Field of Schemes
The Expos are moving to DC, and Field of Schemes is all over it. Just go there and scroll.
(Via This Blog is Full of Crap.)
« August 2004 | Main | October 2004 »
September 30, 2004
The Expos are moving to DC, and Field of Schemes is all over it. Just go there and scroll.
(Via This Blog is Full of Crap.)
Potpourri
Here's a bunch of stuff found today on some blogs, or in other words, "I'll take Potpourri for $100 Alex".
Contestant 1: What is the Patriot Act?
Alex: No, I'm sorry. Contestant 2?
Contestant 2: What is the Electronic Communications Act of 1986?
Alex: Correct!
Contestant 2: I'll take Potpourri for $200 Alex.
Contestant 3: Who is MoveOn.org?
Alex: Yes, that's right!
Contestant 3: Potpourri for $300 please.
Contestant 2: I'm sorry Alex, I don't understand the answer. If we don't vote, then rape might become legal?
Alex: That seems to be it.
Contestant 2: Who is Theresa Heinz-Kerry?
Alex: No, I'm sorry, Contestant 1?
Contestant 1: Who is Janeane Garofalo?
Alex: Nice try, but no.
Contestant 3: Who is Cameron Diaz?
Alex: Correct for $300!
Alex: This famous whiskey distiller has once again reduced the alcohol content, or proof, of it's beverage which is now down to 80 from a high 15 years ago of 90.
Contestant 1: Who is [grimace] Jack Daniels?
Alex:
Contestant 1: Potpourri for $500 Alex.
Contestant 3: Who can really say?
Alex: No, I'm sorry, that sounds like a question but its not properly in the "form" of a question.
Contestant 3: No -- that's not my answer. I just wasn't sure how anyone would know. Besides, there isn't a blog with a stupid name like that, I mean, is there?
Alex: No, there isn't -- at least not to anyone's knowledge. Judges? How do you rule? [ding!] Alright, Contestant 3, do you have an answer in the form of a question then?
Contestant 3: Who is Protein Wisdom?
Alex: That's right, for $500 dollars!
September 29, 2004
And They Will Move On -- When?
Dead From The Neck Up
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is on the case. Dick Cheney has changed his view on Iraq.
In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."When I read stuff like this I want to grab my head like Charlie Brown and just scream "AARRRrrrrrgghh!"
Cheney, who was secretary of defense at the time, made the observations answering audience questions after a speech to the Discovery Institute in August 1992, nearly 18 months after U.S. forces routed the Iraqi army and liberated Kuwait.
President George H.W. Bush was criticized for pulling out before U.S. forces could storm Baghdad, allowing Saddam to remain in power and eventually setting the stage for the invasion of Iraq ordered by his son, President George W. Bush, in March 2003.
The comments Cheney made more than a decade ago in a little-publicized appearance have acquired new relevance as he and Bush run for a second term. A central theme of their campaign has been their unflinching, unchanging approach toward Iraq and the shifting positions offered by Democratic nominee John Kerry.
***********
Despite his reservations 12 years ago, Cheney was one of this administration's vocal and unrelenting supporters of invading Iraq. The decision was based on Saddam's reported development of nuclear, biological and other weapons of mass destruction that Bush and Cheney said posed a direct and imminent threat to the United States.
I don't know the details of Cheney's change of mind, but I can guess. Hell, I can even give you the big picture, and do it in only 4 strokes of the keyboard: 9/11.
Dead tree media? I'll sound like someone familiar if I type this, but instead, how about Dead From the Neck Up media?
A Better Example
Dan Rather is once again the subject of
Although the three week old Killian memo story has become the poster child for complaints about low standards of journalism and bias at CBS, I think this story is a better example of the problem. Rather starts the piece with this:
It's no secret: The all- volunteer U.S. Military, especially the Army, Marines and many reserve units, are stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. So what about bringing back the draft? A lot of Americans are worried about that. Where do the presidential candidates stand? CBS's Richard Schlesinger tells you in the "Eye on America" election series, "What does it mean to you?"I beg you please, read the transcript and ask yourself the following two questions. What does it mean to me? Have they told me anything that will help me answer the question? I want to know what it means to me and I need help!!
CBS refers to an email floating around the net claiming the draft is in the offing. It's been debunked by Factcheck.org. CBS doesn't mention this in the story.
The focus of the piece is a Philadelphia woman, Beverly Cocco, who fears her sons will be drafted and sent to Iraq. She's a Republican, but she's not sure who to vote for because she's afraid of a draft. Fair enough, so far. But she's also the chapter president of People Against the Draft, an advocacy group who's website tells us how they know the draft "is in the works". CBS showed the main page to their website briefly during the piece, so CBS must know she's the local chapeter president. But they don't mention this in their story either.
CBS then reports that the Selective Service says it can get the draft up and running in six months, or even less. Which appears to be true. But the Selective Service has posted a notice on it's on website that denies any such plans are in the offing. Anyone care to guess whether CBS tells its viewers about that?
Rathergate was the perfect storm. The draft story is akin instead to what we're used to from CBS -- a constant drizzle. Either one and you're still all wet.
(Linked to the Beltway Traffic Jam.)
UPDATE: One of the problems with bloggiing is that sometimes as soon as you put up a post you run into something else that would have fit naturally into that post. On that note, Jim Lindgren (new Volokh group blogger) tells us that Beverly Cocco wrote a letter to a local paper back in June, when the email hoax was fresh news. She starts out her letter:
Just this week I received an e-mail so upsetting that I forwarded it to all my friends, who then forwarded it to all their friends. We are now a good size group.Lindgren has more detail on the debunking of the story here.
So to recap, an eamil hoax lands in Cocco's inbox, she believes it, and joins a bunch of others that believe it. And CBS reports it. The only question remaining is -- who sent her the email? Bill Burkett?
September 28, 2004
Slippery Issues
We're in the middle of a Presidential election and it's important to talk about the issues, and all the slippery stuff that entails.
Which I'll get to.
Eventually.
But until that happens, let's visit with someone who doesn't talk about the slippery issues, but has some.
It's Clobberin' Time! Well, next summer anyway
Marvel Comics fans take note -- shooting on 20th Century Fox's Fantastic Four movie has begun. Here are some early publicity shots.
(Via Outside the Beltway.)
September 27, 2004
Drunkblogging
I'm not looking forward to the Presidential debates. The questions will generally be stupid and the answers will certainly be much much worse. You can ask either candidate what they had for breakfast that morning and you'll get 2 minutes of canned crud. John Kerry would work social security into his answer, and Bush would figure out how to get "No Child Left Behind" into his. They're just painful to watch.
Stephen Green has the right idea. He'll be drunkblogging the debate on Thursday night.
Three Questions
Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy solicits "generally hawkish" Iraq bloggers to submit answers to three questions:
So here's a little experiment in blogospheric dialogue. I would like members of the hawkish side of the blogosphere to post responses on their blogs to three questions I have about the situation in Iraq. In exchange, I'll post links to the answers on the Volokh Conspiracy. Here are my questions:I don't think these questions are all that difficult to answer.
First, assuming that you were in favor of the invasion of Iraq at the time of the invasion, do you believe today that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Why/why not?
Second, what reaction do you have to the not-very-upbeat news coming of Iraq these days, such as the stories I link to above?
Third, what specific criteria do you recommend that we should use over the coming months and years to measure whether the Iraq invasion has been a success?
************
My plan is to gather the links to the responses and post the links here on the Volokh Conspiracy so others can read, debate, and analyze the posts. I plan to be pretty indiscriminate with the links, too: so long as a blogger is (or was) pro-war and answers all three questions in English without excessive profanity, I'll provide the link to it.
1. Nothing we've learned since invading Iraq has changed the calculus for invading in the first place. In early October 2002 President Bush gave a speech and a Saturday radio address outlining why he was increasing the pressure on Iraq and foretelling the potential consequences for the regime. Both statements broadly outline a long list of grievances with Hussein's Iraq that aren't limited to WMD issues. The facile arguments since then over lack of WMD findings doesn't change any of it. Those arguments necessarily require the cleansing of Saddam Hussein's well earned international reputation as a very dangerous and threatening actor. To buy those arguments is ultimately to say Saddam must have complied with all of those U.N. resolutions after all, right? Post 9/11, US policy changed from one of multi-lateral containment to one of pro-active resolution of issues with problem states. Iraq fell sqarely within the bounds of that policy. It was then, and still is now, the right decision and is well within the bounds of the War on Terror.
2. My reaction to the "not-very-upbeat" news is that we still have work to do to finish the job. I mean, yeah, it would have been nice to have avoided some of what we're seeing now -- I'm certain avoiding all of it would have been next to impossible. But I've heard no news or other reason to believe that we can't continue and achieve our goal. The most difficult thing about deciding to go to war is that once started, there's no way to know with any great certainty where its going to take you. Turning on the decision to go to war when things get harder than you wanted them to be, or planned on them being, would mean we'd have surrendered to the British after the defeat at New York in 1776; we'd have allowed the South to secede after the First Bull Run (or any number of many battles following that); and we'd have abandonded WII after disastrous defeats in North Africa.
3. My greatest misgiving about starting the war was how it would end -- some argued then that we rebuilt Japan and Germany into democracies, and neither had a history of successful popular elections. We could do the same in Iraq. My problem with those analogies was that because WWII was what I'll call here Total War, by the time we occupied those countries they were literally ravaged in every sense of the word. I didn't expect Iraq (and especially the Iraqi people) to be similarly devastated. It wasn't and they weren't. It seemed to me that the earlier examples relied too heavily upon starting from nothing, and that we'd be somewhat disadvantaged in Iraq because that wouldn't be the case. But nonetheless, the ultimate measure of success is similar to those achievements. A half-success will be an Iraq that a) doesn't harbor terrorists, doesn't cooperate with them, and doesn't threaten the US. A full success (which I believe is still well within our grasp if we remain steady) is all of the above plus a democratic Iraq. An A+ score would be both of those, plus a strong ally in the War on Terror.
September 26, 2004
Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Nukes
In today's NYT there's an Op-Ed by the former head of Saddam's nuclear centrifuge program.
What was really going in Iraq before the American invasion last year? Iraq's nuclear weapons program was on the threshold of success before the 1991 invasion of Kuwait - there is no doubt in my mind that we could have produced dozens of nuclear weapons within a few years - but was stopped in its tracks by United Nations weapons inspectors after the Persian Gulf war and was never restarted. During the 1990's, the inspectors discovered all of the laboratories, machines and materials we had used in the nuclear program, and all were destroyed or otherwise incapacitated.Oh -- and those Iraqi scientists he speaks of? Some of them are hiding in Syria, who wants to ship them off to Iran.
By 1998, when Saddam Hussein evicted the weapons inspectors from Iraq, all that was left was the dangerous knowledge of hundreds of scientists and the blueprints and prototype parts for the centrifuge, which I had buried under a tree in my garden.
************
To the end, Saddam Hussein kept alive the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission, staffed by junior scientists involved in research completely unrelated to nuclear weapons, just so he could maintain the illusion in his mind that he had a nuclear program. Sort of like the emperor with no clothes, he fooled himself into believing he was armed and dangerous. But unlike that fairy-tale ruler, Saddam Hussein fooled the rest of the world as well.
Was Iraq a potential threat to the United States and the world? Threat is always a matter of perception, but our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein's fingers. The sanctions and the lucrative oil-for-food program had served as powerful deterrents, but world events - like Iran's current efforts to step up its nuclear ambitions - might well have changed the situation.
Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done so very quickly. In the late 1980's, we put together the most efficient covert nuclear program the world has ever seen. In about three years, we gained the ability to enrich uranium and nearly become a nuclear threat; we built an effective centrifuge from scratch, even though we started with no knowledge of centrifuge technology. Had Saddam Hussein ordered it and the world looked the other way, we might have shaved months if not years off our previous efforts.
We don't need no stinkin' bias
September 25, 2004
Cronkite Embarrassed; Film at Eleven
Walter Cronkite, internet critic, is embarrassed:
"The reaction at the moment, of course, is embarrassment for everyone who is connected to CBS, and that embarrassment, I hope, will be squashed in time as we know what happened," he said.Don't hold your breath.
Impose This!
The other day I posted about something I called ugly, an RNC campaign flyer that warned the Bible would be "banned" as part of a "liberal agenda" if Democrats are elected. (It doesn't mention any candidates by name, at least not on the one side of the flyer available to view here.) The RNC has now acknowledged they sent the flyer. Eugene Volokh has several posts. I second Captain Ed's comment:
No one, to my knowledge, has ever raised the question of banning the Bible. In fact, that smear is as grounded in reality as Republicans supposedly secretly planning on bringing back the draft. It's a stupid charge, easily debunked, and insults the intelligence of the voters to whom it was directed. In the Internet age, spewing forth like this only makes the spewer look bad when they're caught, and as Dan Rather found out, they inevitably are. The RNC should apologize.Political rhetoric often stretches accuracy and logic. The flyer argues that liberals want to "impose" their values. I don't know whether it's funny or ironic when Democrats argue the very same thing in opposition to flyers like this one. The argument suggests that it's simply wrong to impose any values, but every law is based upon some value or other, and once it becomes law that value is "imposed", isn't it? I think we'd be better off, or at least appear slightly smarter if we admitted this and started arguing over which values are the ones we want.
September 23, 2004
Lame Context Post with little addditional comment
First, an Op-Ed in the NYT today on the state of affairs in Afghanistan.
Second, a column by Max Boot in the LA Times (via the venerable Prof. Volokh).
Both offer context on our current affairs and are well worth the read.
Funny & Ugly
This is pretty funny.
As is this too. (Both of these via Outside the Beltway).
But this isn't funny at all. It may be good politics (good politics = getting people to vote for you), but it's downright ugly, and if there's enough of it after a while it will come back to bite you in the ass.
September 20, 2004
The Question Not Asked
I watched Dan Rather's mea culpa tonight, including his
What I want to know though is the answer to the question not asked: "If what you told us before wasn't true, then where'd you get the documents from?" CBS is apparently more interested in covering their butt though, than well, actually pursuing what has become the story.
Mr. Murrow -- you can start spinning again.
UPDATE: And read Jeff Jarvis too.
Are Liberals Moral Relativists?
Eugene Volokh is guest blogging for at Glenn Reynold's MSNBC blog this week. Volokh starts out with an essay on whether it's fair for conservatives to claim liberals are moral relativists. It's well worth the read.
September 18, 2004
Rock and a Hard Place
Bernard Goldberg also thinks CBS is caught between a rock and a hard place of its own creation:
Now it's possible that the mystery man (or woman) is someone who lives in Denmark or Tibet and somehow got his hands on genuine documents that make the president look bad in the middle of a race that might turn out to be tighter than the rusted lug nuts on a '54 Chevy. But I doubt it. I'm betting he lives a lot closer to home, and, who knows, he might indeed turn out to be a "partisan political force" himself. And this is precisely Dan's problem. This is why, I suspect, he isn't coming clean, despite the damage to his reputation. Because Dan Rather may be protecting not just his source, but himself; because, if the source turns out to be a partisan, then Dan wasn't just taken for a ride, but may have been a willing passenger.And then Dan, and CBS News, can kiss their reputations goodbye.
UPDATE 10/01/04: Corrected an html error that made the last sentence appear to be part of the quote.
September 17, 2004
Above the Belt
This Chicago Tribune editorial hits CBS News well above the belt, just where they deserve it.
That officer's former secretary says she thinks the memos are fakes, but that they reflect the officer's thinking. On Wednesday, Rather finally acknowledged questions about the memos' authenticity--but insisted the sentiment they conveyed was correct. As if to say: This just in! We think George W. Bush got special treatment!A redoubling of efforts, eh? Maybe they should get some advice from OJ -- he knows all about searching for the bad guy.
Nice try, but that charge is old news. The new news was CBS' "Gotcha!" memos. The fact that Adolf Hitler allegedly had thoughts similar to some in those long discredited "Hitler's diaries" doesn't make them more than sleazy frauds.
The president of CBS News now says the network will "redouble its efforts" to investigate the documents. The time to do that was before the story aired. And some journalists wonder why many Americans think we're biased, arrogant and inaccurate. The burden of proof here was on Rather and Co. If they did ignore warnings from experts, they hurt a lot of honest reporters.
News organizations that relied in part on CBS' story--the Tribune included--put some faith in CBS News' credibility. Only to learn that the network may have had its trademark eye wide shut.
Via Beldar Blog.
R.I.P
Johnny Ramone, lead guitarist of the Ramones, died earlier this week. This, from the NYT obit:
By stripping rock guitar of its ornamentation and playing almost every note in a violent, accelerated downstroke, Mr. Ramone helped create the sound of punk. His style ? fast, repetitive and aggressive, though always tuneful ? influenced, directly or indirectly, almost every punk guitarist since, from the Sex Pistols' Steve Jones to Nirvana's Kurt Cobain and contemporary players like Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day and Tom Delonge of Blink-182.Well this explains why I never liked the Ramones, the Sex Pistols, Nirvana, or Blink-182. And tuneful? Well, it may indeed have been "always tuneful", but the problem is the style of playing denied anyone's ability to, well, actually hear the tune!
*****
Mr. Ramone's guitar style was basically sui generis, though he did not use those words to describe it; it was "pure, white rock 'n' roll, with no blues influence," he once said. "I wanted our sound to be as original as possible. I stopped listening to everything."
Via Outside the Beltway.
Perfect
Edward R. Murrow, Where Are You?
Bill Hobbes says ABC is reporting an exclusive interview with Walter Staudt, the retired officer who, it is said in one of the challenged CBS documents, pressured Jerry Killian to "sugarcoat" Bush's record. Staudt says it never happened.
"I never pressured anybody about George Bush because I had no reason to," Staudt told ABC News in his first interview since the documents were made public.Earlier this week CBS defended their broadcast by saying it was "accurate", even as they tried to dodge whether the documents were authentic, all in an effort to protect their source. But while all journalists strive to protect confidential sources, no one suggests this extends to sources that lie.
My guess is that when/if the source is revealed it will make CBS look all the worse, and so they will continue to stonewall by clinging to the underlying "truth" that Bush got preferential treatment and disobeyed an order to report for a physical even in the face of Staudt's interview. Imagine that -- CBS is caught in a squeeze of its own doing, unable to reveal the source and so unable to admit the 60 Minutes II story was fundamentally flawed, all to protect themselves from even more harsh criticism. Edward R. Murrow indeed.
[Linked to the Beltway Traffic Jam.]
September 16, 2004
I Just Love Stuff Like . . .
Mystery Sex
Today at Best of the Web, James Taranto notes that Maureen Dowd has identified a "mystery sex" in American politics. Here's Dowd:
The latest CBS News poll shows that among George W. Bush supporters, 51 percent are men and 48 percent are women--and of John Kerry supporters, 41 percent are men and 43 percent are women. . . . In the last election, out of those who voted for Al Gore, 42 percent were men and 54 percent were women. Of the people who voted for George W. Bush, 53 percent were men and 43 percent were women.And Taranto:
This means that, if Dowd is right, 16% of Kerry supporters are neither men nor women. What are they? Perhaps she'll explain in a future column. But also note that only 1% of Bush's supporters belong to the mysterious third sex, down from 4% in 2000. If there really are voters who belong to neither sex, this could spell trouble for the incumbent.And all along I thought mystery sex was when you woke up the next morning, looked at the stranger lieing next to you, and decided it's a mystery how or why it happened.
September 15, 2004
Paradox
Via Beldar Blog, Kevin Drum gives advice to Kerry:
Now, I happen to agree with Tomasky that Republicans generally go for the jugular more effectively than Democrats, but it's a big mistake for us liberals to kid ourselves into thinking that Republicans win elections solely because they fool people into voting for them. It's not just that this is a debilitating mental attitude ? although it is ? but it's also not true. Our main problem isn't that this year's campaign has ignored the issues, our main problem is that the #1 issue in this campaign is national defense, and on that issue ? like it or not ? the majority of Americans favor the Republican position. If John Kerry wants to win, he should focus on the issues, but he has to focus on the issues that matter most in this campaign cycle.I think Kevin is spot on in identifying the problem, but he doesn't acknowledge the difficulty Kerry has with the proposed solution. The majority of Americans favor the Republican solution because too many Democrats in the party's base will do anything to avoid a military solution, even when confronted with a problem that begs for that solution (Gulf War I is Exhibit A, for example, which Kerry voted against). Kerry has sought votes from these folks for twenty some years and he's pandered to them often enough. Still, over a year ago when the primary season first ramped up Kerry was not really out there in front with Howard Dean, attacking the decision to oust Saddam at every moment. Eventually though, Kerry more or less joined Dean in many respects. So, in order to win the nomination Kerry had to be all things to all Democrats including Dean's supporters, and as a result he's never found a convincing, credible voice on national defense issues with appeal beyond the anti-military wing of the Democratic party.
It's all about 9/11, Iraq, terrorism, and national security, baby. This election is going to be won on that issue, and Kerry needs to convince the country that he can handle it better than Bush. And really, considering the botch Bush has made of national security, that shouldn't be all that hard.
Bottom line: Republicans aren't avoiding the issues. It's just that their signature issue happens to be the one people care most about this year. Democrats had better figure that out pronto.
And now, even if he takes Kevin's advice, Kerry will have a difficult time avoiding the criticism that he's "just saying that to get elected." This has been the paradox of the Democratic campaign for the White House stretching back for well over a year -- how do you rally the anti-military base and at the same time convince the rest of us you've got what it takes to win War? Kerry can argue that Bush has botched the job and that he would do a better job, but he's terribly short of time to resurrect any credibility on the subject.
UPDATE: Stephen Green agrees.
September 14, 2004
The Right To Be Stupid
Hugh Hewitt thinks Rathergate deserves a Congressional Hearing. Tom Maguire disagrees:
Beyond that, when did we decide that Congress needs to investigate every darn thing? They looked at Janet Jackson's breast - well, fine, that was a waste of time that should be discouraged, not emulated.I agree with Tom, and would only add that CBS itself has the right to be stupid as well.
And maybe in a few years, it will be Dems investigating the sources used by talk-radio hosts for the content of their broadcasts - that would be fun, wouldn't it? What will Mr. Hewitt be saying then?
And what legislative purpose does Mr. Hewitt foresee? A rule requiring journalists not to be stupid? A law requiring them to put a value on their personal and corporate credibility? What is the destination, here?
OK, I am ranting now - I cannot say enough bad things about this suggestion. Hugh Hewitt is a smart guy - I'm hoping he is smart enough to realize he headed the wrong way this time.
UPDATE: Here's an interesting take, not as to who the forger is, but how old he/she is.
Dan Watshisname?
From Matt Yglesias:
Now it looks like they're forgeries. Assuming they are forgeries, we can conclude the following:Well, you might conclude points 1 and 3, but not based upon the documents themselves. They only establish part of point 2.
* George W. Bush pulled strings to avoid combat service in Vietnam by entering the Texas Air National Guard, failed to complete his service in a rigorous manner and has lied about it repeatedly for years.
* CBS News, like the United States of America, is run by some kind of idiots.
* Other Texans, less fortunate than Dubya, died so that he could avoid service in a war he supported.
But if 1 and 3 are true too, where does that leave us? We've got a self-interested incumbent guilty of the above, and a self-interested challenger guilty of embellishing his experience in Vietnam for political purposes during his Congressional testimony immediately following the war, and again years later on the Senate floor for the purposes of swaying a national security debate.
And all of the above took place some 18 to 30+ years ago. I'd say its time we MovedOn. In the greater scheme of things, there's got to be something more telling about the candidates to put on the table. And a better way to talk about it to.
The real story about the documents doesn't involve Bush, or even Kerry (yet?), but Rather involves the credibility and reputation of Dan Whatshisname and CBS News.
Have At It, Part II
As I mentioned last night, the quickest way to stem the criticism of the infamous 60 Minutes' documents is to slip a piece of paper into a vintage typewriter and reproduce one of the documents. CBS and its defenders claim there's nothing special about MS Word's ability to reproduce the documents because readily available office machines from the early 1970's were equally capable. Moreover, the reward for doing exactly that is now up to $37,900
So as a public service, I'm directing bounty hunters in search of the prize to Ebay, where any number of IBM Selectrics (Models I, II, and III) and IBM Selectric Composers are available for purchase. My personal favorite is this 1961 IBM Model 72 Selectric.
Let's see some of that Can-Do American Spirit folks, some entreprenurial endeavoring, yes even some risk taking. Who will be the first???
[Linked to the Beltway Traffic Jam.]
September 13, 2004
Have At It
Tim Blair has some fun with apologists for the authenticity of the documents produced by 60 Minutes last week.
But again, what strikes me about this debate is that those who say the documents are (or seem) fake have established a baseline for their argument by easily duplicating the document using a modern wordprocessing program. Others have tried and failed to replicate them using IBM's Selectric Composer, a machine unlikely to be found in a National Guard unit in any case. It is still said by some that certain models of IBM's Selectric typewriter or other typewriters could have been used. Well let's get with the program, folks. If an IBM Selectric (or some other machine of the era) can duplicate this document with the felicity of MS Word, then have at it -- let's see the reproduced document.
[Linked to the Beltway Traffic Jam.]
UPDATE: I should add that I'm not the first to challenge someone to reproduce the documents on a vintage machine.
September 12, 2004
Golden Shower
Back from vacation (scroll down). Had a great time. Now, back to full sentences.
Last week, 60 Minutes updated the Bush/National Guard story, producing 4 new documents to support the inference that Bush failed to report for duty when he was required to do so, and thereby undermining his entitlement to an honorable discharge. Within hours a buzz arose over whether the documents were authentic. The essential problem is that the documents have the very strong appearance of being prepared in Microsoft Word or some other word processing software, a technology that obviously didn't exist in 1972. Some of the common complaints have been the match of the type face, proportional spacing, kerning, use of superscript characters, use of "curly" apostrophes, line spacing, line centering, etc. As of Sunday morning while I'm typing, I think it's fair to say while the documents may indeed be authentic, there's far and away enough reason to doubt them, and if 60 Minutes expects us to credit their story they need to come forward with a better explanation of their sourcing.
But anyway, if you want to read bad summaries of this pissing contest try any big newspaper. If you want to actually take the Golden Shower, however, start with Powerline's first post on the documents' doubtful authenticity. For some more technical approaches to the similarities between the documents and a Word reproduction of them, try here and scroll for stuff on signatures, superscripts, and IBM Selectrics, here for a discussion of the possible use of the IBM Selectric Composer, and here for other detail on fonts, typewriters, etc.
The best technical response to these arguments I could find is here and here.
Complicating the matter, a document expert quoted by the Boston Globe in a story supporting the documents' authenticity now says they misquoted him. And it turns out, one of the individuals referenced in the documents as pressuring their author to grant Bush favors had in fact retired many months before the document was purportedly created.
Two things stand out to me in all of this. For those who think there's no smoke here, I'd love to see a modern reproduction of these memos on a 1972 vintage office typewriter that matches as closely as the Word reproductions do. Many who have attacked the authenticity of the documents have indeed reproduced them with astonishing ease on a modern computer running MS Word. How about some enterprising blogger doing the same thing to establish that yes, in fact an old IBM Selectric or whatever could do the same thing today? Second, all of these comparisons, overlays and the like being demonstrated today have been performed using nth generation copies of the original documents. CBS doesn't have the originals and we don't even know if their copies were made from the originals. Given that duplication by either fax or photocopier distorts the document and that each subsequent copy made from a prior copy increases that distortion, I wonder how sure anyone can be about these comparisons without better information on how far removed the copied documents are from the originals.
September 7, 2004
Remind me why I like this place again?
The vacation is close to it's end. Tomorrow's the last full day. I finished reading David Hackett Fisher's, Washington's Crossing, and I've just started Walter Isaacsons's Benjamin Franklin. Reading 18th Century history on Block Island is sort of fun (at least for me) because, although there are very few relics from that era on the island, it was populated at that time by crazy people hardy folk and it isn't too hard to imagine just how hardy they had to be to survive.
Anyway, here's a pic I took on a bike ride today through Rodman's Hollow, down to the bluffs on the south of the island. Not shabby, eh?
September 3, 2004
Testing, testing
Well, I'm on BI and the weather's been great -- more on that later. I can't get mail yet and think that will be fixed in a few hours. I wanted to try a test post, so this is it.
From Instapundit, here's an insightful review of Bush's foreign adventures with a comparison to Kerry's approach.
September 1, 2004
Vacation Update
Almost ready to hit the sack. Updating the iPod details in this post, I'm at over 1930 songs, over 10gb of files, and over 5.5 days of continuous music listening.
So, if I can get my hands on a wind power adapter and a whole bunch of amphetamines, I'll actually be able to do that.