Utterly Meaningless

What else is there left to say?

Nance

I do think an apology is in order. Scott needs to apologize to his readers and to the NYT for even suggesting the possibility that the Times‘ actions might have been treasonous.

Seriously.

I’m not going to be holding my breath. 🙂

I am more interested in the ideas that have grown from your mention of the Baptist preacher’s speech anyway. That has really given me something to think about. Remember? mainst...rdens-
flaming-torch-speech-online.html

Thanks. 🙂

Nance

To be honest, I think the whole NYT/National Security dust up is a ‘shiny thing’. It’s just another one of the Republican ‘indignities we suffer so well’ while they are trashing our country. We’re in a hopeless war losing our young people every day. Our economy is getting trashed and China is buying us. Our government is moving rapidly towards theocracy and our elections have the integrity of a third world county. Our borders are a joke. But what’s important to the Republicans? Flag burning and what homosexuals do in their man-on-man bedrooms. yuck, yuck yuck. Shame on all of us for taking the bait.

Mary

I’ve been reading for a couple of days now.

Where exactly was the “debate”? I’d expect more from a lawyer.

“If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”

Scott’s been pounding the table a lot lately.

I’m not sure if you should end the debate or not. Me thinks you might want to check with your bosses. I would love to get paid as much you both make to sit around and blog all day about such issues. Maybe the feminists are right, I should go back to work. I would probably have more time to blog. 🙂

We feminists are right about a lot of things. 🙂

Nance

Doc, I was thinking the same thing:

Debate? What debate?

Spunky, I don’t get what Daryl’s bosses have to do with what he blogs, or what that has to do with feminism. You can say any gosh-darn thing you like on your blog. You don’t need a job or no job as an excuse. You don’t need feminism or male chauvenism as an excuse. All you have to do is hit “post”.

LOL Spunky! I was thinking the same thing!

Daryl, if you’ll check the record, you’ll see that I said:

(1) I am MAD at the NYT
(2) I’m not sure whether their actions count as treason
(3) I think it is time to call for a boycott of their advertisers.

At this point in the debate, I’m still angry at the NYT, I’m pretty sure their actions do NOT count as treason, and I still think it is time to call for a boycott of their advertisers.

As far as I can tell, the NYT’s decision to publish over the objections of the Bush Administration has reduced whatever effectiveness the SWIFT program once had, and may have driven the nail in SWIFT’s coffin. You and your readers apparently believe that the Times has rendered a public service. I believe the Times was inexcusably irresponsible.

The 9/11 Commission gave the Bush Administration an “A-” on tracking terorist financial transactions (in a “report card” otherwise liberally sprinkled with “Ds”). If the Belgians pull their support for SWIFT, so that it is substantially reduced in its effectiveness, that grade may drop to a “B” or “C” (at best).

See number 2, Scott. The mere mention of the word “treason” in this case puts you in the same league as Michelle Malkin and Melanie Morgan. (Hmm, maybe it has something to do with having identical first and last initials?)

Treason requires an overt act DESIGNED to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Did you really think for a single second that the NYT’s, LAT’s, and WSJ’s editors all decided that they were going to try to help OBL?

Gimme a break! You let you fear overcome logic. Doesn’t the 23rd Psalm have something to say about that?

Scott, you lost this debate before it even started.

Forgot– So you’re OK then with the Arab boycott of Israel and any company that does business in Israel. Good to know.

As far as I can tell, the NYT’s decision to publish over the objections of the Bush Administration has reduced whatever effectiveness the SWIFT program once had, and may have driven the nail in SWIFT’s coffin.

**Where do you see this reported, Scott? Maybe it’s right there and I’m just not seeing it. . .

You and your readers apparently believe that the Times has rendered a public service. I believe the Times was inexcusably irresponsible.

**Yep.

The 9/11 Commission gave the Bush Administration an “A-” on tracking terorist financial transactions (in a “report card” otherwise liberally sprinkled with “Ds”). If the Belgians pull their support for SWIFT, so that it is substantially reduced in its effectiveness, that grade may drop to a “B” or “C” (at best).

**But we’re homeschoolers! Do we really have any faith in grades? 🙂

**The Belgians pulling support — now this is something that I would also like to know more about. Why would the Belgians pull their support if they thought this was a great program all along? Or are their politics enough like ours that they have insiders making decisions that the outsiders have just been informed of and now the outsiders are demanding some sort of inquiry which may lead to them pulling out of the program? Or ????

Nance

Or are their politics enough like ours that they have insiders making decisions that the outsiders have just been informed of and now the outsiders are demanding some sort of inquiry which may lead to them pulling out of the program?

Bingo. There are all sorts of inquiries into whether this program violates EU privacy laws.

I can’t worry about the EU when our own privacy and freedom at home needs so much tending – but in this case everybody is right just because you are debating.

Our first amendment system is designed to work just as it’s working, so newspapers make their own calls in freedom, without government interference. Then after the fact, we the people and our officials judge their judgment and assess whatever happens as a result. At that point we DO have the right, the duty even, to act within existing law and penalize any egregious and demonstrably dangerous press breach.

Our constitution’s key newspaper freedom is from “prior restraint” by government but certainly not from all restraint and responsibilty, nor from paying a public price after the fact, if they turn out to have hurt our interests illegally in the process.

Neither Scott nor Daryl is arguing against that, right?