Shoot The Messenger
There’s an inverse relationship between the popularity of a national administration and the level of its attacks on the media.
The more a White House blames the nattering nabobs of negativity in the news business for its problems, the more trouble it’s in.
With Bush struggling to stay in the 30′s favorability wise, scapegoating the media has predictably escalated. The President who invaded a country and bankrupted our treasury on a false notion that Saddam had something to do with our national security, the guy who besmirched the ideals and honor of our country by authorizing the institutionalization of torture, the guy who has institiuted warrant-less searches and who has given trillions away to the richest of the rich, now says the media’s disclosure of his secret snooping programs is “disgraceful.”
Move over, Mr. Kettle. You’re getting called out.
The President’s finger-wagging admonishment comes on the heels of Republican Congressman Peter King calling on the DOJ to prosecute the New York Times for “treasonous” action. And right before the chorus of condemnation was joined by such paragons of ethical behavior as Dick Cheney and Bill Frist.
Ponder the implications of this statement from the Vice-President of the United States made at a GOP fundraiser in Nebraska: “Some of the press, in particular the New York Times, have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security programs.”
My, my we’ve come to this. A sitting Vice-President brazenly acting as an intellectual thug. Either you are with us. Or you are aiding and abetting the terrorists. What a wonderful reason to scorn this crew. And an even better reason to drive them from office.
Here, by the way, is a statement from L.A. Times editor Dean Baquet on his decision to run the piece exposing the administration’s warrant-less monitoring of money transfers. A real terrorist, no?
P.S. I thought George Bush said he doesn’t read newspapers.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:51 am
All this really comes down to the question of whether government is accountable to the people or whether we hand over all of those decisions to our officials once we have elected them, including the right to violate the Constitution if they decide to do so. I would argue that as long as ANY citizens want to know what their government is doing, those who don’t want to know–or don’t want the rest of us to know–are automatically overruled. Fortunately, the news media are there to help us who want to know, and they in turn are helped by those government officials who leak information because they too think that we have a need to know.
To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld: There are things we don’t know, and things we do know, and things we know we don’t know but that we still want to know.
June 27th, 2006 at 4:36 am
The LAT folk say:
“We sometimes withhold information when we believe that reporting it would threaten a life.”
I believe the US/ world media has been helping Al Qaeda to recruit killers, and threaten lives and kill innocents.
The LAT claiming they “are not out to get the president.” should be one that can be tested: how many front page articles positive & negative on Bush; on America; on the terrorists.
Did the public have the right to see the 12 cartoons which were causing Muslims to riot and kill people?
Marc, you say Bush “bankrupted our treasury” — but it is Congress that is spending drunkenly. What programs have the Dems opposed? When there were ammendments to stop pork, how did the Dems vote? (oink oink).
Did Bush veto, no — doesn’t want any more opposition to the necessary and slowly successful Iraq nation building. Compare Iraq with Darfur, or Iran, and it looks like US led invasion is better, for human rights, than not.
The NYT is not merely a messenger, but a spy — for Al Qaeda, against America and Bush and democracy. (To claim Iraq is less democratic than under Saddam seems pretty silly — but Leftists can be such, since Iraq isn’t perfect! And it’s already been 3 years! Why can’t it be over???)
I hope some organization starts a boycott against NYT advertisers, until the Times changes ownership.
June 27th, 2006 at 4:55 am
How exactly has the U.S. media been helping al Qaeda? Rightists are never specific about this. Do Muslims speak fluent English, and get subscriptions to the NYT, LAT and others delivered to their caves? Are they watching US TV news every night? Or what about this — the murderous actions of the U.S. military are the best recruiting tool for the terrorists. Seeing your cousin shot down and having your town’s water plant stop working tends to make one pick up a weapon…
What’s worrisome about bullet-heads is that they don’t listen to logic. They believe what they believe because they believe it — closed circle, no facts need apply. (Like the fact that Repugs have been in control of Congress during the time when the U.S. went from a surplus to bankruptcy.)
And the rallying cry for the bullet-heads, who have weapons loaded with real bullets, is that “the media are traitors! The media is causing us to lose this war!” Kinda like the cry about abortion doctors being baby killers. And that just makes it SO right to shoot Dr. Barnett Slepian, or kick over newspaper boxes, or be like Tim McVeigh and set off a fertiliser bomb in front of the NYT office.
It’s chilling to see how the rhetoric of hatred is ratcheting up in the U.S. It’s going to end with a lot of killing. I am glad I emigrated from the States in time…
June 27th, 2006 at 5:22 am
Clearly, when the party of fiscal responsability, in control of the Presidency and both houses, brankrupts the country; it’s the minority party that’s to blame. Call him “Lamebirty Dad”. Last week’s big, insane bonus for the ultra rich (the “death” tax) was pretty much party line.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:41 am
Bukko,
Our loss is Australia’s gain. May you show as much courage in your convictions in the land down under as you’ve shown in the United States.
Believe it or not, the NYT, LA Times and most other major American newspapers are found on the web, and more likely than not, read by many of my country’s enemies.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:55 am
Michael Balter: I would argue that as long as ANY citizens want to know what their government is doing, those who don’t want to know–or don’t want the rest of us to know–are automatically overruled.
I suspect that our soldiers and their parents would rather not reveal secret missions and troop movements in advance to our enemies just because many of you don’t support them and want them exposed.
Given your criteria, there are no secrets and there is no security. In that event, let’s issue guns to all our citizens so that we can protect ourselves if the government were to become impotent because of your demands. Long trials for terrorists wouldn’t become a problem from me.
My right to bear arms in this case is no less than the Times’ right to aid our enemies under the guise of free press (and really hating our President.)
June 27th, 2006 at 7:05 am
We can always count on Liberty Dad and Woody to parrot Bush administration talking points on nearly any subject, how heartening. Of course it was no revelation to the terrorists that US intelligence is trying to monitor their money transfers, any more than they were surprised that the NSA was trying to track their telephone calls. The only people surprised by this were Americans who did not know before the evil media told them that they could easily be caught up in this web of surveillance. Some here are too young to remember the 1970s, and some are old enough but don’t want to remember: The government was caught spying on peaceful groups and individuals, auditing the tax returns of Nixon adminitration opponents, etc etc, all in the name of national security and the fight against–well, then it was Communism. That’s why citizens have good reason to worry about lack of accountability in government spying, because the government sometimes gets very tempted to put legal political activity into the “terrorist” category and who will stop them if we don’t know about it?
So simple, really, despite the obfuscation and overheated rhetoric of the true believers.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:07 am
The press arrogantly believes that it has the wisdom to make correct judgements when it comes to decisions as what the public should know, and that which would endanger the civil servants and military who work for our government. There are legitimate alternate means of exposing wrong-doing and protecting those who work for the people and put their lives on the line. Minority party members of the Congressional oversight committiees come to mind, in the case of Executive Branch wrong doing. Individual wrong-doing by any member of the federal government will always be of interest to government agencies themselves. Believe it or not, most are honestly trying to do the right thing. The press overlooks these venues because public exposure serves their pupose of selling newspapers and advertising. Of course they excuse this by proclaiming themselves rightous defenders of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
The government is an easy target, and the press bravado is at its best in spilling the beans in the name of the public good. However, they do not do well when met with mixed bags like illegal immigration. On one hand, we have the human interest story about the unfortunate illegal immigrant and on the other, we have the disastrous results that adopting 10 -20 million poor would have on the economy. The former has a powerful advocacy group constituency, willing to sacrifice all sense of reason for their cause. The press, although well aware of the strong case against amnesty, is cowed by the aggressive advocacy groups and willing to sell their papers on the humane issues alone. None really have the courage to buck what they perceive is the future of their bottom line, Hispanic advertisers and subscribers. This is especially true in California.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:24 am
“The press arrogantly believes that it has the wisdom to make correct judgements when it comes to decisions as what the public should know”
Replace “The press” with “the Bush administration” and I would agree. Some of us want to know, and some don’t. Looks like the ones who want to know have freedom of the press on on their side, like it or not.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:50 am
btw, the Founding Fathers put freedom of the press in the Bill of Rights because in their wisdom they knew there would always be people who would think there are things we should not be told. Bless them!
June 27th, 2006 at 8:59 am
That’s true, but they had no way of knowing how complex the world of the future would be. Balancing the ability to destoy one’s enemies and protecting individual rights is sometimes an agonizing process. It doesn’t do us any good if we protect our rights to the nth degree and be destroyed as the result. A rational compromise has to be made, one made under due process of law of course.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Howdy, Marc & readers. We’re soliciting feedback to Baquet’s column (and feedback to the feedback) over here, for those so inclined.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
All of the conservatives and right wingers and administration apologists who have no problem with the state cracking down on the reporting of intrusive government programs…I have a question -
Would you feel the same way if … what if a Democrat were in power? What if Anti-Abortion groups and the NRA were being spied on? What if the Democrat administration used the long arm of the law to prosecute, say, the Washington Times or National Review, etc?
June 27th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
As George Williams points out, the founding fathers couldn’t have imagined what it might be like to engage in warfare, particularly asymmetric warfare. Of course, thanks to Ben Franklin’s epiphany during that lightning-key incident, they did anticipate assault weapons when writing the 2nd Amendment.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Jcummings,
And if pigs had wings they’d replace quail as range game. You can’t equate malicious political harassment to the administrations intent to prosecute the war on terrorism. I dislike the President intensley, but I only fault him on his interpretation of law on this one. He should first go to Congress to obtain legitimacy through legislation before carrying out his program.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Didn’t the Wall Street Journal also publish this story? Are they part of this liberal cabal filled with hate for the President and a desire to jeopardize the lives of American troops? All you hear from Bush apologists is how this is more evidence of the NYT’s hatred for America. Seems more like another chance to ride the “liberal media” hobby horse than to express sincere concern about government security.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Clearly, the Bush team dropped the ball. They simply should have insisted the NSA beat be covered by Judith Miller.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Michael Balter, Nixon and Clinton engaged in illegal activities by siccing the IRS on their enemies. Bush’s program in the war on terror was legal and effective, which even the NY Al Jazeera Times admitted. Your buddies are going to get Americans killed. So, what’s a few innocent lives for political points?
June 27th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Trying to intimidate the media is not harassment?
June 27th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
I put this question to anyone who will respond. If it is ever established that a reporter intentionally exposes a government employee in the course of participating in a legal anti-terror operation and gets that person killed as the result, is that reporter entitled to protection under the first amendment, or should he be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? Is risking the deaths of government agents the price of freedom of the press? And what qualifications in the way of good judgement is required of a reporter when he reveals this information?
June 27th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Engineers, doctors, lawyers, accountants all require four or more years of college before entering their professions. A journalist could probably get by with a high school diploma and average IQ, yet these are the people we give the power to make judgements over our whether to publish the government’s greatest secrets.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
“Your buddies are going to get Americans killed. ”
No, but Bush is doing a bang up job of it. The idea that this program is more than a keen perception of the obvious is due to the common overgenealizations this administration and their supports use regularly with things that can’t be factually supported. Ad populum fallacy is the only course left for those who preach freedom yet always want to take it away. Quite the dichotomy.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
I don’t understand how anybody can really look at this situation with the terror-financing investigation and assert that Bush and his team are “scapegoating” the media in order to make up for 30% favoribility polling.
I don’t think anyone on Bush’s spin-team are under the illusion that brow-beating the NYTimes on this will actually help George W’s approval ratings – they won’t. Having the national political conversation focused on anything related to “snooping” or “spying” will probably come off negative in the atmosphere we’re in now, no matter what the context or underlying situation.
From what I understand, taking into account this most recent major leak, this program was not a matter of public interest.
The media was briefed on the purported legality of this program. The media was asked, repeatedly, not to report on it because the government thought it would make the program markedly less effective.
This program certainly doesn’t appear to have any way of infringing on my rights. I have yet to fathom any way that US government involvement in a money-laundering/terror financing investigation centered around international banking institutions could ever possibly amount to a threat to my civil liberties.
It is a secret government effort to thwart terrorism by going after the money that finances it…something that the 9/11 Commission and the NY Times both advocated following 9/11.
No matter what possible excuse you can squeak out of this – a claim of patriotism or “duty’ – the fact remains that Keller-the-watchdog is actually Keller-the-partisan and, in the end, the Times (LA & NY -and- the WSJ) will have done nothing to keep this country safe or to protect my civil liberties.
Rather, they are trumpeting their supposed right to tell me whatever they want because I have a supposed right to know all about secret government anti-terror programs.
Their right to tell me something I never needed to know and my right to be informed just took a big, fat, steaming crap all over my government’s legitimate attempts at thwarting terror attacks.
Keller: Who cares if the program was logical and legal? We need to get it out into the open so we can talk about it! People need to know!
The Times is wrong, its defenders are baffling me, and Bush stands to gain absolutely nothing in the polls by getting pissed off over this because only the base cares, most people have been decided voters since 2003.
– Many of the commenters are focusing on “Bush is cracking down on my rights blah blah blah” and they are off-topic.
THIS latest leak is not excuseable, it doesn’t infrigne on your rights, and by trying to confuse the conversation with that redirection is retarded.
=Congress knew about this and approved it=
The NYTimes just sold you out, and you’re up in arms about protecting your civil rights which aren’t even in the picture in this case….WTF?
June 27th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Mark Y., there’s a big difference between soldiers dying in the battlefield to defend freedom vs. innocent civilians dying in shopping centers, parks, and churches from the bombs of terrorists who could have been detected and stopped if not for the subversion of out-of-control, think-they-know-it-all-but don’t, leftist ideologues who found a comfortable home in the press.
You guys were more concerned about Valarie Plame, which was next to nothing, than this matter that puts every American at greater risk–but, logic and consistency never was the strong suit for liberals.
BTW, George Williams has it right about journalists. I state this with the greatest of confidence because we, as college students, used to observe and talk about it…the absolute dumbest people at my university majored in journalism (with education majors a close second), even though many of those graduates became prominent in the media. In other words, you (not me) are counting on the dumbest people to tell you what news you need to know and how you should interpret that news. That really is the dumbing down of America. The only thing that could be worse than the press being anti-American is for them to be smart, too.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Hey, Woody!
June 27th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
To George Williams – as a journalist (and someone who did my undergrad in journalism with a minor in philosophy, Woody, head straight up ass, as usual has it comically wrong-) I believe your conception of journalists is offensive and wildly off the mar To be a published, succesful journalist – you not only need to be able to form sentences and invert pyramids (journalists will understand that I hope – though its a shit way of disseminating information) – you need to have good forensic skills, be able to cultivate sources. In many ways, the best investigative journlaistts are a few steps away from intelligence operatives – “We’re the people’s CIA” John Pilger said. In other words, it is not easy work to get government people, or for that matter in another field, business executives, sports figures or others to open up and/or divulge “secrets.” And, yes, I put quotes around the dread phrase secrets for a reason.
In terms of your three rhetorical questions, you may not realize it but your question reminds me of the story of the heroic CIA renegade Phillip Agee. I will answsemer your three questions – first question – yes, in terms of journalistic ethics- in terms of right/wrong, it depends on the circumstances – one reason that while I thought that Rove outing desk jockey Plame was a shitty thing to do, I think the mainstream left went too nuts on that one – buit I’m digressing. In a nutshell, if you can source your information and you have word that such and such is a CIA operative and that is part of a larger story as opposed to “That guy at the embassy is a spook” – then you’r golden.
Second question, there is nothing to expensive for freedom of the press, or you may want to go to Cuba, which I thought conservatives hated. You remember what Jefferson said about a government with no newpapers versus newspapers with not government, right? Are you not an American? I may sound facetious but isn’t this the animating ideao f the American creed, that of liberty? In terms of judgement, thats what editors are for – and believe me, in the mass “msm” it takes a lot of establishment connections (i.e. you hate the Times now, wait til you hear what they sit on) – so not to worry about the “crown jewels.”
June 27th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
There’s a difference between criticizing US policy, including opposing decisions to use military power, and releasing secret information about specific tactics. It’s the difference between saying “We should get out of Iraq,” and “the US has informants in the following terrorist groups,” or “an attack on X Square in Ramadi is set for 1400 hours.”
The first is generally protected, right or wrong, wise or stupid. The second gives aid and comfort to the enemy. The disclosures of the NSA program and the wire transfer data sources fall into the second category.
It’s a simple enough distinction, but apparently impenetrable to many on the left.
Both Timeses, NY and LA, are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Although I doubt frog marches or perp walks through the city rooms are in the offing, one can still dream.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
A Little Something For Woody…
http://www.cafepress.com/worldahead.38487721
June 27th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
“Both Timeses, NY and LA, are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
Jesus Christ, do these idiots give a shit about the Constitution? The next time one of these pinhead, right-wing wankers babbles about the alleged “moral relativism” of liberals, I think I’ll puke.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
“Jesus Christ, do these idiots give a shit about the Constitution?”
(1) Curious invocation of the Deity.
(2) Answer: yes. But last time I read it, it wasn’t a suicide pact.
June 27th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
Apparently the Bill of Rights makes some folks pee their pants…
June 28th, 2006 at 2:18 am
The issues here are so simple, really. The Bush administration has decided that in the name of the war on terror, it can engage in any and all behavior without scrutiny and accountability to the people or the courts. It is amazing that political conservatives with their traditional mistrust of big government have decided that this is okay.
June 28th, 2006 at 4:52 am
Michael Balter, you’re completely missing the distinction that conservatives make on government surveillance. I oppose that which is illegal and infringes on indvidual citizen’s privacy–to an extent, with national emergency being an exception and because there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. I support surveillance targeting enemies, known and unknown, who have attacked us and vow to continue the attacks against us. I’m sure that I could refine this more if I wanted to take the time, but that’s not an unreasonable or contradictory position.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:03 am
reg & Grumpy, exactly what part of our Constitution was violated by this surveillance program and what part of the Constitution is violated by condemning release of defense measures in a war?
You guys reference the Constitution like you wrote it, …but liberals have been re-writing it for years. Your side has made it such a “living document” that you’re killing it. To you, it means what you want and not what it says. Oh, maybe I don’t have the right to say that in your “new Constitution.”
reg, since you’ve suggested a purchase for me, here’s one for you: http://www.cafepress.com/republichc.22285475
June 28th, 2006 at 5:06 am
Fourth and First.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:11 am
And reporting on wholesale violations of the law isn’t release of “defense measures during a war.” You’ve got the New York Times and LA Times confused with that FOX News guy who was drawing American troop positions in the sand for the cameras.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:27 am
The Bill of Rights applies to this only in your mind and because you want it to. Your consitution can change daily and should, therefore, be considered a “daily constitutional,” suitable for preserving on toilet paper.
Also, here’s information for you about FDR’s reaction to a similar instance in WWII and to the law: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/bush_should_welcome_a_fight_wi.html
But with what the Chicago Tribune had done in mind (tipped the Japs that we had broken their naval code,) Congress in 1950 added Section 798 to the Espionage Act of 1917. It reads in part:
“Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits…or publishes …any classified information…concerning the communications intelligence activities of the United States…shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
That’s clear and in line with the real Constitution–not your imaginary one.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:33 am
*Your consitution can change daily and should, therefore, be considered a “daily constitutional,†suitable for preserving on toilet paper.*
Interesting sentiment Woody…I can only assume that you actually believe this.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:41 am
Jcummings,
Under the Constitiution, anyone with a pen and the ability to write a paragraph can claim to be a journalist and wrap himself in the 1st amendment. Establish a web page or operate a printing press and one can call one’s efforts a newspaper. There are a lot of people out there that are posing as journalists but do not have the judgement, intelligence or ethics of Walter Conkrite.
You missed the point Cummings. Journalists are not holy men with the wisdom of Solomon and as such are not necessarily the people I’d choose to decide which government secrets should remain secrets and which should be exposed to the public. Contrary to Marc’s message, some messengers should be shot.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:45 am
Joe Scarborough: “Whatever your political affiliation, be afraid. This domestic spying program is so widespread, so random, so far removed from Al Qaeda suspects that it is hard to imagine any surveillance program so susceptible to abuse.
Phone records lead to bank records lead to medical records lead to God knows what. And yet we keep being told to trust the government.
I served on the Judiciary Committee and the Armed Services Committee for four terms in Congress, and no programs I learned of icame close to the scope of this spy program.
It endangers Americans’ right to privacy, if we are to assume that there is still such a right contained in the Fourth Amendment.”
My greatest concern with this is that there is no established legal structure for oversight, only executive fiat. Like his flaunting the FISA law, which provided for broad surrveilance powers only under judicial oversight and with warrants, the Bush administration resists any constraints, checks or balances – which are clearly outlined in the Consititution. Woody, you’re living in Bush’s butt. Incidentally, when Clinton tried to pass anti-terrorist laws that dealt with money-laundering, the “conservative” Phil Gramm singlehandedly stopped the legislation in committee because his patrons in the banking industry didn’t like it. Gotta love the patriots of the right.
Of course, there are still a few who aren’t, as Marc would say, residing in the Commander’s colon.
Joe Scarborough: “Phone records lead to bank records lead to medical records lead to God knows what. And yet we keep being told to trust the government.
I served on the Judiciary Committee and the Armed Services Committee for four terms in Congress, and no programs I learned of came close to the scope of this spy program.
It endangers Americans’ right to privacy, if we are to assume that there is still such a right contained in the Fourth Amendment.”
June 28th, 2006 at 5:47 am
sorry for double-posting scarborough
June 28th, 2006 at 6:20 am
“Contrary to Marc’s message, some messengers should be shot”……………figuratively, of course!
June 28th, 2006 at 6:51 am
Woody sez: “I oppose that which is illegal and infringes on indvidual citizen’s privacy–to an extent, with national emergency being an exception and because there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. I support surveillance targeting enemies, known and unknown, who have attacked us and vow to continue the attacks against us.”
That might sound reasonable, just one problem: How are we to know which it is unless we know it is happening? And since one person’s legal surveillance can be another’s illegal surveillance, and not everyone agrees, the media do us a service by exposing these things.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:14 am
I completely got your point, George Williams – and you still don’t get it. You believe in shooting the messenger, fine…but its unamerican.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:16 am
I also thought right-wingers hated Cronkite – who is a socialist.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:02 am
Just a freedom of speech is not license, journalism should have its limits. Exposing a well intentioned anti-terrorism effort to our enemies is worthy of more consideration than the rationale that the public has a right to know all the inner workings of government. The people already have arbiters of such determinations. They’re in the Executive and Legislative branches and run for election on a periiodic basis. If the press has doubts about the legitimacy of such efforts, it should first report its concerns to the Congressional oversight committiees or other cognizant federal agencies rather than risk doing harm to our country. If a broad consensus of committee officials rule that the operation as Consitiutional legitimacy, then the journalist should accept it and not publish. By failing to act prudently, the press opens itself up to accusations of irresponsibility.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:25 am
George – you’re beginning to seem like a troll. You are entitled to your fascist opinions but thatt is not how a free press has worked for the last couple hundred years. In fact what you describe is precisely how the media works in police states.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:44 am
Why is it that under Clinton conervatives were so paranoid about Janet Reno and Black Helicopters, yet under Bush they are willing to grant the state enormous big government powers?
June 28th, 2006 at 9:05 am
Call me a troll or fascist. I guess that you’ve got the right to say anything you wish as a jounalist.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:20 am
Cummings,
If you’ve looked at the history of the press, say between 1800 and 1870, you wouldn’t recognize it as the voice of the people. In that period alone, newspapers were filled with vitreolic dencunciations, exaggeration and lies that hardly served the public good. The press wasn’t even close to the high-minded ideal that it was supposed to be.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:35 am
That was a great era – an era that pushed philosophers from JS Mill to Frederick Douglas to Marx to Emerson published in raucous freewheeling media. Abolitionism and other social movements were helped by the media of the time.
Principles are most important when they’re inconvenient. Never did I think I’d hear advocacy of police state methods used against the media by even right wing Americans, but then again with their advocacy of torture, nothing should shock me anymore.
What is wrong with vitriolic denunciations?
June 28th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Since the Wall Street Journal published this story the same day as both “Times”, are they traitors as well ?
June 28th, 2006 at 9:39 am
To be more detailed – in a democracy there is a multiplicity of views as to what is in the public interest. To go to the government to see if publishing certain info is “OK” will depend on which government officials and what mood they are in – subjectivity, in orther words. This has never, outside of police states, been the role of the media. Now if you can come out and say, you don’t believe in the historical American idea of the media, and you advocate a police state model, I’d respect you, but you’re skirting the issue.
Do you truly believe that Al Qaida are surprised by any of the salacious “treasonous” exposures in the US media of government programs that obviously existed to all but the most naive?
June 28th, 2006 at 9:40 am
‘The LAT claiming they “are not out to get the president.†should be one that can be tested: how many front page articles positive & negative on Bush; on America; on the terrorists.’
Tom Grey, you’re my hero! You’re so smart…clearly, reporting negative things the President does is not a reflection of the actual negative things the actual President actually does, but made-up stuff to hurt the President. It’s like, if the LAT doesn’t report the bad stuff, then the President never really did it!
Obviously if the press wants to remain an unbiased reporter of truth, it must balance all negative press with positive press, 50/50, regardless of those annoying things like reality and truth and actual things the actual President actually did. If the president murders ten babies, I don’t want to see ten headlines about murdered babies – I want to see five murdered baby headlines and five the-President-hugged-a-cute-puppy headlines.
Otherwise, the LAT are just a bunch of fucking commies, clearly.
Yours….IN GREAT FREEDOM!!!!!11!!!!
June 28th, 2006 at 9:41 am
Are David Brooks and other NY Times conservatives backstabbers? I call on the right to impose a fatwa on David Brooks until he quits the Times.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Websters defines vitriolic as spiteful, vicious, bitter, cruel, malicious. Do you feel that the press should take that approach when addressing a subject?
June 28th, 2006 at 10:00 am
You are clueless!
Much of the “corporate press” has openly sought the defeat of the US in Iraq and the broader war as well.
You think Bush ” is struggling to stay in the ’30′s”. Find out what much of the nation thinks of the traitors at the NY Times!!
Blame Bush all you want – you remain clueless!
June 28th, 2006 at 10:03 am
If the subject deserves spite, viciousness, bitterness, cruelty or malicousness. I presume you didn’t have a problem with such attackso n Clinton, no?
More importantly, you haven’t adressed my question vix police states.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:06 am
I’m of the opinion that the NYT was outrageously irresponsible for releasing the details of our SWIFT tactics and I’ll hold my contempt for that organization for years to come, potentially forever.
I’m not for prosecuting the NYT or any of the other papers that printed the story, but I am 100% for prosecuting the leakers. If that means we jail the editors & reporters until they give us their names, that’s fine.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:09 am
This sort of sordid ad populum has happened many times. They will keep doing it as long as we keep helping. That much is clear. The martyred protestor is a very old political role.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Here’s what the terrorists should absolutely, positively not be told, in the interest of defending freedom and keeping what our WOT strategies a secret: “A Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center (FTAT) is up and running. The FTAT is a multi-agency task force that will identify the network of terrorist funding and freeze assets before new acts of terrorism take place. The President, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of State and others are working with our allies around the world to tackle the financial underpinnings of terrorism.”
Don’t tell. Remember, loose lips sink ships. Oh wait. That’s a White House Press Release from September 24, 2001. So now we’ve got the White House and the Wall Street Journal implicated in disclosing that an international effort to track and block the financial assets of terrorists is “up and running”. Since that effort is widely known and they’ve undoubtedly been covering their fund-transfer tracks for years, let’s hit the bastards with, let’s see…how’s about a flag-burning amendment. I see American flags being burned every day by our enemies. Perhaps we could send special ops teams to monitor demonstrations throughout the Middle East, kidnap malefactors and bring them to Guantanamo for appropriate punishment. Better yet, Bush should just issue a secret executive order banning flag-burning, so the evildoers won’t see it coming. The whole program should be kept under wraps. Not even a press release. Fight the flag-burners over there so we don’t have to fight them here.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:24 am
Today, the press doesn’t even have to lie to have a negative impact on the community. Just by neglecting an issue it can allow a bad piece of legislation to be adopted by our elected officials. The illegal immigration issue is an excellent case in point on how the press has decided to play up the human interest story of illegal Mexican, while failing to pick apart the weaknesses and harm of the Senate bill. The press has neglected the human interest stories of Americans living in the margins, as well. These omissions are tantamount to a unbalanced bias for the Senate amnesty program. This isn’t a phenomenon isolated to California, as the entire country’s press corps has been negligent in this respect.
Is it any wonder that Americans are turning to alternative media in forsaking the newspapers? Is it any wonder that the government, a subset of the population as a whole has lost confidence in the 5th estate and has become hostile towards it? Unless journalists are provide a balanced view, they are subject to the contempt of the people who they allegedly serve.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:38 am
Contempt is fine. Advocacy of state repression is a different ballpark.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:47 am
Cummings,
I’ve got news for you, the government makes decisions every day without consenting to the advice of the of a board of self appointed judgemental journalists.
The difference between Cuba, other police states and the U.S. is that we appoint our civil servants on the basis of merit, and our government is run by officials elected by the people. We have internal checks and balances and oversight agencies that help assure that our actions fall within the letter of the law. I think that we can afford to give more latitude to the good judgement of our officials than the Cubans should have towards theirs. To say that the American press should become the self appointed committee with unchecked broad authority to expose the inner workings of government is foolish to say the least.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Cummings,
In reference to the judgement of editors: Do journalists just dredge up the stories and absolve themselves of responsibility of publishing by leaving yea or nay to their bosses? Is it sort of a Christ/lamb of God relationship where the editor becomes Christ and is crucified for his trouble?
June 28th, 2006 at 11:21 am
The American press is already the self – and consumer – appointed committee with unchecked authority to expose the inner workings of government, corporations, etc. This isn’t foolish, its fact. A journalist is not a civil servant. A journalist does not require oversight except by his/her paper’s staff. As well, editors should not be in any trouble either, nor should media owners. This is the way it is. I’m sorry you don’t like it, but I’m assuming that if people with which you disagree had the reins of power you’d feel different.
Discussion done…I can’t believe the authoritarianism of some Americans towards their dear leader.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:43 am
Should we trust our government or trust our press?. I claim that should take neither for granted, but Cummings would have you bow to the wisdom of the fith estate.
People of the forum, take your pick, tyranny of the press or tyranny by government fiat.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
I really want to know if the Wall Street Journal, which also published the story on Thursday, are also traitors.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Will “yes” satisfy you? Both editors should hang from the same gibbet. And save a place for Cummings who’s of a similar mind and same profession:)
Sic semper tyrannis.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
We’ll spare Cooper from the purge only because he’s mostly innocuous and sponors this blog.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
(Thanks for that George.)
From the top secret SWIFT website:
http://www.swift.com/index.cfm?item_id=6149
“SWIFT is solely a carrier of messages between financial institutions. The information in these messages is issued and controlled exclusively by the sending and receiving institutions. SWIFT does not hold assets nor manage accounts on behalf of customers. It does not clear or settle transactions.
Given its importance in the financial community, SWIFT takes its role in the global fight against money laundering and other illegal activities extremely seriously…SWIFT has a history of cooperating in good faith with authorities such as central banks, treasury departments, law enforcement agencies and appropriate international organisations, such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF*), in their efforts to combat abuse of the financial system for illegal activities.”
June 28th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Is that a pre- or post- exposure web page? Anyone reading this prior to the NYT/WSJ and having an understanding of the international banking system might infer that his transactions were subject to scrutiny, especially if he were a terrorist. It wouldn’t take an Sherlock Holmes of the press (not that any actually exist) to deduce that there could be a story here. Also, such public disclosure puts paid to the expectation of privacy by the customer. They’re saying, buyer beware, big brother may be watching.
No kudos to NYT/WSJ for brilliance. All they did was assure that no stone was left unturned in their assurance that terrorists would be informed of potential surveillance. Sounds like typical malicious and self serving journalism to me.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Is that a pre- or post- exposure web page? Anyone reading this prior to the NYT/WSJ and having an understanding of the international banking system might infer that his transactions were subject to scrutiny, especially if he were a terrorist. It wouldn’t take an Sherlock Holmes of the press (not that any actually exist) to deduce that there could be a story here. Also, such public disclosure puts paid to the expectation of privacy by the customer. They’re saying, buyer beware, big brother may be watching.
No kudos to NYT/WSJ for brilliance. All they did was assure that no stone was left unturned in their assurance that terrorists would be informed of potential surveillance. Sounds like typical malicious and self serving journalism to me.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Talk about false dichotomies. Does Bill Keller and/or say, Helen Thomas, make laws that affect you?
June 28th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
pre-disclosure
June 28th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
For the benefit of the forum please expand on your assertion.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Sic semper tyrannis
Quoting someone who assassinated a US president.
Why do you hate America?
June 28th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
If the Q was directed to me, my assertion is based on the fact that the cached version of the webpage is identical to the non-cached. That makes my assertion a reasonable deduction, not a fact.
June 28th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
George, you certainly have what Adorno called an authoritarian personality….
Theory of the Authoritarian Personality
Those persons who cling to fascist ideologies, according to the theory, distinguish themselves through their inappropriate, prejudice-laden view of social and political relationships. From this background in their personal history arose the assumption that the emergence of certain phenomena such as anti-Semitism and ethnocentrism stands in close connection with this particular personality structure. Because fascistic groupings get support essentially from the right-conservative camp (although that does not suggest that the right-conservative camp invariably lends these groupings such support) parts of the conservative outlook are likewise judged as an expression of this personality structure. As an instrument to measure this outlook, the AS-scale (for “anti-Semitism”) the E-scale (for “Ethnocentrism”) and the PEC-Scale (for “political-economic conservatism”) are used.
The instrument for assessing the underlying authoritarian personality structure was the so-called F-Scale (“implicit antidemocratic tendencies and fascist potential”). This scale is comprised of the following subscales:
* Conventionalism — the tendency to accept and obey social conventions and the rules of authority figures; adherence to the traditional and accepted
* Authoritarian Submission — submission to authorities and authority figures
* Authoritarian Aggression — an aggressive attitude towards individuals or groups disliked by authorities; particularly those who threaten traditional values
* Anti-Intraception — rejection of the subjective, imaginative and aesthetic
* Substitution and Stereotypy — superstition, cliché, categorization and fatalistic determinism
* Power and Toughness — identification with those in power, excessive emphasis on socially advocated ego qualities
* Destructiveness and Cynicism — general hostility, putting others down
* Projectivity — the tendency to believe in the existence of evil in the world and to project unconscious emotional impulses outward
* Sex — exaggerated concerns with respect to sexual activity
The authors of the study expected a positive correlation between results on the F-scale and being marked by conservatism, ethnocentrism and anti-Semitism.
Robert Altemeyer found that three facets of this authoritarian personality were important: conventionalism, authoritarian aggression and authoritarian submission. He has refined the concept of the authoritarian personality into the Right-wing Authoritarian scale, though his conceptualization is in some ways more primitive than that of the Adorno group. The Adorno group did, for instance, try to keep the concepts of authoritarianism and conservatism separate (using different measuring instuments for the two) whereas Altemeyer confounds them inextricably.
[edit]
Psychoanalytic aspect
Adorno and his colleagues regarded the fundamental basis of this presumed system of personality qualities and its linkage to certain attitudes according to a psychoanalytic viewpoint: experiences in early childhood and their internalization.
Freud’s psychoanalytic theory suggests that values and norms that are first represented in the person of the father are internalized in the course of the child’s development. From these the first unconscious stage of the so-called superego develop. The grappling with an authoritarian, very strict father leads to the development of a very strong superego. Thereby, from the earliest childhood onward, unconscious desires and drives (e.g., power and sexual license) must be thrust down and remain unsatisfied.
The unconscious conflicts that are unleashed thereby are solved when the person projects the “forbidden” drives and aggressions of his superego onto other people. As a rule, ethnic, political or religious minorities are selected as a screen for these projections, because this way there are no social sanctions to fear. Often, he can fall back on socially acceptable prejudices. Studies by Hans Eysenck, Milton Rokeach and many others go into this question.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
It’s just like journalists like jcummings to claim that they’ve got someone or something all figured out on the basis of superficial encounters. A few more sentences from me and he would probably attempt to write my biography. I wonder if the articles he writes are done with as much presumptiveness.
Let me do an analysis on cummings. He was originally from New England, is young and unjaded, having never experienced real hard ship. He is related to ee cummings, has dreams of the fame but knows that he could never achieve distinction even close to that of the poet. I could continue with guesses ad infinitum, but my accuracy would be no better than cummings analysis.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
No reg, I was referring to cummings.
June 28th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
That passage was cut and pasted from wikipedia – I didn’t write it. Rather, its a theoretical model for the psychology of people like you.
But as per your own:
I’m not related to ee (my great grandfather came from Russia, his name was Kamiensky and changted it,) I have experienced hardship, I’m from Canada – even more “liberal” than New England. I aspire to far more important things than fame. But I think that your response reveals more about you than about me.
And in terms of my assertion, I think you’re talking about my statement that government tyranny and media tyranny are a false dichotomy….the media is not the state(something I thought conservatives were skeptical about)…the media does not have police, armies and vast resources. To think that even your most anger-inducing media liberal has the power over American lives as does even a low-level justice department employee is ludicrous.
I think the root of your maladyt is that you truly believe that America’s “efforts” are harmed by these disclosures. That is a ludicrous starting point, and even if it were the case, this is what democracy is about – better to let a guilty man go free than to imprison the innocent. Perhaps you, like O’Reilly, prefer Saddam’s methods.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Oh MY God, a foreigner, and a Canadian to boot! No wonder you have no compunctions about being critical of the U.S. I’ve encountered people like you before in blogs. There seems to be no limit to the self righteousness of Canadians when it comes to their moral superiority over the United States. With nothing to talk about except the moose population they turn their attention to their big brother to the south. Canada, the chink in America’s defense against terrorism, by way of its liberal immigration policy. By the way, do you have your passport yet?
June 28th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Perhaps only the latter debate is still operative, but I have something to the OP before I comment on George and J.
Marc, when two parties are in conflict how does one determine which of the two is driving the conflict, or if both are? At an extreme, any bigot could say “Why is it we don’t have any trouble with the white boys, but only with you niggers?” Wouldn’t such a statement suggest that perhaps the speaker has something to do with driving the conflict?
Secondly, your quick conclusion is that Bush is complaining because of his poll numbers. If it could be shown that Bush’s accusation is untrue or exaggerated, that might well be a reason to examine why. But it is not evidence at all that the accusation is false. It’s called the motive fallacy. You can’t diagnose an illness until you have identified symptoms. Simply saying “I’ll bet he’s sick because he stays out late” is worse than useless, because it sends the debate off on rabbit trails.
At a standoff of who is driving the conflict between Bush and the NYT, only objective evidence can hope to resolve the dilemna. I would offer the following as objective evidence that it is the NYT which has been unfair in its attacks: The NYT does not criticise only Bush, but any conservative. Its criticism of liberals is much milder. That is not mere opinion or subjective observation on my part, but demonstrated by a variety of methods, including studies by respected social scientists.
Note: Conservatives often complain that the MSM is a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. I would not go so far. On a scale of conservative to liberal 0-100, Republicans runs consistently in the 20-45 range, Democrats in the 65-90 range by various measures. MSM outlets come in at about 60: not as liberal as the Democratic Party, but not in the center either.
Secondly, there are other parts of the media, not just talk radio, that Bush has a good relationship with. That evidence would suggest that it is the NYT that has “issues,” as we say nowadays. (They could still be right and Bush wrong on any individual issue, of course. But the weight of supposition is against them).
I don’t see how you can conclude that it is Bush’s complaining which is driving the conflict unless you assume that to begin with. What seems intuitively right to you is an unreliable metric.
jcummings makes the assertion that the press has the “unchecked authority” to expose the inner workings of the government. I am sure that is a common belief among those who believe that the newspapers are much more trustworthy than the government, but it doesn’t stand up well under scrutiny. The press does not have any authority. The people have freedom. Those are philosophically quite different. The press does not have freedom, the people have freedom. The difference may seem small, j, but if you follow it out you will see that the former leads to tyranny, the latter to freedom. It’s an important distinction.
Try these examples: Does a cub reporter from the Poughkiepsie Picayune have the right to walk into the CIA and attend any meeting he wishes? Do Heather and Jennifer from the school paper have the right to sit in on talks at Camp David?
Assuming your answer is no, then I would ask by what criteria do we then decide who has access to what information? If you try to draw that carefully, you will see that there is indeed some information that the NYT (or Rush Limbaugh, or Mother Jones) must not be allowed access to because of security. Some things are simply not their call. Those decisions are made by those charged with our protection.
It is so easy to imagine abuse by the government of the power to control information that you have neglected to imagine that abuse in the other direction is far, far, worse.
I’m going to guess that which abuse you are most afraid of stems more from your politics than from your construction of any thought-out ethical system.
June 28th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Jcummings:
And the American people should always trust to the better judgement of the press over the government establishment that the people had a hand in designing and spend billions of dollars to support. You people of the press seem to view the government more in a an role adverserial to the people than one established for the people and by the people. I don’t pay my taxes for what the press seems to think is an incredibly crafted puzzle made just for them to solve. I expect good outcomes for my tax dollar and I don’t need the press to scream, eureka! look at me, look at me, see what I’ve discovered, especially when national security is involved.
I don’t follow your meaning to the statement “I think the root of your maladyt is that you truly believe that America’s “efforts†are harmed by these disclosures. That is a ludicrous starting point, and even if it were the case, this is what democracy is about – better to let a guilty man go free than to imprison the innocent. Perhaps you, like O’Reilly, prefer Saddam’s methods.” Do you mean that it is better to expose all secret projects at the expense of exposing legitimate ones? I doubt that Americans feel that way. Please explain.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
AVI… well said.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:16 am
“Do you mean that it is better to expose all secret projects at the expense of exposing legitimate ones?”
George! Williams! I am this is very true. Dems hate responsibility – that’s why they’re all baby-aborting sluts. I love Responsb’ty, which is why I oppose the revealing of secrets, especially if those secrets harm our Dear Leader, who is all standing between us and Islamofaggery.
My question is: considering that the SWIFT program has a website, and a magazine, and was mentioned by the President multiple times, does this mean that we have to arrest the President for treason too? But…he’s our Dear Leader, infallible, like the Pope* (but without the ermine!)…
*They both used to wear similar uniforms – airforce reserve! And, coincidently, neither of them wore their uniform in actual combat, but instead used it to get out of other, less pleasant duties. I guess the Dear Leader really is like the Pope!
June 29th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
This nonsense and the flag burning ammendment, gay marriage Etc. are all signs of the real fear in GOP circles that this november will be a political bloodbath so lets gin up the base in an attempt to save them. All those who thought the evil genius Karl Rove would carry the say by pinning the Dems as cut and runners got the sad news that the generic dem vs Rep question showed an even wider Dem advantage after. Desperate times!
Does anyone here not know that the government was going after terrorist financing? As Larry Johnson, the former CIA counterterrorism chief said the other day on Keith Olbermann the NYT story is the equivalent of saying the Sun rises in the East each day!
June 29th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Did someone just say that press freedom leads to tyranny? Oh, Jennifer can go to camp david, but Heather’s not allowed- she’s a lesbian.
June 29th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
lThe idea that the New York Times is a left or liberal newspaper is, I think, funny. Actually, hilarious. This is the newspaper which had a reporter, Judith Miller, who was nicknamed Ms. Runs Amuck for taking Bush administration untruths and writing them & publishing them in the New York Times. Then the world found out Ms. Runs Amuck’s articles has less than xero with truth, so she was fired. Now the New York Times is fact checking articles more. That’s what a newspaper is supposed to do.
Marc, you’re right. The Bush administration’s poll numbers are bad, so they have to blame someone, so they blame the NYT. God forbid the Bush adminsitration ever looked at its own actions which have lost lost lost.
June 30th, 2006 at 9:03 am
I like the way Dean Baquet disses JFK in his editorial, as part of a casually tossed-off aside. The liberal Arthur Schlesinger-style press that was slavishly devoted to the chief executive is a thing of the past!
June 30th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Jcummings,
Any institution can become tyrannical. Beleve it or not, a powerful press in the hands of corrupt owners can be so. Don’t bother trying to defend the press as saints who can do no wrong or are never subject to corrupt practices, as history bears witness to how harmful the press can be.
Aside from their treacherous irresponsibility of exposing our anti-terrorism efforts, the NYT has published editorials advocating amnesty for identity forgers and fraudulent workers, otherwise know as illegal alliens. How ironic that they criticize the government for what they deem to be freedom destroying illicit activities by the government, but support blatantly injurious amnesty programs that are far more detrimental to the welfare of the average citizen.
Got your passport yet?
June 30th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
George…
Just to stoop down tto your level for a second, comrade. As a leftist, I’m a strong critic of the press much of the time. In fact, I have at least as much contempt for the NY Times, in regards to Judith Miller’s WMD frauds. Suffice to say, as well, we have differing views on undocumented immigrants. I also wonder what you mean by corrupt practices and harmful, in regards to the press. If you are talking about Rupert Murdoch, the continuing bias in business reporting towards capital, the lack of labor reporting, the homogeneity, the elevation of some victims and the ignoring of others, then we agree. I don’t believe you are talking about this, rather I assume you are referring to recent history, the Pentagon Papers.
This is all well and good, your opinions are to the right of even the politicans you vote for, who pander to your prejudices which will never come to fruition. No one is gonna prosecute the NY Times. The right, and the Bush people are trying to intimidate them, which won’t work (remember, even people who may have a problem with the press revealing certain facts nevertheless don’t believe in prosecuting the media.)
Tell me something, what is America “fighting for?” in Iraq. I’m opposed to the Iraq war, but aren’t they, in the minds of people like yo, fighting for democracy, which includes press freedom? The concept of prosecuting media and journalists is foreign to the American ethos. I’m often called Anti-American…I’m not – its people like you who are Anti-American.
Do you have a passport? Have you ever left the contry?
June 30th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
Oh – I thought I included this – I have a passport. I walk among Americans often, undetected.
July 1st, 2006 at 6:12 am
Cummings,
I have a passport. I spent 5 years living in Germany, have traveled all over the continent, spent over a year in Korea and have recently paid visits to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the Sultinate of Oman, New Zealand, Lithuania, the United Kingdom and Taiwan. I served my country in Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield/Desert Storm and more recently in Kuwait during Operation Iraqi Freedom. You think you know me kid, but you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I resent foreigners like yourself who make it their mission to be critical of U.S. policy. It’s easy for you to sit back as a Canadian citizen and dictate how the U.S. citizen should view the adoption on millions of Mexican poor when your country’s interests are not at stake. You don’t have a dog in the hunt, so I suggest that you shut up and keep your opinion concerning this issue to yourself.
July 1st, 2006 at 6:49 am
I knew you were ex-military.
Your arrogance seems a suitable case for treatment. In all reality, anyone can criticize anything…and as a Canadian, America’s biggest trading partner and someone whose country – to quote former PM Trudeau “When America sneezes, Canada catches a goal” “Its like sleeping with an elephant” – in other words, a country that has lots of influence here – I do have a “Dog in the hunt” and I won’t shut up, pal.
Too bad you can’t be a “Sultin,” eh? Get some treatment.
July 1st, 2006 at 7:54 am
Canada has been of the mind that it is so innocuous to the hostile elements in the world that it can remain invisible to their attention. Recent events involving home grown Islamic radicalism (proabably imported from abroad) have shown that Canada’s complacency and irresponsible immigration policies pose a danger to themselves and the United States. The terrorist caught crossing to the U.S. with explosives from Canada at few years ago is a telling example of how Canada’s policies directly threaten the U.S. and why jcummings now has to carry a Canadian passport.
Canada shirks its defense responsibilities within the North American community of nations. Its defense forces are so small that they are insufficient to protect its territorial limits. If it weren’t for U.S. assistance, Canada’s sovereignty would be in danger. The readers of this forum can verify these statements by doing a little research through the internet. There are some Canadians who find this state to be unacceptable, but their opinions are muted in favor of the generally pacifist public that is content on letting the U.S. citizen taxpayer keep them free.
For people who are so dependent upon the United States for their defense Canadians seem to have no limits to their ability to criticize U.S. military policies and foreign affairs.
Haven’t heard the saying “When America sneezes, Canada catches a goal†before. Must be the hockey fan’s version of “When America sneezes, Canada catches a coldâ€.
July 1st, 2006 at 8:16 am
How about Canada voluntarily accepting our 10 -20 million poverty stricken illegal aliens from Mexico. We’d gladly assist with their transportation north. If these people kept moving northwards to the Canadian border, would Canada welcome them with open arms?
In my study of Canada I’ve noted an interesting thing Canadian immigration/emigration statistics. No one who migrates to that country seems to want to stay. There is actually a net emigration from Canada in that the rate of foreigners moving to Canada is lower than the rate of their movement from Canada to the U.S. Why is that? How about you, cummings, can’t you find satisfaction with remaining in Canada?
July 1st, 2006 at 8:34 am
I now have to carry a passport because I travel the world, not just the US. Most border stations have required passports for quite some time.
Otherwise you really have your head up your ass. I am always tempted to end this, but you keep talking nonsense…yes I meant “cold” not goal. And more importantly, tyour facts are terribly wrong in regards to immigration. Canada trades more with China than the US.
Also, the US was forced to apologize after some politicians allegte that Canada is a “breeding ground” for terrorists. This is not the case, and even our right wing pro-Bush government complained about such discredited allegations.
Cite a source for your emigration/immigration nonsense. Your “study of Canada” – name our last three Prime Minitsters. Name our provinces and their capitals. Canadians know far more about America than vice versa. In terms of defense, Canda has become a target because of our affiliation with the Sttates. During the Cold War we were more neutral. Many Canadians want to return to that neutrality.
Otherwise, just fuck off. I have better things to do than this.
July 1st, 2006 at 9:08 am
No response to my assertions concerning your country’s defense posture. I can chock that one up to a win.
The info on immigration/emigration was taken from your government site.
My study of your country relates more to its defense posture and immigration, although I do know that you had a Cretin as prime minister.
Neutrality during cold war? Such a stupid policy, especially when the U.S. sneezes and Canada catches cold. Might have turned to flu or the bubonic plague if the U.S. had actually come to blows with the Soviets. Your neutrality was probably more of a way to avoid defense expenditures than an expression of high mindedness. Neutrality expressed in the face of an evil aggressor is cowardly. Canada has lost of intestinal fortitude since WWII.
If Canadians understood Islamic fundamentalism better, then they realize that it is doggedly in pursuit of worldwide tyrrany. Islamic fundamentalism knows no bounds. No one is really safe. Would anyone today assert that those who remained neutral during the last world war would have remained sovereign states if Hitler had won over England. Sweden and the Republic of Ireland would certainly have become vassals of Germany. Even Switzerland would eventually have capitulated to German aggression, being subject to strangulation from without. Neutrality only postpones inevitable defeat of principled nations.
July 1st, 2006 at 9:15 am
Regarding your statement concerning trade, I never mentioned trade.
July 1st, 2006 at 9:27 am
Neutrality is how Canadian people feel. Otherwise you just spout bullshit, following from a very paranoid and false pretense.
Take your meds.
July 1st, 2006 at 9:45 am
Timidity and cowardness describes these feelings. Neutrality is just the outcome. A person is only considered paranoid if he is subject to unreaonable fear. The fear of fundamentalist Islam has a basis in fact, and is thus reasonable. False pretense? Even in the face of internal insurrection by Canadian Islamic fundamentalists Canadians feel that they need not be concerned?
July 1st, 2006 at 9:54 am
And you never responded to my question concerning 10 -20 million Mexican poor and the willingness of Canada to accept them. Imagine the poor Canadian citizen being burdened with the enormous tax increase to support the underpaid millions of poor who would be entitled to free health care.
July 1st, 2006 at 10:59 am
To quote the great English philosopher, Edmund Burke,
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’.
Neutral countries are in a poor position to triumph over evil.
July 1st, 2006 at 2:56 pm
they’re also in a poor position to create mischief.
July 1st, 2006 at 4:29 pm
George Williams: “Any institution can become tyrannical”
This is true but misleading. It’s even possible for any individual to act “tyrannical” in the colloquial sense of that word (as in extremely harshly or very controlling) but that does not constitute a “tyranny” in the political sense of that word (i.e., “a government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power”). The press can never constitute a tyranny in the political sense of that word unless it is all owned by a single individual and exerts absolute control over a community. This makes your dichotomy “tyranny of the press or tyranny by government fiat” strange as it seems to treat two different senses of a word as if they were synonymous. It’s rather like me offering up a false choice of “punch from Kool-Aid or punch from Mike Tyson.”
George Williams: “You don’t have a dog in the hunt, so I suggest that you shut up and keep your opinion concerning this issue to yourself.”
Let’s say that I’m at Starbucks and the stranger seated at the next table is having problems getting an application on his computer to access the internet. If I counsel him to change the settings on his firewall so that the relevant executable is given permission to access the internet is my advice bad because I’m not an interested party? Is the fact that I’m a stranger even relevant at all?
“No response to my assertions concerning your country’s defense posture. I can chock that one up to a win.”
You’re committing what is known as the appeal to ignorance fallacy. Let’s say I make up a story about my house being haunted by the ghost of Richard Nixon. If the person I tell it to refuses to visit my house to debunk my claims does that mean I was actually telling the truth? Would it be wrong to expect me to back up the claims I made? And could his laziness somehow constitute proof for my claims? To put it another way, truth is not a game and you can’t “win” just because the “other team” doesn’t show up to play.
July 1st, 2006 at 5:56 pm
DC Sniper,
The press historically has on occasion acted in a tyrranical manner, especially in those communities where there has been little competition and the prime issues are local politics. There are many cities in the U.S. where there is only one dominant newspaper. Such newspapers have been known to mold public opinion to their point of view to the exclusion of others.
Countrywide the newspapers is dying as a media type. Some are very vulnerable to pressure from special interest groups who have formed their own ideas of political correctness. For example, Los Angeles newspapers are subject to sanction bv the Hispanic community if they fail to tow the line on the issue of illegal immigration. Hispanic advertisers tend to retaliate against those papers that issue opinon contrary to their views. Moreover, the demographic future of LA lies in the exponential growth of the Hispanic community and the editors know it. Why do you think that they focus more on the emotional side of illegal immigrants rather than attack the plainly evident economic and social damages that U.S. citizens are experiencing today and moreso in the future. This is where tyrrany of the press comes in. The press has become the tool of the aggressive special interest immigrant groups by its advocacy. No other opion is allowed because only theirs is viewed as the one with legitimacy. There doesn’t actually have to be a conspiracy among newspapers but their apparent solidarity is synergistic.
July 1st, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Regarding question that I put to cummings concerning Canada’s defense posture:
DC Sniper,
jcummings has been very responsive to my arguments. I can only believe that he lacks a valid counterpoint when he fails to respond.
July 1st, 2006 at 7:06 pm
George, comrade…I could do a sociology thesis on just your statements. Your tyrades reveal a unique and tragic core of the ex-military, authoritarian personality, perhaps with some latent secrets.
I reject the premise of your argument…and I really would like to call it a draw, since neither one of is is gonna convince the other party a thing. I responded to your “defense” statement. Canada doesn’t owe you shit, and with the Left about to win in Mexico…well….America will be isolated even more.
Oh, and you sound like Mr. Garrison from South Park with your hispanophobic conspiracism.
A Salaam Aleikum, brother George.
July 1st, 2006 at 7:10 pm
I hope the reconquista happens soon. Its their country anyway.
July 2nd, 2006 at 6:13 am
Cummings,
How about this for a plan. The U.S., in a plot to adopt Canada as its 51st state forces its citizens to emigrate to Canada over a period of 10-years. We’ll throw the indigenous politicians out of office and rid the country of national health care and give Canada a badly needed national guard and navy. Eventually, the original citizens would have no say at all in forming their destiny. No more signs in French, that’s for sure.
July 2nd, 2006 at 6:39 am
Talk about non sequitors.
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:06 am
You are thick. Why is it a non sequitor? The issue is hypocrisy, your right to criticize U.S. immigration policy as a foreigner. Your willingness to advocate amnesty as a policy, except when your country of origin could be subject to it. You know as well as I do, that the socioeconomic changes resulting from adopting millions of spanish speaking Mexican poor would put Canadians in revolt. Ge off your high horse and admit it.
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:14 am
Cummings,
The depth of your responses reminds me of level of those obtained from the magic Eight Ball that I used to own. Are you using one?
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:27 am
Mexicans would welcome here. We have high levels of immigration. My hometown is the most immigration friendly in the world and recognized by the UN as the most multicultural city in the world.
I have the right, as do yotu, to criticize anything.
I reject your premise in regards to undocumented immigrants – and the numbers are’t proven. That being said, you are blaming the wrong parties for any wage depressing role played by immigration. This is capitalism, which without egulation produces a race to the bottom, in turn creating prejudice between different sectors of the working class. I understand why “American” workers have a problem with immigrantts, but the reason they’re losing out is far more complex. Capital can flow freely across borders in the current epoch, yet tlabor doesn’t have the same mobility. Matching capital and labor mobility will equalize wages, and having a strong redistributive miechanism in governmentt will alleviate the difficulties. Blaming immigrants for genuine eonomic problems is like blaming
Do you have an eightball that uses phrases like “non sequitor” and “capitalism?”
Finally, if you really feel you are disenfranchised as a white worker, look at much fo the broadcast media, particularly Fox, and the fact that most of the Republican party agrees with you. The disenfranchised are Mexican laborers, certainly not ex-military, probably gainfully employed people like yourself.
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:29 am
Oh – and “no more signs in French” – French is an official language here, and Canada is as much a product of French as English heritage. In fact, the French influencei s what brings in the mostly anti-clerical progressivism that typifies Canadian urban areas.
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:38 am
In the post above the previous post, Imeantt blaming immigrants for genuine economic problems is like blaming a symptom for a cause.
July 2nd, 2006 at 2:16 pm
You’re a liar if you’re claiming that Canada would be so accepting, but you can have all 10 to 20 million of our unskilled illegal immigrants. When they start work in Canada at $5.00 an hour, we’ll see how much remains to tax for support of the Canadian government infrastructure (including national health care). With the need to pay rent, buy food and other necessities of life, not to mention remittances, illegal aliens have almost no disposable income, so don’t expect your retailers to jump for joy. Although I’m not familiar with the Canadian tax system, I’d guess that none of these people would have to pay taxes, as their yearly incomes would be below the national poverty level limit. The only beneficiary of your new immigrants would be their employers, as the poor can’t afford to pay their own way.
Feel free to expand your bilingual education staff and build more schools to accommodate these valuable contributers to the new Canada. Feel free to change all of your signs, and government forms to include Spanish. Feel free to increase your tax rate on the middle class to support all this.
Sorry Quebec, you might lose your coveted gaulish cultural dominance in Montreal. No more oui, just a lot of si. The Mexican birthrate will assure that your culture will be subordinate. No problem, as the Quebecois are So well known for their tolerance of other cultures.
Illegal immigrant Mexicans made a conscious decision to violate the law by coming to the United States instead of revolting against the poor management of their government. They are not children and are thus responsible for their actions. Any economic problems regarding Mexican nationals is the problem of the Mexican government, and not the responsibility of the U.S. The U.S. has no obligation to solve Mexico’s problems for them. Maybe Canada should undertake this task. The U.S. has the sovereign right to evict Mexicans from its territory, if it so choses. Eventually most Americans will be of this opinion and elect to disemploy them through severe sanctions on their employers, despite the fool that calls him president of the U.S.
July 2nd, 2006 at 2:22 pm
P.S.
I’ll gladly vote for our government to contract for a bus service to take these people to the Peace Bridge instead of the Mexican border.
July 2nd, 2006 at 2:49 pm
First false premise: “Take all of our immigrants…” Not even the most anti-immigrant politician has talked about mass deportation. What I am saying is that the Canadian cultural attitude about immigration is more liberal – and many from the Third World, particularly Muslims (oh how that must scare you- they come here because of your country’s racism) prefer immigrating to Canada then to the states. For your bus service to the peace bridge, I’m sure the Canadian people would be glad to bear some of the Mexican immigrant burden…in fact its a good idea.
Otherwise, good turn of phrase on Montreal “Oui” and “Si”- thats pretty funny. I understand the point you are making…but its a different ballpark. I stand by my statement that you are looking at a symptom, nto a cause of globalized capitalism. I completely understand where you are coming from, btu there’s nothing you can do about it unless the economic system is changed in Mexico and the States. In fact with a Leftist like Obrador winning today, as is probable, there will be more opportunity for Working Class Mexicans, who will thus immigrate less.
Yes, the US has the sovereign right to evict Mexicans. Just as some states can throw you in jail for oral or anal sex. Both are very unlikely to be enforced, no matter how loud you scream. So deal with reality, not some borderline racist utopia…
Unless you actually respond to my broader point about capitalism, I’m not gonna go on from here (but you’ll probably provoke me so I will)
Wasn’t this about how you don’t believe in a free press? On that note, would you feel the same if the press exposed a government “secret” about “amnesty”?
July 2nd, 2006 at 3:33 pm
My only real problems lie with their questionable abilities to make good decisions as to when the public need to know trumps the governments mandate to fight terrorism, and when they fail to do their job by adopting one point of view to expense of the public good (ie., mmigration and the Senate bill).
The comparison of the government’s ability to evict unwelcome intruders can hardly be equated to its ability to enforcing what amounts to scofflaws governing behavior in the bedroom. Judging from what I’ve read, if the government were to enforce the laws against employing illegal immigrants, employers would panic in a move to separate illegal immigrants from their jobs. These people would either head back to Mexico or straight for the Canadian border, where I presume they would be welcomed with open arms. The repatriation of Mexicans to Mexico or emigration to their new home in Canada is as simple as that. Not only would it solve the problem of their illegal presence in the U.S., it would dissuade those in Mexico from coming.
July 2nd, 2006 at 3:51 pm
As to the wisdom of your country’s immigration policies, it’s widely known that they are irresponsible. Check these out. A border fence with Canada would be wise, but we ought to make Canada pay for and guard it.
Sikh radical deported : Probably should’ve been screened out in the first place: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/07/02/sikh-deport.html
Costa Rican deported: Even Canada can be pragmatic.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/07/01/family-deportation.html
Muslim Cleric denied entry: Probably the one thing Canada has done right the first time. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/07/02/ul-haq.html
Canada’s Immigration Minister sell citizenship to pizza parlor owner for political support:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/14/sgro-resigning050114.html
Canada’s liberal immigration policies leave it (and the U.S.) wide open to entry of terrorist elements:
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2229
July 2nd, 2006 at 4:13 pm
After checking out
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2229, readers might question whether Canada still qualifies to be called a friend of the U.S.
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:06 pm
A fundamentalist Christian website. Real hardcore stuff.
To wit:
“God foretold in Leviticus 26:16-17 about the terrorism problem the English-speaking nations (birthright descendants of ancient Israel) would face in this end time. Verse 17 says that terrorism will become so widespread that the people of nations such as Canada and America will flee even when no one pursues them, and those that hate them will rule over them.”
Yup. Real solid analysis.
July 2nd, 2006 at 9:19 pm
“Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits…or publishes …any classified information…concerning the communications intelligence activities of the United States…shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.â€
There you go. Scooter should go down in flames. Or is that Plames? Woody is such an idiotic shill any reasoned response is unecessary. If he’s for it anything goes. If not nothing does. Now that’s ideology: true belief sans reality. Hey, just like the current administration.
July 3rd, 2006 at 5:20 am
Cummings,
Express your religious bigotry if you wish, it’s your right of free speech, but you are avoiding countering their assertions. I’ll bet you’d dispute the Christian Science Monitor because of it ties to Mary Baker Edy’s church. I’ve heard the same thing before in non-sectarian publications.
July 3rd, 2006 at 6:10 am
If Canada enjoys a special relationship with the U.S. at this time, if a terrorist should cross our mutual borders and actually succeed in doing us severe harm, I can guarrantee relations would deteriorate very quickly. Canadians might eventually require visas to enter the U.S. You’ll have to play by our rules or not at all.
July 3rd, 2006 at 7:35 am
Its not bigotry. Its just not solid real-world analysis to take a passage from a fundie website. The site itself is bigoted. The “Trumpet” as is shown from my quote is a “Christian Nationalist” World Church of the Creator White Supremaicst website. My proof? The old theory, Anti-Semtiic and Racist, that White Anglo Saxons of Canada, US, etc. are the REAL descendents of the “people Israel.” Now I don’t think we Jews are necc. the “chosen people” but I know Anti-Semitism when I see it.
July 3rd, 2006 at 7:38 am
Even from a Christian point of view, that site is wacked out. Nothing in Leviticus – yes I have a bible – even comes close to implying what Mr. Trumpet says. Really, this is like talking to a holocaust denier. George Williams is so sure of himslef, and so scared of other people that its pointless unless sociologically motivated. I mean, he’s not into mainstream fundies like Pat Robertson, hes into the hardcore stuff.
July 3rd, 2006 at 7:51 am
You may be dismissive of that publication, but the facts are correct when it comes to the Canada’s stupid immigration procedures. The facts are that suspect terrorists are allowed to stay in Canada for years pending their appeals to the authorities. We’ll see what much you Canadians value most, your liberal policies or your desire to cross our borders at will without applying for visas. Canada has a lot more to lose than the U.S. if the border procedures are tightened. Continuing to be weak in your commitment to anti-terrorism can only bring your country grief.
July 3rd, 2006 at 8:42 am
lol
July 3rd, 2006 at 8:47 am
US stands to lose more….you have a heavy trade deficit to us. Our economy, with our great trade relations with China, India and Europe could theoretticaly survive without yours. Vice versa is not the case. Even when mainstream politicians want to change Canadian border policies. Officials from states bordering on Canada complain. It won’t happen. And I’m proud that Canada find individuals innocent unitl proven guilty.
July 3rd, 2006 at 9:34 am
Letting new immigrants into the country without concern for their backgrounds is sheer folly, no, make that stupidity. Your country’s policy is to let everyone in while awaiting background checks, even from states that sponsor terrorism. And your immigration people are years behind in checking out your new guests. Meanwhile, the subversive numbers among these ne immigrants are plotting to destroy their benefactor. Take pride in that.
I can guarantee that Canada will regret its naively wonderful policies. And regardless of any imbalance of trade concerns, public rage of U.S citizenswill force closure of the Canadian border, should one of your immigrants be responsible for a terrorist act.
Your country’s ostrich-like approach to an obvious worldwide terrorist threat is very disturbing.
July 3rd, 2006 at 9:39 am
You live in fantasyland. You sound like you WANT a terrorist attack to take place, to confirm your fears.
July 3rd, 2006 at 10:35 am
It’s you and the rest of your Canadian buddies that fail to take precautions in the face of an obvious threat. I’m just predicting the inevitable outcome of Canada’s policies which you continue to defend.
I remind you of the recent homegrown threat that Canada discovered before the damage could be done. The people in question were no doubt influenced by those from abroad, namely new immigrants from nations with radical Islamic beliefs. If you think that Canada has found all of the native and foreign born subversives, think again.
Canadians seem to be slow learners when it comes to realizing that the safety of their people is in question.
July 12th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
50 Bars Ringtone…
Download the ringtone of the popular song: 50 Bars …
July 20th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Geben mir bitte eine poker Brotchennxq
August 1st, 2006 at 11:54 am
Betting Bettingbaseball handicapping baseball handicappingbaseball picks baseball picks
August 6th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
gas motor scooter gas motor scooter
March 24th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Finally!! I found a cool site with great information. Thanks Guys, I’ve already signed up for your feed….Thanks