Posted on 12/03/2001 9:49:33 PM PST by TD911
YEEEEEEHHHHHHAAAAAAA! Bump this Baby!
Just being alive!
Come visit us at Freepathon Holidays are Here Again: Let's Really Light Our Tree This Year - Thread 5
and be a part of something that is larger than all of us.
Alone, we are a voice crying in the wilderness. Together we are a force for positive action!
Don't be left out!
Be one who can someday say..................... "I was there when..................."
A dispatch from Washington in the international section of today's New York Times begins, "A prototype antimissile weapon demolished a mock warhead tonight high above the Pacific Ocean in the second consecutive success for the Pentagon's costly missile defense program, military officials said."The news article would be better if some editor had deleted the word "costly." The article eventually mentions that missile defense spending is now about $5.3 billion a year and that the Bush administration wants to increase that to $8.3 billion. Why not let the readers decide for themselves whether that is costly?
It's a matter of opinion, after all. While $5.3 billion is costly by the standard of an individual American household budget, it isn't really all that much for a federal program. And some would argue that it is cheap compared to the price of having an American city struck by a missile armed with a nuclear or chemical warhead.
The Times manages, elsewhere in today's newspaper, to write about "the Medicare program" and "Democrats demanding increased aid to the unemployed and low-income workers." The Times doesn't refer in those cases to "the costly Medicare program" or to Democrats demanding "costly increased aid to the unemployed and low-income workers."
Only the missile defense spending is tagged with the label "costly." That's a signal from the New York Times news department that missile defense is a bad idea and that spending on it should be opposed. There are plenty of readers who, no matter what their views on the merits of antimissile spending, would prefer that the Times news columns retained at least a pretense of neutrality on the issue.
Smartertimes sends out email around 10AM every morning tearing apart New York Times reporting. TO SUBSCRIBE: Send an email to smartertimes-subscribe@topica.com
Or go to their websitre here: http://www.smartertimes.com/
Sure brightens my day.
I agree, the article is very negative, even the headline. I believe that this is the second success in a ROW, but you won't see that in the Reuters article, eh? As far as the "delays", as pointed out by others here, the delay for weather was NOT because the missles couldn't operate in bad weather. It was for safety concerns for our observation planes, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.