I was misled

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Weisse Luft said:

From the NYT, no less.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/politics/25TERR.html

Quoted message said:

A Muzi said:

I read their rabid flaming left editorial page every morning but
I'll be damned if I sign up for their spam.

Tim McNamara said:

Isn't it interesting, Andrew, that you see the NYT as rabid leftists
and I see them as part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Either you
or I are a whacko at the extremes of political thought (or perhaps
both).

-snip-

Unfortunately we have only a few good newspapers in this
country and I read them, regardless of slant, daily. Get a
pretty good sense of what happened after three.

Man, we must live on different planets. NYT right???

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Tim McNamara said:

Quoted message said:

Can you think of any specific issue on which the New York Times
takes a right-wing position? That is, are there any editorials that
you would consider something other than left-wing?

Since you won't register to read such newspapers online, you may not
be quite as familiar with them as you think. Do you have a print
subscription, or do you read the NYT at the library, or what?

Fortunately the New York Times is readily available around the country
on paper. In general I find the editorial policy of the NYT to be
right-leaning and that they- like the rest of the major media in the
United States- have given Bushco a free pass to the abuse of power
without challenge.

Dear Tim,

What would you consider a left-leaning newspaper?

Carl Fogel

-snip-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

I too will not register with the NYT, the Washington Post or any
other newspaper that tries to control access to its content for the
purpose of gathering information about me and/or sending me
unsolicited e-mail. All of MoveOn.org's crapola ends up

-snip-

Tim McNamara said:

It's a matter of principle. Access to information should not be
conditional, controlled or fettered.

I disagree.
Their content is their work to rightly control.

I freely give them a dollar for it on newsprint. The cost of
my address is too high for online access but that's my own
personal opinion. Nothing wrong in their asking for it.

What's different about any intellectual work then? I've
written and sold software - should I have given my work away
for free? That would be ridiculous, right? At the very least
_your_ work should be recompensed, yes?

.. . . and, see, we both agree that MoveOn is a bunch of -
may I quote you?- crapola!!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote in news:m2r7s26qej.fsf@Stella-
Blue.local:

Quoted message said:

garmonboezia cthvlhv@r'lyeh.arg said:

"Kyle.B.H" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:j61Dc.94357$2i5.90766@attbi_s52:

Quoted message said:

Well, at least any tinge of guilt I felt for photocopying "The
Bicycle Wheel" from my local library is now gone... (and I may stop
greasing my tapers).

Kyle

My tapirs are ALWAYS well greased before I hitch them to my coach
and six.

Greasing tapirs is illegal in 12 nations under OAS treaties and in 19
states. You don't want to be admitting such behavior on Usenet!

That's the least of my worries.

"If you see a tapir lounging on a hot day, you might think it is
slothful. However, in motion, tapirs are fast and agile, and they also
swim well. Tapirs in captivity sometimes have violent tantrums: a Malay
tapir severed the arm of a keeper at the Oklahoma City Zoo in 1998."

Quoted message said:

What would you consider a left-leaning newspaper?

I don't know. The local newspapers are the Minneapolis Star Tribune
which is reputed to lean towards the Democrats bt manages to
contradict this regularly, and the St. Paul Pioner Press which is
reputed to lean Republican and manages to contradict that regularly.
There are some local small circulation/free newspapers that are
defintiely left- frequently in a wooly headed manner.

A Muzi said:

Tim McNamara said:

It's a matter of principle. Access to information should not be
conditional, controlled or fettered.

I disagree. Their content is their work to rightly control.

That is a matter of some debate, since we're talking about reportage
and not creative works.

Quoted message said:

What's different about any intellectual work then? I've written and
sold software - should I have given my work away for free? That
would be ridiculous, right? At the very least _your_ work should be
recompensed, yes?

Well, let's save the muddle of so-called "intellectual property" for
another day when the weather is dreary, shall we? I'll just refer you
to Richard Stallman's _Free Software, Free Society_ for an intereting
discussion of the destruction of the founders' intent for copyright
law at the hands of Disney and the misguided Congress.

Re: MoveOn.org. Yup, it's crapola and you have that from a liberal.
I've griped in the past about the faux conservatives that have taken
over the Republican party; MoveOn is a bunch of faux liberals.
Conservatism and liberalism are legitimate political philosophies, but
there are few proponents of either in the media and in the government.
The parties have been co-opted and driven off-course to the detriment
of all.

A Muzi said:

Tim McNamara said:

Isn't it interesting, Andrew, that you see the NYT as rabid
leftists and I see them as part of the vast right wing conspiracy.
Either you or I are a whacko at the extremes of political thought
(or perhaps both).

-snip-

Unfortunately we have only a few good newspapers in this country and
I read them, regardless of slant, daily. Get a pretty good sense of
what happened after three.

Man, we must live on different planets. NYT right???

No, we're just looking at the world from different perspectives. And
unfortunately the current construction of political process in the US
is aimed at division rather than commonality, thanks to those
reactionaries that want to foment a "culture war."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've seen this type of behavior before (Walter Cronkite comes to

mind)... an

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

aging man, respected in his field, uses his name as a soapbox on which

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

subject those who are unfortunate enough to be listening to his

highbrow,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

gray-haired wisdom. Its too bad, really.

I don't know the significance of "aging" (aren't we all?) or

"gray-haired",

Quoted message said:

except as a gratuitous pot shot, but, if your big fear is that Jobst will
abuse his automatic credibility with this audience, you must be new here.

It's the Republican way these days to try to run down the person saying the
contentious statement by denigrating them in some way and not responding to
what he/she said. Just last week, Talk show host Mark Davis, when
responding to Gen. Anthony Zinni's statements about the way in Iraq,
dismissed them entirely by saying "Why should we listen to a retiree?"

Pat in TX

Tim McNamara said:

Mark Hickey said:

If you want to figure it out, find out where they published the
revelation that Russian President Putin warned the US in the days
after 9/11 that they had credible evidence that Iraq was planning to
attack the US. A huge, huge news story by any account.

Which of course is utterly at odds with Russia's and Putin's
opposition to pre-emptive invasion, and thus itself makes no sense and
calls the veracity of this claim into question.

Add in the oil-for-food fiasco and it all makes perfect sense. Putin
was warning us about a potential attack, but didn't want to stop the
flow of money from Iraq (or couldn't afford to politically).

Quoted message said:

I am amazed at how the Bush Adminstration and its apologists continue
to grasp at straws to support the illusion of a working relationship
between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It wasn't there, which makes perfect sense
when one considers the psychology of Saddam Hussein- there is no way
in heck that he was going to permit anyone to have power in his
country other than himself and those loyal to him. That especially
includes Al Qaeda, whom Hussein could not and would not have trusted
for a moment- especially when his own military power was mostly
illusory.

I don't disagree that there might not have been a working
relationship. However, there were plenty of contacts between the two,
looking for ways to cooperate. Now I don't know about you, but having
Al Qaeda and Saddam looking for ways to cooperate make taking out
Saddam seem pretty important to me.

Quoted message said:

The connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was in the fevered
imagination of Paul Wolfowitz and the paranoid delusions of Donald
Rumsfeld. 9/11 was merely the excuse for invasion; without 9/11
either another excuse would have had to have been fabricated or there
would have been no invasion to reclaim America's tarnished miliatary
image resulting from the "ragged ending" of the Gulf War. It's a good
thing for Rummie and Wolfie that this war has gone so much better.

Your country is being run by idiots, psychopaths and paranoiacs who
have succeeded in smashing the federal budget, running up the highest
deficits in history, and overstretching our defense so much that they
have instituted de facto conscription. They have declared themselves
above the law and obfuscate and frustrate nearly all attempts at
oversight and scrutiny as provided for in the Constitution. They have
all but repealed the Bill of Rights, except for the 2nd Amendment, and
returned us 50 years into our past into the mentality of the McCarthy
era. They have pursued policies that harm many and benefit a select
few elites. They have made concerted effort to stifle dissent in the
media and among Congress members. Do you find this even remotely
acceptable?

Excuse me for saying so, but you're SO far detached from reality in
the above rant that there's little point in even commenting. You
really ARE far enough to the radical left to make the NY Times look
like a conservative propaganda tool.

Quoted message said:

As I've said before, never in my 44.66 years have I been afraid of my
own government- even during the darkness of the Reagan years. I am
now. This administration is utterly dangerous and destructive, and if
left unchecked will continue to dismantle the democracy that so many
Americans have died to defend.

Just examine how valid the paranoia of the Reagan era turned out to be
(defeated the USSR, created the greatest economic expansion in
history, etc.). But I'm sure to you it was all a great disaster. Sad
world you live in.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Tim McNamara said:

A Muzi said:

Man, we must live on different planets. NYT right???

No, we're just looking at the world from different perspectives. And
unfortunately the current construction of political process in the US
is aimed at division rather than commonality, thanks to those
reactionaries that want to foment a "culture war."

For once, I agree with you.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

Quoted message said:

Can you think of any specific issue on which the New York Times
takes a right-wing position? That is, are there any editorials that
you would consider something other than left-wing?

Since you won't register to read such newspapers online, you may not
be quite as familiar with them as you think. Do you have a print
subscription, or do you read the NYT at the library, or what?

Fortunately the New York Times is readily available around the country
on paper. In general I find the editorial policy of the NYT to be
right-leaning and that they- like the rest of the major media in the
United States- have given Bushco a free pass to the abuse of power
without challenge.

Dear Tim,

What would you consider a left-leaning newspaper?

Carl Fogel

There aren't any except for the various and questionably accurate free
weeklies in the big cities.

Greg

--
Destroy your safe and happy lives
Before it is too late
The battles we fought were long and hard
Just not to be consumed by rock'n'roll

I'm surprised to see TM making such a silly statement. MoveOn is a half
million or so different people and as varied as you can imagine. I think
that some of their efforts are misguided (or suffering from an excess of
PC), but they had also done a lot of good and have helped enable a log of
small people to become more effective collectively. They've helped raise
awareness and/or money for many good people and/or causes. If I think they
have missed some important opportunities (I do), I have to ask myself why I
haven't participated. etc.

"...Re: MoveOn.org. Yup, it's crapola and you have that from a liberal.
I've griped in the past about the faux conservatives that have taken
over the Republican party; MoveOn is a bunch of faux liberals.
Conservatism and liberalism are legitimate political philosophies, but
there are few proponents of either in the media and in the government.
The parties have been co-opted and driven off-course to the detriment
of all."

Steve Juniper said:

"...Re: MoveOn.org. Yup, it's crapola and you have that from a
liberal. I've griped in the past about the faux conservatives that
have taken over the Republican party; MoveOn is a bunch of faux
liberals. Conservatism and liberalism are legitimate political
philosophies, but there are few proponents of either in the media
and in the government. The parties have been co-opted and driven
off-course to the detriment of all."

I'm surprised to see TM making such a silly statement. MoveOn is a
half million or so different people and as varied as you can
imagine. I think that some of their efforts are misguided (or
suffering from an excess of PC), but they had also done a lot of
good and have helped enable a log of small people to become more
effective collectively. They've helped raise awareness and/or money
for many good people and/or causes. If I think they have missed some
important opportunities (I do), I have to ask myself why I haven't
participated. etc.

Everyone is of course entitled to an opinion, which is good because
they see things from a perspective other than mine. However, I still
don't like MoveOn.org's "the sky is falling" scaremongering tactics
and their reactionary oppositionalism. Indeed, the latter makes them
predictable and manipulable. My politics are not appreciably to the
right of MoveOn.org in general, and indeed I am probably to the left
of them on many issues, but their brand of hysteria turns me way off.
Hence I think their "product" is crapola.

I haven't looked at their Web site for a while, but once upon a time
at least they had no privacy policy and no way to opt out of getting
their spam if you wanted to sign one of their petitions. I find both
of these unacceptable- in this case the same complaint I have about
the newspaper Web sites that require "registration" to read their Web
site content.

Just got home from "Fahrenheit 9/11" which has been enjoying sold out
and near sold out showings locally. If you didn't like George Bush
before you saw, you're not going to like him any better afterwards.
If you do like George Bush, then you're not going to like Michael
Moore any better afterwards than you did after the Oscar award for
"Bowling for Columbine." It's not a documentary so much as a two
hour op-ed piece.

Mark Hickey said:

Quoted message said:

I am amazed at how the Bush Adminstration and its apologists
continue to grasp at straws to support the illusion of a working
relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It wasn't there, which makes
perfect sense when one considers the psychology of Saddam Hussein-
there is no way in heck that he was going to permit anyone to have
power in his country other than himself and those loyal to him.
That especially includes Al Qaeda, whom Hussein could not and would
not have trusted for a moment- especially when his own military
power was mostly illusory.

I don't disagree that there might not have been a working
relationship. However, there were plenty of contacts between the
two, looking for ways to cooperate. Now I don't know about you, but
having Al Qaeda and Saddam looking for ways to cooperate make taking
out Saddam seem pretty important to me.

And what objective evidence is there of contacts between Al Qaeda and
Saddam Hussein? We have GWB and Cheney's repeated "yes, there were"
statements but they offer no actual hard proof. In the absence of
proof, this is nothing more than conjecture. We have sworn testimony
from numerous sources confirming a lack of evidence. And in the light
of a plan for war in Iraq to depose Hussein existing in the hands of
of Rumsfled, Wolfowitz, Vin Weber, etc. prior to GWB being elected,
it appears that in fact what we have is the exploitation of a tragic,
horrible situation to further a specific pre-existing politcal agenda.

Frankly, Mark, I think that America and the world was misled, and
deliberately misled, by a group of liars and sociopaths who found
themselves in the right positions, at the right time, with an
exploitable situation. Part of that situation was the utter failing
of the Congress to do its job, especially the spineless so-called
Deomocrats who were more than happy to roll over and play dead. I
think the entire situation is inexcusable, that 90% or more of the
Congress should be voted out of office, and that the President and his
Cabinet should be investigated and arraigned for criminal prosecution.

Tim McNamara:

Quoted message said:

However, I still
don't like MoveOn.org's "the sky is falling" scaremongering tactics
and their reactionary oppositionalism. Indeed, the latter makes them
predictable and manipulable.

To be fair, though, your statements below may be seen as equally
"scaremongering" and "reactionary oppositionalism", depending on how you
define that term:

"Your country is being run by idiots, psychopaths and paranoiacs who
have succeeded in smashing the federal budget, running up the highest
deficits in history, and overstretching our defense so much that they
have instituted de facto conscription. They have declared themselves
above the law and obfuscate and frustrate nearly all attempts at
oversight and scrutiny as provided for in the Constitution. They have
all but repealed the Bill of Rights, except for the 2nd Amendment, and
returned us 50 years into our past into the mentality of the McCarthy
era. They have pursued policies that harm many and benefit a select
few elites. They have made concerted effort to stifle dissent in the
media and among Congress members."

One thing that MoveOn.org seems to be able to do is galvanise a
significant number of people into action through their website, and
channel contributions from its sympathisers into tangible activities.
Remember that your enemy's enemy is your friend.

Quoted message said:

My politics are not appreciably to the
right of MoveOn.org in general, and indeed I am probably to the left
of them on many issues, but their brand of hysteria turns me way off.
Hence I think their "product" is crapola.

While at the same time you use many terms which are stronger than much
of MoveOn.org's. I don't think you're much different (which is not a
bad thing when it comes to this topic).

Quoted message said:

I haven't looked at their Web site for a while, but once upon a time
at least they had no privacy policy and no way to opt out of getting
their spam if you wanted to sign one of their petitions. I find both
of these unacceptable- in this case the same complaint I have about
the newspaper Web sites that require "registration" to read their Web
site content.

This has nothing to do with ideology and what the group is trying to
accomplish in political terms.

David Damerell said:

Quoted message said:

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227

Y'know, I'd rather have a helmet flamewar than US politics. At least it's
got something to do with bicycles!

Agreed!

You go first. I'll watch.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Surrealism is a pectinated ranzel.

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:15:46 -0700, "G.T." <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What would you consider a left-leaning newspaper?

Carl Fogel

There aren't any except for the various and questionably accurate free
weeklies in the big cities.

Greg

Try the Greensboro (NC) Daily News, I think it is. As fair and
balanced as Faux News, just on balanced on the other side...

Pat

Email address works as is.

"Pat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've seen this type of behavior before (Walter Cronkite comes to

mind)... an

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

aging man, respected in his field, uses his name as a soapbox on which

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

subject those who are unfortunate enough to be listening to his

highbrow,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

gray-haired wisdom. Its too bad, really.

I don't know the significance of "aging" (aren't we all?) or

"gray-haired",

Quoted message said:

except as a gratuitous pot shot, but, if your big fear is that Jobst

will

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

abuse his automatic credibility with this audience, you must be new

here.

Quoted message said:

It's the Republican way these days to try to run down the person saying

the

Quoted message said:

contentious statement by denigrating them in some way and not responding

to

Quoted message said:

what he/she said. Just last week, Talk show host Mark Davis, when
responding to Gen. Anthony Zinni's statements about the way in Iraq,
dismissed them entirely by saying "Why should we listen to a retiree?"

Pat in TX

Where did republican/democrat come into this? Quite insightful Pat, to
associate one instance of the behavior of one person to an entire politcal
party. Thanks for contributing.

Peter was right on, re Jobst abusing his credibility. My age references
were only meant to convey that this particular form of credibility abuse
tends to appear amongst more senior characters (Walter Cronkite, Helen
Thomas come to mind), as they just don't care about their reputations
anymore. Doesn't mean they get a free pass though.

Kyle.B.H said:

Quoted message said:

While photocopying a portion of a book
would perhaps constitute a violation of copyright law,...

Like so many things, "it depends." There is "fair use" copying very much allowed by law. Copying
entire chapters, or even lengthy sections is probably not fair use. Scientific facts and historical
data are not protected by copyright. I don't know the specifics, for your copying.

Mark Hickey said:

...
Just examine how valid the paranoia of the Reagan era turned out to be
(defeated the USSR, created the greatest economic expansion in
history, etc.). But I'm sure to you it was all a great disaster. Sad
world you live in....

Ronald Reagan sent his emissary Donald Rumsfeld to shake Saddam
Hussein's hand and pledge support for Iraq in the war against Iran. That
support included materials used in manufacturing chemical and biological
weapons.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area