New York Times: Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate Points

there was never any doubt this week, althogh Massachusetts Congressman William Delahunt gets an honorable mention (along the same lines) for suggesting (in one of that endless series of Democrat "investigative" hearings into the treatement of TERRORISTS--Barack Obama STILL not having been asked whether all of those Democrat investigations of matters often more than half a decade old "bring us together") that he hopes al-Qaida is paying attention to who is defending "torture" against them.  In other words, Delahunt seemed to INVITE al-Qaida to note who its enemies are in the Bush Admiistration, and perhaps do something about it.  Delahunt tried to suggest he said something other than what he said (which was basically that he was glad that "they"--al-Qaida--were probably paying attention on C-Span to this official's appearance before Delahunt), alleging that he said "I" instead of "they" (that reference to al-Qaida).  Unfortunately, what the Congressman said is on tape, and he said "they". I digress, as usual.

"The Finger" (my reincarnaton of the ond "Laugh In" award represented by a statuette of an INDEX finger) firmly pointed at the New York Times for its total, sanctimonious hypocrsiy, and intellectual dishonesty, in identifying a U.S. agent who interrogated the "blind sheik" (I think, although it could be some other terrorist).  The point is that the New York Times, for no apparent reason other than it COULD, gave the NAME of an U.S. agent who conducted interrogations--virtually putting a bulls eye on this agent if terrorists are looking around for targets.  You will remember that the New York Times is one of those truly hypocritical media organzations who made such a big deal of the NON-STORY of Valterie Plame, and her "outing" as a mere employee of the C.I.A. (NOT as a secret agent).  The incredible New York Times explanation (after participating in the Valerie Plame witch hunt for 5 years or so):  "We don't believe this person is an "uncercover agent", and therefore there is not reason not to publish his name (this from the kind of mainstream media people who refused to publish those Danish CARTOONS because it might make Islamic extremists mad, and "endanger" media employees).

I'm sorry.  This is EVIL stuff.  The name had no "news" significance.  As I said, the New York Times apparently published it because it could.  While William Delahunt could be regarded as having put abulls eye for al-Qaida on the chest of a Bush Admistration official, it is actually unlikely that Delahunt's gaffe was of much signficance.  It is NOT so unlikely that the New York Times has put one or more agents of the U.S. in actual DANGER.  We know, of course, that the New York Times was perfectly willing to compromise CLASSFIED activities against terrorists in the past, as with regard to the NSA surveillance program.  This story showed that the New York Times is not only willing to enable treason, but that it is willing to invade the privacy of our intelligence agents for NO PURPOSE. 

Yes, this award has tended to go to a media organization, when it is not going to Barack Obama.  The New York Times has again shown WHY.  Just when you think media people cannot get any WORSE, they top themselves.  Again, see the entry earlier this week.

The New York Times is beneath contempt for this one.  There has never been any doubt that they are on the side of the terrorists, and theere is none now.  But this targeting of an individual's privacy, for absolutely NO discernible reason, is way beyond the pale.

Award ceremony:

Again, as a visual aid (rather than an assertion as to how Dick Martin would regard this), you need to imagine Dick Martin presenting this award to the camera on "Laugh In" (no video or high tech graphics on this blog--I should draft my cartoonist (hobby) older daughter to do cartoons.  I have toyed with the idea of getting her to do cartoons of Muhammad.  I digress yet again.  If you have got your mind in the right imaginative state, here is the (virtual, without video or graphics) award presentation:

Visualize Dick Martin THRUSTING "the Finger" at the camera, and saying:  "New York Times, this is for YOU; you DESERVE it.  No wonder your revenue is down and you are laying off people.  You DESERVE not only "the Finger", but to disappear into the dustbin of history."

P.S  I add my view to that of the award presentation.  NO business should advertise in the New York Times.  NO ONE should read it (no, I did not; I saw this story discussed elsewhere by both left and right panelists).  Yes, the AP and AOL are just as bad (although I did not see this terrible "journalistic" sin repeated there), but I have to read SOMETING to know what the mainstream media is saying.  I have chosen AOL, and AOL relies lpretty much on the despicable AP (although sometimes using CNN, the New York Times, USA Today, etc.).  Further, as I have previously said, I regard myself as a MOLE within AOL, sacrificing myself to educate others.  I have promised to be the last person to leeave, and to turn out the lights when the party is over (reference is to Don Meredith singing on the old "Monday Night Football").

P.S. 2:  I am interested in whether anyone would really like to see cartoon illustrations from my daughter on this blog.  She may be too busy (as a Boston lawyer) to do it.  And there may not be enough readers to make it worth her time.  But I would still be interested in any comments on the subject--as to a regular cartoon feature on Muhammad, or just illustrations in the nature of caricatures.