Letters to the Editor
PaulBC
Published Letters: 242 Editor's Choice: 24
-
what's fair have to do with anything?
[Read the article: John Edwards' Katrina contest]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You could debate the details of these two scenarios for as long as you like, and it's doubtful you'd get any agreement on whether they're comparable.
What puzzles me is why Tim Grieve is interested in being "fair." Based on my sampling of war room, I would assume his political position is fairly liberal. I don't know if he has an ax to grind against Edwards in particular, in which case, it's his prerogative to make gratuitous attacks.
But if Grieve's entire point is to show how "fair" he is by exposing a minor misstep of a democratic candidate, then enough already. Most of us are not put on earth to be fair. We are here to fight our battles and let others fight theirs. Fairness comes from the fact that somebody who wants to defend Giuliani will invest the energy in making this sort of comparison (I realize this one is hypothetical, but Giuliani has exploited 9/11 without shame). When War Room invests that energy in the interest of so-called "fairness", it biases the playing field in favor of Giuliani and against Edwards.
The one thing the rightwing seems to get is the principle of advocacy. They don't go around proving they're "fair" but shooting themselves in the foot. I don't know why liberals seems to feel this need. There is a certain element of self-interest. Tim Grieve gets to be the voice of reason and appear above the fray. But guess who wins if one side is always above the fray?
So in short, I don't care whether the comparison is "fair." If your point is to hurt Edwards tactically for some good reason, then more power to you. Maybe I'm the naive one. If you're just trying to prove that you're a better, more objective person than all those benighted rightwingers, please spare me. I just couldn't care less who's better. I want somebody who is willing and able to fight for my side.
-
Surely Blumenthal knows what a typed memo from 1970 looks like
[Read the article: Dan Rather stands by his story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have little doubt that the core of this story is true, and was pretty amazed at the reaction of the White House to the original story, not even attempting to deny it, as well as the non-reaction of most of the news media to this telling point. There is much evidence backing up Bush's absence from the Texas Air National Guard, some of it published in Salon.
But the documents--those images made available on the Internet--are bogus. There just isn't an argument to be made about it. Indeed, there have been variable pitch typewriters for over 60 years, though they have never been the norm for routine memos from non-executives. But these don't produce text like the Kilian memos, which are very clearly identifiable as fax-distorted Word documents. Anyone who does not find this self-evident can look at Joseph Newcomer's analysis (http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm) for example, which is not politically motivated and goes into great depth.
For all I know, there are real Kilian memos that were reproduced in this odd fashion for unknown reasons. As I said, the case against Bush was already so clear that it's a shame it became muddied in this fashion. But for Blumenthal to suggest that there is serious reasonable doubt as to the inauthenticity of the documents presented is either disingenuous or may mean that he has never looked at them.
-
One more comment
[Read the article: Dan Rather stands by his story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's a shame to see this letters page bogging down on the memos, which were only a small part of the evidence showing Bush's absences from guard duty.
I'm tempted to start debating specifics, but to keep it brief, I'll just note that given a document of unknown origin, the burden of proof lies in showing that it is authentic, not the other way around.
It is impossible to show a fax to be an authentic document since there are so many ways to produce a fake one. Yet CBS made the decision to run with these faxes and consequently did the brunt of the work in turning a compelling circumstantial case against Bush into an indictment against those making the case.
So while it's clear TO ME that the digitized images are not facsimiles of 70s-era memos, I don't completely dismiss the view that they were planted intentionally. Even then, you get the obvious problem: if you were planting fakes to be discovered, why would you risk making them so obviously fake?
All of this is largely irrelevant, though, and I really wish people would stop pinning their hopes on the memos being vindicated somehow. While I consider them to be "proven" to be fake (in the sense of Occam's law: simplest explanation of their origin), what is certainly true is that no known party is in possession of original documents that can be proven authentic.
-
nick_r: i think you spoiled the pun
[Read the article: Fred Thompson: Refreshingly honest or just uninformed?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Never heard that one before, but shouldn't it be "where I stand on that issue"? If you interpose "particular" you ruin what I assume is the intended pun regarding the toilet paper.
-
actually the most shameful confession here
[Read the article: True confessions]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...is that Tim Grieve apparently doesn't get the concept of statistical sampling. jebldmm beat me to the point, but the probability is very low of getting a randomly chosen sample of 10 questions including the 4 hardest ones. Even so, it could happen, but this is rendered irrelevant by the fact that you can take the test more than once.
If you know, say, 90% of the 100 answers then you have only a small probability of getting less than 60% of ten chosen randomly on the first try. If you are unlucky, though, and have to take it again (and probably pay for the privilege), you again have a very small probability of getting less than 60%. The probability of failing by sheer bad luck over multiple tries is vanishingly small. The expected cost of your exam fees is also finite, specifically bounded by the sum of a convergent series.
Finally, assuming that this is a published list of questions, there really isn't much excuse for getting a score lower than 60. Surely it is within the capacity of nearly anyone to remember 60/100 answers.