An article in the national section of today's New York Times quotes Salam al-Marayati, director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Los Angeles. "American Muslims, he said, should also insist on being consulted on counterterrorism policy because of their expertise on Islam and Islamic movements," the Times reports.
This is really rich. The Times lets it slide totally unchallenged. What kind of expertise does Mr. al-Marayati have to offer?
Well, the Los Angles Times reported on September 22, 2001, "Al-Marayati was interviewed the day of the terrorist attacks, by Warren Olney on KCRW-FM's "Which Way LA?"... The discussion then turned to suspects. According to the transcript, Al-Marayati said, "If we're going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what's happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies..."
Arab Neighbors: An article by Martin Indyk on the op-ed page of today's New York Times asserts, "We can't confront Iran at the moment because we would lose the support of its Arab neighbors and Europe." Leave aside Europe. Iran is bordered by seven countries -- Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Of these exactly one is Arab -- Iraq. Iraq, which is led by Sunni Muslims, fought a long bloody war against Iran, which is Shiite. And we don't have the support of Iraq to lose, anyway. Mr. Indyk's claim is unfounded.
Wrong Photo: The "National Briefing" column of today's New York Times carries an item about a settlement between the Los Angeles Police Department and seven journalists, "including David Horowitz, a veteran television consumer reporter." The photo the Times runs with the story is not of David Horowitz the veteran consumer reporter but of David Horowitz the president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. They are two different people and they don't look much alike.
Mass Selling: An editorial in today's New York Times claims, "Reducing the capital gains tax might provide an incentive to save when the economy recovers, but in the short term it would lead to mass selling in a faltering stock market." The last time the capital gains tax was cut, stock prices soared. What's to say that the money people get for selling stocks won't be reinvested in other stocks? If you take the Times illogic to its illogical conclusion, the newspaper ought to support a 100% tax on capital gains as a way of bolstering the stock market. When you think about it that way, the ridiculousness of it becomes clear. The capital gains tax doesn't just discourage selling -- it also discourages buying.
Abrams: A front-page article in today's New York Times quotes "Floyd Abrams, a first amendment specialist with the Manhattan law firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel." No disclosure of the fact that Abrams and Cahill Gordon represent the New York Times on First Amendment matters. This would be no big deal, but it was only August 18, 2001, that an article in the New York Times business section was scolding the editor of Variety for essentially the same practice -- plugging a lawyer without disclosing that he was a client of that lawyer.