'MISBEGOTTEN' TIMES (narrowness, Mr. Sulzberger, not width): PINCH'S NON-APOLOGY APOLOGY

C-SPAN | 7.18.06 | Mia T

[Mia T]

'MISBEGOTTEN' TIMES
(NARROWNESS, MR. SULZBERGER, NOT WIDTH)

PINCH'S NON-APOLOGY APOLOGY

by Mia T, July 18, 2006

WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES

by Mia T, December 29, 2005

 

 

 

inch Sulzberger scurried to the C-SPAN confessional even as the fires raged under the mammoth heap of ash and twisted steel that was once the Twin Towers and 2801 human beings. He had to make certain no one would blame The New York Times.

The Times' 1996 endorsement of bill clinton¹ was the problem. The endorsement, you may recall, was contingent on clinton getting a brain transplant--specifically of the character lobe.² How could the Times square that shameful, irresponsible endorsement with this monstrous failure³?

Sulzberger quickly explained that the Times was able to endorse clinton by separating clinton's "policies" from "the man."⁴ (Did he actually buy into the clintons' 'compartmentalization' con⁵? Or was this apparent credulousness simply another cynical expedient for The New York Times?)

Probing questions by the host, Brian Lamb, followed, eliciting this damning historical parallel from Sulzberger: "The Times dropped ball during Holocaust by failing to connect the dots."

It appears that The New York Times doesn't learn from its mistakes.⁶ Will it take the Times another 50 years to understand/admit that by having endorsed for reelection a "documentably dysfunctional" president⁷ with "delusions" -- its own words -- it must bear sizeable blame for the 9/11 horror and its aftermath⁸? 

Sulzberger's carefully worded rationalization of the clinton endorsements points to clinton "policies," not achievements; is this tacit acknowledgement that clinton "achievements" -- when legal -- were more illusory than real -- that the Times' Faustian bargain was not such a good deal after all?

If we assume that the clintons are the proximate cause of 9/11 --- a proposition not difficult to demonstrate --- it follows that The New York Times is culpable, too.

Elie Wiesel makes a distinction between "information" and "knowledge."⁶ Information is data; it is devoid of an ethical component; it is neutral. Knowledge is a higher form of information. Knowledge is information that had been internalized and given a moral dimension.

At a minimum, the Times' failure -- whether concerning clinton endorsements, or classified leaks or the Holocaust -- is a failure to make this distinction. More likely though, it is a failure not nearly so benign.

 

 

READ MORE
FOOTNOTES

UNITED 93:THE CLINTON-9/11 NEXUS
"We have to do it now. We know what happens if we just sit here and do nothing...."



ALBRIGHT INDICTS CLINTON FOR TERRORISM FAILURE (and doesn't even know it)
by Mia T, 4.28.06


ALBRIGHT¹: 'Bin Laden and his Network Declared War² on the United States and Struck First and We Have Suffered Deeply'

 

I M P E A C H M E N T
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t


by Mia T, 11.11.05

This legacy confab is in and of itself proof certain of clinton's deeply flawed character, and a demonstration in real time of the way in which the clinton years were about a legacy that was incidentally a presidency.

Madeleine Albright captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden.

According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons: Nothing]. Only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war.

Albright explained that a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the 'accord' and the Peace Prize good-bye.

If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off terrorism's global danger.

READ MORE

'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' THE ADDRESS	THE (oops!) TRUTH
"In this interdependent world, we should still have a preference for peace over war.... But sometimes we would have these debates where people would say, if I didn't take some military action this very day, people would look down their nose at America and think we were weak.  And I always thought of Senator Fulbright.... 6 So anytime somebody said in my presence, 'Hey, if you don't do this, people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years, 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'  I don't think we can bring 'em back tomorrow, but can we kill 'em tomorrow?  If we can kill them tomorrow, then we're not weak.... 1 I learned that as a 20-year-old kid watching Bill Fulbright.  Listening." bill clinton Fulbright Prize address April 12, 2006	"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in '91 and he went to the Sudan. We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden]. At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." bill clinton Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002 Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio: I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer "I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a second plane has hit the tower.' And I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the first thing I said. He said, 'How can you be sure?' I said 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this and they [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets. Bin Laden did it.' I thought that my virtual obsession 2 with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him." bill clinton Sunday, Sept 3, 2002 Larry King Live "You know... the job which we should have done 1... which should have been our primary focus, to find [you know] bin Laden and eliminate al Qaeda." hillary clinton Saturday, Jan. 28, 2006 Chitchat with Jane Pauley San Francisco, CA
... I thank you for this award, even though, in general, I think former presidents and presidents should never get awards.  I was delighted when Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize because I thought he earned it, and I thought it was great because he got it as much for what he did after office as when he was in office.  In general, I think that the fact that we got to be president is quite honor enough. bill clinton Fulbright Prize address April 12, 2006	"Bill Clinton is still campaigning for the Nobel Peace Prize. But for now, he'll just have to settle for "the political play of the week." Bill Schneider CNN reporting on the Fulbright Prize April 14, 2006       WASHINGTON -- Two Norwegian public-relations executives and one member of the Norwegian Parliament say they were contacted by the White House to help campaign for President Clinton to receive this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his work in trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East. Clinton Lobbies for Nobel Prize: What a Punk White House Lobbied For Clinton Nobel Peace Prize Updated Friday, October 13, 2000 By Rita Cosby       There's been speculation in the last few months that Clinton was pursuing a Mideast peace accord in an effort to win the prize and secure his legacy as president. AIDES PUSH CLINTON FOR THE NOBEL       At the time, clinton observed: "I made more progress in the Middle East than I did between Socks and Buddy." Retrospectively, it is clear that clinton's characterization was not correct. Mia T Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers

CLINTON: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
(+ Albright-Fulbright-Nobel TERRORISM revelations)

by Mia T, 4.24.06

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

IN A 'PINCH': RETHINKING THE FIRST AMENDMENT
(Which came first, the 'journalist' or the traitor?)

by Mia T, 6.27.06

"What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

James Madison

hen the founders granted 'The Press' special dispensation, they never considered the possibility that traitors in our midst would game the system. But that is precisely what is happening today. (Hate America? Support jihad? Become a 'journalist!')

This was bound to happen.

The premise behind the First Amendment as it applies to the press--that a vigilant watchdog is necessary, sufficient--indeed, possible--to protect against man's basest instincts--is tautologically flawed: The fox guarding the White House, if you will.

Walter Lippmann, the 20th-century American columnist, wrote, "A free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society." True in theory. True even in Lippmann's quaint mid-20th-century America, perhaps. But patently false in this postmodern era of the bubbas and the Pinches.

When a free and great society is hijacked by a seditious bunch of dysfunctional, power-hungry malcontents and elitists, it will remain neither free nor great for long. When hijacked by them in the midst of asymmetric warfare, it will soon not remain at all.

If President George W. Bush is serious about winning the War on Terror, he will aggressively pursue the enemy in our midst.

Targeting and defeating the enemy in our midst is, by far, the more difficult task and will measure Bush's resolve and courage (and his independence from the MPRDC (mutual protection racket in DC)) more than any pretty speech, more even than 'staying the course.'

No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free no one ever will.

Thomas Jefferson
Letter, September 9, 1792, to George Washington

It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.

H. L. Mencken

READ MORE

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

WHY BIN LADEN WANTS HOME DELIVERY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES
by Mia T, 7.11.06

The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent₂

by Mia T, 4.6.03

 

If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.

Mia T, THE ALIENS, June 9, 1999
Alien Abductions, Flying Saucers + Other Weird Phenomena, c.1992-2000

 

l From is sounding the alarm.

"Unless we convince Americans that Democrats are strong on national security," he warns his party, "Democrats will continue to lose elections."

Helloooo? That the Democrats have to be spoon-fed what should be axiomatic post-9/11 is, in and of itself, incontrovertible proof that From's advice is insufficient to solve their problem.

From's failure to fully lay out the nature of the Democrats' problem is not surprising: he is the guy who helped seal his party's fate. It was his Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that institutionalized the proximate cause of the problem, clintonism, and legitimized its two eponymic provincial operators on the national stage. The "Third Way" and "triangulation" don't come from the same Latin root for no reason.

That "convince" is From's operative word underscores the Democrats' dilemma. Nine-eleven was transformative. It is no longer sufficient merely to convince. One must demonstrate, demonstrate convincingly, if you will… which means both in real time and historically.

When it comes to national security, Americans will no longer take any chances. Turning the turn of phrase back on itself, the era of the Placebo President is over. (Incidentally, the oft-quote out-of-context sentence fragment alluded to here transformed meaningless clinton triangulation into a meaningful if deceptive soundbite.)

Although From is loath to admit it -- the terror in his eyes belies his facile solution -- the Democratic party's problem transcends its anti-war contingent.

With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively… and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity.

With policy ruled by pathologic self-interest -- witness the "Lieberman Paradigm," Kerry's "regime change" bon mot (gone bad), Edwards' and the clintons' brazen echoes thereof (or, alternatively, Pelosi's less strident wartime non-putdown putdown)… and, of course, the clincher -- eight years of the clintons' infantilism, grotesquerie and utter failure -- the Democratic party is, historically and in real time, the party of national insecurity.

ASIDE: Wartime Bush-bashing sedition of the pre-Howard Dean, pre-Cindy Sheehan variety, with its sotto-voce old-school indirection, refinement and politesse, sounds almost quaint these days.

The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11.

 

America's Real Two-Front War

 

by Mia T, 4.17.04

merica's real two-front war: fundamentalist Islam on the right and a fundamentally seditious clintonoid neo-neoliberalism on the left, both anarchic, both messianically, lethally intolerant, both amorally perverse, both killing Americans, both placing America at grave risk, both undeterred by MAD, both quite insane.

If we are to prevail, the rules of engagement--on both fronts--must change.

Marquis of Queensberry niceties, multicultural hypersensitivity, unipolar-power guilt, hegemony aversion (which is self-sabotage in the extreme--we must capture what we conquer--oil is the terrorist's lifeblood)... and, most important, the mutual-protection racket in Washington--pre-9/11 anachronisms all--are luxuries we can no longer afford.

Notwithstanding, the underlying premise of our hyperfastidious polity, (that we must remain in the system to save the system) is fallacious at best and tantamount to Lady Liberty lifting herself up by her own bootstraps.

To borrow from the Bard, let's start metaphorically, or better yet, economically and politically, by killing all the seditious solicitors, which include the clintons and their left-wing agitprop-and-money-laundering machine: the Viacom-Simon & Schuster-60-Minutes vertical operation, the horizontal (as in "soporific") Cronkite-ite news readers, the (hardly upright) Ben-Veniste goons and Gorelick sleepers, and, of course, the clueless, cacophonic, disproportionately loud, left-coast Barbra-Streisand contingent.

America must not pull her punches.

To prevail, America must defeat--thoroughly destroy--her enemies. On both fronts.

ne•o-ne•o•lib•er•al•ism n.

neocommunist political movement, a tipsy-topsy, infantile perversion of the Marxist-Leninist model, global in scope, beginning in the post-cold-war, unipolar 1990s, led by the '60s neoliberal baby-boomer "intelligentsia," that seeks power without responsibility, i.e., that seeks to dilute American power by concentrating power in said '60s neoliberals while yielding America's sovereignty to the United Nations, i.e., while surrendering to the terrorists, as it continues the traditional '60s neoliberal feint, namely: (1) concern for social justice, (2) disdain for bureaucracy, and (3) the championing of entrepreneurship for the great unwashed.

Mia T, 2.24.04

 

 

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES
(Please see post 65)


The Devil & the Gray Lady


IN A 'PINCH': RETHINKING THE FIRST AMENDMENT
(Which came first, the 'journalist' or the traitor?)


PINCH SULZBERGER, PEARL HARBOR + TREASON
WHY WE MUST PROSECUTE THE NEW YORK TIMES


WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?


WHY THE CLINTONS FAILED "TO CAPTURE OR KILL THE TALLEST MAN IN AFGHANISTAN"
(DID THEY REALLY WANT TO TAKE HIM OUT ANYWAY?)


'MAKE IT A RULE' -- PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR OSAMA WITH CLINTON and CO.
(HEAR HILLARY + BILL MAKE THEIR PITCH)


ON THE FICTIONALIZED MEMOIR (HEAR HILLARY IN SF)^{~PART TWO~}
THE (oops!) INADVERTENT ADMISSIONS OF HILLARY AND JANE IN SAN FRANCISCO


THE (oops!) INADVERTENT (TERRORISM) ADMISSIONS OF BILL + HILLARY CLINTON (HEAR HILLARY IN SF) ^{~PART ONE~}


IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY


BIN LADEN FINGERS CLINTON FOR TERROR SUCCESS (SEE FOOTAGE)
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE


CHENEY: CALL THEM REPREHENSIBLE
THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₅


sandy berger haberdashery feint
(the specs, not the pants or the socks)


THE LEFT'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans


HILLARY GOES NUCLEAR
PROLIFERATION IN THE AGE OF CLINTON


QUID PRO COAL2:
CLINTON CORRUPTION + THE SEQUESTRATION OF GASEOUS FOSSILS
(HILLARY DOES COAL AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB)


SUSAN ESTRICH ON "DREDGING UP" THE RAPE OF JUANITA BROADDRICK + "ALL THAT OLD CLINTON STUFF"


UNITED 93:THE CLINTON-9/11 NEXUS
"We have to do it now. We know what happens if we just sit here and do nothing...."


ALBRIGHT INDICTS CLINTON FOR TERRORISM FAILURE
(and doesn't even know it)


MISSING CLINTON AUDIO! 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
(+Albright-Fulbright-Nobel TERRORISM revelations)



THE FAILED, DYSFUNCTIONAL CLINTON PRESIDENCY
(DECONSTRUCTING CLINTON'S HOFSTRA SPEECH) -- part1: clinton's "Brinkley" Lie


AFTERWORD: ON CLINTON SMALLNESS
(BRINKLEY MISSES THE POINT)

WHY HILLARY IN THE OVAL OFFICE IS A NATIONAL-SECURITY NO-NO^{PART ONE}

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[fuzzthatwuz]

Thanks, Mia. Good work!

[Mia T]

thank you :)

[Mia T]

ping

[demkicker]

Check this post out and let me know if it gives you a chuckle.

[PJ-Comix]

Do you also work as an artist on canvas? I find many of your images compelling like the ones of Pinch.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Time well spent.

[Doctor Raoul]

Raoul's First Law of Journalsim
BIAS = LAYOFFS

[Faith]

When a free and great society is hijacked by a seditious bunch of dysfunctional, power-hungry malcontents and elitists, it will remain neither free nor great for long. When hijacked by them in the midst of asymmetric warfare, it will soon not remain at all. - Mia T (2006)

You nailed it, Mia T. Great analysis.

[Wolverine]

bump

[PGalt]

Mia T(reasure) bump!

[E.G.C.]

Mia T. bump

[Mia T]

Parsing farce of farce ain't easy. ;)
thanx!

[abb]

Somewhat pertinent from this morning's mediapost.com

Yo, New York Times--Whatzamatter?
by Bill McCloskey, Wednesday, Jul 19, 2006 2:00 AM ET

One of the great perks of writing a weekly column is that when I get the runaround from a poorly designed e-commerce system and bad customer support, I can write an article to get my frustration out. If that happens to you, all you can do is pound your head against the wall!

Here I am, your dutiful reporter, looking for my subject today. Believe me, after two years of writing this column every week, it is not the easiest job in the world coming up with fun new stuff for you readers to hammer me on in the Mediapost blog.

So on the way into work, I got this idea. I remembered an article that ran in The New York Times about a musical running in Manhattan that sent an e-mail the day after people had gone to the show to remind them to tell their friends about the great time they had. I remembered seeing someone complain on the Inbox Insiders, a private list I run for e-mail marketers, about receiving a similar solicitation. Well, here is a good article, I thought. The only problem was, I couldn’t remember the name of the show the Times wrote about.

So I went to the site--and after about 45 minutes of putting in one term after another and coming up empty, I finally found the article: “You aw the show, now read the e-mail,” by Jessie Green.

I clicked on the link….

Damn. Even though the article is only a little over a week old, the Times wants to charge me $3.95 to view it. So much for the new economy.

Okay, my readers are worth it. I pull out my credit card. I place my order. The confirmation comes back with links to the article: “Click here to read the article” it says. “Yes, sir!” I say, not yet realizing that I’m a big dope, because…

Yes, you guessed it; the link takes me back to the order page, not the article. OK, no problem, I think, still believing that an organization like the New York Times must have its poo-poo together. Yep, there is the confirmation e-mail saying they received my money. And the link to the article? Not there. Just a link to change my e-mail preferences!

Okay, I begin to see dark clouds on the horizon as I dial the customer support line. Of course I go through the usual nonsense of trying to FIND the customer support number. All of the ones on the site don’t seem right and there is certainly NOTHING in the confirmation page or the confirmation e-mail telling me who to call in case of a problem.

And now I’m in “Press this number to go here, press another number to go there” hell on the customer support line, and of course, none of the options pertain to the Web site or problems with Times Select. I choose one at random.

I eventually get hold of someone and I explain my problem.

“Oh, you purchased something on Times Select? You fool. It’s free.” (I’m paraphrasing here.)

“Well, no, I’m not a home subscriber. It says on your Web site that you need to be a home subscriber to get it for free,” I say.

Back on hold for 15 minutes.

Finally someone calls and tells me that there is no record of my purchase. “Well, I have the e-mail right here, would you like me to send it to you?” I say. No, a record of your purchase doesn’t show up for 24 hours, says the customer support person. 24 Hours! “But don’t worry, technical support tells me to have you log out and log back in and then go straight to the article."

I do this. It doesn’t work. And now I can’t remember the name of the article it took me 45 minutes to find. Can the customer service person help me? Of course not, dummy, because it takes 24 HOURS (!) for me to get a record of my purchase. Apparently the e-commerce portion of the Times Web site is run by old men with green eyeshades.

After searching around, I finally find the article AGAIN. I can’t get to it. It wants me to purchase it AGAIN. I call back. This time, they don’t even pretend to want to help me: “call the New York Times Digital,” the woman says as if she is talking to a 5- year-old.

The New York Times Digital??? Nowhere, in any of the info, and phone buttons I’ve pushed, or the (now) hour I’ve been on line with customer support, has anyone said anything about the New York Times Digital.

I get the phone number. I call. I get someone. I explain my problem. “Oh, yeah. We’ve been having problems with that for a few days.” I make a Homer Simpson sound.

He promises to send it to me. 45 minutes later it arrives.

Here is what I wanted to talk to you about: In an e-mail promotion for the musical “The Altar Boyz,” the producer, Ken Davenport, sent play-goers who have seen the show (and paid online) a thank-you note and a discount to take their friends. The open rates for these e-mails were off the charts: 70 percent.

If you want to know more, don’t complain to me. Complain to The New York Times!

Bill McCloskey is the CEO of Email Data Source Inc., developers of Email Analyst.

[demkicker]

Thanks. I would appreciate giving it a ping if you don't mind.

[Mia T]

thank you, PJ-Comix. :) I've done work on canvas, but I am drawn to digital. ;)

[demkicker]

I swear, the research you've done makes my head spin! You're the best.

[Mia T]

Raoul's First Law of Journalism
BIAS = LAYOFFS

I'd say that is Raoul's Second Law.

Raoul's First is in fact an extension of Newton's Third,
i.e., "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Raoul's First Law would explain the simultaneous rise of alternative media and the decline of relics like the Times.