A front-page news article in today's New York Times runs under the headline "S.E.C. Scrutinizing Another Company; Questions on the Accounting Methods at Global Crossing." The article reports that "Among the shareholders of Global Crossing at one point was former President George Bush, who took an $80,000 speaking fee in stock that at the peak was worth $14 million." It's odd that the Times would mention former President Bush's connection to Global Crossing without also mentioning that the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terry McAuliffe, had a similarly lucrative relationship with the company. The Times had mentioned that connection in earlier articles on the subject but today omits it.
Anti-American: A dispatch from Kuala Lumpur in the international section of today's New York Times reports, "Long a bone in Washington's throat, Dr. Mahathir opposes American policy in Israel, a major cause of anti-American sentiment throughout the region." This is a poorly constructed sentence in so many ways that it hard to know where to begin. For starters, it's unclear what exactly is the cause of the anti-American sentiment. Is it the American policy? Is it Prime Minister Mahathir's opposition to the policy? Is it Israel? And what "region" is the Times referring to? The region of Israel or the region of Malaysia? Also left unexplained is exactly what about America's policy in Israel Dr. Mahathir opposes and may be causing anti-American sentiment. Is it America's refusal to abandon Israel while it is under attack? Do the Malaysians think America has been too tough on Israel in encouraging the Israeli government to negotiate with Palestinian Arab terrorists? Also taken for granted -- if the sentence is to be interpreted the way the Times probably means it -- is the idea that it is the American policy that is causing the anti-American sentiment and not the way the policy is being interpreted and conveyed to the Malaysian public by Malaysia's state-controlled media and by some Jew-hating Muslim clerics.