Kevin McCullough

Liberally oriented newspaper editors increasingly wonder why subscription and circulation numbers continue to plummet among the old guard of news media: the printed page.

What are they, the dumbest people on earth?

Why would any population of any nation that has the slightest modicum of freedom choose to subject itself to the onset of treasonous and vapid judgment with which these editors seem so well endowed?

Maybe these editors are bored by the slow news cycle that is the month of August, maybe they fell asleep while sitting at their desk playing sudoku, maybe their consensual sex partners broke pieces of china over their noggins, or worst of all maybe their viewpoint of the American people is so low that they think we won't notice. Whatever the case editors at the New York Times, The Philadelphia Daily News, and The Washington Post deserve not merely ridicule but complete isolation from American civilization for the treachery they promoted this week.

Playing fast and loose with the idea of terror visiting our shores, ripping American lives and bodies apart, polling the bottom feeding trolls to suggest how attacks should be planned, and pure mockery of what real American heroism looks like in the face of such danger - should earn not just the scorn of the American public, but the economic ruin that comes from readers and subscribers walking away.

Steven D. Levitt, the New York Times' self-named "freak" lived out his titillating fantasies this week by asking readers to comment on his blog's publicly accessible comment section to give great detail about how they would carry out a terrorist attack. He even included parameters such as if you were limited with financial resources and how the best plan of escape could be hatched. He even supplied the first example and then said he would "love" to hear from his readers, whom he was sure had "far better ideas." Mindful this is being brought to you by the same "news service" that has taken great delight in exposing some of our most effective tools against terrorists like tapping their use of cell phones, and revealing how we had been freezing their financing. The week previous due to financial constraints the Times had been required to reduce its page size. The "freak" also attempted to justify his postulation of the discussion by citing fewer terrorists would read the column than say patriots.

How many terrorists need to read the column to take action on its ideas?

19 or so?

"Freak" indeed!