Friday, June 23, 2006

I wonder what Scott Johnson means... 
with his closing statement in this entry?

It is unfortunately past time for the Bush administration to enforce the laws of the United States against the New York Times. The Times and its likeminded media colleagues will undoubtedly continue to undermine and betray the national security of the United States until they are taught that they are subject to the same laws that govern the conduct of ordinary citizens, or until an enraged citizenry decides, like Bill Keller, to take the law into its own hands and express its disagreement some other way.

I agree with Johnson that the Administration should stick up for the country and its efforts in the clandestine war on terror - the decisive front in the war on terror - by prosecuting those who violate the law by recklessly publishing classified information.

But an 'enraged citizenry?'

That's a dangerous idea to put out there.

Splash, out


You must not get out much. That "enraged" part is all over the web and even in local newspapers.

The NYTs, White House, Senators, House Reps email inboxs are past full, on the way to shutting down.

This is actually past the last straw for thousands, maybe millions of Americans that have suffered the media and are past fed up all the way to enraged.

People should start going to jail, for this crap, if they don't there are going to be those in government, that won't be in government much longer.

Papa Ray
West Texas
Well, the enraged citizenry can:

Refuse to pay for "Times Select", well, enraged or not, most have refused.

Cancel their subscription, again, enraged or nor, many have.

Cancel advertising, again,enraged or not, since income for the Times conglomerate is down, will assume advertising is as well.

Or, this just popped into my otherwise empty head, a class action lawsuit for bringing the "class", residents/citizens of the USA, whether currently residing here or not, under greater threat of loss of life and/or property jeopardy for the Times' financial gain.

I know, stupid, but we all know the AG will never file criminal charges agains the Time's reporters and editors. Enraged citizens will rant on the web, as bloggers or commenters, write letters to the editors of, mostly, Times supporting local papers, or, most likely, just succumb to the futility of it all.
Read all this, Thank you, Bill Keller

Here is a snip:

"What the NY Times has essentially done is open up to the terrorists the trails of all their transactions and how the banking procedures of money laundering was done for them by the system. They have essentially stopped dead the ability to track this money and keep it from being put in the hands of our worst enemies. Whether the terrorists might have guessed that their money was being transferred is a moot point. The NY Times had told them that their worst fears have been realized and that they need to find another way to move money around the world. They know it for sure now. Thank you, Bill Keller, and when the nice young man or woman from down the street is killed by one of these terrorists I can thank you for that as well."

I think that's enough to be enraged about, without all the rest.

Papa Ray
I read Powerline regularly, and I basically have the same question that Jason does concerning what I think is an implied appeal for violence. As in "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" (go look it up).

And I think Jason is right to ask the question "Do we want to go there?"

Do you? Its easy to type stuff online. Its something else to pick up a weapon.
But an 'enraged citizenry?'

You know, the kind the goes out and hires an ambulance chase...errr...lawyer, and, oh, I dunno, maybe if something bad happens that the NYTimes or other MSM have helped along, and they get sued for wrongful death...

And if there are more than, say, a dozen or so, it can be elevated into a class-action. Get that notion into the bean counters heads at the NYT, and you will see fear and loathing like you haven't since al Zarqawi ate a couple of 500 lbers...
Jason, you left out two other options for an enraged citizenry: boycott those who do buy advertising space in the NYT (and WAPO and LAT, etc); and flood any phone number printed in such ads with calls of complaint demanding they stop supporting NYTwit tripe.
Violence against the NYT would be wrong.

... but how about peacefully delivering a dozen live skunks to Keller's office?

Let them know how much we think the NYT stink!
Well folks, I think you are all burying your head in the sand. If there is an attack by terrorists using WMD in this country in the future, I think you can pretty much guarantee that those who aided and abetted the attack including politicians, Muslims in general, and especially liberal media WILL receive violent retribution. You are foolish to believe that up to 2 million dead Americans would not justify this to the other 298 million.

The Hell this ain't the most important foxhole in the world, I'm in it, will be the sentiment of the day.

If you think the loss of 2 million lives isn't going to lead to violent retribution against the Times and their ilk, then you have insufficient appreciation for the human desire for self preservation and plain action at a time (after the attack) when the government will be overwhelmed with responding just to keep civil order.

You also have insufficient imagination of the consequences of those events and the actions of the Times in achieving it, however indirectly. American history is full of hotheads taking retribution on stupid people who thought they were acting legally and went to jail or were killed by mobs despite it. There are thousands of cases of vehicular manslaughter alone which bear testament to this.

Sue all you like. But after a large attack which could have been prevented by these programs, American Muslims won't be the ones needing protection. It will be the NY Times, the WaPo, the MSM, and reporters and editors who undermined the War on Terror.


PS, attribute any intentions to this you wish. I am not advocating any violence --- yet. But I am well within my rights to say anything I want, just like they can.
One thing to add to the list of things to do and that is boycotting newsstands that carry the NY Times. When the corner bodega that doesn't carry the NYT gets more chewing gum and cigarette sales than the one that does, the NYT will really start to hurt. Another pressure point is to sell their corporate shares short. As a bonus, this has the benefit of quite probably making you money while you're at it.
Well, considering their readership has been in decline for quite some time now, unless you've been holding the stock for a long time, you're probably not going to make any money.
Well, if you REALLY wanted to be evil, you could sell naked shorts for as much as you could afford to lose if someone takes you up on the offer.
Glad to see this post--because I raised my eyebrows at that too. I don't think he is in any way calling for violence, and you can sense the frustration he's expressing. I guess it's the kind of thing I've wondered about myself, but one has to be very careful about how to say it.
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Meter

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!