#NYT

Donald Trump Jr’s new book #1 on NYT Best Sellers list

Donald Trump Jr. was quick to share the good news of hitting NYT’s #1 best sellers ranking, on Twitter.

“I dedicated #Triggered to the Deplorables and you guys made it #1… let’s do it again at the voting booth in November. You are the best!!! #MAGA”

Liberal heads must be exploding.

Completely despicable

Another reason to like Rep Tulsi Gabbard, although she is nowhere in the polls despite her straight talking. If there was a Democratic Party candidate that even marginal Republicans could lean toward she is it.

CNN moderator Anderson Cooper asked what Gabbard thought of Trump’s withdrawal from Syria. The answer he got was a little more pointed than he expected.

Gabbard said,

Well, first of all, we’ve got to understand the reality of the situation there, which is that the slaughter of the Kurds being done by Turkey is yet another negative consequence of the regime change war that we’ve been waging in Syria…

…Donald Trump has the blood of the Kurds on his hand, but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have supported this ongoing regime change war in Syria that started in 2011 — along with many in the mainstream media who have been championing and cheerleading this regime change war…”

…now she gets really serious…

“…The New York Times and CNN have also smeared veterans like myself for calling for an end to this regime change war…Just two days ago, The New York Times put out an article saying that I’m a Russian asset and an Assad apologist, and all these different smears. This morning, a CNN commentator said on national television that I’m an asset of Russia. Completely despicable.”

#CancelWhitePeople Sarah Jeong dumped by NYT

What irony that The NY Times finally came to the conclusion what the majority knew about potty mouthed Sarah Jeong, albeit 12 months too late. The picture above shows a selection of tweets before she was hired by NYT. Despite that, NYT defended her hire.

CM wrote back in August 2018,

“Was Jeong not aware that 8 of the 12 board of editors are currently white? Not that the board’s racial identity should have any bearing on disgraceful bigotry displayed by her.

The only point at stake here is whether The NY Times will defend and maintain consistent standards it would certainly hold if a white editor raged on about people of other colour. This isn’t a rally or #boycott (please no more boycotts) to get Jeong sacked. On the contrary. In free market thinking the question is whether The NY Times exercises rational judgement and sees that from a commercial perspective defending the indefensible might not be good for growing the business or encouraging a shrinking pool of paying advertisers to rent more space?

After the election of Trump, the newspaper changed its slogan to “The truth is more important now than ever.” For someone to espouse such bitter hatred so candidly in social media forums which have a half life of infinity, her truths are for all to see. The truth in The NY Times’ slogan is also on display.

How could The NY Times possibly hope to uphold the highest levels of ethics and moral high ground by defending her? In her press blurb the paper is effusive with praise citing, “Sarah has guided readers through the digital world with verve and erudition, staying ahead of every turn on the vast beat that is the internet.“ It is also quite telling that Twitter didn’t think she broke the very standards that would see conservative voices banned for far less offensive tweets.

CM wonders what the Harvard Law School has to say about its deeply talented alumni who served as Editor of the Journal of Law and Gender? Perhaps she just missed the ethics classes because she was too busy battling to make sure the correct pronouns were used in the articles on identity politics.”

Now the NYT has terminated her contract. Undoubtedly her contribution was as empty as her Twitter bile. She will now be a contributor, a rather large downgrade from being on the editorial board. She tweeted about the NYT paying attention to subscriber numbers, something the paper might have considered at the start.

Maybe her impact was one which didn’t ring the turnstiles at NYT. It is likely the same reason why The Guardian begs for charity instead of coming to terms with the fact that the content maybe the problem.

Note NYT is offering Aussies an 80% off subscription deal for a year.

NY Times tells the truth for a change

The Extinction Rebellion protested outside the New York Times HQ complaining that the paper and other mainstream media outlets are not doing enough to alert people of the climate emergency we face. The demands included compelling journalists to use more hysterical language so they can push for more “radical responses.”

70 were arrested. No care for wasting other people’s time.

The NYT was a little upset and released the following,

There is no national news organization that devotes more time, staff or resources to producing deeply reported coverage to help readers understand climate change than The New York Times.” The paper also claimed in a statement that it published almost 800 articles on climate change last year.

One of the first factual things it has written in a while.

NY Times’ TDS in 2 pages

The New York Times is so triggered almost 2.5 years after the 2016 election that it printed 2 pages worth of Trump’s insults since he ran for the Republican primaries. Why does it bother? By the time November 2020 arrives there will be another 2 pages of insults to add to it. Maybe more. Does the editorial board somehow think its readers aren’t aware of the paper’s dislike of Trump?

The NYT should be seriously concerned if he stops the slander because it will run out of things to write about.

So much for “all the news that’s fit to print

737 MAX is more Audi TT than Ford Pinto

1452871681-787.jpg

The NY Times has come out with a hit piece on Boeing and the ill-fated Boeing 737 MAX. Yet to CM, the problem seems more an Audi TT or Mercedes A-Class than a deliberate case of manufacturing flaw that was the Ford Pinto.

Recall that Ford deliberately placed the fuel tank to save money, knowing that it could spontaneously combust if hit from the rear. Yet the financial boffins deduced that the cost of making the move to a safer position would not be worth the risks of such a scenario playing out. Boeing never designed the 737 MAX to have inherent instability. The computer modelling power now is such that the most extreme scenarios would have passed muster. The FAA felt confident that the plane was airworthy to approve it.

Audi had an issue in 2000 with the TT. The sleek 2-door sports car was built off the VW Golf platform. However, the car was found to be prone to uncontrolled spins which killed 5 drivers. Audi was forced to install a spoiler and more sophisticated driver aids (software) to prevent the problem from occurring again. Same for the Mercedes Benz A-Class which failed the elk test conducted by a Finnish motoring magazine in 1997. It flipped when trying to avoid a dummy elk on a test track. This forced Mercedes back to the design room to install stability software to overcome the problem and restore its reputation for safety.

This is essentially what has happened at Boeing. While the press wishes to point to evil doings, the reality is that poor internal communication on such a big project was to blame, not willful negligence. Planes are pushed well beyond what they would ever be likely to encounter in real life. Take the 787’s wing flex test at 30% more than the plane would ever encounter while flying in the worst conditions.

It makes absolutely no sense for Boeing to take such massive risks on the 737 MAX, its #1 selling aircraft, by making it in such a way that it had a high propensity to crash.

The Boeing 737-400 series had inert fuel tank issues where near empty scenarios could cause the vapor to ignite in the centre tank that could lead to a deadly explosion. Several did. Some in the air. Some on the tarmac. These planes weren’t grounded. World aviation authorities, like Australia, issued advisories on how to mitigate the risk of it happening.

The 737 also had a rudder hard-over fault which led to several crashes. The design flaws were rectified when one pilot was able to recover the near-death experience. It was a faulty rudder actuator which could stick under certain temperatures.

The list of 787 airworthiness directives (from fire issues, wings, flight controls to landing gear) stands at 52. FIFTY-TWO. Sure a 787 has not crashed yet but where have the authorities been trying to ground the type until it has no ailments at all? Do they need a crash to rally into action? Or do they look at the issue on its individual merits? The 737 can fly without this AOA safely, which is why the FAA still allows its operation.

Having been a former aerospace analyst, this is the first time in a very long time CM can remember that a virtual global ban was put on any aircraft type. When Qantas flight QF32 (an Airbus A380) had an uncontained engine failure which ruptured the wing tanks and severing hydraulics, the airlines grounded their own planes as a safety measure, not the authorities. Singapore Airlines suspended its A380 flights for one day before resuming operations.

When AA587 crashed in Queens after the tail and engines sheared off, Airbus A300s weren’t summarily grounded. When AF447 crashed into the ocean off the coast of Brazil, A330s weren’t grounded as a precaution. It was pilots not paying attention to basics protocols, becoming overreliant on systems.

Ultimately the market will decide on the 737MAX. The plane has a 4,000+ unit backlog. Even if airlines wanted to change to A320neos, the switching costs would be prohibitively expensive in terms of pilot certification, maintenance and joining the end of an equally long queue. The order book is unlikely to suffer widespread cancellations.

Airlines run on razor-thin profit margins and the extra efficiency the MAX will offer over the existing fleet is why airlines want them now. The new LEAP-X engine technology is a once in 50-year event. The engines offer more power, 15% better fuel economy and lower emissions. The components are now ceramic matrix composites (CMC) which allows the engine to burn hotter and increase performance without suffering extra fuel burn. Nippon Carbon is the sole supplier of this magic material.

There has undoubtedly been a breakdown in communication with the FAA and Boeing. This engineering flaw can be safely encountered by software. While the NY Times has tried to over-exaggerate the fault in design, the reality is that all aircraft have engineering limitations. The 737 is a 50 years old airframe with over 1 billion passenger miles.

CM has stated many times that pilots have become too reliant on safety systems. AF 447 was a perfect case in point. When these glass cockpits with all manner of electronic trickery go wrong, pilots only need first principles to fly.

CM is sure that Boeing will recover from this incident and 737 MAX deliveries will continue as they had. The press just seems too eager for click bait, not understanding the complexities of developing new aircraft.

The Untrumpables & the bookkeeper

The NY Times has Donald Trump’s tax returns from 1985-1994. So what? He made losses 25-30 years ago. He obviously made some terrible business decisions to rack up $1.17bn in losses over a decade. Yet the laws allowed him to do so. Two years ago, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow hailed she had Trump’s 2005 tax return that showed he paid $38m tax on $150m income. So he has had some good with the bad.

Because the mainstream media and the Democrats couldn’t pin Russia collusion on him, they want to see if they can get him on tax evasion. Sounds like the accountant in the Treasury Department trying to bust Al Capone in The Untouchables. The Democrats want to make Trump talk with a gun in his mouth. Many Democrat-run states have passed legislation to ban Trump from the 2020 ballot if he doesn’t release his tax returns. CM has mentioned numerous times how this typifies the level to which Democrats think they are just in rejecting the democratic rights of their constituents.  Surely American voters can decide for themselves whether his tax returns are an important enough issue for them.

The question really boils down to whether he has “evaded” tax or “avoided” it? If he used the tax laws to minimise his ultimate tax liabilities then all power to him. In the immortal words of Australian billionaire, Kerry Packer, “if anybody in this country doesn’t minimise their tax they want their heads read. Because as a government I can tell you, you’re not spending it that well that we should be donating extra!

Truth be told, banks continued to lend to him despite having the highest tax losses of any American and he wound up in the highest office in the land. Even if his most recent tax returns show massive losses, if he hasn’t broken the law then what will House Democrats have gained?

Put it this way. The mainstream media might wish to point to the failures of Trump as a good reason to question his judgement. They might mock him by saying he benefitted from Daddy’s money. However, America has the lowest unemployment rate in decades, historic low black and female unemployment and 5.8m unemployed to fill 7m job openings. If individuals feel America is in a better place than when he started, one can be sure that he will be sworn in again in 2020.

When will the Democrats finally realise that putting forward sensible policies to convince the American public they are worthy of government is a more effective method than pushing more and more Trump Derangement Syndrome?