Frank Rich, again, in this Sunday's NY Times: Brilliant.

[Faygo Kid]

Here are his concluding paragraphs, to the column "We Do Not Torture' and Other Funny Stories." Here is the link, although NY Times makes you pay now(I have paid, for Frank and Maureen, not Judith). Anyway, read this too true conclusion, at least. "The lies that diverted us." Has a ring of truth, doesn't it?

http://select.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/opinion/13rich.html?pagewanted=2&hp

THERE'S so much to stonewall at the White House that last week Scott McClellan was reduced to beating up on the octogenarian Helen Thomas. "You don't want the American people to hear what the facts are, Helen," he said, "and I'm going to tell them the facts." Coming from the press secretary who vowed that neither Mr. Libby nor Karl Rove had any involvement in the C.I.A. leak, this scene was almost as funny as his boss's "We do not torture" charade.

Not that it matters now. The facts the American people are listening to at this point come not from an administration that they no longer find credible, but from the far more reality-based theater of war. The Qaeda suicide bombings of three hotels in Amman on 11/9, like the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London before them, speak louder than anything else of the price we are paying for the lies that diverted us from the war against the suicide bombers of 9/11 to the war in Iraq.

[goclark]

1. Scotty to the Hague! Don't mess with my Helen Scotty! nt

[seafan]

2. Full article at this link:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/browse_thread/thread/cab045a58b23cd52/36d09eded28783f0?lnk=st&q=frank+rich&rnum=1#36d09eded28783f0

[Pirate Smile]

3. Thank you very much!

[druidity33]

4. thanks

i don't want to give the NY times a dime... but i appreciated the full article...
peace in our time

[northzax]

18. so you appreciate the article

but aren't willing to pay for it? You want Frank Rich to write for your pleasure for free?

I don't subscribe to NYTimes Select myself, but it is their copyright to restrict if they so wish. This article was not posted by the Times, or by someone owning the copyright, as far as anyone can tell, it was a cut and paste job, a theft of the article from the Times. Come on.

[druidity33]

19. yes...

I appreciated the article but am not willing to pay for it... got a problem with that? Maybe you're a lawyer? I believe access to information should be free... i could have gone to the library to read it, but i was here, so was my computer, so was the link. Come on, yourself.

[northzax]

20. can I get your social security number?

you know, since information should be free? I assume anytime you write something at work, you tell your boss to keep the paycheck? you know, since information is supposed to be free?

[druidity33]

21. wow...

Had some copyright issues in the past? Just trying to start a disagreement? What if i told you i have a 4 year old, 2 part time jobs, and much side work that still never manages to pay all the bills... not to mention the fact that the NYT is a craprag that doesn't deserve my hard earned cash.
OBVIOUSLY there is a difference between information that should be available to the public and information that should be held privately... are we or are we not talking about a NEWSPAPER article?

Write something at work? Don't even know what you're trying to imply there...

And hey doesn't copyright infringement generally involve reproduction and/or selling the copyrighted piece? All i did was read the article fer cryin' out loud.

Ever heard of "the commons"?

[northzax]

22. ever heard of the tragedy of the commons?

if the Times isn't good enough for you to spend your money on, then don't read their stuff.

OBVIOUSLY there is a difference between information that should be available to the public and information that should be held privately... are we or are we not talking about a NEWSPAPER article? actually, we are dealing with a newspaper opinion piece. The added value is Mr. Rich's opinion and writing. And he sells that opinion to the New York Times, which in turn sells it to you. If they wanted it to be freely avaliable, without cost, they'd make it freely avaliable without cost. but they don't, do they? So they are saying, by making it pay-per-view, that unless you pay for it, they don't you to have access to it. So it's not 'public information' it is someone's opinion, which they charge for.

I, on occasion, write pieces for money. My employers have asked me, as part of my job, to write a piece for a newsletter, or an internal memo. they may do what they want with that intellectual property, they bought it from me with my paycheck. If they want to give it away, that's their choice. But I certainly didn't give it away, they paid me for it.

Google is selling you that piece, notice the ads on the side of the page? you are aiding and abetting the theft of intellectual property. Morally, you are using property that you know is stolen. That really doesn't bother you? The Times did not give this information away, someone stole it from them, and everyone who visits adds value to that theft. There is no difference between posting the entire text of the article on DU, which is forbidden, and linking to someone else who has posted the same text. Both are wrong.

I'm not trying to start a disagreement, simply pointing out hypocrisy. if information should be 'free' then all information should be free.

[druidity33]

23. yeah right...

Sorry, if you want to try and make someone feel guilty or express remorse, please look elsewhere. Maybe you should write to google and let them know about the copyright issue. Or the poster who offered the link.

Morally, you are using property that you know is stolen. That really doesn't bother you?
i would debate the idea of that theft, are you sure for instance, that Mr. Rich did not post that himself because he wanted his opinion to be more widely read? So as for me "knowing" it was stolen, i disagree.

As for intellectual property, i'm sure you know that there are many disagreements as to what that actually constitutes and that though there are currently legal definitions, they are contentious... i have musician and engineer friends who have strong opinions in both directions.

As for not trying to start a disagreement, then why call me a hypocrite? And how is it that something i can find in the library and read is not public information? I'd say there is a difference in types of information, because otherwise we wouln't be having troubles with * and pre-war intel... you know classified information? You seemed to avoid that issue by pointing out that the piece was an opinion and not an article... though i don't see what difference that makes since they were both in a newspaper that anyone can read.

Are you just upset because i read it via the googled link and didn't wait til Monday to go to the library?

The whole "if they wanted it to be free" of cost they would... the "they" you are talking about is the Times right? As a freelance photographer who writes his own contracts i can tell you that i will not work for a company that has sole distribution/copyrights for my work. I would hope that an intelligent author would maintain the rights to his/her own work and be able to publish them in any format they see fit... all according to the contract, which for this author and this piece i haven't seen.

Sorry you're having troubles with me saying i wouln't give the NY Times a dime,
but i would respectfully disagree with you on these points.

No, i haven't heard of the "tragedy of the commons"... enlighten me.

[northzax]

25. Frank Rich is not a freelancer

his work is obviously exclusive to the Times, since it appears in no other paper. so there's the difference. It's an exclusive sale. He is under salary at the Times, his column is work product, owned by his employer for a certain amount of time. I don't know what that time is (before he can compile it in a book, for instance, but I bet it's longer than a week.

So you're a freelance photographer. You would have no problem with me copying one of your images and then selling it for my own profit? because that's what is happening here. after all, you may charge too much for your work, I'm sure if I charge less, more people will buy it. It's your fault for charging too much.

At the library, someone has paid for the copy, and the library isn't actually making money from loaning you the paper, right? And the library doesn't make a copy of the article, they have exactly as many as they buy. Libraries are a special case, under copyright law, I can borrow a book from the library, after all, but Barnes and Noble frowns on borrowing. they call it stealing. Of course, if I buy the book, I can loan it to you, but I can't photocopy it for you, or scan it and post it on my website. You would, I assume, have issues with me copying your photographs and giving them away, since your livelihood is based on selling them? After all, why would someone pay you, when they can get them from me for free?

I have no problem with anyone who doesn't feel something is worth paying for, but that doesn't give you, or anyone else, the right to avail yourself of it without paying. If it's not worth it, then don't buy it. I fail to see how this is a hard concept. There is no difference between this and: sneaking into a movie theater; stealing cable; accepting a photocopy of a novel; installing software without a license; or any of a hundred other thefts. None of them seem to take money from someone, but they all allow you something for free that you're otherwise unwilling to pay for.

Tragedy of the Commons

[druidity33]

26. hmmm...

i didn't copy it, i didn't distribute it, i read it... as an artist i have no qualms about people viewing my images... sometimes i even lend images to worthy efforts for free... as long as i'm attributed, it's exposure... i didn't know the author (who i'd not previously been familiar with) was owned by the NYT...

way off base with the:
There is no difference between this and: sneaking into a movie theater; stealing cable; accepting a photocopy of a novel; installing software without a license; or any of a hundred other thefts. None of them seem to take money from someone, but they all allow you something for free that you're otherwise unwilling to pay for.

i've got a better analogy for you...
i see an open door in a public building... i walk into the room, there's music playing... it's nice, i like it... i ask who it is, someone tells me... i leave. (But, OH NO! it was a burned CD, i've inadvertantly committed a heinous crime by contributing to the plague of music piracy)

As for intellectual property for newspapers... i think it is a sad day when the information contained in papers is treated as a commodity and knowledge like this could be held from people. With all due respect to you, whomever you are but i can't afford the paper... any paper. I need to get my news for free. Does the Washington Post make people pay for the online edition? How many papers do this?

[northzax]

27. but before 1998, when the Times went online

the only way to get it was by buying it, or borrowing a hard copy from someone else, right? Since the Times was only avaliable on paper then, you had to get a paper copy. Why does the digital version mean anything different? And if newspapers aren't a commodity, why do they charge for the paper version? how do you expect them to pay their employees? pay for bandwidth? freelance photographers? All those people like getting paid, none of it is free.

And yes, the Post does have limited content, directed at specfic people, that they charge for online, and in order to read almost all the articles, you have to register with them, and be used for their marketing purposes. So in a way, yes, they make you pay, just like the Times used to. I think it is stupid that the Times is charging for access to its columnists, but that is their right to do. You knew this, in your initial comment i don't want to give the NY times a dime... but i appreciated the full article... you knew that the Times charged for this article, and you went to another place where you could get it for free. Fine, the first time you were ignorant that Rich is a Times columnist, and, I suppose, ignorant that the Times charges for their columnists (and only for their columnists, the news is still register/free, just like the Post) knowing that, would you do it again? that's the question.

I'm sorry that you can't buy a paper (personally, the TimesSelect deal isn't worth my scarce resources, so I don't get the service either) but that doesn't mean that opinion articles should be free to you. If the Times wanted to give it to you for free, they would be, and, in fact, they used to, but since they were losing so much money on it, they stopped. Frankly, I can't afford cable, since MSNBC and CNN are avaliable only on cable, can I tap into my neighbor's cable to watch the news? of course not. Even if the cable was already hooked up in my apartment when I moved it, viewing it without paying for it is still wrong.

[druidity33]

29. so basically

you are being hypercritical at me for reading an article online that i didn't know was a "cut and paste" job. Hey, in fact i just didn't know that papers owned information like that, or could. Gonna sue me?

"the only way to get it was by buying it, or borrowing a hard copy from someone else, right? Since the Times was only avaliable on paper then, you had to get a paper copy. Why does the digital version mean anything different? And if newspapers aren't a commodity, why do they charge for the paper version? how do you expect them to pay their employees? pay for bandwidth? freelance photographers? All those people like getting paid, none of it is free."
I almost never pay for a paper... i read sometimes the shop copy at my local coffeeshop, or at the library... otherwise i get my info from computer and Democracy Now!
Maybe you've been missing the debates here on DU, but Knight-Ridder is in danger of being bought out/sold by * cronies and what everyone here is UPSET about is the switch from newspapers as information and community builders/watchdogs.... they have turned into Conglomerates, where NOTHING is important except the bottom line. If you're concerned about me reading an article and how it would hurt the paper's revenues, you might consider what happens when a paper switches from a community asset to a corporate venture where one needs to be worried about THEIR JOBS being cut, not the pennies lost from a poor person reading an opinion piece.

"can I tap into my neighbor's cable to watch the news? of course not. Even if the cable was already hooked up in my apartment when I moved it, viewing it without paying for it is still wrong. "... yeah but what if i walked into a room where cable was being broadcast and was told "sit down, enjoy"... should i ask to see their cable bill to see if it's "legal" TV?
As far as all this goes, so now you're telling me that to watch LiveOakTX's Cano'Fun clips are illegal? Because some of them are from CNN, MSNBC, and CC? Or the political cartoons that get posted on here? Pick on the OP's, not me.

I know there are many things that are "illegal" in this world and are patently absurd.
i'll quote Utah Phillips quoting Eammon Hennessey:
"old district court Judge Ritter said,"well, Hennessey what do you plead, guilty or innocent?"
"I plead Anarchy.",said Hennessey.
"what's Anarchy?" asked Ritter.
"means i don't need a cop telling me what to do", Henn.

it occurs to me that you and i are not likely to see eye to eye on this, because quite frankly, i have more important things to do than fight for the rights of the NYT. I wish you well in your endeavours, fighting against the injustice of illegal paper-reading everywhere!

[druidity33]

34. commons...

looks like Hardin's viewpoint is just that... Hardin's viewpoint.
It seems like he thinks our species is inherently shortsighted and selfish...
i think he's just talking about the "western" world view,
and i'd rather be hopeful that as a collection of misguided societies, we will come around... as opposed to recommending privatization as a remedy (i think i've seen enough of how well that works).
This wikipedia link you've left also talks about how controversial this viewpoint is, interesting take though.
I'm recognizing that despite our differences, it is good to have a prodding voice around... helps me to define my position. Maybe i should admit now that i tend to take more of a socialist stance than capitalist on many issues... though that might have been more helpful to you if i had mentioned it to start. Anyway, peace and goodwill to you.

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. When the NYT's comes clean

and starts printing the truth then I will respect their rights. The publisher and editors of the NYT's are war criminals and do not deserve a single dime of our money.

BTW: I deal with copyright issues on a regular basis and even have my own copyright lawyer. I understand and respect copyright law better then most.

[northzax]

31. so, in your understanding

is this a copyright violation? regardless of your opinion of the Times, how is this significantly different than me posting the text of the latest Stephen King novel on my blog?

[DoYouEverWonder]

32. In regards to the internet

If you don't want people to take it, don't put it up there.

[northzax]

33. and if you don't want someone to steal you car

don't buy one, right?

[DoYouEverWonder]

35. Keep it locked

and don't give someone the key.

[northzax]

36. but the page was limited to subscribers

so if you lend me the key to your car, and I give them to someone else, that's cool with you?

[DoYouEverWonder]

37. See post #35

Especially stupid friends.

[northzax]

38. ok, maybe another example

I rent a car from Hertz. The deal I sign with Hertz says that this car is for my use.

I sell that car to someone for $50.

Does Hertz have a complaint? under your theory, no, since they gave me access to the car voluntarily.

oh, on edit, I have a better one.

DU restricts advanced searching to dues paying members, as well as Groups, as I recall (I've been a member for so long, I don't know what non-star looks like) Can I establish a website, let's call it, DUSearch.com, where I write a bot that will do your searches for you? Would Skinner, et al, have a legitimate complaint about that? Or since it's on the Internet, I can do it?

[DoYouEverWonder]

40. Seems google and other browsers

already have that capability?

Google Democraticunderground + any key word and you can get similiar results to what you get on a DU search.

[northzax]

41. not similar at all, I have to tell you

try your user name. I have 12,000+ posts, and Google finds fewer than 1 percent of them.

[seafan]

8. Also from this link: Senators opposing the torture ban amendment.

--snip

The following politicians have taken the extremist position of
OPPOSING THE SENATE AMENDMENT BAN ON INHUMAN TREATMENT:

Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)

If you're one of the unfortunate few who are "represented" by these people,
contact 'em and tell them what *you* believe. Contact info is listed below.

Remember their position on torture when it comes time for re-election. Can
we afford to have such people in our government?

-----------------------------------

Wayne Allard

Web Site: allard.senate.gov
(email form at web site)

Washington Office:
SD-521
Washington, D.C. 20510-0605
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Main District Office:
7340 E. Caley, #215
Englewood, CO 80111
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

-----------------------------------

Christopher S. Bond

Web Site: bond.senate.gov
(email form at web site)

Washington Office:
SR-274
Washington, D.C. 20510-2503
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Main District Office:
308 East High, #202
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

----------------------------------

Tom Coburn

Web Site: coburn.senate.gov
(email form at web site)

Washington Office:
SR-172
Washington, D.C. 20510-3602
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Main District Office:
401 South Boston, 3310 Mid-Continent Tower
Tulsa, OK 74103-4007
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

-----------------------------------

Thad Cochran

Web Site: cochran.senate.gov
(email form at web site)

Washington Office:
SD-113
Washington, D.C. 20510-2402
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Main District Office:
188 East Capitol St., #614
Jackson, MS 39201
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

------------------------------------

John Cornyn

Web Site: cornyn.senate.gov
(email form at web site)

Washington Office:
SH-517
Washington, D.C. 20510-4302
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Main District Office:
221 West 6th St., Ste. 1530
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

-------------------------------------

James M. Inhofe

Web Site: inhofe.senate.gov
(email form at web site)

Washington Office:
SR-453
Washington, D.C. 20510-3603
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Main District Office:
1924 South Utica, #530
Tulsa, OK 74104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

-------------------------------------

Pat Roberts

Web Site: roberts.senate.gov
(email form at web site)

Washington Office:
SH-109
Washington, D.C. 20510-1605
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Main District Office:
11900 College Blvd., Ste. 203
Overland Park, KS 61210
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

------------------------------------

Jeff Sessions

Web Site: sessions.senate.gov
(email form at web site)

Washington Office:
SR-335
Washington, D.C. 20510-0104
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Main District Office:
7550 Halcyon Summit Dr., Ste. 150
Montgomery, AL 36117
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

-----------------------------------

Ted Stevens

Web Site: stevens.senate.gov
(email form at web site)

Washington Office:
SH-522
Washington, D.C. 20510-0201
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Main District Office:
222 W. 7th Ave., #2
Anchorage, AK 99513
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

[vickitulsa]

16. Oklahoma's SHAME:

that we are the ONLY state to have not just one but BOTH senators voting against the torture ban!

As a born and bred Okie who loves my home state because I remember well when it was as blue as blue could get, always going Democratic, I am sickened by this latest conspicuous shame. To make it even worse, Tom Coburn, who surprisingly "won" over a great Dem opponent in a very hard-fought campaign, is ... (if you don't know this yet you'll find it hard to believe) ...

A MEDICAL DOCTOR!!!!!!

Yes, it's very true. An M.D. who practiced for many years! -- and I believe still does a bit when he's "home." How would you like to be one of HIS patients?? A doctor who believes in torture, and also btw claims to be a strong Christian. The world is truly upside down in these people's minds!!!!!!

I tell ya, my rage just knows no bounds. Coburn's and Inhofe's offices no doubt just delete my emails and toss out my snail mail letters the minute they see them any more, but I'll be writing them both again anyway! I'll also make sure I spread the word to everyone I can here locally about this latest hateful stand of our two senators. I'll write a letter to the editor, even though I know it's unlikely our compliant Tulsa World will publish it.

Coburn, btw, is also the SOB who promised when he was running for a House seat in DC in the '90's that he believed in term limits and WOULD NOT RUN AGAIN after two terms. A promise he kept ... only to then decide he would finagle his way around that firm commitment by running for the SENATE INSTEAD!

What a lying, conniving, self-serving, POS this man is!!! I do NOT believe Oklahomans truly elected him....

I fervently hope that Americans are at long last recognizing just how disastrous and destructive to our country and its citizens it is to have LIARS filling political offices from top to bottom and throws ALL the sorry bastards OUT OUT OUT!

Sorry for the rant, I'm just beside myself with outrage and shame.

[Ysolde]

24. Oh, vickitulsa, do I know how you feel...

Those 2 are such an embarrassment, it's ridiculous. I write; I call; Inhofe NEVER acknowledges my efforts. At least I keep getting form letters from Sullivan and Coburn.

After Reid's closed session in the Senate, I called both offices to insist they support the investigation. At least the lady in Coburn's office was polite and interested. I got Vince at Inhofe's office and he was rude and tried to tell me that the matter had already been investigated! I got mad and asked him why if they war was such a great thing he wasn't in Iraq? Reported the incident to the Tulsa World, but, of course, they won't print my letter. Surely, we can get these churches to wake up and help us oust the torture supporters in '06. (okay, I'm dreaming and delusion, but I need to hope for something!)

Stay strong! With people like you, OK will get better again!

[NMDemDist2]

12. thanks! n/t

[Frustratedlady]

5. Great article. Thanks!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. I love watching Helen at each Press conference.

She nails him time and time again, and doesn't take his crap he throws back at her. It's nice to see this in the paper, callin Scotty out on his crap.

Honestly, how long do you think it is before he finally says fuck it, I'm outta here?

[IndyOp]

11. Helen Proves: Standing Up Against Evil Keeps You Young!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:



Of course, Congressman Conyers is one hell of a great model of this, too!

[ProSense]

7. Beautiful! Thanks for posting. n/t

[DemoTex]

9. "If it weren't tragic it would be a New Yorker cartoon."

Today's NYTs print edition had excellent New Yorker-style cartoon running with Frank Rich's excellent piece. That made it all the more enjoyable.

[kittenpants]

10. "the far more reality-based theater of war..."

I like that line digging at the administration who thought it could form its own reality.

[rateyes]

13. thanks faygo kid....

and frank rich. k and r.

:kick:

[Faygo Kid]

14. You're welcome. Frank Rich doesn't mess around - he always nails it.

I for one am glad he's out there.

[lebkuchen]

15. I hope Rich's piece reaches King Abdullah's brain

The King has lost the plot. Is he truly Muslim?

[BrklynLiberal]

17. Frank Rich is sooooooooooo good!! Forwarded this to everyone on my list.

[necso]

28. Great piece,

I would only make one change: "talking-point howler-monkeys".

[TexasLawyer]

39. I LOVE Frank Rich

I cherish my Sunday mornings-- his column and a cup of joe. A jolt for the brain, and a jolt for the rest of me.