Monday, July 3, 2006

War on thought running quite strong on LGF

This weekend, the New York Times published in their travel section a story and photo spread of Cheney and Rumsefeld's weekend homes. Never mind the vomulation one may get looking at the photos of the extravagant homes of our elected officials. Little Green Footballs, amongst other sites, has decided it is TREASON to publish those photos and describe the homes! This despite the fact that any Joe Shmo can go to the county land records and get the information on the homes themselves. This was PUBLIC information. When, in the comments section of LGF, I noted the very public nature of what was published, and the fact that it was already published in Newsmax, I had my integrity personally questioned, and I was branded a lunatic. Later, it was confirmed - twice - that Rumsfeld personally okayed the photo in question to be published. A brain is such a terrible thing to waste. These people have such a reflexive New York Times hatred, that they are incapable of any higher thought beyond "try Bill Keller for treason!" Just sad. As I have said on multiple occasions, there is a very real war on thought being perpetuated against the world by both the left and the right.

9 comments:

Render said...

Q...

Context is everything.

Content is important.

NOT
IN A
VACUUM,
R

Red Tulips said...

I fail to see how the article was bad under ANY light or ANY context...

Render said...

Q, it had already been published. What valid reason was there for re-publishing at this time, and this time with numerous references to security details?

Be that as it may...

LGF is a really internet large community, with all that that entails.

See the Wooden Bike post:

Reply #72 from ratherdashing 07/03/06 9:04pm

"You may have missed the 470+ comment thread on the topic here at LGF so I'll provide the link. Charles did not editorialize on the story. He simply put it out there for comment. He then specifically asked that no phone numbers be posted. We got comments from both sides on this one. If I recall Quella (a newer LGF poster) even linked to your story about the photographer having permission.

I'm doing a little defending for Charles here and I'll let Malkin respond in her own way."

===

BRUSH
PAINTING,
R

Red Tulips said...

I have no idea where the #72 post was from.

We all know why Charles published what he did re: the NYT, and why he linked to a David Horowitz article.

The bottom line is the Secret Service okayed the whole thing. That should be enough - period!

Red Tulips said...

Okay, I see which post you are referring to.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21365#c0072

I am not quite sure why you brought that up, given I am Quella on LGF...

Citisucks said...

Of course they should be able to post what they posted. If the corporate terrorists have to fear their information being published it is because they are terrorists and know that they risk having karma come back and get them and that the people are getting smarter and soon will be smart enough to fight the real terrorists-them.

Red Tulips said...

Citisucks,

Why do you post your drivel on my blog? You don't even know what a corporate terrorist is. You have no comprehension about what a corporation even is. You have to be the least valuable poster on my blog, by far.

It's sad.

Render said...

http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac.shtml

Scroll down to the PDF files.

You're looking for The Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume #44, Number 2, March 1999.

I suspect that the Secret Service may not have approved the entire contents of the NYT version. At least not if they're staying within their standard operating procedures.

Context: Why did the NYT re-publish this story when it did?

Content: Why did the NYT include the level, of previously unseen, possibly dangerous, material, that it did?

Free Speech does have practical limits.

===

The aformentioned post #72? To point out that the LGF community as a whole does not consider you to be an outsider, just late to the party. You catch on quick.

citisucks has no clue why it was a bad idea to publish John Lennon's street address? Then why post under a handle?

===

I've always kind of thought that there should be an IQ requirement for internet posting privileges...

AMONG
OTHER
THINGS,
R

Red Tulips said...

Render,

I read the NYT article, and fail to see any classified information that was published. You are speaking sheer conjecture re: reasons for publishing and any implication that the Secret Service has ANY problem with the article.

Nonetheless, we are in agreement re: Citisucks, who has to be one of the most brain dead people I have encountered. You will get a laugh over this one: I posted about communist North Korea, and Citisucks claimed it was an example of "white male corporate terrorism." I kid you not.

Actually, I deleted that comment, because the stupidity made my head hurt.

http://cultureforall.blogspot.com/2006/06/terror-alert.html