Posts Tagged ‘new york times’

The New York Times Warns In Editorial That The Covid-19 Coronavirus Pandemic Will Get “Much Worse”

April 14th, 2020 Comments off

In its editorial of April 14, 2020, which The New York Times entitled “The Global Coronavirus Crisis Is Poised to Get Much, Much Worse,” it was pointed out that while Covid-19 is currently ravaging primarily the wealthier nations of the northern hemisphere, it will soon strike the impoverished nations of the Third World.

In its editorial, The New York Times states the following:



What probably lies ahead is the spread of the coronavirus through countries ravaged by conflict, through packed refugee camps  and detention centers in places like Syria or Bangladesh, through teeming cities like Mumbai, Rio de Janeiro or Monrovia, where social distancing is impossible and government is not trusted, through countries without the fiscal capacity or health services to mount a viable response.

That would be disastrous not only for them but also for the rest of the world as supplies of raw materials are disrupted, fragile economies collapse, strongmen grow stronger and the virus doubles back to reinfect northern regions.




This is a nightmare scenario, but one not only plausible, but actually highly probable. The form of the human misery that will afflict poorer nations in this next phase of the Covid-19 pandemic will worsen the global economic crisis that has been unleashed by the coronavirus.

Should the pandemic lead to a collapse of medical systems and economies throughout the Third World, a likely result will be an unprecedented wave of Covid-19 refugees seeking perceived safer havens of developed economies, which themselves will be ill-prepared for the consequences of such radical population movements. This will further exacerbate-and lengthen- the extent and severity of what is both a massive global health crisis and increasingly a devastating global economic tsunami.

The New York Times And Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program: Journalistic Appeasement?

September 11th, 2012 Comments off

An important op-ed piece has appeared in The New York Times regarding the Iranian nuclear issue. Authored by Bill Keller and entitled “Nuclear Mullahs,”  the op-ed column does not question the view of all serious actors involved in the issue, which is that Iran’s nuclear program is a weapons program. Rather, Keller focuses on the central policy question connected with Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions; should Tehran acquire a nuclear arsenal, can it be deterred in the manner of the former Soviet Union  and United States during the cold war? In the words of Keller, “Why would Iran not be similarly deterred by the certainty that using nuclear weapons would bring a hellish reprisal?

As the former executive-editor of The New York Times as well as being a current op-ed columnist, Keller’s voice will likely be interpreted as a reflection of mainstream thinking on the Iranian nuclear issue by policymakers who are influenced by his newspaper. The views of The New York Times still carry some weight in certain circles on Capitol Hill, so for that reason the views expressed by Keller are highly relevant. What is it, therefore, that Keller espouses on this menacing issue?

After warning that,  “Anyone who has a glib answer to this problem isn’t taking the subject seriously,” Keller than does precisely that.  He raises the salient points that have been analyzed by decision makers in several countries concerned with the potential threat posed by Iran being transformed into a nuclear-armed state, then dismisses them with simplistic rationalizations devoid of substance or deep analytical thought. Here are some examples.

Keller accepts that a nuclear-armed Iran would be emboldened to create more mayhem in the Middle East through its puppets, such as Hezbollah, but then quotes a former diplomat who suggests that an Iran deprived of nuclear weapons through military means would be even more meddlesome. On the surface, this is a self-contradicting argument. Then, Keller raises an often-mentioned risk identified by strategic experts; an Iranian nuclear weapon would unleash the proliferation genie, creating a nuclear arms race in a region already beset with instability and political volatility. While acknowledging that Saudi Arabia would seek nuclear arms, and may purchase such weapons from Pakistan (“not a pleasant thought,” muses Keller), he then ignores the implications while dismissing the other Middle East actors as  having “strong reasons not to join the race,” without specifying those reasons or taking into account the deep Sunni antagonism and fears towards Iran’s Shiite ideology and perceived ambitions for regional dominance.

On the matter of Israel’s perception that a nuclear-armed Iran represents an existential threat, Keller writes, “The regime in Iran is brutal, mendacious and meddlesome, and given to spraying gobbets of Hitleresque bile at the Jewish state. ” Yet, Keller in his piece maintains an iconoclastic belief bordering on religious messianism that Iran’s nuclear weapons program cannot  possibly represent a danger of annihilation to Israel. To buttress his conviction, he resorts to claiming that history proves that nuclear-armed states somehow behave more rationally.

The question I would put to Bill Keller is this; would Nazi Germany have behaved more rationally if it had become nuclear-armed? Would Imperial Japan have refrained from attacking Pearl Harbor if it had possessed atomic bombs?

The central flaw in Bill Keller’s op-ed on the Iranian nuclear issue is that it totally ignores the character and substance of the Iranian theocratic regime, its grand strategic vision and world view, and how nuclear weapons fit in with their ideology. This is a barbarous, ruthless regime with extreme ideological imperatives dominating its tactical and strategic thinking. To have hope that acquisition of the ultimate weapon of mass destruction would somehow transform such a regime into a responsible regional actor contradicts all historical parallels. It reminds one of the policy of appeasement adopted by the Western democracies in the 1930s towards Nazi Germany. It was hoped  back then that allowing an ideologically driven dictatorship to rearm and expand would somehow moderate its extremist views and lead to more rational behavior. Among the strongest supporters of the policy of appeasement back in the 1930s were the major newspapers of the Western world.

Now, it is The New York Times that is suggesting, through Bill Keller’s piece, that preventative military means be taken off the table in regards to the Iranian nuclear issue. He doesn’t want a nuclear-armed Iran, but is unwilling to use force to prevent such an outcome, and ends his piece with calls for diplomacy and a “Nixon-to-China” moment. As in the 1930s, the world is approaching a moment of truth, and just as back then, important voices within politics and journalism are desperately groping for unattainable answers short of military confrontation, not realizing until it is too late that the diplomatic option with an extremist totalitarian state was illusory.






 To view the official trailer YouTube video for “Wall Street Kills,” click image below:

In a world dominated by high finance, how far would Wall Street go in search of profits? In Sheldon Filger’s terrifying novel about money, sex and murder, Wall Street has no limits. “Wall Street Kills” is the ultimate thriller about greed gone mad. Read “Wall Street Kills” and blow your mind.



Goldman Sachs Director Resigns In Bombshell New York Times Op-Ed

March 14th, 2012 Comments off


People usually resign from a position through a private letter to the boss. Greg Smith, a Goldman Sachs executive director based out of London who manages U.S. equity derivatives for clients in Europe, Africa and the Middle East chose a different method when he decided to leave the payroll of  Goldman Sachs; he gave the reason for his resignation in a powerful opinion piece on the editorial pages of The New York Times entitled, “Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs.”

The reason for Greg Smith’s resignation can be summed up as follows: the corporate culture at Goldman Sachs has been transformed and deteriorated to the point where it became rotten to the core, and where clients are viewed as mere “muppets” who can be fleeced through the investment bank’s rapacious greed.

Here is an excerpt from  Smith’s piece:

“These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, ‘How much money did we make off the client?’ It bothers me every time I hear it, because it is a clear reflection of what they are observing from their leaders about the way they should behave. Now project 10 years into the future: You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about ‘muppets,’ ‘ripping eyeballs out’ and ‘getting paid’ doesn’t exactly turn into a model citizen.”

The devious, greed-encrusted investment bank got that way because of its leadership, Greg Smith emphasizes. The same leadership that boasted that it “does God’s work.” Unfortunately, the corrupted investment bank Smith describes is probably the most powerful non-governmental actor in the world. That is what makes Greg Smith’s explanation for leaving Goldman Sachs so bone-chilling and terrifying.

So, will the resignation of Greg Smith change the corporate culture at Goldman Sachs? I doubt it. It was not so long ago when we learned about the e-mails Goldman Sachs trader Fabrice Tourre sent to his girlfriend, one of which said, “…More and more leverage in the system, the entire system is about to crumble any moment…the only potential survivor the fabulous Fab…standing in the middle of all these complex, highly levered, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all the implications of those monstrosities !!!”

The public explanation for resigning offered by Greg Smith, and what were intended as private musings by Fabrice Tourre, are insights into the inner sanctum of a global financial octopus. Already subsidized by a massive taxpayer bailout after the financial collapse of 2008 (Goldman Sachs got a $12 billion payment through the AIG payout made by Uncle Sam, about enough to pay one year’s bonuses to the senior executives), Goldman Sachs is a paradigm of arrogance and indifference to the public that saved the investment bank from itself. Somewhat optimistically, Greg Smith hopes that his public explanation will somehow induce the board of directors at Goldman Sachs to “correct” its corporate culture. I wish I could be as optimistic, but I’m not. If there is a solution to the systemic risk posed by this selfish behemoth, it is unlikely to come internally from within Goldman Sachs. Other remedies are called for.