The New York Times

I have endured years of pain reading the anarchistic drips from the liberal editorials of the NY Times. So now armed with a blog, I finally have a chance to have my say. Move aside Bill Safire and make room.

Lets start with Mr. Thomas Friedman - a pathetic liberal who only recently wrote the most ridiculous article on how to judge any social security reform plan. For any non-US readers, the Social Security system in the US will run negative in about 12 years and must be reformed to insure future solvency. To pass Friedman's fairness test any reform plan has to have a negative effect on the overall yearly income of the rich and not just their income due to social security.

For example lets consider a retired rich person receiving $200K/year from investments and $20K from Social Security. Even if he lost half their entire Social Security benefit of $20K, the reduction in their overall income was only 5% in Friedman's view. Under Friedman, there is no plan that could be "fair" unless the contribution of a rich person is negative. In other words, the rich must continue to contribute and never receive any benefits.

Wow, how could you miss shooting at a writer like Friedman! Well, I looked at his article today about democracy, the Middle-East regimes and the jihadist. The article is well written and intelligent. How spiteful. This guy waited till I get a blog to finally post a well written article.

A guess I will have to move on to an easier target - Maureen Dowd. She hasn't posted an well thought out article since she published her brother's view of the world during the Christmas season. Please Maureen don't fail me now!

Talk to you all soon!