I stopped my Time subscription because of your posts on Joe Klein and despite all of the negative blogging that Time has received since then, the editors at Time and its owner have learned nothing.

-- Retired Military Patriot

Monday, March 17, 2008 08:11 AM

I wrote at least a dozen emails back during the Klein debacle politely but firmly insisting TIME cancel my subscription and explaining why. I got a non-response from Stengel defending his useless rag, but I keep getting the magazine.

Was my mistake demanding a refund of the six months of remaining subscription?

Glenn, didn't you get a reply from the Politico over your critique of them last week?

Are you still going to address it?

I am constantly intrigued how the neo-con mind trusts Big Government to protect America from the evils of terrorists yet can rabidly distrust said Big Government when spending or taxes are scrutinized.

Does not compute.

Every administration water carrier should be asked publicly why they trust Big Government to protect them from identity theft forever and ever if they can't trust Big Government to spend their 2007 tax contribution reasonably. After all, this world of information will certainly be abused by common thieves after it gets abused by political insiders.

Count on it. It's called human nature.

Do you think it is strange that while McCain and Cheney are in Iraq that this serious NYT military expert has published a story today that absolves everyone except Paul Bremer from the fateful decision of dissolving the Iraqi Army? Do you think it might just be possible that the protests to the Iraq War on Wednesday has stimulated a long planned propaganda offensive by the Busheviks ahead of that date? Isn’t it nice that the administration has at its disposal a journalist tool who will print whatever is desired and needed at just the right time?

Fateful choice on Iraq army bypassed debate

BAGHDAD: When President George W. Bush convened a meeting of his National Security Council on May 22, 2003, his special envoy in Iraq made a statement that caught many of the participants by surprise. In a video presentation from Baghdad, L. Paul Bremer III informed the president and his aides that he was about to issue an order formally dissolving Iraq's army.

The decree was issued the next day.

The broad outlines of the decision are now widely known, defended by proponents as necessary to ensure that Saddam Hussein's influence did not outlive his ouster from power.

But with the fifth anniversary of the start of the war approaching, some participants have provided in interviews their first detailed, on-the-record accounts of a decision that is widely seen as one of the most momentous and contentious of the war, assailed by critics as all but ensuring that American forces would face a growing insurgency led by embittered Sunnis who led much of the army.

The account that emerges from those interviews, and from access to previously unpublished documents, makes clear that Bremer's decree reversed an earlier plan — one that would have relied on the Iraqi military to help secure and rebuild the country, and had been approved at a White House meeting that Bush convened just 10 weeks earlier.

The interviews show that while Bush endorsed Bremer's plan in the May 22 meeting, the decision was made without thorough consultations within government, and without the counsel of the secretary of state or the senior American commander in Iraq, said the commander, Lieutenant General David D. McKiernan. The decree by Bremer, who is known as Jerry, prompted bitter infighting within the government and the military, with recriminations continuing to this day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/world/middleeast/17bremer.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Americans also don't much care about that strange news about New York banks either. Everyone know it's just a problem with a few misplaced cash or receipt boxes or something. Our boys and girls with the green eyeshades will find that stuff before the day is out - maybe just in time for supper. In fact, all the bank employees are wearing green eyeshades today, in honor of St. Paddy don'cha know; and tomorrow, by gorry - even if worse comes to worse they have to do an all-nighter! - they'll find those lost metal boxes, deep in the vault under some old issues of Time magazine or under the break room tables or wherever. Then! - they'll all have a big promotion see, and they'll give all the customers their own Free! green eyeshades, and - Free! little tin change boxes for all the kids in the family (they're ready to ship from the Caymans right now!).

It's a small token; it's the least they can do; it's their way of saying: "Thanks for your business"!

If 100 percent of Americans thought that 100 percent of mail and telephone communication inside the US should be monitored without warrants and published in public journals, what does that have to do with constitutionality?

The economy is tanking -- which of course, has nothing to do with Bush Administration policies either on the home front or our trillions of dollars spent in Iraq -- Iraq is still around our necks like a millstone, prosecutors are protesting and resigning from the cases in Gitmo, new revelations of spying and abuse crop up every day, the stink of corruption coming out of the Justice Dept and the Bush administration is nearly unbearable, but what does our press talk about? Obama's preacher, Eliot Spitzer's sex life, and, oh yeah, everything the government does is good or at least has good intentions behind it. Now, let's hear about the latest on Britney.

It's time to move to that island.

The study exerpted below finds that public opinion has a fundamental impact on Supreme Court Decisions. While it focuses on the first amendment, the exact same is true for any of the rights in the Bill of Rights. Public opinion impacts Judicial decisions as it does legislative and executive actions. In light of this fact, media coverage that has the effect of deflating public support (through misrepresentation) for civil liberties is simply toxic to democracy. It is not only sloppy journalism--it is actually harmful to our form of government. It is unfortunate that journalists have nothing similar to the medical Hippcratic Oath.

One other reaction to GG's piece--The figures Greenwald shows for media articles covering superficial topics as opposed to important topics is also true of polling. We could use more frequent polls on issues of this sort, and many fewer on the "horse race", which occur without fail every single day. Polling is expensive, and we are wasting so much by polling on questions that are simply not that important.

Over time public support for free speech helps buttress — or undermine — existing legal protections. Public support for free speech tends to be strongest for speech that clearly promotes an informed citizenry and democratic self-governance. However, the public tends to have less tolerance for offensive speech and speech that it regards as extremist, particularly when it fails to see a connection to democracy.

The public is also much less protective of media rights than individual rights. That makes it less likely that the high court will rule for news organizations in First Amendment cases than it would in an environment of high public respect for the news media.

The study points to a wide range of mechanisms by which public opinion affects judicial decisions, ranging from the appointments process — which shifts the median or “swing” Justice on the Supreme Court — to the fact that judges and Justices live in the same culture as everyone else. These effects may often be indirect, but over time they may matter a great deal.

“We are now engaged in a really vital debate over civil liberties after 9/11, and it becomes ever more important for the public to show its support for our basic freedoms,” said Balkin, “It’s a time of challenge but also a time of opportunity. Courts can’t do everything by themselves, nor should we expect them to. If the public rises to the occasion and supports freedom of speech when it is threatened, the judiciary will be far more likely to protect this core freedom.”

What is needed, the study says, are larger efforts to educate the public about the First Amendment. It proposes a model for educating students and the public on First Amendment issues, focusing on how free speech and a free press advance democracy and serve the public interest. The model education program should also educate the public about the difference between using social norms and social disapproval to regulate speech, and using the power of the state in the form of fines and criminal penalties.

http://www.knightfoundation.org/news/press_room/knight_press_releases/detail.dot?id=136205