New York Times to Stop Printing Paper – Move to Web Based Platform Entirely – Date TBA

New York Times’ Arthur Sulzberger, speaking at a London based conference, made the announcement that at some point in the future, the Times would cease its print publication. In reading the article, one notes that a date was not given, however, the author does point to the publications dire financial straights, and the fact that unless an investor is found quickly, the paper will go the way of the Zeppelin.

The Times, once known as the Paper of Records, was thought to be invincible, however, as circulation for certain papers is rising, those with a left-leaning political editorial board, find themselves loosing subscribers almost as fast a Obama’s approval rate in dropping. It makes sense for these types of publications to take their point of view reporting to an online only venue.

Will teh nation miss the headlines blaring “U.S. Top Secret Plans Revealed....” (Fill in the blank).? It’s difficult to tell, with MSNBC’s ratings and the decline of the Progressive Times, surely those who are stakeholders should rise to the occasion and demand these individuals start reporting the news, rather than editorializing teh entire publiations/broadcast. It is their only chance for survival and has been from teh beginning. What is ironic is that the one force blamed for the demise of print – the internet, is where Sulzberger plans to make a stand. They should be mindful of the competition; however, news blogs such as the Huffington Post are well established. It is a question of changing from an editorial based “news” publication to a straight news publication or goes the way of the Zeppelin. How many more layoffs will be played out in newsrooms across the country, especially in these hard economic times, if the industry does not get back to its original format? Political Zealots have no place in a newsroom, not in a Republic.

Harry Reid Pushes Deval Patrick to Fill Kennedy’s Seat – Huffington Post Makes a Game Show Out of Kennedy’s Demise

Harry Reid, Calls on Patrick to Push for Kennedy Successor - So Much for States Rights - image: MSNBC

Massachusetts’s Governor, Deval Patrickhas requested the Commonwealth’s Legislature put a bill on his desk reversing a bill changed in 2004, which would allow Patrick to appoint Kennedy’s successor – this at the urging of Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. With Kennedy barely cold, the Democratic machine is rushing to change Massachusetts law, in order to consolidate power in Washington. (Patrick is most likely to be replaced by constituents in 2010; in the latest polling, Republican Christi Mihos is besting Patrick, a populist, Mihos has both the money and grassroots support to succeed Patrick in 2010.) The Massachusetts House Speaker (often more powerful than the Governor) has has remained silent on the subject, so it is possible, not probable, that Patrick and Reid will not get a quick bill through the Mass. Legislature.

Meanwhile, speculation is rife over who might fill Kennedy’s seat (This blog has been guilty of the same, prompted by Kennedy's letter to Patrick a week prior to his passing). Over at the Huffington Post, the Presidents favored news source, a tacky poll is running on who’s most likely to take the seat - out of a 10 possible choices – the top five “contestants” are Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Martha Coakley, Edward Kennedy Jr., Michael Dukakis and Ed Markey – not in the contestant line-up 4th District Rep., Barney Frank. One might speculate that the news organization which takes its clues from the White House may already have insight into the choice of the administration. That said the circus-like stunt is stunningly disrespectful of the Kennedy’s; given the fact that the family has not yet buried Edward M. Kennedy. It is one thing to speculate, it is another to turn it into theatre.

The Post may have problems with several of their picks, according to the Associated Press, there is noKennedy available to fill Edward M. Kennedy’s seat, according to the AP. Therefore, it is anyone’s best guess. One would think the administration would want someone who is not only competent but charismatic, and a party leader - someone who would be able to whip those who are not willing to go heel to toe with every bill the Administration desires. Michael Dukakis?

What is most infuriating to a citizen of the Commonwealth is difficult to pinpoint, one the one hand, the Governor taking direction from the Senate Majority Leader regarding Massachusetts State Law is – is not only arrogant but a possible violation of the 10th amendment – governing the rights of states - add insult to injury with that, crass carnival over a the Huffington Post (which is most associated with the administration besides MSNBC and NBC),. Although one might not have agreed with Ted Kennedy’s political ideology – his service to the Commonwealth and his constituents was legendary. He took care to answer each letter or concern, and took care of those who required assistance, regardless of their party affiliation. It is the total lack of respect shown by the members of his own Party, that is, in a word, despicable.

Monday's Musings - The Left - Using Religion for Politial Purpose

Robert S. McElvaine, History Department Chair at 87th Ranked (Liberal Arts Colleges) Millsaps College in Jackson MI and noted member of “Historians Against Bush”, pimped his new book, “Grand Theft Jesus: The Hijacking of Religion in America”, in a Huffington Post article he posted July 6, 2008. In his post, he complains about the endorsement of John McCain by the 90 Church Leaders who met in Colorado last week. He dubs these leaders as “Jesus Thieves” as they interpret the Bible somewhat differently than Professor McElvaine. He cries foul that these Leaders had the nerve to hold a conference in Denver, of all places, because that is where the Democrats are holding their convention this year. He does, of course, mention Obama.

In his analysis of these church leaders petition to McCain suggesting he choose Mike Huckabee or someone who has a similar charactor as a running mate, McElvine states: “In short, they don't like Huckabee on precisely those issues where he actually heeds the teachings of Jesus -- and suggests policies that might help the least of these and cut into the profits of the money-changers.”, This is almost praise for Huckabee from one who can be categorized as “Committed Left” but it serves a purpose.

He continues: “ Phil Burress, one of those at the Denver meeting, said that the most important thing is that McCain's running mate be "pro-life and pro-family." Those are, of course, code words for being anti-abortion and anti-gay.
"The only evangelicals that will support Obama are the ones who haven't read their Bible," proclaimed Burress.
These Jesus Thieves must be reading a different Bible from the one I have. In mine, Jesus never mentions abortion or homosexuality. He does, however, talk about loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, helping the poor, and how difficult it is for a rich man to enter heaven.”

Herein lies the problem. The church leaders who met in Colorado are all reading from similar Bibles - Bibles that are in concert with the King James Version or the Catholic Bible, its predecessor, with only modest changes in the language, without any deviation from the original context. In looking at issues held dear by the Left, specifically Abortion, it behooves them to print a newer version. In Matthew 5-17 Jesus commenting on the Law states (paraphrasing): that he did not come to change it but to fulfill it. In all interpretations other than McElvaine’s, Jesus is referring to the Law of Moses - the 10 Commandments, which, if memory serves includes that one biggie: “Thou Shalt Not Murder.”

How far will the Progressives go to subvert Religion? In an attempt to counter the Republican ideology, which does bring God into the public square, the new brand of liberal Christians are doing the same. Isn't this a contradiction of their constant mantra of “Separation of Church and State”? (One can just imagine how McElvine interprets the Constitution!)

Finally, the problem with Mr. McElvines weak thesis is his lack of research. Had he taken the time to actually compare several Bibles, he would have found that, yes indeed, as a Jew, Jesus did conform to the law. Specfically those practices set down by the prophets and he also encouraged those that followed his teachings to keep God’s commandments, forever linking the old to the new testament. In other words, the Church Leaders who met at Denver, as well as the millions of Christians of like mind, including Catholics, do not use pro-life as a code word for Abortion. Code word? They have no need for code-words as they are all reading the non-McElvine’s approved Bible, which is pretty clear on that point. Note of interest, McElvine fails to mention which version of the Bible he prefers.