September 11, 2004
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:All Things Implied - question the timing of the questioning of the memos
I had to drive around this [update:yesterday] afternoon and caught All Things Considered. They covered the fake Bush memo around 5:07, interviewing two experts who opined that it was a fake.. The way they described the forgery story breaking was to say that "a [unnamed] blogger first posted suspicions about the memo at 8:59PM" the night of the 60 Minutes story, when it was unlikely that they could have seen enough of the memos from the screen to do such a close examination.
The clear implication is that the famousFreeper comment #47, from which Powerline picked it up, was a plant. More of the silly Evil Genius Rove stuff.
The existence of these forgeries obviously doesn't materially change Bush's story, but the charge of the Big Media Light Brigade should definitely be of interest to political bloggers. Why Atrios, Willis, Kos et al refuse to acknowledge that angle I can't tell you.
UPDATE: I didn't get around to posting this until this (Saturday) morning (in my Pajamas). I see they were materially wrong, too. I see this morning the forgeries have become even clearer, despite the New York Times' equivocation (they also cover it here ). Somewhere Dan Rather is saying 'we'll just have to win!".
Another thing I've just noticed (in my pajamas) is that Cornel West thinks weblogs are like oral sex! Along with cocaine and ecstasy they are apparently responsible for the 'soul murder' of American youth.
Posted by Mindles H. Dreck at September 11, 2004 9:46 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksMindles, the NPR report is far worse than even you portray it. The time stamp on the Free Republic post was Pacific Time. Note that 8:59 PM Pacific Time is 11:59 PM Eastern Time. By the time of the post to Free Republic the program had been over for hours and the documents had been available on the CBS website for hours. An excellent discussion of this story can be found here. Note that , as shown in the link, ABC News corrected this mistake, unlike NPR. This bogus story is nothing but a paranoid speculation based an incorrect timeline. Furthermore, the error in the timeline is easy to check. The reporting of NPR on this story is a spectacular example of incompetence and dishonesty.
Mindles,
The hell with you. We want to see Megan in her pajamas!
This whole thing is so stupid that it makes my eyes hurt. I don't really care about the underlying question - did Bush complete the guard properly or whatever - but I do think we may have just lost the election. And if we did, it's our fault. If we can't crush the 'Pubs with this moron in office, and with Iraq, the deficit, the ludicrous fiscal policy, the slow employment growth, etc. as object lessons writ large, then something is wrong with the Dem leadership.
But I'm less sure on the status of the memos as forgeries. I thought Gary Farber had a fairly good explanation for most of the concerns. I've stopped paying attention to either side on this matter, so the status may have changed. (Oh, and I do think that the challenge to the memo's authenticity is an extraordinary demonstration of the potential of the blogosphere, and that the Right was pretty impressive in getting it done).
I'd like to say something about all this, but I can't get the phrase "Megan in her pajamas" out of my head. Mindles in his pajamas -- eh, not so much.
Megan in her pajamas...weblogs are like oral sex...hmmmm...
(RMc slaps himself, and hard)
"If we can't crush the 'Pubs with this moron in office, and with Iraq, the deficit, the ludicrous fiscal policy, the slow employment growth, etc. as object lessons writ large, then something is wrong with the Dem leadership."
Absolutely. Wrong choice for a nominee, wrong way to go about the campaign, inability to map out clear positions, ...
One of the parameters of the electoral process that the "'Pubs" appear to have a better grasp on is the love of our media for the trivial. Why publish analysis of the current situation in Iraq (and how it is looking more and more like 1990s Afghanistan), or Afghanistan (how it is still looking like early 2000s Afghanistan), or on trends in outsourcing and labor markets, when there is the latest "he said, she said" about Bush and Kerry's 30 years-ago military service (or lack thereof) to publish all over? It's not as good as Clinton and Monica, but hey, you've got to do what you can, right?
Here are three top headlines at nytimes.com:
"Bush and Kerry Step Up Attacks in Swing States"
"Republicans Pack Punch. Democrats Take It."
"Bush's Backers Donate Heavily to Veteran Ads"
Meanwhile, over at the BBC:
"Undiminished: Three years after 9/11, al-Qaeda is still a potent force"
"US soldier jailed for Iraq abuses"
"U.S. marks three years since 9/11"
Notice a difference here? And, judging by the focus of many posts here and at other U.S.-based blogs, this taste for the trivial is shared by others in the verbal producer class that determines many of the thinking topics for the rest. I'm sorry, but that post about the IBM Selectric TypeWriters is the epitome -- it's the kind of thing that if archaeologists dig it up a thousand years from now would form the basis for all kinds of critical analysis of the particular angle at which our society's gaze was directed at this stage.
It is best not to get frustrated by this situation, but, like the Republicans, learn to operate within the parameters it offers. (Assuming this can be done without losing too much self-respect -- or is that the secret?)
That's absolutely right, ABR. The American people are a bunch of mouth-breathing idiots consumed by the banal. It's a shame they're not as smart, informed and sophisticated as you are, since then they'd be certain to vote Democrat.
Now there's a winning campaign platform for Kerry!
Not sure what the hell you all are nattering about. As far as I'm concerned, Megan's choice of blogging wear isn't trivial at all, it's a matter of grave national importance. Mindles, eh, not so much.
"...I do think we may have just lost the election. And if we did, it's our fault."
Are you sure you're a democrat? Your whole party seems to be centered on negative campaigning and discrediting "the other guy". I'm still waiting for them to mention reasons why I should actually vote for Kerry, vs against Bush.
"That's absolutely right, ABR. The American people are a bunch of mouth-breathing idiots consumed by the banal."
Hmm, are we projecting our own secret feelings here? I was making comments about media focus. Maybe you are throwing in the Foxism that the media's just putting out what the public wants to get to a belief that my statement implies yours. But I don't buy the Murdoch argument. If you would like instead to take my statement as implying something about people in media (and bloggers), I might not argue with you as much. ;-)
As far as the (rest of the) "American people", it may comfort you to know that I am currently a subscriber to the David Brooksian position that they're generally pretty reasonable and rational. We're all operating with limited information and initial biases. (More parameters for the political campaigns to operate within.) I'm not sure that it helps us make informed decisions as voters that we're inundated with Lewinsky or National Guard memo trivia but I'm not ready to say WHY there seems to be this difference between British and American media, let alone to pass judgment on it in any absolute sense. I just wanted to point it out.
A professional historian (Ralph Luker) on Cliopatria quoted with approval ("I like") someone named Kevin Murphy saying that "if the documents are forgeries, someone tried to 'frame a guilty man.'"
I pointed out that the same logic is what we hear from corrupt law enforcement personnel when THEY frame someone -- they already know who's guilty, so the presumption of innocence isn't important.
Told me nothing particularly new about my profession.
ABR, I have today's San Francisco Chronicle in my lap here. On the front page, we have the following stories, in order of diminishing font size:
A day of mourning, a day of moving on
War could aid Bush's bid
Rumsfeld: Beheadings worse than Abu Ghraib
Big gains, worrisome gaps in aviation safety
and the one outlier:
Groundbreaking discovery in the cosmos? (about a possible newly-discovered planet).
I am not seeing a lot of "focus on trivialities" here. The Boston Globe story on the memos (well, it would be the Globe; hey, this is the Chron, and if they'd had a story they could run more favorable to CBS than the WaPo's yesterday I'm pretty sure they'd have done it): A-4. Not precisely top billing.
Comparing Who's More Trivial Than Thou by listing ... *newspaper headlines* ...?
C'mon people. Use the noodle a little.
A major news outlet and television broadcaster watched by millions reports a prominent story casting doubt on the character of the President of the United States -- well, OK, his character 32 years ago -- who's incidentally running for re-election. The story is personally backed up by a journalist and news anchor who has covered presidential politics since before the memo in question was allegedly written.
Yeah, I agree; hopelessly trivial. Let's move on, eh? Someone have the headlines for the Sunday NY Times? ;-)
ABR: "And, judging by the focus of many posts here and at other U.S.-based blogs, this taste for the trivial is shared by others in the verbal producer class that determines many of the thinking topics for the rest. I'm sorry, but that post about the IBM Selectric TypeWriters is the epitome"
Yes, let's concentrate on the "big picture". These memos support our position, therefore whether or not anything that existed in 1972 short of professional type-setting equipment could have produced them is "trivia".
Out in the real world, the big picture is made up of thousands of details. Blow the details, and you're following an illusion. But it appears that Democrats inhabit another world...
Goldarnit, I don't like Bush and I don't like Republican congressmen that keep talking about smaller government and voting for bigger government, but at least they connect to reality every now and then.
joe...
why do we want to see megan "IN" her pajamas?
how about "OUT" of them, heh?
and of all the things.. the centering is pretty much a dead give away...
i do sleep safely knowing that the world does not have to worry about the competence and strategies of a kerry administration: they're so bloody inept that this thing won't even be close!
more inappropriate comments i forgot to include:
Professor West, I've had oral sex. Oral sex is one of my favourite things. Blogging is no oral sex!
Blogs are great.. but really, they're nowhere near that good! hell, blogs are not even in league with coke or E
and if oral sex is soul murder.. kill me please... again and again and again....
sorry again for sick and inappropriate posts.. but you know you love them
I find pajamas too formal as workplace attire. Whenever anybody asks why I took up writing as a profession, I tell them I wanted a job where I could sleep late, didn't have to shave, and could work in my underwear. Not even Bill Gates can do that.
Just a hunch (and a word of warning) for the drunken frat boys:
We here at the Institute for Logical Reasoning have credible evidence suggesting that when Ms. McArdle finally tires of pornographic chauvinism in late 2005 and turns to the ultra-fem/lesbian movement for consolation, the resident single male population will first target YOU for an old fashioned dragging into the street and shooting. Remember, this seriously concerns your future health.
There are clever and charming ways to tell a lady that she's sexy; learn them, or I will wave my magic wand and change you from unhousebroken mutts into something more degrading.
LRF: this is what I heard when I read your last post:
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Ms McCardle blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah sexyJust so's you understand what your'e up against.
Comments are Closed.