Mental acuity at the Times!


Moral acuity too:
Given its very famous brand, it's very hard for people to see the mental/moral dim-wittedness which is such a basic part of New York Times culture and practice.

That said, the politics wing of the New York Times tends to be very dim-witted. Let's consider three recent examples. Prepare to be depressed.

Chozick spots the SAT words: Last Friday. Amy Chozick was trying to discuss the latest bunch of hacked emails. Her piece appeared beneath a headline which was probably meant to be written in English:

Hacked Emails Reveal Image of Chelsea Clinton

We're not entirely sure what that means either. As far as we know, Chozick wouldn't have written the headline for this piece.

At any rate, Chozick was trying to tell us what Chelsea Clinton is like, based on the latest purloined emails. She fumbled around in stolen communications which had no apparent public interest. At one point, pathetically, the star reporter typed this:
CHOZICK (10/28/16): If the emails show Ms. Clinton getting a crash course on the cutthroat world on the periphery of the Clinton family, they also show a young woman deeply devoted to her parents and very much her mother's daughter.

Ms. Clinton often gravitated to weighty policy discussions and interspersed statistics and SAT words into casual conversations.
According to Chozick, Chelsea Clinton often "interspersed SAT words into [the] casual conversations" on which Chozick was eavesdropping. Apparently, this helps show that Chelsea's a lot like her mom.

Let's not ask why this horrible person was discussing casual private communications between these family members. Let's not ask if "interspersed," in this context, might perhaps be an "SAT word."

Let's examine one of Chozick's examples. The observant scribe seemed to offer two examples of this annoying tendency on Chelsea Clinton's part. One example was this:
CHOZICK: In another email addressed to ''Dad, Mom,'' Ms. Clinton seemed apologetic, writing, ''I hope this mini-behemoth is not rife with grammatical errors or inadvertent gaps; I am sorry if either true.''
Don't ask yourself why a slimy person like Chozick is fumbling around, in this manner, in pointless emails between family members. Instead, marvel at the fact that this Classic Times Flyweight thought that email should be singled out as one of (two) examples of the way Chelsea Clinton "often interspersed SAT words" into her casual emails.

Truly, Chozick's a monster. That said, this copy must have passed through the filters created by editors Elisabeth Bumiller and Carolyn Ryan. They're all part of a puzzling New York Times culture which seems to go far out of its way to dumb the discourse way down.

Headline writer identifies threat: Atop the front page of that same day's Times, Ashley Parker and Nick Corasaniti offered the kind of gruesome report which often results when Times reporters attempt to interview voters to spot some sort of a trend.

The day before, Kevin Drum had challenged the way the report was presented on line. According to Drum, it had originally appeared beneath this headline:

Some Trump Voters Call for Revolution if Clinton Wins

In fact, Drum said, none of the voters quoted in the piece had "called for revolution if Clinton wins." Subsequently, the on-line headline was apparently changed. But when the piece appeared the next day on the front page of our hard-copy Times, this banner headline ran across its continuation on page A14:

Trump Voters Threaten Revolution, 'by Any Means Necessary,' if Clinton Wins

We're looking at that frightening banner right now, as we type.

We'd be inclined to disagree, if only a tad, with Drum's assessment. We'd say that one voter quoted in the piece made veiled remarks which were dark enough to sound like a bit of a threat.

That voter had used the term "by any means necessary." But no one else had advanced the threat advertised in that banner headline.

We mention this because Parker and Corsaniti reported that they had interviewed "more than 50 Trump supporters at campaign events" for their front-page report. Out of more than 50 people, they seemed to have found exactly one, or possibly none, who issued the threat the Times was still announcing in banner form in Friday's hard-copy edition.

Presumably, Parker and Corsaniti didn't write the headlines. Presumably, one of the Times three million flyweights did. That said, the report's basic thrust was so imprecise that you could almost excuse the headline writer for what he or she may have thought he or she read.

The report itself was D-plus work. The headlines deserved a failing grade—and an explanation.

Chozick just couldn't help it: Yesterday, in a front-page report, Chozick couldn't help it.

James B. Comey's latest attack had given her a delicious excuse to write about Huma Abedin—and Chozick couldn't help herself. At one point, her piece became truly delish:
CHOZICK (10/30/16): Mrs. Clinton’s loyalty to Ms. Abedin (and vice versa) stems from the decades they have spent working closely together, beginning when Ms. Abedin was a 19-year-old intern to the first lady in the 1990s.

At the State Department, Ms. Abedin served as deputy chief of staff to Mrs. Clinton. Emails released by the State Department captured the closeness of their relationship. A jet-lagged Mrs. Clinton once emailed Ms. Abedin at 12:21 a.m. to take her up on an offer to come over to Mrs. Clinton’s house for a chat. “Just knock on the door to the bedroom if it’s closed,” she wrote.
Dearest darlings, it had everything! Even that "intern" cite!

Innuendo is always denied. In this case, the innuendo was fairly straightforward, especially in a fly-infested world where right-wingers and crackpots have spent thirty years swearing that Candidate Clinton is the world's most gigantic and wholly appalling lesbo.

(Amy Chozick knows all about that. So do the people she writes for.)

Innuendo is always denied. In the pages of this pseudo-journalistic toxic waste site, it can also get pretty thick.

Times culture is built around slimy and dumb. It's hard for people to grasp this strange fact, but it's a fact nonetheless.

Milbank agonistes: Chozick's complaint about SAT words recalled Dana Milbank's agonies. In 2007, he had attended a speech by Al Gore, where he'd been subjected to this:
MILBANK (5/30/07): He spoke of Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson and John Stuart Mill, only briefly mixing up his patriots: "James Madison wrote—no, Thomas Paine, I'm sorry." He gave a brief history of the printing press's spread through Northern Europe. He used social science phrases such as "the collective process" and the "marketplace of ideas" and the "exchange of goods and services" and "guided by the role of reason."
Gore had referred to "the marketplace of ideas" and to "the exchange of goods and services!" To Dana Milbank, Yale Skull and Bones, those were SAT words too.

It was part of Milbank's larger complaint: Al Gore thinks he's smarter than us! Citizens, with examples like this, who the John Stuart Mill wouldn't?

You wonder why we ask if they're human. We've long wondered why you don't!


  1. Apparently neither Chelsea nor Hillary is entitled to any privacy if some slimy Russian is able to hack their personal correspondence. Why on earth is any of this being published anywhere?

    There is no reason why the public needs to hear about any of this. The intrusion is the point, not what is being said about either woman. It is wrong that anyone should have their private space, their dignity, taken away simply because they have chosen to serve the public in our government (or in a charitable foundation in Chelsea's case). We should be protecting our officials from this, not leering and slavering (SAT word) over their private moments.

  2. Are government office buildings even open at 12:21 AM -- would it have been possible to meet there?

    Chozick chose the casual term "chat". It is not in the email sent by Abedin or Clinton. Abedin says: "If you want me to come give you download, I will be up for a while Otherwise, can talk in am." Clinton replies: "Sorry--I'm up now so come when you are able." Then she says knock on the door if it is closed.

    There is no mention of chatting -- Chozick made that up. There is also no casual or friendly, much less intimate tone. It is very businesslike.

    The casual intimacy implied by the word "chat" is invented on Chozick's part, conjuring sleepovers and girltalk. She is working hard to portray this as an intimate relationship when the email suggests the opposite.

  3. Back where I used to work, you weren't a SAT snob unless you could use exacerbate and concomitant.

  4. Back where I used to work, you weren't a SAT snob unless you could use exacerbate and concomitant.

    1. Back where I used to work, you weren't an SAT snob unless you could use those words twice.

    2. Thank you 3:55!

      Truly your brevity deserves high approbation.

  5. I agree that the article about Chelsea was dunb. But, I would quibble with Bob's phrase, "had no apparent public interest." Chelsea is automatically a celebrity. So, facts about her are in the public interest, although they are (or should be) irrelevant to political matters.

    1. David, your quibble is inexclipable. Chelsea is a dubious celebrity, but the extent to which she is in no way means mundane aspects of her life serves the public interest. Public interest refers to common concern about government affairs, not mere curiosity of a person(I'm paraphrasing the legal definition).

  6. Chelsea's SAT words and use of a semi-colon in correspondence with her parents is strange, but she comes off as an automaton programmed by a disengaged mother.

    1. Perhaps to you, or perhaps you are just being resentful. She does not come across to me as you described, additionally I wouldn't make sweeping judgements of her on the basis of a couple of sentences.

  7. @Anon 1832 - Your response is STRANGE and the only SAT words I have heard are from the last Reagan Democrat, Donald Trump, SR... S#&7!, A$$e$ and T7Tas. I hear he got it from Alfred Hitch$0Ck!

  8. Getting ex back, Me and my boyfriend were together for 8 months & its been 6 months since we separated. I still love him, but some how feel its unfair. Why love someone who ovb doesnt love you back? Ive prayed & prayed for these months & nothing. He is still with his new girlfriend(whom he lives with) but it doesnt mean I have to look for help The first weeks after the break up I was in my knees praying looking for help, them i fine a comment online how a spell caster help to restored relationship get ex lover back, ” so i decided to give a try coz i love my boyfriend so much. so i contacted Dr happy tell him all my problem and he gave me 100%guarantee that i will have my boyfriend back after the spell so i was gifted and lucky to have contacted him i did every thing he ask of me and to my greatest surprise a day after the spell my boyfriend call me and apology for what he did to me and ask for my forgiveness to come back home for me, I get really hurt & go through those moments in which he left me after all Dr happy did for me, i forgive him and he come back home with more love and happiness all thanks to Dr happy the real Africa spell caster who help to bring ex lover back, restored broken relationship and marriage. plz if you need any help contact him on You see in conclusion you have to just trust the process, Dr happy is a good real spell caster so call him or add him on whats-app +2348133873774 Jennifer Marian Base in Texas Usa

  9. Getting back your husband after a divorce, break up. My husband and I have been through every top reason for divorce; financial struggles, bankruptcy, stressful jobs, becoming parents when we weren’t ready (neither one of us would give our kids back just the amount of stress is overwhelming) we fought ALL the time over anything and everything. I threatened divorce all the time. One day after a fight I said I was done and filling. He told me he wasn’t in love with me anymore. After a day or two of cooling off I realized that divorce is not what I wanted. No, our marriage was not healthy but we had so much going against us an neither one of us were trying. I begged for him to forgive me and that I didn’t mean it. He told me he loved me but wasn’t in love with me anymore. Those words hurt and I believed him. After a month or two he also backed out of the divorce and didn’t want to leave me. We also saw THREE different couples counselors who did not help us at all. (Maybe just bad luck) we still have our moments but not as bad as before. We BOTH read a book called “Love and Respect” by Dr. happy Eggerichs and his web site saved our marriage.coz i read a great testimony of him that he help many to fight against their divorce marriage and broken relationship so i email him straight ahead at and explain the fight between me and my husband, so he gave me assurance and guarantee that my husband will come back again and forgive me just 2 days after the spell. so that was how Dr happy help me out on my divorce problem with my husband he is really good and real man of his words plz if you need any help like my, advise goes to Dr happy at, call or add him on whats-app +2348133873774. thanks am Jewel Carol from New jersey Usa

  10. Hello Every One Out Here
    I'm DANIEL CRAIG. I'm From UNITED KINGDOM. I really want to tell the whole world what Dr. Iyaryi greatest spell caster done for me this is tears of joy. My wife left to USA last eight months and there after she refused to come home i called and i called and she persisted then instantly i knew something was wrong somewhere i searched for helped from the vertical to horizontal and yet to no avail. I cried and cried but she was not going to come back to me, i keep a search on internet to get suggestions from anywhere that i can then contact and i came across a testimony relating to my case with this email ( but to say the fact though i wanted to do anything to have my wife back i still have doubt that this couldn't work cause i don't believe in superstition but i just put a trial by emailing the ( The reply i got was striking that my wife had been spellbound by another man, i screamed help but he said not worry and instruct me what to do and i did exactly as i was instructed. to my greatest surprise two days later my wife called and she was crying to me and not knowing what to do i bust into tears too but it was a tears of joy. so i will use this medium to urge every single soul with problem of any kind to try and contact this email. ( Dr. Iyaryi is a solution provider.


  11. My name is CARISSA WILLIAM, and I base in USA...My life is back!!! After 2 years of Broken marriage, my husband left me with two kids . I felt like my life was about to end i almost committed suicide, i was emotionally down for a very long time. Thanks to a spell caster called Dr AIFEBO , which i met online. On one faithful day, as I was browsing through the internet,I came across allot of testimonies about this particular spell caster. Some people testified that he brought their Ex lover back, some testified that he restores womb,cure cancer,and other sickness, some testified that he can cast a spell to stop divorce and so on. i also come across one particular testimony,it was about a woman called Sonia,she testified about how he brought back her Ex lover in less than 2 days, and at the end of her testimony she dropped Dr AIFEBO e-mail address. After reading all these,I decided to give it a try. I contacted him via email and explained my problem to him. In just 24hours, my husband came back to me. We solved our issues, and we are even happier than before Dr AIFEBO, is really a gifted man and i will not stop publishing him because he is a wonderful man... If you have a problem and you are looking for a real and genuine spell caster to solve all your problems for you. Try High dr.
    anytime, he might be the answer to your problems. Here's his contact:
    (1)If you want your ex back.
    (2) if you always have bad dreams.
    (3)You want to be promoted in your office.
    (4)You want women/men to run after you.
    (5)If you want a child.
    6)You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever.
    (7)Herbal care
    (8)Marriage Spells.......