Over at Le Conspiracy d’Volokhs, Orin Kerr writes:
The CBS memos deserve front page coverage- for a day, maybe two. They deserve some blog posts — maybe two, maybe three. But my sense is that something different is happening. My sense is that bloggers are embracing Memogate to the exclusion of other things, as if it were an enormous relief to be able to lose ourselves in the story. The story lets the right half of the blogosphere feast on some of its favorite themes: damn that liberal media, blogosphere to the rescue, etc. Don’t get me wrong, those are good themes. But at some point the hearty appetite begins to look like escapism. And I think we’ve reached that point, if not passed it long ago.
Obviously, based on my past posts, the readership may already suspect my feelings on this. Never has so much virtual ink been spilled on a matter of so little (relative) importance. (And, yes, until Dan Rather starts running for President or acquiring WMDs, RatherGate is among the least important things to discuss.) It’s as if we’re so depressed by the typical bugbears of the blogosphere — the recent setbacks in Iraq, the re-emergence of an angry Russia, the dangers posed by unrepentent regimes in Syria, Iran, and North Korea — that we’re looking for a distraction; and the less important, the better.
So, I declare that it is now time to move on to the next phase: more hand-wringing posts about why we’re focusing so much energy on an issue of so little consequence. Let’s start chiding each other about how we really should “know better.” Let’s write long process posts that bemoan the disasterous state of public discourse. Let’s adopt a superior attitude and write about how we’d never fall — and, despite our lengthy posts on the subject, didn’t actually fall — for the RatherGate phenom. Bring on the pretentious reflections and arrogant tweakings!
Still nonsubstantive? Sure. But it’s better than continuing to talk about kerning.
UPDATE: Or consider reading Sebastian’s post regarding our strategy in Iraq (and why he thinks Kerry would be bad for it) or Edward’s post regarding the ever-popular anti-Muslim meme of the Blogosphere.
Kerr does not get it, and with all due respect, neither do you. After a week of stonewalling, a once respected news organization finally ‘fessed up that fake documents were indeed fake. What’s worse has been the weak, one-sided and obviously partisan coverage by them of this affair, starting with Rather’s interview of Ben Barnes. Rather/CBS breached a trust with their unethical conduct, and as long as Rather is employed, CBS no longer carries the presumption that its news content and sources are trustworthy. When a big mainstream news organization such as CBS sullies its integrity like this, it is Big News.
CBS no longer carries the presumption that its news content and sources are trustworthy
Gertrude’s famous line comes to mind.
Bird Dog has spoken; it must be true.
Back to reality. The fact is the Killian memos have told us exactly nothing new. We knew Bush received preferential treatment to get into the Guard and avoid Vietnam. We knew Bush disobeyed an order to get a flight physical and had his flight status suspended. We knew Bush didn’t honor his obligation WRT National Guard service.
I could add that all of the above facts stand in direct contradiction to the various and ever-evolving stories Bush and his handlers have told us about Bush’s service.
Nor is this just about Bush and the TANG. It’s about a continuing pattern in Bush’s life: the unearned and unmerited given opportunity and the ultimate mismanagement, bungling, and abandonment of that opportunity.
Attacks on CBS are a deflection from the embarrassment the rightwing must feel about their flyboy.
Von wrote:
You’re partially correct. What happened thirty-plus years ago in TANG or in Vietnam isn’t a particularly important story (but neither is the seventeen-party “Wine Wars” story, restaurant recommendations, distinctions between different forms of deviancy, nor any of the other lighter topics that get brought up by the Volokh conspirators in between more weighty topics of constitutional law). However Kerr is to be excused from this (somewhat) because generally his posts have been of weightier topics even if those of his fellow conspirators have not always been.
That being said, the forged memo story is important in the context that it says quite a bit about the generally leftward tilt of the MSM and that they were evidently willing to (a) run with documents that they knew were likely to be forged and/or (b) didn’t care whether they were forged or not because they already decided that their “story” about Bush was “true” regardless of whether the “evidence” for the “story” was legitimate or not. It’s also important that this was done during a hotly contested presidential race and could have had an impact if not debunked almost immediately. That’s a pretty important issue considering the impact that the eleventh hour DUI story is thought to have had on the 2000 presidential race.
Another interesting (at least from a cultural perspective) facet of the forged memo story is what it seems to say about the dominant cultural paradigm of many “journalists” in the MSM. Putting aside the fact that they tend to be overwhelmingly left-leaning in their politics, they tend to have vastly divergent attitudes towards things such religion and the military from those of the mainstream culture. One has to wonder if more “journalists” at CBS had experience with the military and proper military protocols, if it might have raised a few red flags earlier when they supposedly vetted this story.
Bottom line, it wasn’t the information in the “documents” that was the story but rather what it said about those that are supposed to act as gatekeepers of information for a significant number of Americans. And yes, so long as enough Americans rely on CBS and other MSM outlets to provide them with the information that influences elections, it’s important.
And yes, so long as enough Americans rely on CBS and other MSM outlets to provide them with the information that influences elections, it’s important.
I’d take this kind of criticism seriously if it started with trying to clean up Fox first.
Nothing CBS has done holds a candle to the obscene mindlessness that passes for “news” on that network.
First things first.
yada yada yada left wing media yada yada final proof yada…
Meanwhile, back in reality:
U.S. intelligence pessimistic on Iraq future
Estimate contrasts Bush statements, says civil war possible
Mid-Atlantic factories sluggish in September
Report fuels fears that summer soft patch will continue into fall
U.S., allies reject Annan’s description of Iraq war as ‘illegal’
U.N. chief also says January vote in doubt
I’m just waiting for the voices of Simon and Garfunkel singing over the nightly news.
I’d take this kind of criticism seriously if it started with trying to clean up Fox first.
I’d concur but it sounds too much like the Michelle Malkin refusal to apologize for her outrageous attacks on James Yee.
And I’d really be hesitant in equating CBS with Fox.
What’s going on is a huge game of Now I’ve Got you you SOB. It’s a revenge ritual, invites escalation, and can be very damaging to everybody involved. The blogosphere should move on. It’s time to let events play out.
“I’d take this kind of criticism seriously if it started with trying to clean up Fox first.”
Hmm, I’ve never argued that FOX is an elite representative of journalistic integrity. It also hasn’t historically been as influential as any of the big three or the NYT. If you want to (finally) admit that the main stream media is every bit as biased as you believe Fox is, I won’t argue with you.
Is that what you are saying?
When a big mainstream news organization such as CBS sullies its integrity like this, it is Big News.
I agree it’s “big news,” Bird Dog. There is, however, a war going on — and it’s a war that we increasingly look to be losing; an ongoing Presidential campaign to cover; and a whole bunch of other disturbing things going on, some of which severely threaten U.S. interests (Putin’s power grab; NK; Iran’s nuclear ambitions; Afgahnistan). Yet the press and blogosphere (at least the right-wing blogosphere) seem intent to puzzle out every last nuance of whether Rather’s a liar or not, to the exclusion of everything else. That’s just silly.
Thorley makes good points (particularly with respect to the gazillion-part Wine Wars entry) — but I don’t think they really disturb the point made by Orin and me. Yes, Rathergate is an important story for a whole host of reasons, but, yes, we’ve now spent more than enough time on it.
That being said, the forged memo story is important in the context that it says quite a bit about the generally leftward tilt of the MSM and that they were evidently willing to (a) run with documents that they knew were likely to be forged and/or (b) didn’t care whether they were forged or not because they already decided that their “story” about Bush was “true” regardless of whether the “evidence” for the “story” was legitimate or not.
Goodness, but there are a lot of third-person-plural pronouns in there that appear to have as antecedents something other than CBS. Can you give me a detailed list of what other news outlets ran a story on these memos portraying them as true and accurate?
Edward, since all human activities are biased it should come as no surprise that Fox News is biased as well. But after this study from Yale last year I continue to be surprised at how few people acknowledge that the bias of the news at the New York Times and CBS is an established fact. The study found that of major news outlets Fox News and Drudge Report were the least biased, having a slight right bias. Significantly more biased were the New York Times, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, and ABC. And all had a distinct left bias.
I expect that this comment will be met with a flood of anecdotes on how biased Fox News is. Anecdotes don’t cut it, gang. More formalized proof is called for.
Or, more reasonably, let’s just acknowledge, as I said at the beginning of this comment, that all human activities are biased and your perception of how biased a particular source is may have more to do with your own positions and biases than it does with the source you’re criticizing.
We knew Bush received preferential treatment to get into the Guard and avoid Vietnam.
The case for this claim is very, very thin. The case going the other way is also thin. Personally, I’d be a little reluctant to stake my credibility on the veracity of Ben Barnes, but it’s a free country. Until you can show me how many qualified pilot applicants Bush was boosted over, this meme is utter vaporware.
Von wrote:
Perhaps, however something to keep in mind is that a story isn’t a static concept but a dynamic one and it stands to reason that as the story develops and new information is presented (e.g. other MSM outlets stating that documents are likely to be forgeries, supposedly corroborating witnesses saying that they were mislead or misquoted by CBS, etc.) there is going to be more commentary as the story develops – particularly since many of the commentators have themselves become part of the story.
Bloggers tend to be more technically savvy when it comes to things like word processing, document production, fonts, kerning, etc. which are all important elements of the forged memos story. As such, many bloggers have been able to bring information to the forefront about the forged memo story to sift through what is or is not true to get a better feel for the authenticity of the documents. Instead of simply waiting on the gatekeepers to present information, bloggers are able to sift through it and provide a (relatively) informed commentary.
Von — “Yet the press and blogosphere (at least the right-wing blogosphere) seem intent to puzzle out every last nuance of whether Rather’s a liar or not, to the exclusion of everything else. That’s just silly.”
Actually I see this sort of thing happen in the blogosphere all the time. The left does it. The right does it. Anyone with a strong point of view, when they find something clear cut that they can prove is wrong with the ‘other side’ they will NOT let go until the ‘next big thing’ happens. And when the ‘other side’ realizes they’ve lost that round they will complain that their opponents are ‘going on about this too much’ and/or ‘it is not really all that important’.
Like I said, both sides of any strongly held beliefs do this. I’m sure the next time the POTUS misspeaks(right pov) or lies(left pov) or something horrible happens in the world this story will fade quickly.
PS: I think this story will go away extremely quickly if CBS and Rather apologize for the mistake.
Dave,
I wonder if the authors of that study realized that this admission “we expected to find that most media lean left” reveals a presupposition/bias that perhaps makes them less than neutral enough to conduct that study objectively?
And as James of Outside the Beltway noted:
Irony of bolded word duly noted.
As far as that “Yale” study goes. Am I to believe that the vast majority of Americans who oppose ending the assault weapons ban are represented by a congress that doesn’t want to restore it and then the press is judged as “liberal” because they reflect views other than the NRA?
Ha ha ha
JG,
We knew Bush disobeyed an order to get a flight physical and had his flight status suspended.
False to the former and true to the latter. There is no evidence of an order to take a physical since flight status was not mandatory. Malynn already went over all that.
von,
With all these Big Events going on around us, don’t you think it’s vitally important that we trust those who report on them? When Dan Rather is reading the teleprompter and telling us of unfortunate events in Iraq, what basis do we have to believe him? Rather has committed journalistic malpractice, without retraction and without apology, and CBS News is keeping this unethical editor-in-chief employed. What message does that send to the rest of the organization? Is that the standard you want? Keeping “fake but accurate” documents in play because they comport with their feelings that they reflect a “higher truth”? Higher truth based on what, 32-year reminisces by partisan Democrats?
With all these Big Events going on around us, don’t you think it’s vitally important that we trust those who report on them?
Oh…dear…God.
Did you trust CBS before this story broke, Bird Dog?
“Am I to believe that the vast majority of Americans who oppose ending the assault weapons ban are represented by a congress that doesn’t want to restore it and then the press is judged as “liberal” because they reflect views other than the NRA?”
Which vast majority is that again?
BD, are you suggesting that a person in an influential position of public trust who, in the course of informing the American people on an issue of some importance, at best selectively presents evidence based on his own preconceptions and at worst deliberately misleads the public with what he knows are bad forgeries, ought to lose his job in order for the institution he heads to regain its credibility?
Just so we’re clear how you’ll be voting in November…
Edward,
Did you trust CBS before this story broke, Bird Dog?
I trusted that Dan Rather and CBS News would have used higher standards than they did. But the Barnes interview–which was every bit as biased as the Killian forgeries–lessened my trust and subsequent events have shot it to hell.
Gromit,
Rather should be fired. If you’re trying to assert that Bush “misleads the public with what he knows are bad forgeries”, then your standards of evidence for making such a stupid claim are about as good as Rather’s.
Wait, so Rather knew the documents were forgeries? That’s a bold claim. Any evidence?
Sebastian
“Washington, DC – Two months before the federal assault weapons ban is set to expire, the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence (EFSGV) today released ten new state polls measuring attitudes of likely voters — specifically gun owners, union members, and NASCAR fans — toward the assault weapons ban.”
“The surveys, compiled in a report titled “Unconventional Wisdom,” show that strong majorities of Americans support banning military-style guns such as Uzis and AK-47s, regardless of geographic area, gun ownership, union membership, and even NRA support. The findings are in line with previous national polling conducted by the CFA, as well as the National Annenberg Election Survey. The April 2004 Annenberg study found that 64% of gun-owning households and half of NRA-member households support banning assault weapons.”
Well, why do you suppose that if 64% of those most likely to support ownership of assault weapons (whatever the hell that means) think they ought to be banned, Congress has decided not to renew the ban? Based on the poll, I’d expect at least 85% of the country would be in support of a ban. I mean, here’s John Kerry, an active member of the Senate, with a prime opportunity to introduce this vital legislation, and sell it to Congress and the voting public.
If he ever bothered to show up for work, that is.
The senate already passed the legislation. The house led by Tom Delay refused to put it to a vote.
In 2003, Field & Stream magazine conducted a survey of its readers and found that 67% do not consider assault weapons to be legitimate hunting guns.
“NRA spent $25 million during the fall campaign, including $17 million through ILA, and $1.5 million directly to the Republican Party. Such largesse was not missed by Republican organizers who now regard the NRA as the single most powerful vote-getter for the party.”
“The NRA is the most powerful grassroots organization in America nowadays,” proclaims Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.).
It actually looks (from thomas.loc.gov) as if the bill is still alive, but hasn’t actually gone to vote. I can’t find any evidence that the Senate version of it passed, either.
You are referring to S1431/HR2038, aren’t you?
sidereal,
Wait, so Rather knew the documents were forgeries?
What we know is that two of the consultants had serious misgivings after looking at two of the documents, we know nothing of Pierce, and we know that Matley confirmed the signature of only one document. I’m guessing here, but I think Rather did know they were fakes. Else, why did CBS “News” withhold two of the six documents? Why were only four good enough for release but not the other two? CBS has stonewalled this for a week and they’re still not giving satisfactory answers.
“In 2003, Field & Stream magazine conducted a survey of its readers and found that 67% do not consider assault weapons to be legitimate hunting guns.”
Wow I wish I could come up with some distinction between ‘legitimate hunting guns’ and ‘requires a ban’. But I just can’t do it. Hmmm.
That must be because the Second Amendment is: “Good hunting, being necessary to the food and clothing supply of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” which pretty much shoots any silly distinction between such concepts right out of the water.
“I’m guessing here”
No kidding
“Good hunting, being necessary to the food and clothing supply of a free State”
Bah. It would actually read “Good hunting, being a necessary palliative to the unrelenting pressures of home life and an essential front in the war on quadrupeds…”. And I speak from knowledge.
I’ve never really gotten into the gun law debates, so I’m sure I’m missing some complexities, but it seems to me it’s a stretch to imply that ‘the right to bear arms’ means ‘the right to bear any arms of our choosing’, and that if it does in fact imply that, what’s the rationale for stopping anywhere? Should people own anti-aircraft rocket launchers? Briefcase nukes?
sidereal, those things are not what the men who wrote that Amendment would have understood to be “arms.” They’d be considered artillery or ordnance, like a cannon or a mortar, which I don’t believe were meant to be protected.
Sebastian
The second amendment must have also intended the right to bear tanks as well then since you are throwing intent out the window.
That Sebastian
Asks a snarky question that oops! gets answered so…he comes up with another snarky point or question and disregards the answer.
According to a lot of Civil War buffs I know, many of the cannon used by the South were privately owned before the war. (Probably the North too but I haven’t heard stories about those personally.)
I think they are considered ‘ordanance’ and not ‘arms’ however, so probably weren’t considered protected by the 2nd amendment.
Hey Von,
you consider long arguments about the 2nd amendment and definitions of ‘arms’ to be better than talking about kerning?
🙂
Bird Dog: What we know is that two of the consultants had serious misgivings after looking at two of the documents, we know nothing of Pierce, and we know that Matley confirmed the signature of only one document. I’m guessing here, but I think Rather did know they were fakes.
So, you “guess” Rather should be fired? Or are you saying Rather should definitely be fired and backing up that pronouncement with guesses?
And you find my standards of evidence lacking, and my implication (of which you only quoted a portion that was never meant to stand on its own, BTW) to be “stupid”?
p.s.: I’m neither defending nor condemning Rather, though I haven’t been terribly impressed with the way he’s comported himself in the face of criticism. If he is shown to be complicit in a fraud, he should definitely be held accountable. I simply find it peculiar that you would hold a private employee — operating in what is supposed to be the public interest, granted — to be more accountable than a publicly elected official whose shoddy research and poor attention to detail has had vastly more dire consequences, and in whose hiring and firing you actually have some say.
O publish or perish, ye golden warriors of academe, even those of you without a clue, and especially those of you angling for a cushy gig at a conservative think tank.
Sorry Dave Schuler, but that study puts itself squarely into the “not even wrong” category by begging the question. It’s pretty clear that using Groseclose’s (curiously narrow, and yet somehow strangely elaborate) definition of “bias” the average media outlet is “biased” towards the liberal side of a baseline derived by applying two (not one, but two!) distinct numerical transformations (one of which applies an adjustment index created by one of the authors!) to a pre-existing (already subjective) interpretation of the voting records of Congresscritters. Boy howdy! If that’s not following the data wherever it leads you then I don’t know what is.
That bit of arcana is so far removed from any natural-language use of the term “bias” that you have to wonder why the PI didn’t go the last tiny step and guarantee his immortality by introducing a new unit — the ‘groseclose’ — to describe what was being measured. Internally consistent, statistically sound intellectual masturbation is still intellectual masturbation. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I do it myself sometimes. Just not in public…
Sebastian: Which vast majority is that again?
I would use the word “decisive” rather than vast, but the F&S poll is a fish in a barrel. Serious 2nd amendment advocates rebut Annenberg.
Phil: sidereal, those things are not what the men who wrote that Amendment would have understood to be “arms.” They’d be considered artillery or ordnance, like a cannon or a mortar, which I don’t believe were meant to be protected.
What would the founders have thought of automatic weapons? And what sort of weapons would a well-armed 21st century militia be carrying?
radish
I included Annenberg first. I included F&S as a lark to back up Annenberg’s NRA numbers under the assumption that hunters gennerally can be asssumed to be NRA numbers.
65 – 70% may not be considered huge (an synonym of vast) against 50% but 65 to 35 or 70 to 30 is pretty…big. In an election it would be called a landslide.
Please excuse the above typos.
False to the former and true to the latter. There is no evidence of an order to take a physical since flight status was not mandatory. Malynn already went over all that.
Malynn doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
The fact is an air wing’s readiness relies on two things: the availability (I refer to the military use of the word; i.e., maintained and serviced aircraft) of its aircraft and the readiness of its pilots/aviators and aircrews.
An aviator/pilot is responsible for his readiness and the air wing maintains a constant status of his/her readiness. This readiness means all relevant training (instrument rating, etc.)is current and up to date and the pilot/aviator is medically cleared to fly.
The CO’s job is to ensure the readiness of his personnel and his aircraft. He will take an extremely dim view of a pilot refusing to take his flight physical.
Moreover, we know the Air Force took a dim view of it. When Bush was suspended from flying–they ordered Bush’s CO to investigate and conduct a mandatory inquiry into the reason(s) why this pilot didn’t take his physical and pass the results of that inquiry up the chain.
Personally, I’d be a little reluctant to stake my credibility on the veracity of Ben Barnes, but it’s a free country.
That’s fine. But it’s not just Barnes; Ms. Knox on 60 Minutes acknowledged Bush used family connections to get in (she also noted quite a few in the unit did likewise). We also have Bush’s prof at HBS claiming Bush told him he got into the Guard with his connections.
What would the founders have thought of automatic weapons?
I don’t know, and more to the point, don’t care. I care that they left us a relatively well-defined government structure and protection for basic rights. I care not at all, even in idle speculation, what they would have through of automatic weapons (particuarly vis a vis the Second Amendment) any more than I care what they would have thought of the Internet vis a vis the First, or of microwave ovens, or anything else.
More glibly, I’m sure they would have been amazed, and may even have wanted some at, say, Boston, in 1770.
And what sort of weapons would a well-armed 21st century militia be carrying?
The best available, I should imagine. We’re both members, so you tell me.
Gromit,
There’s no guessing on my part that Rather should be sacked, whether he knew they were forgeries or not. He trotted out documents without properly vetting them, he ignored his own experts, he stonewalled the information and now he’s taking the irresponsible position that they’re “fake but accurate”…no, wait…they reflect the “general thrust” of what was allegedly written.
As for “shoddy research and poor attention to detail”, whatever. Last I checked, intelligence failures cost a CIA director his job. As for comparisons to Bush and Rather, they’re poor ones. Rather is unelected but he wields considerable power and influence.
JG,
I’ll Malynn’s experience over yours in a NY minute.
When Bush was suspended from flying–they ordered Bush’s CO to investigate and conduct a mandatory inquiry into the reason(s) why this pilot didn’t take his physical and pass the results of that inquiry up the chain.
Where’s the documentation of the order and the investigation?
Ms. Knox on 60 Minutes acknowledged Bush used family connections to get in
No she didn’t. She had no direct knowledge of that. She spoke in generalizations only. The officers in Bush’s direct command have stated that they were not contacted by anyone on Bush’s behalf.
carsick: FWIW I wasn’t critiquiing your point or suggesting you didn’t mention annenberg. I do tend to think of “vast” as 85+ but mostly I wanted to see if Sebastian had anything better than some throwaway snark about F&S…
that said, I’m sort of apathetic about this particular collection of rules because while I don’t think they run afoul of the 2nd (seriously now, why would I want a flash suppressor unless I expected to shoot at somebody who could shoot back at me?), I do think that assault weapons can be “well-regulated” without being “infringed” upon.
I would consider more regulation than what applies to pilots’ licenses excessive, but less than drivers’ licenses is just plain boneheaded…
Gromit: And what sort of weapons would a well-armed 21st century militia be carrying?
Phil: The best available, I should imagine. We’re both members, so you tell me.
Well, a full-out invasion is unlikely to occur without a massive air assault, if past conflicts are anything to judge by. Why would personal surface-to-air weapons be out of line? Where are the limits, if the goal is to allow the populace to arm itself against an invading army?
I do think that assault weapons can be “well-regulated” without being “infringed” upon.
Where in the Second Amendment does it say anything at all about guns themselves being either “well-regulated” or “infringed?”
Gromit:
I smell straw. Do you want to talk about Red Dawn, or Second Amendment rights? I’m willing to discuss either, but you have to actually pick one.
Personally, I’ve never seen why both the argument that citizens need weapons to protect ourselves from invasion and the argument that citizens need weapons to protect themselves against their government when it turns tyrannical don’t lead to the conclusion that we should allow private ownership of nuclear weapons. One more reason why I’m glad I believe (independently) in an interpretation of the second amendment according to which neither of these arguments is part of its rationale.
Bird Dog: There’s no guessing on my part that Rather should be sacked, whether he knew they were forgeries or not. He trotted out documents without properly vetting them, he ignored his own experts, he stonewalled the information and now he’s taking the irresponsible position that they’re “fake but accurate”…no, wait…they reflect the “general thrust” of what was allegedly written.
And none of this sounds eerily familiar to you?
As for “shoddy research and poor attention to detail”, whatever. Last I checked, intelligence failures cost a CIA director his job.
By that standard, Rather should sack his producer, or his fact checkers, or some other underling (though, of course, they would officially resign to spend more time with their families).
As for comparisons to Bush and Rather, they’re poor ones. Rather is unelected but he wields considerable power and influence.
I’ll skip the obvious retort regarding Bush’s electoral status. Anyway, you’re not making a very compelling case here, unless you mean to argue that Bush, unlike rather, wields relatively little power and influence.
Make that “Rather”.
Phil: I smell straw. Do you want to talk about Red Dawn, or Second Amendment rights? I’m willing to discuss either, but you have to actually pick one.
Not straw; perhaps a bit of reductio ad absurdum, though. These are legitimate questions when both the express purpose of the Amendment and the intent or mindset of the framers are raised with respect to just what weapons the average citizen can be prohibited from owning. If the argument goes, as Sebastian quite reasonably implies, that the Amendment guarantees citizens the right to keep the sort of weapons a militia will need today, and if, as you sensibly suggest, this is subject to the restriction of what the founders would have thought of as “arms”, then where inbetween is that line drawn? If it must be drawn to allow assault rifles, since they are military-grade weapons, then why not Stingers? If it is drawn to exclude guided missiles, since you conjecture that the founders would not consider them “arms” then is it out of line to question whether a fully-automatic rifle that fires 800 rounds per minute IS sufficiently closer to what they had in mind?
Ms. Knox on 60 Minutes acknowledged Bush used family connections to get in
Oh, certainly the secretary would be privy to that sort of thing.
Besides, what BirdDog said.
I’ll Malynn’s experience over yours in a NY minute.
Of course you would. He validates your erroneous and ridiculous statement.
Where’s the documentation of the order and the investigation?
Good question. Take a look at the order grounding Bush. You’ll note the following:
Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13: “When a Rated Officer Fails To Accomplish a Medical Examination Prescribed by AFM 160-1…(1)The local commander who has authority to convene a Flying Evaluation Board will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination. After reviewing the findings of the investigation, the local commander may convene a Flying Evaluation Board or forward through command channels a detailed report of the circumstances which resulted in the officer’s failure to accomplish a medical examination, along with a recommendation that the suspension be removed. (2) The individual’s major command will forward the report along with the command recommendation to USAFMPC/DPMAJD, Randolph AFB TX 78148 for final determination.”
I point your attention to terms like “will direct” and “will forward.” This is military-speak for ‘you will do this, no other option.’
Oh, certainly the secretary would be privy to that sort of thing.
How elitist. Let’s pick on her because she’s elderly, too.
geez louise Phil, it doesn’t seem like it ought to be necessary to say that “assault weapons” in this context is shorthand for “the right to keep and bear assault weapons,” but consider it said in so many words.
The expression “well regulated” is merely convenient, but for better or worse, the framers chose to qualify the right to keep and bear by mentioning that the need for a “well-regulated militia” bore heavily upon their reasoning. Not just any old militia. The fact that that language itself was an awkward compromise doesn’t mean that it should be ignored altogether, and the fact that “well-regulated” doesn’t refer to the enumerated right to keep and bear arms doesn’t mean that the phrase isn’t appropriate in this context.
Slart, yes as a matter of fact, the Secretary would know. Secretaries and executive assistants tend to be extremely well informed.
How elitist. Let’s pick on her because she’s elderly, too.
God knows I usually consult the guy who empties my wastebasket before making a design change to my alignment algorithms. So the elitism charge is out.
No, the secretary doesn’t have anything new to add, here. Did she type any memos similar to what CBS attempted to foist off on us? If so, where are they? Is it your theory that somehow Barnes came to Killian, of all people, to arrange Bush’s line-jumping in the Guard? If not, how on earth would Killian’s secretary know anything about it?
Serious card-house-building going on here.
Did she type any memos similar to what CBS attempted to foist off on us?
That’s what she claims. She says she’s certain she didn’t type the disputed CBS memos, but she confirmed she did type memos reflecting the content of those memos.
Of course, she could be part of some larger conspiracy.
Is it your theory that somehow Barnes came to Killian, of all people, to arrange Bush’s line-jumping in the Guard?
It’s your theory, contradicted by Barnes and others.
If not, how on earth would Killian’s secretary know anything about it?
Are you claiming Ms. Knox is lying? Moreover, is it your contention that secretaries aren’t aware of anything in their organizations?
but she confirmed she did type memos reflecting the content of those memos.
Great. Let’s see them. The real ones, this time.
It’s your theory, contradicted by Barnes and others.
You’re even more confused than I thought possible.
Are you claiming Ms. Knox is lying?
Are you claiming that she’s telling the truth? If so, let’s see the evidence.
Knox seemed to be flip-flopping between talking about how nice a guy Bush was, and how he had to have been raised right, and then back to how he thought he was better than everyone else. These two points of view aren’t exactly compatible.
I don’t claim that she’s lying, but relying on the 35-year-old memory of an elderly woman isn’t something I’d want to need to make my case. Unless, of course, I really, really needed to believe it.
I don’t claim that she’s lying, but relying on the 35-year-old memory of an elderly woman isn’t something I’d want to need to make my case.
To recap: Ms. Knox is a liar, she’s too old and addled, and she was a secretary (we all know secretaries know nothing).
A fine defense.
I can see you’ve peaked out on reading comprehension. Not good enough, but hey, it’s your best effort.
Apparently, Ms. Knox’s poor memory, lying conspiracy, and secretarial know-nothingness has spread:
Of course, what would a COL in the TX ANG know?
I can see you’ve peaked out on reading comprehension.
Funniest snark I’ve read in a long time! Bitchy, but funny.
uh, err, (switching hats)…play nice now…
My take on Rather’s interview with Ms. Knox was that she:
1) is convinced the documents are not authentic.
2) is equally convinced, based on her own recollections, that the content of the documents is true.
3) remembers typing documents of nearly identical content.
4) made the educated guess that Bush got into the guard via pulled strings.
5) got the distinct impression that Bush felt the rules did not apply to him and that the other pilots resented this.
6) thought Bush was nonetheless a genteel fellow who must have had wonderful parents.
None of these points is in any way incompatible.
So von calls for less rehashing of a fundamentally unimportant story and more discussion of important events. In the comment thread of that call, that story gets about 70 comments. Meanwhile the threads for posts on a potential civil war in Iraq, the degenerating situation in Iraq, and a re-evaluation of the call to war get 20 to 30 comments each.
Me, I find that ironical.
sidereal
We aren’t interested in that kind of observation.
What’s important is what you think of Bush’s $150 haircut on the tarmac at Duluth airport that held up air traffic for an hour?
Or, what do you think of what Kerry’s wife havin’ all that money says about his character? (She has an accent too – prob’ly a commie.)
Of course, what would a Brigadier General in the ANG know?
One more reason why I’m glad I believe (independently) in an interpretation of the second amendment according to which neither of these arguments is part of its rationale.
And yet the tyrannical government is all that I’m really afraid of (along with a 6’2″ intruder attacking my 5’2″ wife and perhaps some craziness post-earthquake). I continue to be mildly surprised that some of the people that seem most convinced that the current Administration is on a road to denying more and more rights as well as the creation of an aristocracy, seem to be working very hard to ensure that there’s no way to fight back, or even convince officials with those thoughts into thinking twice about it.
Gromit,
Here’s why your strained Rather-Bush analogy is a poor one. Rather: He received the documents and ignored the opinions of two experts and received grossly incomplete opinions from the other two experts. When faced with overwhelming evidence from all quarters to the contrary, Rather/CBS are still officially and unbelievably claiming that they’re not fakes. Now Bush: He received intelligence that Saddam had WMDs and received personal assurances from his CIA director. The intelligence turned out to be flawed. A months long investigation by David Kay’s group concluded that there were no large stockpiles. The Bush administration accepted Kay’s conclusions. See the difference?
Jade,
Thanks for the data, which was an order to suspend Bush from flight status. I have yet to see an authentic written order for Bush to take a flight physical.