Wednesday, July 05, 2006

This blog has been folded into Bay Ridge Blog. Meet me there!!

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Last Post from View from 103

In the past year, I've had some fun running this blog, which deals with various political and other things, and a companion one, Bay Ridge Blog, which deals with Brooklyn's great Bay Ridge neighborhood.

I have a small but treasured group of readers on each site. I've liked running the two sites, but have often neglected both. Why? Because I work lots of hours, because I try to live my life, because I spend time reading on commenting on other people's blogs.

So, here's what I am going to do. I am going to leave this blog up, but will rarely or never post on it. I will focus my attention on Bay Ridge Blog. It will continue to be a Bay Ridge-centric blog, but I will include comments on the other things of interest. There will be no more or no less blather, so nothing is lost or gained by this change.

Happy July 4 to one and all. See you on Bay Ridge Blog.

Saturday, July 01, 2006

NY Times: All the Classified Information Fit to Print

We'll Print Any Classified Information We Want!!

Some here have hectored on the point " Why is everyone picking on the NY Times, when the Wall Street Journal and LA Times printed the story also"?

The NY Times printed the story first. They had been snooping around asking questions on SWIFT, and it became known that they were going to push the privacy angle. In news and editorial pieces ( hard to tell which is which ) they've repeatedly made the point that both the Wall Street Journal and LA Times printed essentially the same information.

Today, in a furious editorial, the Journal indicates that it does not like the NY Times hiding behind the Journal in its responses to criticism.

The Treasury Department didn't ask the WSJ not to print. They came to the Wall Street Journal, and apparently only did so when it was clear that the NY Times was about to go to press with this. The WSJ speculates that the government felt that the information was soon to go out anyway and that the WSJ " would write a straighter story". They said that if asked not to print they probably would not have.

The NY Times has said that their breach of security was in the public interest The WSJ begs to differ:

"Just as dubious is the defense in a Times editorial this week that "The Swift story bears no resemblance to security breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals." In this asymmetric war against terrorists, intelligence and financial tracking are the equivalent of troop movements. They are America's main weapons."

The WSJ says:
"We suspect that the Times has tried to use the Journal as its political heatshield precisely because it knows our editors have more credibility on these matters."

The WSJ knows that this is wartime. It's been wartime for over 4 1/2 years. Pity the word never made it to West 43rd Street.