Once again, multimillionaire New York Times columnist Tom Friedman weighs in with wisdom that could only come from the confines of a spectacular private estate:

To make a second impression, Snowden would need to come home, make his case and face his accusers. It would mean risking a lengthy jail term, but also trusting the fair-mindedness of the American people, who, I believe, will not allow an authentic whistle-blower to be unfairly punished.

Which reminds us — again — just how colossally dumb Friedman is.

“The American people” don’t decide criminal cases. Judges and juries do. And they’re not allowed to let people off the hook for illegal actions because they think those actions were morally right. Snowden committed a number of illegal acts, any number of which carry long prison terms. If he faces trial in the U.S., he will be found guilty and sentenced to significant prison term. This isn’t a movie. And I’m not even going to get into the fact that the U.S. government wants to get even with him for embarrassing them, and send a message to future whistleblowers.

Besides, it’s far from clear that “the American people” support Snowden. A July 24th ABC poll found that 53% of the public supports charging Snowden as a criminal. Granted, all you need is one hold-out juror to walk free.

What exactly would be a fair punishment, anyway? In my view, Obama and his minions should be in prison for the NSA programs Snowden revealed. Snowden deserves a medal and compensation for the stress he suffered, and those Russian hotel bills. To me, there’s nothing fair or moderate about the idea of Snowden serving a single minute of prison time.

“The fact is, he dumped his data and fled to countries that are hostile to us and to the very principles he espoused,” Friedman writes. Well, yeah. Because, if you’re on the lam from Country A, you don’t go hang out in nations that are friendly to Country A. What’s galling is the implication that there is something immoral about Snowden’s refusal to turn himself in.

Why should he enable his own oppression? Why should anyone? Especially when the system he is challenging is lawless?

Why should Snowden voluntarily submit to punishment he doesn’t deserve?

Why should he trust the American system of justice, which found Bradley Manning guilty of similar “crimes,” after torturing him?

To which I add: Snowden does a lot more good to the American people by remaining free in Russia, where he can be interviewed and explain the data he is leaking, than behind bars.

Friedman’s analysis is infantile and absurd, and he deserves to be fired for this column alone.

Boy stuck between building and shed rescued using dish soap, vegetable oil

If you have trouble reading Friday’s cartoon, you can zoom in here to see the details. Use the command + and command – to zoom in and out.

Try zooming in.

Check out my appearance on Russia Today TV about the media coverage of the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal.

At 3 PM Eastern time Obama is giving a speech to restore public trust in the NSA’s domestic spying program against the American people. This should be entertaining.

Check out my cartoon exclusive to NSFWCORP. But do it quickly since the link will be locked again soon.

And subscribe! They pay good cartoonists a good rate for original work.

You know you’ve got a problem when your glory days are 40 years in the past. The purchase of the Washington Post by Jeff Bezos has sponsored a legion of articles referencing Woodward and Bernstein, but nothing much since. There’s a reason for that: there hasn’t been much since. Washington Post has been in the doldrums for nearly half a century. It was inevitable that something had to give. Yesterday it did.

In public statements Bezos says that he doesn’t have a master plan for changing the paper, but that is pretty difficult to believe. Last year in an interview he predicted that newspapers would never appear in print 20 years from now. I find that hard to believe as well. I think the future of print newspapers looks a lot like the present does in Japan today: the product that appears in print is for the elites and they pay top dollar for it. Don’t be surprised if newspapers start to sell for $10 or $15 a copy in 10 or 15 years. There won’t be much advertising. Individual subscribers will pay.

If I were the new owner of any newspaper, I would accept a simple truism that media barons from Tina Brown to Michael Bloomberg to Katherine Graham never seemed to: the Internet is for breaking news. Print is for analysis. Analysis comes in long form. Give me 10,000 words about what yesterday’s news means and why I should care, and please put it in print because it’s easier on the eyes than it is on the tablet.

When publishers start to understand that, and the fact that bland doesn’t sell and that edgy does, that mainstreaming is boring and alternative is mainstream, they will start to turn a profit.