pancreatic cancer over the weekend, was not exactly an admirer of WORLD Magazine. Early in the year 2000, he wrote a blistering piece accusing WORLD of virtually every sin in the book of journalism ethics. Specifically, he was upset that George W. Bush had just defeated John McCain in the South Carolina Republican primary—at a time when all the mainstream media had made it clear they wanted McCain to win. In his column, Safire said WORLD had timed a major story about McCain to come out just before the election, deliberately raising negative issues McCain would have no opportunity to answer. And he complained darkly that because Bob Jones IV, our main political reporter at that time, had done our story, there had to be some connection with the fact that Bush had spoken during the campaign at Bob Jones University while McCain had never been invited to do so.

Three times over the next half dozen years, I stopped by Safire’s office in downtown Washington. It wasn’t that I wanted to complain; I just wanted to meet the man who had gone from being a speechwriter for Richard Nixon to being the Times’ main Washington observer. But I missed him all three times. His secretary, though, assured me that he received and read WORLD, and that she would let him know I had come by.

Then, about two years ago, I stopped with a friend for a sandwich at a small delicatessen a couple of blocks from Safire’s office—and who should be sitting there reading his paper but Safire himself. Boldly and a bit rudely, I broke into his reading: “Mr. Safire,” I said, “you’ve got no way of knowing me—I’m Joel Belz with WORLD Magazine. I doubt if you remember . . .” “Of course I do, he said, pulling out the empty chair beside him. “I did a piece about you after the Republican primary in 2000. I don’t think what I said was very complimentary. How did you do after that?”

“As a matter of fact,” I told him, “you were quite a help to us. In a sense, you put us on the map. We had never earned that kind of mention in The New York Times before. But you may have overestimated our influence. I frankly doubt that even if everything you said was true we could have made that much difference.”

He grinned, and reached out his hand to shake mine. “I still follow you from week to week,” he said, confirming what his secretary had told me. “And I wish you well.”

The myth that the Great Depression was a market failure that could have been prevented through stricter regulation and fiscal expansion is alive. Never mind that FDR won the 1932 elections by bashing Hoover as a reckless spender and a control freak. Some believe that the Depression would have ended earlier had Roosevelt maintained his spendthrift course during his second presidential term.

Week after week, month after month, Paul Krugman relentlessly warns his so-called liberal New York Times congregation that the new government administration has no alternative courses of action, that we should authorize Washington to keep spending against all common sense and historical experience. If there is one mistake that President Obama cannot afford to make, it is fiscal austerity. Krugman’s arguments, as usual, amount to little more than sophistry.

What is so boldly lumped into the term “fiscal austerity” has two distinct elements. Taxation and spending are worth investigating separately. It is obvious that higher taxes are an economic suppressant under any circumstances. It is true that when central banks bring interest rates down to zero, monetary policy loses its supposed ability to stimulate growth. But that alone is not a proof that we need a fiscal defibrillator. Instead of spending on our behalf, Big Brother should remove his hands from the pockets and throats of productive Americans.

Krugman’s bottom line is deeply flawed. He has it all wrong because of his belief in the Free Lunch fairy, an unfortunate side effect of taking too many macroeconomics courses back in the 1970s. Yes, we have problems, but a “shortfall in private spending” is not among them. Right now we suffer the consequences of government-promoted overspending in one sector of the economy. This simply means that policy-induced market distortions have misled us to under-invest in other sectors.

Fact: The economy is in a downturn because it was mismanaged. Now they want us to believe that a new team of experts can balance our growth by wisely picking new recipients of government largesse? Like a mad scientist in an old cartoon, Krugman is trying to prove that the terrible consequences of accumulating too much private debt can be offset by accumulating even more public debt. How fortunate that he does not have a child with alcohol addiction, or he may try to cure him with heroin.

With Bill Kristol purged from The New York Times op-ed page, David Brooks is the only non-liberal voice regularly given the most precious real estate in newspapering. Brooks is a clever neoconservative but he doesn’t fundamentally challenge the Times worldview represented most clearly by Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, and Frank Rich.

Politico.com and others have been speculating on whether the Times might allow a tad more ideological diversity by adding a conservative or libertarian columnist in the tradition of William Safire or John Tierney. Politico has floated names such as former Bush speechwriter David Frum, the National Review’s Byron York, The Atlantic magazine libertarian Megan McArdle, and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan. The New Republic’s short list included Charles Krauthammer and Max Boot.

If the Times wanted real intellectual diversity it would choose an evangelical columnist, but there’s no indication of the Times‘ openness to anyone questioning its secular fundamentalism. In the absence of real alternatives at least we should have fun: I’d like the Times to hold American Idol-like tryouts during which contestants would read—better yet, croon—their columns to a panel of snickering judges.

How about Dowd as Paula, Rich as Dawg, and—of course—Krugman as Simon? Viewership might not go higher than C-SPAN levels, so don’t expect the Times, which has mortgaged its building, to do anything beyond sticking to its knitting for a while. The mighty are falling fast, and journalists are already speculating about how much time the Times has before it goes bankrupt.

Not only Sarah Palin is running against The New York Times. So is a new musical that opened on Broadway last month, A Tale of Two Cities.

The Times sneered at the production based on Charles Dickens’ novel, particularly its “blasting ballads that let singers prove that they coulda been contenders on American Idol.’ Another reviewer, from Toronto, complained about the reaction of apparently ignorant theater-goers: “The audience stood and cheered . . . some even wept.”

That’s what happened the night I attended. The singing and staging were excellent, and the colorful Dickensian plot moved along and moved attendees. Afterwards, I wasn’t surprised to find that most of the 85 online responses to the Times review gave the musical five stars (out of five) and included comments like “the best of times despite The New York Times.”

So why are the Times and its acolytes panning both Palin and this musical? It could be that their taste is more refined than mine and most. Nevertheless, a reviewer from Sarasota, Fla., who followed the production to New York because it had taken its practice swings down south, was puzzled at the “harsh tone” of the negative reviews.

The reviewers’ hostility suggests not only a difference in musical taste between critics and audience but vaster differences in attitude: Tale’s lyrics, like Palin, display sincerity rather than irony. Ideological differences also may play a part: The musical, following Dickens, shows the plight of poor Parisians but also their brutality once in power. (Obamaist chanters for “change” may not like to be reminded that change can make things worse.)

Or, in-crowd protectiveness may be paramount: Critics called Jill Santoriello, who wrote the new show’s book, lyrics, and music, “a novice . . . self-taught . . . unseasoned.” Pundits have treated Palin on the national stage the same way. It seems that a person who hasn’t spent decades in the Senate and at D.C. dinner parties should not have the effrontery to run for vice president.

Theology also may play a role. The main character in Dickens’ novel is reborn as he faces death. Christ’s words resonate in his thoughts: “I am the resurrection and the life.” The musical does not include that statement but honors the central theme, taken from Christianity, of sacrificing one life to save others. Imagine—a candidate and a musical with a Christian base! Bring on the guillotine.

There’s lots of speculation out there today on how well the media is dealing with the two presidential candidates.

First Associated Press television writer David Bauder raises the issue of fairness in the media coverage of the two campaigns, using the major TV news anchors pursuit of Barack Obama on his global tour as a prime example. Bauder even quotes Rush Limbaugh on the subject:

“My prediction is that the coverage of Obama on this trip will be oriented toward countering the notion he has no idea what he is talking about on foreign policy and defense issues and instead will prop him up as a qualified statesman. McCain, on the other hand, is a known quantity on these issues and his position does not excite nor fit the mainstream media’s narrative on Iraq and Afghanistan, so they simply ignore it and him.”

The other controversy revolves around The New York Times‘ refusal of a John McCain op-ed response to a recent Obama editorial on the Iraq War. In an email to the McCain campaign, Times Op-ed Editor David Shipley demanded a rewrite, saying that McCain would “have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory—with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.” McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds replied, “John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of The New York Times.”

On Friday, John McCain sat down with The New York Times for an interview. Here are some highlights:

On his conservatism: “I count myself as a conservative Republican, yet I view it to a large degree in the Theodore Roosevelt mold.”

On same-sex couples adopting children: “I think that we’ve [he and his wife as adoptive parents] proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don’t believe in gay adoption.”

On teaching evolution: “It’s up to the school boards. That’s why we have local control over education.”

On same-sex marriage: “I respect the right of the states to make those decisions.”

On whether he considers himself an evangelical Christian: “I consider myself a Christian. I attend church. My faith has sustained me in very difficult times.”

On using the Internet: “They [his wife and his aides] go on [the web] for me. I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don’t expect to be a great communicator, I don’t expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need.”

What sites do they show him? “[Press secretary] Brooke [Buchanan] and [senior advisor] Mark [Salter] show me Drudge, obviously. Everybody watches, for better or for worse, Drudge. Sometimes I look at Politico. Sometimes RealPolitics.” At his wife’s prodding, he then added his daughter Meghan’s blog.

On using e-mail: “I don’t e-mail, I’ve never felt the particular need to e-mail.”

Somebody get that man an iPhone and bring him into the 21st century, and then point him to WORLDMagBlog!

Here are excerpts from a transcript of the interview.

A New York Times article from Monday on “Rickrolling” (the practice of luring people to click on a promising web link that ends up taking them to a video of 1980s pop star Rick Astley singing “Never Gonna Give You Up”) prominently featured an incident that supposedly took place during a timeout at a recent Eastern Washington University women’s basketball game. The thing is, the YouTube video of the live Rickrolling never actually took place—the footage was spliced together by an aspiring filmmaker named “Pawly P.” When Spokane, Washington’s KHQ-TV, who uncovered the hoax, asked him if he’d pranked The New York Times, Pawly P said, “You could say that, uhhhhhhhh, you could say that.”

HT: fishbowlNY

The fact that major league baseball teams want to attract Christians to their stadiums concerns New York Times baseball writer Murray Chass. These thousands of ticket-buying believers who want to spend money on hot dogs and peanuts and a souvenir or two and then maybe hang around after the last out to listen to a Christian band and hear a couple players give their testimony appear to be a major threat to the game Chass holds so dear. He’s bewildered that even the Jewish owners of the Washington Nationals apparently have no problem with this tainting of the game. For Chass, these “Faith Nights” at the ol’ ballpark need to be legislated out by the powers that be:

The idea has caught on in baseball because clubs want to sell tickets. That’s why Major League Baseball will never halt faith nights. Anything for a few dollars more. But it has no place in baseball. Baseball crowds are made up of people of all faiths and no faith. No segment should be singled out.

It doesn’t matter to Chass that these special Faith Night events take place either well before or after the actual games, or that in this age of celebrating diversity that Christians ought to be celebrated, too. But maybe Chass is right; with all the foul-mouthed, drunken fans that usually end up sitting around you and your family, who’d want a bunch of Christians in the stands to spoil the party?