Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Imitation is the Sincerest Form X
Yesterday morning, I expressed my desire for…
…a national debate on the following question: At what point, if any, does unauthorized leaking do more harm than good? Is there a point? How many people think there is no such point…and are they allowed to vote?
I don’t know if David Limbaugh reads my blog. I would suspect hardly anybody does. But how else do you explain this gem which appeared this morning in Townhall? The subject, in his article as well as my earlier one, is the whole Bill Keller New York Times Financial Transactions, uh, well, what better word…SNAFU.
The paper’s exective editor, Bill Keller, said, “We have listened closely to the administration’s arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration’s extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial date, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest.”
So what might be a matter of public interest is sufficient to outweigh what will certainly be a detriment to the public interest? Under Keller’s definition, would any classified information coming into the press’s hands ever be off-limits from public disclosure no matter how damaging to the national interest or dangerous to American lives?
And he encapsulates his point even more concisely, in fact masterfully, with the very first sentence.
Would the New York Times pub[l]ish our nuclear launch codes if it acquired access to them because it “may be � a matter of public interest”?
I’ve been robbed, but I’m not calling the police. I’m quite flattered.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.