Keep swinging that hatchet, Mark.

I don't see the relevance of this series. Shame, because it could have made at least one decent piece if it weren't for all the innuendo, disgruntled rants taken at face value, conspiracy-mongering and baseless oddball expectations.

all these "Birthers" have really confused me. I maybe mistaken (and I've been mistaken before) but I thought that any child, born to a citizen of the US is automatically a citizen. Isn't that why it's such a big "problem" when Mexican citizens show up in the US just to pop a kid out.

So I googled it and got:

Through birth abroad to one United States citizen

For persons born on or after November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:[4]

One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born;

The citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the United States before his or her child's birth;

A minimum of 2 of these 5 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.

INA 301(g) makes additional provisions to satisfy the physical-presence requirements for periods citizens spent abroad in “honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization”. Additionally citizens who spent time living abroad as the “dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person” in any of the previously mentioned organizations can also be counted.

A person's record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of his or her citizenship. Such a person may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have a record of his or her citizenship. Such documentation is often useful to prove citizenship in lieu of the availability of an American birth certificate.

Different rules apply for persons born abroad to one U.S. citizen before November 14, 1986. United States law on this subject changed multiple times throughout the twentieth century, and the law is applicable as it existed at the time of the individual's birth.

These republicans so busy that they can't get a page to look up what is says in the constitution about birth, citizenship and the presidency?

Guys, you lost. Get over it.

This is not War Room. This is not one of Koppelman's articles on the Birthers. Don't clutter up this thread with irrelevant crap.

As to the actual article...weak. If you'd bother to take even the most cursory glance at anything about Burr Oaks near Chicago, you'd realize that Arlignton is almost an ideal cemetary by comparison. Give it up Mark, find a -real- offense to the dead to cover, not a few clerical errors and people being angry about the army not honoring them breaking the cemetary's rules.

The government that can't keep track of our honoured dead is not qualified to manage health care.

Preview Of Coming Attractions

The government that can't keep track of our honoured dead is not qualified to manage health care.

I am always amazed at statements like this. If you think the government can't run a cemetary, then why, for the love of god, would you trust the government to run the entire military defense program. And worse, when someone points out faults or questions our military policy, you are the first to scream, "you're not supporting the troops!"

I guess the government is totally incompetent with everything except running multi-billion dollar defense contracts and deploying hundreds of thousand of soldiers across the world.

has really stirred the pot for some people.

ANYWAY, I was interested to know the difference between the preservation of articles left behind at the Vietnam Memorial versus Arlington. The espionage stuff going on among staff members...meh, this happens in all companies with egomaniacal bosses. I live that in real life, but thanks.

I am really curious as to how the records have not yet been computerized. ?Maybe it's a revolving door of people or poorly funded?

This "investigative" series is an embarrassment to those of us who have argued that internet-based media can take the place of traditional newspapers. It combines the shrillness of a comments thread with the hard-hitting facts of third-hand rumor.

Mr. Benjamin is still under the impression that he has found a smoking gun. If he has, let him show it. So far, he has told us that the records at a 150-year-old cemetery are a mess, that bosses sometimes go on tyrannical power trips, and that Arlington adheres to its posted maintenance policy (which is, shockingly, the same as most other cemeteries' policies and different from that of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial).

The only solid fact is that a single misplaced casket has been discovered. This is a tragedy — all efforts should be made to identify the remains and, if they cannot be identified, they should be interred in the Tomb of the Unknowns.

But does this qualify as "malfeasance"? Is Arlington truly being mismanaged? Is there any evidence that anyone is intentionally treating the dead callously or taking shortcuts to line their own pockets? Not that I've seen in this series.

How different this piece might have been if Mr. Benjamin had gone in with curiosity and respect. He could have produced a moving piece about problems at Arlington by taking up the cause of the unidentified soldier and exploring the budget, personnel, and organizational issues at Arlington through the lens of that example. Look at the Washington Post's "Fatal Distraction" if you don't know what I mean. Instead, he went in with guns blazing to play a game of gotcha. Outrage is the only emotion in this piece and, from the evidence, it seems unwarranted.

An investigative series should open the eyes of its readers through elegant writing and mounting evidence building to a conclusion that persuades with the irresistible logic of its argument. This is a hatchet job.

http://vastpublicindifference.blogspot.com/2009/07/mementos-at-arlington.html

Perhaps re-reading what I wrote would improve your lack of comprehension. You're dismissed.