Cobranchi v. Homeschoolblogger
We’ll be digging into the evidence as to whether the New York Times has provided material aid and comfort to America’s enemies soon, but I think we can resolve one issue here and now. If Daryl came to believe that the Times has actually helped the terrorists, I think he would be all for a demand for a public apology, backed up by a boycott of advertisers.
Why do I think so? Because of this:
The Old Schoolhouse Magazine has just as much right to the freedom of the press as the New York Times does. When Daryl discovered that TOS had published articles and printed ads endorsing Michael and Debbie Pearl, he demanded a change in their policy. When they refused to do so, he urged other homeschoolers to boycott TOS and break off contact with Homeschoolblogger blogs.
The question at hand, therefore, is not whether the Times should be tried for treason (I’m not for that) or whether an abusive press should be boycotted (Daryl isn’t against that). The question is whether the article in the Times has materially benefited Al Qaeda and similar groups. I think it has, Daryl thinks it hasn’t. We’ll see if we can dig up enough facts and logic to decide that issue.
Tags: New York Times, debate, boycott, SWIFT
9 Responses to “Cobranchi v. Homeschoolblogger”
 Comment by Daryl Cobranchi June 29th, 2006 at 5:31 pm |
Give it your best shot. I’m ready. |
|
Comment by Daryl Cobranchi June 29th, 2006 at 5:40 pm |
And I wouldn’t support a boycott of their advertisers. I don’t link to HSB because of what the owner of HSB said. So, assuming your premise, I’d support a boycott of the Times but not of Dell. |
|
Comment by Daryl Cobranchi June 29th, 2006 at 5:43 pm |
Did you know that you couldn’t buy a Coke in the Arab ME for many decades? Why not? Because Coke advertised (and sold) their product in Israel. You OK with that? Same diff. |
 Comment by COD June 29th, 2006 at 8:36 pm |
Nobody accused TOS of treason, or any crime. If the government suddenly came down on TOS for accepting advertising dollars from a deplorable yet legal organization such as whatever that sham ministry is called, I’d be supporting TOS. And I bet Daryl would too. |
|
Comment by Daryl Cobranchi June 29th, 2006 at 9:42 pm |
BTW, Scott, why are you not boycotting the advertisers of the Wall Street Journal? They published essentially the same story on the same day. Oh, wait– they’re a conservative rag. IOKIYAR, right? |
|
Comment by COD June 29th, 2006 at 11:13 pm |
It’s OK if you are Republican. Did I get that right? |
|
Comment by Daryl Cobranchi June 30th, 2006 at 3:01 am |
“You’re A” but close enuff. |
 Comment by gawaine June 30th, 2006 at 7:56 pm |
Daryl: Did you read the WSJ, LA Times, NYT, and Boston Globe articles in question? Did you read the editorials from each of them explaining their reasoning? If you did, can you honestly say you see no difference betweek Keller, McManus, and the alternatives? Have you read about the specific benefits of the program? Do you believe that capturing an alleged murderer of 202 people is not a benefit? Do you have any legal analysis, from any lawyer, which says which laws were broken by this program? I’ve already told you where to look for analyses showing the opposite – do you have an answer to them? |
|
Comment by Daryl Cobranchi June 30th, 2006 at 8:27 pm |
Strawman! Show me where I said that there wasn’t a benefit. What I said was that it was illegal in the EU and possibly in the US (per Specter’s statement). And that whether the benefit outweighed the privacy concerns was not for the Unitary Executive to decide on his own. Have you never heard of checks and balances? |