Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (21164)	7/2/2006 2:35:01 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Scandalous Cont'd Jonah Goldberg The Corner This reader speaks for many: <<< Dear Mr. Goldberg: I noted both of your Corner entries on this day. First, yes it was quite a slow time on the Corner at about 10:45. But, Holy Guacamole.... That Meet the Press roundtable was simply breathtaking in it's self canonization. Wow. I was left almost speechless. Well, some expletives came to mind, of course, but shouting at the TV has long since lost it's soothing effect. Can you believe the underhanded dig that Dana Priest took at Bill Bennet by using as an example that some people want to make "casino gambling" a crime? I don't know how he did it, but the self control Bennet displayed was Olympian. I'da popped her in the kisser. And hard, too. Keep up the good work, and tell Cosmo to stop barking at the TV now. It was painful, but it's over. >>> corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (21164)	7/2/2006 6:11:33 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

I also find it quite ironic that the Lefties who cry afoul, "No Blood for Oil!" seem to be perfectly satiated with the concept "Blood for Newspaper Sales." Scandalous Cont'd Jonah Goldberg The Corner From a reader: <<< Jonah, I had not read the article co-authored by the editors of the NY Times and the LA Times until I saw this quote shown on Meet the Press. * "We understand that honorable people may disagree with any of these choices — to publish or not to publish. But making those decisions is the responsibility that falls to editors, a corollary to the great gift of our independence. It is not a responsibility we take lightly. And it is not one we can surrender to the government." * What struck me is the last sentence. It is simply brilliant Sophistry at its finest. They are framing the argument as Freedom of the Press vs. Government imposed censorship. The implication is that, had they not published, they would have been surrendering their 1st Amendment freedoms. This is not a 1st Amendment issue! The issue is Ought We Publish vs Safety of Americans. The Administration requested, they did not force, the NY Times to not publish. This is an important piece of nuance. I also find it quite ironic that the Lefties who cry afoul, "No Blood for Oil!" seem to be perfectly satiated with the concept "Blood for Newspaper Sales." (Sorry, "Blood for Circulation" seemed too obvious a pun). >>> corner.nationalreview.com