Fiorina: No More Lectures from NYTimes on Treatment of Women Please

"Former Hewlett-Packard CEO and Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina eviscerated New York Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. over the firing of executive editor Jill Abramson," writes Tim Cavanaugh @ NRO.

“Here is a woman who [has] been told she has an abrasive style — how many times have women heard that?” Fiorina said Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press. “She has been a distinguished reporter for the New York Times, an editor for three years. There is not a single word in her departure announcement about her contributions, about her record, about her time at the New York Times. She is  excised from history. No more lectures, please, from The New York Times about the treatment of women.”

NRO added this update to the post:

New York Times head of communications Eileen Murphy on Twitter objects that the original press release announcing Abramson’s termination did in fact contain standard thanks-for-your-service boilerplate...

"Redistribution is a loaded word"

In a Sunday New York Times article, reporter John Harwood quotes William Daley (then Obama's chief of staff) saying that "redistribution is a loaded word that conjures up all sorts of unfairness in people's minds. It's a word that, in the political world, you just don't use." Headlined "White House Memo: Don't Dare Call The Health Care Law 'Redistribution'," the article continues:

These days the word is particularly toxic at the White House, where it has been hidden away to make the Affordable Care Act more palatable to the public and less a target for Republicans, who have long accused Democrats of seeking “socialized medicine.” But the redistribution of wealth has always been a central feature of the law and lies at the heart of the insurance market disruptions driving political attacks this fall. [snip]

Now some of that redistribution has come clearly into view.

The law, for example, banned rate discrimination against women, which insurance companies called “gender rating” to account for their higher health costs. But that raised the relative burden borne by men. The law also limited how much more insurers can charge older Americans, who use more health care over all. But that raised the relative burden on younger people.

And the law required insurers to offer coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions, which eased costs for less healthy people but raised prices for others who had been charged lower rates because of their good health.