Monday, June 26, 2006

Fourth Estate Fifth Column Deep Sixed

That felt good. I cancelled my subscription to the L.A. Times for, I don't know, the eighth or ninth (and now final time). The operator on the other end asked why I wanted to cancel the paper, and I said "because I'd like to drive over and make a citizens arrest of your editors for treason. Absent that, this is the next best option, although I'm not ruling out the former."

I was trying to think of something that would get her off the script. I think I succeeded. She seemed pretty rattled.

Interestingly, while waiting on hold, a voice came on, letting me know that my phone call might be monitored by Times management. But of course, that's for a higher purpose. It's been a very effective counter-subscriber program. It will allow them to come up with a new line in the script for when subscribers call in threatening to arrest their editors for treason.

29 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes and Carl Levin and the Dems should be cited for treason for advcating a phased withrawal of troops from Iraq. Which coincidentally is the same thing the head of the military in Iraq proposed to the Prez.

That info about a planned withdrawal which last week the repubs said would be a sign of weakness to the enemy was reported on the front page of NYT and LAT on Sunday. The report was based on admin sources who asked not to be identified since they were giving details of a "secret briefing" to the President. I think that's called a leak.

Sounds like a leak of secret info damaging to the efforts in the war on terror. Damn that LAT and NYT, always endangering our troops. Yes, they are treasonous.

If we could only find those treasonous leakers inside the WH we would all be safer.

6/26/2006 03:02:00 PM  
Blogger Bro. Bartleby said...

Well, I guess the L.A. Times isn't like the newspapers of the old West, where the publisher was also the reporter who also hand set the type and printed the next edition. He would have answered the phone, and no doubt listened to your complaint, for a 'citizen's arrest' was the least of his 'threats.' Well now, without a newspaper, perhaps you should subscribe to the Jackson Mississippi Clarion-Ledger! Why? Well, Jerry Mitchell for starters.

--------

After six hours of interviews with Ku Klux Klansman Byron De La Beckwith, investigative reporter Jerry Mitchell left Signal Mountain, Tenn., and drove home hungry.

Mitchell describes Beckwith as, "The man who shot NAACP leader Medgar Evers in the back and watched him crawl across the carport to die in front of his wife and three young children." The murder took place in 1963. More than 30 years later, Beckwith finally went to prison, mainly because of Mitchell's dogged reporting.

On the day of his interview, the Klansman walked the reporter to his car, with this warning, "If you write positive things about white Caucasian Christians, God will bless you. If you write negative things, God will punish you. If God does not punish you directly, several individuals will do it for him."

6/26/2006 03:02:00 PM  
Anonymous richard diamond said...

good on ya' Bob.

6/26/2006 03:58:00 PM  
Blogger Alan said...

Point 1: I have found out that if you cancel often enough, they begin offering you free subscriptions. For some reason, they keep forgetting that I cancelled and restart my subscription at no charge.

Point 2: To all you anonymous posters out there - it might help your cause if you didn't seem like the two guys in black hoods hacking off people's heads in various videos - you know, the ones who aren't brave enough to stand up for what they believe in publicly. Pull up a chair, stay a spell.

6/26/2006 05:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Jimmy J. said...

Outstanding move! I am convinced that these liberal rags do understand economics. The more people that just say NO, the better.

6/26/2006 07:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Got it. Skepticism of admin policy = alliance with al qaeda butchers.

ah to be in an open free democracy

Truly. we have moved past the McCarthy era (not),

Voting for a phased withdrawal for troops on the floor of the senate = a vote for al qaeda.

A General submitting such a plan to the President = viable policy option.

welcome to the world behind the looking glass

6/26/2006 08:00:00 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Sounds like you are in Seventh Heaven now!

We should all do our part to stop global warming. I heard from some guy in his private jet that it was a problem. Hopefully trees will not have to sacrifice their precious lives to be turned into bird cage lining! ;0)

6/26/2006 08:36:00 PM  
Blogger Dan Spomer said...

"Skepticism of admin policy = alliance with al qaeda butchers," yada yada...

Let's make this very simple.

To summarize one of my favorite writers; Pull out a map. Match it to the coastline. Compare your map to the guy next to you. If your map doesn't match the coastline, it's the wrong map. Period.

Further:

"Let’s just go up the ladder, open a hatch, go out on deck, get out the telescope and have a look at what actually happened to the lives of the people impacted by one map, and what happened to those subjected to the other.

We are not blind, and we are not crippled, and the world is not a novel or a treatise or a theory or a manifesto. It exists. We can go look for ourselves.

And on the way up, when those desperate elitist bastards start clutching at your ankles and implore you to stay below where it’s safe and argue some more... be sure to kick those sons of bitches right in the teeth. Their blind obedience to their Big Ideas have killed more people in history than anything except disease. Boot to the teeth, I say.

Take a good look at that coastline just off your port bow, then check your chart. You just might find you're using the wrong chart.

6/26/2006 09:04:00 PM  
Blogger Dan Spomer said...

PS- "anonymous" is just another way of saying you are ashamed of your beliefs. Or yourself. Or both.

6/26/2006 09:10:00 PM  
Anonymous ex wsj subscriber said...

Following your lead I cancelled my WSJ subscription. The 3 newspapers that reported the surveillance of the SWIFT system on Friday were the nyt, lat and wsj. Somehow, mysteriously the foxies and bloggers like you forget that last msm liberal rag

6/26/2006 10:17:00 PM  
Anonymous jodie aaronson said...

dan spomer:

Writing sick illogical prose with violent imagery says more about you than anyone else possibly could.

Perhaps the good Dr and blogmaster here could give you a referral for some much needed help.

6/26/2006 10:19:00 PM  
Blogger Dan Spomer said...

"Writing sick illogical prose with violent imagery says more about you than anyone else possibly could."

I sense a keel meeting a reef very soon. Better check your 12. Nonetheless, I humbly accept your very generous compliment.

PS- Thank you for not posting anonymously. I am sincerely grateful to see a name attached to your words.

6/26/2006 10:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Hoarhey said...

Dan,

And make sure to have a few big hobnails in those boots before beginning the ascent. ;)

6/26/2006 10:47:00 PM  
Blogger Dan Spomer said...

Hobnails, aye.

6/26/2006 11:28:00 PM  
Anonymous kahntheroad said...

Anonymous,

>Got it. Skepticism of admin policy = alliance with >al qaeda butchers.

Skepticism and constructive criticism are fine, but outright hostility and wild, unsubstantiated, irresponsible attacks on the leader of our country - whether you choose to believe it or not - undermines our war effort. If someone doesn't think we should have gone into Iraq - fine. We had a debate on the issue, we had a congressional vote, as a result of our policy making process we decided to go into Iraq. Now, even if you want to belly ache about how we went in, why we went in, Bush stole the election, etc. it doesn't matter - We are in Iraq, and trying to sabotage that effort because you don't like George Bush is not helpful to the troops, it is not helpful to the Iraqi people, it is not helpful to the American people...our retreat from Iraq - even the potential that we might retreat - it can ONLY serve the interests of al Qaeda. Not that I think most leftists actually support al Qaeda; rather, they are so blinded by their hatred for George Bush that they don't give much thought to the consequences of their actions.

>ah to be in an open free democracy

It's great, isn't it? Freedom to come on a blog and voice whatever nonsense you like without fearing the wrath of a brutal despot....it's a beautiful thing. If more in this country understood that thoughtless exercise of those precious liberties sometimes have consequences (especially with a global media) the Iraqis could sooner enjoy what we take for granted.

>Truly. we have moved past the McCarthy era (not)

Can you name one person who has been persecuted in such a way for their views? (Aside from those expressing conservative ideas on a college campus).

The 1st Amendment protects your right to blabber on about the President of the United States being a liar, a war criminal, a Nazi, a murderer or whatever vile slur you can think of it also secures MY right to call that nonsense for what it is. I know it's cruel and unfair, but your right to say foolish things does nothing to protect against mean people hurting your precious feelings by pointing out the inanity of your views.


>Voting for a phased withdrawal for troops on the >floor of the senate = a vote for al qaeda.

Sadly, yes it is. Don't believe me? Fine, ask al Qaeda where they stand on the issue of withdrawing US troops from Iraq.

6/27/2006 12:48:00 AM  
Blogger CatoRenasci said...

Anonymous, you seem to be abysmally ignorant of both the law and the world.

Skepticism of government is one thing, and all well and good. Dissent and debate is healthy and a good thing.

There is a fundamental difference between an officer or civilian official charged with responsibilty for executing a policy and advising his or her superiors giving them candid private advice (which the official receiving the advice may or may not choose to make public subject to the law and his or her discretion) on what the future policy should be based on his or her assessment of the facts with which he or she is familiar, and an attempt to force a change in policy which will almost certainly give aid and comfort to our enemies.

Of course, Democratic senators and representatives who propose such policies are immune to charges of treason because our Founders wisely provided the speech and debate clause in the Constitution protects members of Congress for what they say in Congress.

They are not protected, however, from violations of laws protecting classified information. Neither is the press.

Many confuse the Constitution's strong (almost but not completely absolute) presumption against prior restraint of the press with a notion that once having published classified information against the government's wishes, the press (and the people who leaked the information) are not subject to punishment for violation of the law, including, without limitation, laws against receiving, possessing or publishing classified information, treason, and various conspiracy statues which may be involved.

No one is suggesting prior restraint; rather, many of us are strongly suggesting that the laws have been broken and the violaters should now be prosecuted, vigorously.

In our representative system, the press may serve a useful role of checks and balances, but it is not above the law. We elect members of Congress and the President and charge them with setting and carrying out policy. That includes making laws about classified information, classifying or declassifying information, and enforcing the laws they have made when individuals who have been entrusted with classified information have taken it upon themselves to determine that classification was not appropriate and disclose it to persons who are not authorized to receive the information.

The check and balance on inappropriate prosecution is the court system - if the government is overreaching, juries will not convict (as was the case in colonial times).

The leakes and the New York and Los Angeles Slimes have made their decisions by receivng and publishing classified information they were not entitled to receive, possess, or publish.

Now, let them be men of principle and accept with dignity the consequences of their actions. Let them be prosecuted on such charges as the Justice Department believes appropriate and place their fates in the hands of their fellow citizens to determine guilt or innocence.

6/27/2006 06:14:00 AM  
Anonymous ananymous said...

watch out, the aiders and abetters of the enemy may be sitting right next to you:

6/25/06 WP/ABC poll
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_natsecurity_062606.htm


"Some people say the Bush administration should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further casualties. Others say knowing when the U.S. would pull out would only encourage the anti-government insurgents. Do you yourself think the United States should or should not set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq?"


6/25/06
yes 47% no 51%

I believe the margin of error is +/- 3%

and caornasci why did you leave the WSJ off your list of treasonous newspapers. As someone else pointed out they published the info same day as the nyt and lat. Or is there a "conservative exception" to your views on publishing such info. 1

6/27/2006 06:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Sal said...

OT:
May I request the prayers of the group, if you would, for long-time family friends whose son, N. died of a lengthy drug-induced coma Friday.
Many thanks, all.

6/27/2006 07:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

catorenasci:

I guess i missed this in the report on the (leaked by the WH) article on reccs by the govt official:"while the adviser noted that such a policy of beginning troop withdrawals (and certainly a leak to the press of such an option being under consideration) would give aid and comfort to the enemy, nonetheless it should be one of the options for the commander in chief.

But, the adviser noted, debate on such an option in Congress would be near treasonous.

Mr. Rove noted that an october date for withdrawals would fit well into overall strategy (it was unclear which strategy he was referring to)."

through the looking glass

6/27/2006 07:31:00 AM  
Blogger Dan Spomer said...

Sal...

Absolutely I will pray for your friends. And for you.

Anonymous...

Troop movements are a military matter. When they become a political matter, troops get killed.

And I don't see any rank on your lapel, nor do I see a nametag. But that is a really cool tinfoil hat. Now STFD and STFU.

6/27/2006 07:47:00 AM  
Blogger Lisa said...

My prayers will be with you and your friend's family, Sal. It must be one of the hardest things imaginable to deal with the death of a child.

6/27/2006 07:55:00 AM  
Blogger Alan said...

Sal - my prayers are with you and your friends.

6/27/2006 08:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

pardon me please refresh my memory on the military of service of VP Dick

6/27/2006 08:29:00 AM  
Blogger geckofeeder said...

Gagdad,
You'd think that would get you off their list. We are going to lift that line for the next time they call to get us to reinstate, and for the NYT.
Sal, our prayers are with them Nothing could be as devastating as loosing one's child.
Lisa, My parrot would be extremely distressed if he didn't have his birdmansion newspapers. Funny how the radical environmentalists love those private jets. Useful($$$) idiots.

6/27/2006 08:34:00 AM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Hey Anon- because you are either too lazy or stupid to do this work on your own, I have done some research for you on your qualms with the Wall St. Journal. Patterico explains it in the most detail. Here is the link.

http://patterico.com/2006/06/25/4774/direct-your-anger-at-the-nyt-and-lat-not-the-wsj-for-leaking-classified-information-about-a-successful-anti-terror-program/

Reporting about specifics of a classified security anti-terror program is not equivalent to vague undetailed reporting that a program exists. The NY & LA Times are responsible for this latest fiasco. Have some intellectual integrity, why don't ya? You are really a bit out of your league here!

6/27/2006 08:37:00 AM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Sorry Gecko, wouldn't want your parrot to be bummed.

All the print that's fit to shit!

Glad the Times has some purpose!

6/27/2006 08:41:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

gee Lisa, they left your nonsense about the wsj up but took down my verbatim refutation from tony snow ( www.whitehouse.gov -text of monday press briefing) where he put the LAT and the WSJ in the same (less offensive) category than the nyt

ah enlightened dialogue prevails here

6/27/2006 06:42:00 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Hey Anon-

That's because my nonsense is funny in a ha ha way. Your nonsense is funny in a sad way. Now we are bored of tit for tatting with you! Good day!

6/27/2006 08:10:00 PM  
Blogger gumshoe1 said...

the trolls(Troll?)
here on Bob's blog all seem
a bit shy.

why are they *all* named
"anonymous"?

is they *skeered*??

Bob...you got some head-choppers
hiding out here?

and do they "go after" people whose opinions you "dislike"??

do tell.

6/28/2006 12:10:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home