Well as the NYT stock keeps dropping the equity position shifts downward. At some point one of NYT’s major creditors is going to issue a capitalization request, ie. cough up cash. Its at this point that the death spiral really begins. Once one creditor makes a issue, most of the other majors follow right behind them protecting their positions. At that point most highly capitalized companies are cooked. They don’t keep that much cash on their balance sheets.

A class holding won’t protect them from the creditor call.

http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=283595

“Twelve Fort Bragg soldiers have been accused of killing 13 people in the six-plus years since Sept. 11, 2001, according to Observer records. In the six years before the terrorist attacks, 16 Fort Bragg soldiers were accused of killing 18 people.”

Fort Bragg is the home of the 82nd Airborne Division, the XVIIIth Airborne Corps, the Special Forces command and school and two SF Groups, and various other special operations units.

These elements probably have been more deployed and in more actual fighting than anybody else in the military. They’ve lost more lives and friends and arms and legs than anybody. They’ve definitely killed more enemies than anybody (unless you’re Pinch, who sees these things in reverse). So they ought, if the Times’s theory is solid, to be nuttier and more violent than anybody.

Every homicide is a multidimensional human tragedy, but the Times’s attempt to label me and every other GWOT vet a murderer is a crime.

I can only assume that their advertisers, too, hate us, and are determined not to take any of our blood money.

This is what the public shareholders are going to do about it: last year, a Morgan Stanley money manager sold Morgan’s holdings in the publicly held stock (7.15% of the total) after witholding its votes for the election of company directors for two years, and asking Sulzberger to give up the dual class voting privleges. Pinch had ignored him. He realized that Pinch would contintuea to tell him to go to hell with his damn changes. So he sold. It depressed the stock price. I think it is possible that Pinch is deliberately running down the price of the public then tell everyone in the world to go to hell. Risky, but it might work. It could also be that Pinch is just a witless fool who is squandering his family’s inheritance. It happened with the Reid family, who owned the old New York HERALD TRIBUNE for three generations before they were forced out. Pinch is the fourth generation of the Ochs family to control the TIMES. My bet is he will be the last.

Here’s an article that gives details:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117742039922080417.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

Hard to argue with some of this. Although I do see the NYT as a vital source of info, it is, by no means, the only one. It is one metric by which I try to determine ground truth. And learn what the other side is thinking.

Now on to the subject of the subject:
Sorry, but “Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles,” was a poorly disguised hit piece, another effort by the Times’ to undermine/discredit “Bush’s War.” If you can’t report on the surge without revealing that the surge is, in fact, working, it’s better to re-hash the old vets as killers meme.
I read every one of the 121 cases and found less than 30 that demonstrated direct evidence of combat-related PTSD. If the “real” number is closer to 30 and not, in fact, 121, what’s the story? I get it, less than 30 is relatively insignificant, while 121 is a “quiet phenomona” that rates a full length, front page story in the Sunday NYT.

Just because you have served in an area that is a designated war zone, doesn’t mean that you have been to war. Lots of REMFs depicted in the Times’story. Working in the Motor Pool back at Camp Snafu sniffing ether and selling meth isn’t the same as goin’ house to house in Fallujah. But, “war” is hell, didn’t ya know? Don’t even get me started on the methodology used by the NYT in putting this story (and I do mean, story) together. “Statistical Creativity” is being generous, to say the least.

Btw, please make a better effort to become an informed “vet” before you begin to lay all of the shortcomings of the VA at the feet of the current administration. Most surveys of vets receiving treatment for Iraq / Afghanistan war-related injuries show a high degree of satisfaction with the treatment they have received. Not that you would hear about this in the NYT. Btw, did you know that parts of Walter Reed are a shit-hole? NYT readers do. Yep, we could be doing a lot better by our veterans. Nope, it didn’t start with the BusHitler Admin, as much as Dick Cheney would like for all of us to STFU about all of the cheap wheelchairs and ill-fitting prosthetics. An informed “vet” would know that vets have been trying to cash in empty promises since at least 1776.

P.S. I’m a 30 yr vet.

I can’t comment on the surname “Alvarez” and I don’t have to comment on the surname “Sontag” other than to say that any written opinion piece that is the product of these two forces should probably be approached with trepidation.

Although everyone knows what “average” is, no one can actually be placed in that specific category of measurement. That is to say, everyone is either above or below average.

This means that whenever you take a portion of the whole, it will always be above or below the national (or whatever) average of whatever you are trying to prove.

As Mr Kimball points out, “…the “121” homicides that the Times cites would actually represents a far lower murder rate than among the general civilian population.” and that those homicides were largely committed by individuals of questionable character, characters nurtured and formed long before they entered military service.

So we could easily “prove” that service in Iraq is actually a character enhancing experience, rather than the other way around.

All this proves nothing except to confirm that old adage: “You can prove anything with statistics. “

It’s too bad that the NY Times is no longer what it once was.

Mr Kimball has often referred to the NY Times as “our former paper of record”. I wonder if sometime he would let us know why he now considers the NYT as our “former” paper of record and if there is currently any paper worth considering “our (current)paper of record”.

That said, you’re smoking your socks if you think the article in question did not put down the military.

And I’ll say one thing more – the authors and editors of that article are not fools, they are liars. I say that based on one premise: No one could be involved in producing an article on (behavior x) in (social subgroup x) without even CONSIDERING the statistical context of the larger society. Those folks are smart, they went to college, they KNEW they were putting out a deceptive article. That was their intention.