By: E&P Staff
In today’s letters, anger at the New York Times over the bank records scoop controversy, some thoughts on Ann Coulter’s syndicate, and a rebuttal to Greg Mitchell’s article on global warming.
Will ‘New York Times’ Provoke Supremes to Limit First Amendment?
One thing is certain in the handwringing and debating now going on in the mainstream press about the recent revelation by the NYT of the attempts to track money transactions of terrorists: you folks in the press will argue for an absolute, no qualifications allowed, interpretation of the “freedom of the press” clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Now contrast this approach to the MSM’s general view of the Constitution. Liberals think of the document as a living and breathing one in which most declarations are subject to “expansive” interpretations. “Freedom of religion” does not mean precisely what these words say. Nor does “the right to bear arms.” I need not continue by citing more of the numerous clauses which are subject to debate in the worldview of the press and your allies on the left.
I await the supreme irony, from the Supremes themselves: that “freedom of the press” has qualifiers and that these qualifiers spell out the upholding of what I hope will be prison sentences for some of the people you so highly esteem. This from a Court that is headed toward a more originalist and narrow view of the Constitution.
Let the games begin, in one or another quarter of the Congress or the Administration. Would that a private citizen have standing to begin the investigation into treason.
The Times was once a great newspaper, but no more. Oh, I know it’s still written beautifully, but I prefer substance poorly written, over left-wing-agenda-driven drivel written magnificently. The Times could distill it’s news on a single postcard: Republicans=evil, Democrats= good.
Excuse me, but would someone please point out that this entire episode of false outrage from the White House can probably be put right in the lap of Karl Rove. Now he not only has the country at each other’s throats in the form of Red and Blue states, but is [extending] his special ability [to divide people] to the press.
For me it is more than worrisome that major papers are infighting. Our country is lost without free press and [is] too close to that being reality, because of not supporting each other in this. I would rather see the papers/media finally stand up strong against what this administration is trying to do to all of you.
I believe Karl is probably having a good chuckle behind the backs of all of you.
Ann Coulter No Jonathan Swift
I read the response of Lee Salem to Dave Astor on E&P, and I have to say, Ann Coulter is not the heir apparent to Jonathan Swift’s satirical legacy. It was Swift’s intention to change people’s minds. Coulter deliberately alienates people. Your syndicate can rationalize it however your lawyers want you to, but you are essentially a PA system for a fascist who repeatedly advocates the murder of living public figures. Jonathan Swift wrote an article suggesting we eat children to make a point. But he didn’t mention any particular children by name, you’ll notice. He didn’t suggest that his contemporaries boil the offspring of people he didn’t agree with. Because that’s not satire anymore.
You want to know where to draw the line? That’s where you draw the line.
As an occasional contributor to the ACLU, I believe that everyone has a right to free speech, especially controversial figures. As much as I despise Coulter and her hate-mongering breed, she has the right to say what she wants. But that doesn’t make you any less complicit in the dissemination of her nationalist fantasies. If you choose to represent her and make money off of her, you cannot pretend to neutrality on the issue. You can’t have it both ways, much as you’d like to.
How do you sleep at night?
The only thing that will effect these 100 newspapers is when someone that Coulter has sentenced to death will actually be killed. Doesn’t matter who, how or where. Then they will say that they had no control.
These editors and publishers are so attached to the almighty dollar that they fear offending any and all classes or political affiliations lest they may lose an advertiser.
As he stated the “so called” liberal media is at it again.
What Global Warming?
I don’t know if you know this, but the human contribution of fossil fuels to the greenhouse gases which affect climate change is very small, about 5%. In spite of much amazing rhetoric to the contrary, politicians really cannot control the weather.
I urge you to examine the literature on this topic carefully for an actual quantification of what human beings, through their politicians, can and cannot affect about the climate. After all, the earth has in fact managed to warm and cool long before SUVs and McMansions were invented.
For the record, I have personally confronted climatologists and environmentalists, including a couple here locally at Ohio State who are on Al Gore’s team, with the above statistic, which is routinely provided in environmental engineering textbooks. (I had to be tested on environmental engineering to be licensed as a civil engineer.) Those scientists have either pleaded ignorance or acknowledged the scientific truth of that figure. This suggests per theme of the book you cite from 1985 that the intelligent course of action would be to adapt to the inevitable warming – improving coastal defenses against flooding, exploring medications to deal with the health effects of climate change, and so forth. All I hear from advocates of global warming, however, is advocacy of top-down control of production and consumption, which happens to be the answer I’ve heard all my life from people of a certain political persuasion, no matter what the crisis of the moment. Your faith in politicians may be too great for the science and technology of this issue to bear.