Before the Capitol Police acknowledged yesterday that there was no legal basis for removing, let alone arresting, Cindy Sheehan -- to the contrary, they admitted that they "screwed up" because "Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws" -- numerous Bush followers in the blogosphere were celebrating Sheehan's detention on the ground that she broke the law. Many of them were calling for all sorts of punishments to be imposed on Rep. Lynn Woolsey, who invited Sheehan to the speech and therefore aided and abetted her "illegal" behavior.
As we now know (and as should have been at least instinctively apparent to anyone with an understanding of America's most basic political values), Sheehan broke no laws or rules of any kind. Thus, all of those bloggers who were so frantically running around accusing her of law-breaking and violating the rules, and therefore defending her removal and arrest, were simply wrong.
We hear so much -- especially from those types -- about how the blogosphere is so superior to the "MSM" because the blogosphere humbly self-corrects its own errors while the MSM stonewalls and digs in. While some parts of the blogosphere certainly "self-correct," other parts clearly do not.
Let's review some of the commentary of certain bloggers yesterday regarding Cindy Sheehan's illegal and rule-violating behavior, shall we? Then we can see how "self-correcting" and laden with integrity the blogosphere is:
The Moderate Conservative
Democrats have been complaining about a "culture of corruption" in Congress and promising the American people that if elected, they would run Congress in a highly ethical manner.
Last night Rep. Lynn Woolsey(D) helped Cindy Sheehan, a left wing fanatic, violate the law.
Hyscience
She was reminded about the rules for proper conduct but delibertatly chose to break the law and is now being charged with Unlawful Conduct, a misdemeanor with a penalty of up to a one-year in prison.
Sister Toldjah
About Cindy's arrest and the law she broke
The hype over this bogus ‘controversy’ is only heightened when you have MSM sites like MSNBC posting the following poll question:
Do you agree with the decision by Capitol Police to remove activist Cindy Sheehan from the gallery at the president’s State of the Union speech because she was wearing a T-shirt with an antiwar slogan?
Shouldn’t that have been more like "do you agree with the law that bans demonstrating in the Capitol building?" I guess it was just too much to ask for MSNBC to do a little research on the issue before posting their poll question. Contact MSNBC if you want to express your thoughts on that poll.
Jeff Goldstein
In fact, as a lawmaker herself, for her to say, "I didn’t know in America you could be arrested for wearing a T-shirt with a slogan on it" speaks more to her ignorance of her own job than it does to fascism.
Michelle Malkin
Woolsey should be ashamed of sponsoring Sheehan's attempt to turn a historic, ceremonial event in American history into a cheap moonbat spectacle. . . .
If there are House rules governing such ticket privileges for members of Congress, they ought to be enforced and Rep. Woolsey's privileges should be revoked.
Lefties are screaming Gestapo state, Sister Toldjah reports in a big round-up; she points to a commenter at Patterico's who cites the relevant law governing conduct at the Capitol:
Annie Mayhem (complaining that the "MSM" coverage was, of course, biased because it did not report the "fact"that Sheehan broke the law):
FACT: The liberal MSM reports from the broadcast networks as well as liberal cable networks left out the relevant law governing conduct at the Capitol.
Jack Patriot (who, despite naming himself "Jack Patriot" and putting an American flag at the top of his blog, is tired of having to hear about 'blah blah First Amendment blah blah"):
Her reaction to the incident was something like 'blah blah First Amendment blah blah". Michelle Malkin notes (via Patterico's) that Sheehan actually broke the law.
If there are House rules governing such ticket privileges for members of Congress, they ought to be enforced and Rep. Woolsey's privileges should be revoked.
My Pet Jawa:
Lynn Woolsey ought to be impeached and removed from the House of Representatives for her part in facilitating an unlawful act. At the very least, she should be immediately censured by that body.
Oblogatory Anecdotes [comparing Mrs. Young's conduct (complaining bitterly about being asked to leave and calling the Police Officers "idiots") to Sheehan's conduct (leaving when asked)]:
[Young] was not arrested however because she did not make a fuss like Cindy Sheehan did.
A Blog for All
There are specific rules of conduct that are enforced to maintain decorum and due dignity in the Gallery. The failure to adhere to those rules can mean ejection from the Gallery.
Cindy didn't care about the rules since this is all about her. She tried to take off a sweater to reveal some kind of political statement. When security tried to tell her to cease and desist, she refused, and she was escorted from the Chamber.
GOP and College (more complaints about the awful MSM bias for failing to state as fact the fiction that Sheehan broke the law):
The CNN article says nothing about it being prohibited to protest inside the gallery.
And Jeff Goldstein again, even after the Capitol Police admitted what was unambiguously clear -- namely, that t-shirts are expressly not a violation of the law or the Capitol Rules:
Both violated the rules. Whether or not the Capitol police were overzealous in their enforcement is another question entirely.
And here's one (unintentionally but extremely) amusing post on this incident, from You Talk About. This post condemns the "bad taste and complete lack of decorum demonstrated by the Democrats" and sermonizes that "intellectual differences are debated with respect and reason." Next to his post is an advertisement for Jonah Goldberg's upcoming book entitled "Liberal Fascism" with a smiley face wearing a Hitler moustache.
And the virtually always fact-free John of Powerline claimed that "Sheehan was hauled out of the chamber when she tried to unfurl a banner." That is just false, not that you would know it -- still -- if you only read Powerline.
Now, in fairness, a couple of these posters slapped up "updates" quoting an article indicating that the charges against Sheehan would be dropped. But few, if any of them, stated that they were wrong and that Sheehan violated no law or rule and therefore should never have been removed, let alone arrested. Many of them never noted the dropping of the charges at all, and the few who did note this did so without apology and without retraction or any kind.
But they were clearly wrong -- factually wrong -- in accusing Sheehan of breaking the law or "the rules." As the Capitol Police admit, the law and the rules clearly did not prohibit the wearing of expressive t-shirts inside the Capitol. It is just factually wrong to say that she broke the law or broke the rules, and yet so many of them said just that, emphatically.
Shouldn't they do what they constantly and shrilly demand the "MSM" do whenever the "MSM" makes a mistake -- that is, issue a clear retraction, apologize, maybe even discipline and fire some people? After all, I'm sure they would not want to be demanding that the MSM comply with standards of candor and ethics which they themselves are unwilling to comply with.
It's great that the blogosphere is "self-correcting" and much more responsive than the MSM to demands that they retract errors. I can't wait to see that superiority in action here. How long do we have to wait?
UPDATE: When it was first posted last night, the AP article quoted above, on MSNBC, contained the quotes from the Capitol Police indicating that they "screwed up" and that "Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws." At some point between last night and this morning, those sentences were deleted from the AP article.
Numerous other people last night quoted the same words from the same article, including here, here, and here. And, in any event, the Capitol Police are quoted saying essentially the same thing in other articles, such as this one from CNN:
On Wednesday afternoon, U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said neither woman should have been removed from the chamber. "We made a mistake," he told CNN.
He said an apology was made to Bill and Beverly Young, and the congressman has been told that Capitol officers will receive better training. He said they are operating under outdated guidance on House rules regarding demonstrations.
"Just wearing a T-shirt is not unlawful," Gainer said. Wearing a T-shirt and engaging in actions meant to draw attention to the shirt is against the law, he said, but neither woman was doing so.
Nonetheless, I'm making a note of the discrepancy created in the AP article because I'm part of the self-correcting blogosphere.
UPDATE II: One of the bloggers whom this post referenced, Lawhawk, posted a very straightforward and commendably honest acknowledgment of his error:
The Capitol Police screwed up when they arrested Cindy Sheehan for wearing a t-shirt at the State of the Union Address and for ushering Beverly Young out of the Gallery. And I screwed up in my rush to judgment - the laws weren't as clear as I led my readers to believe. Heck, the folks that were supposed to know the law and rules inside and out, the Capitol Police, admitted that they didn't know them and shouldn't have acted against Sheehan or Rep. Bill Young's wife, Beverly.
I have nothing but good things to say about this. We are all prone to error and every blogger who is posting on a regular basis is going to make factual mistakes, mistakes in judgment, etc. The true measurement of one's reliability, character and credibility is not whether one makes mistakes, but how one responds once the mistakes are pointed out.
Lawhawk provides an excellent demonstration of how a responsible and credible person responds when their error is brought to their attention. It makes for a rather stark and revealing contrast with those who continue to remain silent, or worse, now that they know how mistaken they were.
UPDATE III: Dr. Rusty Shackleford of My Pet Jawa steps up to the plate with a reluctant and not overwhelmingly gracious, though still commendably clear and honest acknowledgment of error:
Okay, it's not illegal...
...but it should be. Cindy Sheehan receives apology from Capital Police. When do we get an apology from Lynn Woolsey for bringing a tin-foil wearing Zionist conspiracy America-hater to Congress? A woman who just a week before was kissing a modern Peronist fascist?
Sadly, though, it looks like Jeff Goldstein -- like Sister Toldjah before him -- won't be joining the honor roll, for reasons that he explains here. In case you have trouble understanding the full meaning of his explanation, The Heretik has provided some helpful translation.
We should e-mail these morons until they admit they were wrong. They have no integrity.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see how many of them have any integrity whatsoever, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for these hypocrites to correct their errors.
ReplyDeleteFree at last, free at last, thank god almighty, the tee shirts are free at last!
ReplyDeleteMistakes? What mistakes? We will correct the mistakes of those who said we made mistakes!
Let's just call them all - "the Fashion Police" - since that's the true value of the transgression here.
ReplyDeleteBut you can see how little they care about the real meaning and purpose of our Constitutional values when they trash them so easily for their own partisan vindictiveness.
And integrity? They know it NOT.
Give the doctor some smelling salts! I think he forgot the link which "corrects" the mistakes that were made here about the mistakes that were made there. The Moderate Conservative link Doctor Bloor refers must be this one, because this is his last word on it.
ReplyDeleteIf some here have misunderstood the possibly tongue in cheek quality of what Doctor Bloor has said, some are willing to be corrected. Thank you.
I read the MSNBC article you link to and found that it does not contain the quotes you attribute to the Capitol Police, nor does it contain the word "admitted", or the phrases "screwed up" and "Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws".
ReplyDeleteThe quotes used by MSNBC are: "'The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol,' Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday."
"'The policy and procedures were too vague,' he added. “The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine.'"
The quotes used in your post are: "Capitol Police acknowledged yesterday that there was no legal basis for removing, let alone arresting, Cindy Sheehan -- to the contrary, they admitted that they 'screwed up' because 'Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws'"
I would be interested in reading the original source of the quotes you are using, would you please post a link or two?
I read the MSNBC article you link to and found that it does not contain the quotes you attribute to the Capitol Police, nor does it contain the word "admitted", or the phrases "screwed up" and "Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws".
ReplyDeleteIt's not an MSNBC article; it's an article from the AP. And that article did contain those exact quotes last night when the article was posted, which is where I quoted from. Numerous other people quoted the same words from the same article, including here, here, here, and here.
The current version of the AP article doesn't have those quotes in them, and they've zapped it so that it can't be found (at least by me). But the article as posted last night did have the quotes, and it's well-preserved by the multiple people who quoted from it. And, in any event, the Capitol Police are saying exactly the same thing in other articles, such as this one from CNN:
On Wednesday afternoon, U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said neither woman should have been removed from the chamber. "We made a mistake," he told CNN.
He said an apology was made to Bill and Beverly Young, and the congressman has been told that Capitol officers will receive better training. He said they are operating under outdated guidance on House rules regarding demonstrations.
"Just wearing a T-shirt is not unlawful," Gainer said. Wearing a T-shirt and engaging in actions meant to draw attention to the shirt is against the law, he said, but neither woman was doing so.
Nonetheless, I appreciate your drawing AP's discrepancy to my attention and I'm going to make it a note of it, because I'm part of the self-correcting blogosphere.
Spectacular post, Glenn.
ReplyDeleteThanks for showing everyone just what the Jingosphere means when it talks about "intellectual honesty."
Bush-supporter Patterico reported the whole thing straightforwardly as it unfolded; before it was known that Mrs. Young had also been asked to leave, he inquired:
ReplyDeleteIs the law under which [Sheehan] was arrested content-neutral? Are there First Amendment implications here? If the T-shirt said: “Bush rocks!” would she have been arrested?
I think he is a lawyer, but then so are the Powerline trio who didn't seem interested in such quaint issues.
I'd like to know what happened to the initial reports from Capitol Police that Sheehan was disruptive and would not quiet down? Where did that come from, and do they now say it didn't happen?
Ugly American writes:
ReplyDeleteAgain I will remind [Glenn] I found his blog when I noticed numerous factual errors in one of his posts which he has never corrected.
I'm seriously doubting that you found factual errors he did not correct.
What exactly do you mean?
Again I will remind him I found his blog when I noticed numerous factual errors in one of his posts which he has never corrected.
ReplyDeleteWhat errors? Which post?
Like trying to reason with a skunk to take his stripes off. It's who he is my friends. Don't waste time asking for apologies or corrections because all they have left are the lies. Like a poor unfortunate drunk sitting in an alley with his half empty whiskey bottle craddled in his lap. The whiskey his last friend, it's been with him through good times and bad. The great energy of the self correcting bloggers, the intellectual, insatiable curiosity is of too much value to waste trying to bring them around. Instead, it's our job to keep the facts at the center of each argument.
ReplyDeleteI asked Sista Toldjah,“When are you going to retract the factually wrong and misleading title?”
ReplyDeleteHer response,
There’s nothing “misleading” about my title. At the time Ms. Sheehan was arrested it was presumed she was arrested because she broke the law. In fact, I cited the relevant law the Capitol police thought she broke. End of story.
I’ll retract my “misleading” title when you start demanding your pals on the left start retracting titles that truly are misleading en masse, ok?
I explained, that I was trying to "help" her, with her crediblity, but she said, she "didn't need help in that regard".
Quoting Sista Toldjah:
ReplyDeleteI’ll retract my “misleading” title when you start demanding your pals on the left start retracting titles that truly are misleading en masse, ok?
Well, she should be concerend with her own credibility.
That said, she has a point. The left blogosphere went into a frenzy of contrived outrage when Chris Matthews said Osama's latest audio sounded like Michael Moore. Why, this was beyond the pale, and a call to arms was issued.
Then it became widely known that Michael Moore himself not only agrees he sounds like OBL, he bragged about it in a public taunt to George Bush regarding the contents of OBL's 10/04 video.
Did the left acknowledge that and drop its inane campaign to have Matthews apologize to Moore? Nope. Silence. Sound of crickets chirping.
You're expecting too much from the party of hypocrites and bedwetting cowards.
ReplyDeleteUgly:
ReplyDeleteGlenn wrote: Elections are what produced the intensely anti-American Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, not to mention the Chancellorship of Adolph Hitler. Iran itself has had parliamentary elections — some legitimate and some not, and yet it remains the greatest Middle Eastern threat to American interests.
You responded: I have to wonder if he intentionally left out the word “Democratic” from the examples he provided knowing full well they were not.
Chavez was legitimately and 'democratically' elected. You might be thinking of the failed coup in Venezuela the U.S. supported a few years back. Hamas was legitimately elected. Hitler was legitimately elected.
When you go around accusing people of lying or being ignorant or whatever your schitck is, it helps to actually have a grasp on reality, facts and history. Glenn's point that elections aren't inherently in U.S. interest is pretty unassailable.
And simply saying "100,000 Iraqi deaths were debunked" doesn't necessarily make it so. No one really knows and Glenn certainly mentioned the 30,000 figure the president claimed.
I checked out one of your references; apparently the likes of Jeff G. can change "law" to "rule" without a trace of irony and never address the arrest question.
ReplyDelete"That said, she has a point. The left blogosphere went into a frenzy of contrived outrage when Chris Matthews said Osama's latest audio sounded like Michael Moore. Why, this was beyond the pale, and a call to arms was issued."
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for everyone on the left, but I can tell you why I was outraged.
I have been opposed to the Iraq invasion and occupation, from the beginning. Imperialism won't work. Never has, never will.
I have been called anti-American, unpatriotic, Saddam lover, and part of the blame America first crowd, for opposing the "war". Even though I supported getting Osama "dead or alive".
I'm tired of the lies and hyperbole, and when someone like Matthews, who has millions of viewers, starts comparing people on the left with Bin Laden, I get mad. It crosses the line when the media starts spewing this garbage.
Wouldn't you be pissed off, if he compared people on the right with our greatest enemy?
I'm tired of the lies and hyperbole, and when someone like Matthews, who has millions of viewers, starts comparing people on the left with Bin Laden, I get mad. It crosses the line when the media starts spewing this garbage.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't you be pissed off, if he compared people on the right with our greatest enemy?
First, none of that is relevant to the fact that OBL does sound like Michael Moore, and even Moore himself gleefully admits it. The left blogosphere did not correct for that fact, as far as I know.
Second, I think some on the right do, actually, sound like Talibanesque theocrats. I've seen left bloggers make such comparisons, and altho they are sometimes over-stated, there is a kernel of truth to those observations. Especially if one is referencing the Dominionists of the variety that lavishly fund the so-called Intelligent Design movement.
The point is, the left went into a huge hissy fit about the Matthews/Moore thing, when it is an incontrovertible fact that Michael Moore himself knows OBL sounds like him -- he thought it was swell. And the left leading the charge against Matthews on that issue says what about Moore's own bragging admission? Nothing, as far as I know. Rather, they continue to identify with and defend a man who is proud of sounding like, as you put it, "our greatest enemy."
akadad, it is likely that Bushco IS our greatest enemy. If by "our" you mean Americans who wish to continue to live under the constitution as currently drafted.
ReplyDeleteBin Laden could never have accomplished so much harm in this country without the unwitting, but fully intentional, complicity of the Bush administration.
Jake
hypatia -
ReplyDeleteCan you provide a link to Moore's comments? I'd like to hear his exact words before I call for a correction.
I read the MSNBC article you link to and found that it does not contain the quotes you attribute to the Capitol Police, nor does it contain the word "admitted", or the phrases "screwed up" and "Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws".
ReplyDeleteSo this language was in the original AP article that you, DailyKos and other left wing Bloggers are quoting, however shortly after you all read it last night those words got scrubbed?
"they've zapped it so that it can't be found"
Who do you suppose "zapped it", the AP? Google? Perhaps the NSA?
I checked the Blogs you link to in your comment, they all link either back to your previous post or to the same MSNBC story which, by the way, states right at the top under the AP logo "Updated: 8:18 p.m. ET Feb. 1, 2006" and the copyright notice at the bottom says "Associated Press".
"It's not an MSNBC article; it's an article from the AP. And that article did contain those exact quotes last night when the article was posted, which is where I quoted from."
If that's the case, then why not simply provide a link to the original AP story you say you "quoted from" instead of the MSNBC story?
Anon, sure, from Taranto's WSJ Best of the Web:
ReplyDeleteBut blogger Mark Coffey notes that the last time bin Laden released a tape--just days before Kerry suffered the most crushing defeat of any presidential candidate this century--Moore himself was boasting that bin Laden sounded just like him [Moore to Bush - ed. Hypatia]:
"There he was, OBL, all tan and rested and on videotape (hey, did you get the feeling that he had a bootleg of my movie? Are there DVD players in those caves in Afghanistan?)"
Bryan (Why Now?) has made this astute observation -
ReplyDelete"While everyone knows Cindy Sheehan and the trouble they are in for arresting her, they may be in more personal danger from Beverly Young."
And he found an interesting background piece on Mrs. Young from the St Petersburg Times.
And regarding the "missing and changed* quotes from the MSNBC and AP articles - they edited the earlier pieces in response to reader complaints about the phrasing.
ReplyDelete:-D
So this language was in the original AP article that you, DailyKos and other left wing Bloggers are quoting, however shortly after you all read it last night those words got scrubbed?
ReplyDeleteApparently.
Who do you suppose "zapped it", the AP? Google? Perhaps the NSA?
I have no idea. Articles get edited all the time, for all sorts of reasons. If you're interested in who edited and why, why don't you write an e-mail to the AP reporter and ask her?
I checked the Blogs you link to in your comment, they all link either back to your previous post or to the same MSNBC story which,
No, you're mistaken. All of the posts to which I linked that contained those quotes linked to the same AP story, not to my post.
If that's the case, then why not simply provide a link to the original AP story you say you "quoted from" instead of the MSNBC story?
Because I found it on MSNBC, not on AP. AP is a wire service. Very few people "read AP." They send out stories to their subscribers who then decided whether to publish it.
What difference does any of this make? Are you douting that the quote was in the original AP article? Do you think we all got together and made up these quotes and then cited to the same article? Why don't you come out with your point instead of asking these endless, cryptic questions.
Ooops, here's another one:
ReplyDelete"CAPITOL COPS ADMIT SHEEHAN BROKE NO RULES OR LAWS!"
"Will Drop All Charges, According to NBC. 'We Screwed Up,' Says Capitol Police..."
"[LATE UPDATE] MSNBC Scrubs 'We Screwed Up' Article Without Explanation! Replaces with AP Story..."
Note that this Blogger claims that he got the original story from MSNBC, but it was later replaced with the AP story. Here.
Karen McL,
Where is that information found? How about posting a link to back it up...
none of that is relevant to the fact that OBL does sound like Michael Moore, and even Moore himself gleefully admits it. The left blogosphere did not correct for that fact, as far as I know.
ReplyDeleteThe "fact" that Moore "sounds like" OBL is in an entirely different category than the fact that Sheehan was improperly arrested. There is a clear qualitative difference in the order of factuality here. One is a matter of public record, the other has no substance at all, but is just the continual partisan nose-tweaking that goes on continually. None of this ephemeral nose-tweaking is held up to the same standards as legal matters by anyone; it's just rhetoric, and is never intended to be taken as anything more.
Michael Moore was obviously pleased that his provocations have been apparently hitting some sore spots. He (quite in character) gloated over the fact that he was getting a reaction.
Trying to claim some sort of moral equivalence between these two matters is disingenuous. Matthews and Moore deserve each other; American citizens deserve the state's guarantee that it will not impinge upon our inalienable rights.
I mean, do you really, really, mean to treat every fashionable outrage connected with Moore, Coulter, Limbaugh, or other flash-in-the-pan media personalities with the same level of rigor and weight that Constitutional matters deserve?
Sometimes the apology is worse than the actual post. Look at atlas shrugs
ReplyDeletehypatia,
ReplyDeleteHave you ever used the term "hissy fit", when describing Republican outrage?
Let me try to make my point clearer.
This is all about the way people who oppose the Iraq war, are treated in this Country. It's not so much about Moore himself.
We are told to "watch what we say". I already mentioned the labels. Now being compared to the Osama.
Seriously think about it. After years of being disrespected, how would you feel?
The "we screwed up" statement lives as a UPI story here.
ReplyDeleteThe "we screwed up" statement lives as a UPI story here.
ReplyDeleteThank you, EJ. Maybe that will shut up that fly who has spent the day baselessly insinuating that I, along with Markos and multiple other bloggers, all got together and fabricated the "screwed up" quote and then all cited to the same fake article.
One can only fathom the circles in which he must wallow for him to entertain suspicions of dishonesty of that sort.
karen mcl: That article re: Mrs. Young was surprising and surprisingly fascinating. i cannot fault her, and i admire her convictions and *hm* spunk. Thanks for the hat-tip.
ReplyDeleteThe law in question would seem to be this; here is the relevant section:
ReplyDelete-HEAD-
Sec. 5104. Unlawful activities
...(e) (2) (D)utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress or either House of Congress, or the orderly conduct in that building of a hearing before, or any deliberations of, a committee of Congress or either House of Congress;
...(G) parade, demonstrate, or picket in any of the Capitol Buildings.
No sensible DA was going to pursue either case anyway, but there did seem to be a law that might have reasonably applied.
While Glenn is waiting for corrections, dare I wonder how many left-wing sites reported on the arrest of the woman with the pro-Bush t-shirt? That might make a helpful comparison.
Tom Maguire
No sensible DA was going to pursue either case anyway, but there did seem to be a law that might have reasonably applied.
ReplyDeleteThe Capitol Police itself issued regulations excluding the wearing of t-shirts from what the law covers, and a Federal Judge had previously ruled that the First Amendment would, in any event, bar the application of this law to non-disruptive behavior.
There is no ambiguity here. This was not a matter of prosecutorial discretion. Both the regulations implementing the statute and the on-point case from the federal court make clear that there was nothing arguably illegal about the t-shirt she wore.
That's why the Capitol Police aren't saying that they decided to drop the charges because it's probably best. They are saying it was a mistake, clearly, because she violated no rule or law, period.
While Glenn is waiting for corrections, dare I wonder how many left-wing sites reported on the arrest of the woman with the pro-Bush t-shirt? That might make a helpful comparison.
I don't know what you consider to be "left-wing sites," but virtually every post I read talked about the Congressman's wife being ejected. Markos at Daily Kos put a post on the front page about exactly that topic. Are you aware of anyone who didn't mention it?
While we're at it, how about self-correcting congressmen? This is from today's WP:
ReplyDelete----
"When your wife is insulted and embarrassed, you do tend to get a little offended," Young said yesterday, explaining his upbraiding of Gainer that night and his fervent speech on the House floor yesterday morning, when he waved the shirt and bellowed about his wife's ejection: "Shame! Shame!"
Young said he wouldn't be so mad if it were just Sheehan. "I totally disagree with everything she stands for," he said. But by removing his wife, Gainer's officers clearly "acted precipitously," Young said.
----
So, according to this high elected official (no doubt also a patriot) the degree of speech protection is proportional to his agreement with its contents.
Maybe Michelle can use the same excuse Matt Lauer used for Katie's mess up.
ReplyDeleteThe 100,000 dead figure has been thoroughly discredited not by me but by experts.
ReplyDeleteWrong. And Lancet (the most prestigious medical journal in the world -- where the peer-reviewed article with the 100,000 figure appeared) based its numbers on studies done in September 2004 (prior to the U.S.'s mindless destruction of Fallujah). Now, a year and a half later, the estimate is that the number of dead caused by the U.S. invasion is around 250,000:
The Canadian:
The figure of 100,000 had been based on somewhat "conservative assumptions", notes Les Roberts at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, U.S., who led the study.
That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data from this town is included, the compiled studies point to about 250,000 excess deaths since the outbreak of the U.S.-led war.
You can read Lancet's response to the alleged debunking here.
Since Bush himself admits that he's murdered 30,000 Iraqis and we know that he's never told the truth about what's going on in Iraq, 250,000 dead is probably an understatement.
Of course, whether it's 30,000, 100,000, or 250,000, every corpse is the result of an egregious war crime known as "waging aggressive war", a crime for which the U.S. hanged a number of German and Japanese war criminals after World War Two.
But that was then and this is now.
-- Basharov
prunes: Don't be ridiculous.I am not comparing Moore's gloating about sounding like OBL with the arrest of Cindy Sheehan. Please note that this dicussion has been about Glenn's accurate claim that many right-of-center bloggers did not own their errors about Sheehan allegedly breaking the law. Discussion ensued, and a commenter noted that Sister Toldjah declined to make a correction, adding that the left misleads as well.
ReplyDeleteI then said she should correct in order to preserve her own credibility, but that she is also right that the left fails to do so sometimes, too. I then offered as an example Michael Moore's taunting of George Bush, when Moore delighted in sounding like OBL -- the left has not acknowledged that, as far as I am aware.
At the time the OBL 10/04 video was released, even some left bloggers noted how it tracked Moore's movie. It is absurd to think Matthews can defame a man who is proud that Osama adopts his points, by Matthews' saying that Osama adopts Moore's points.
Further, I do question the patriotism of anyone who defends Moore's enjoying that his propaganda is adopted by our enemy. One would think patriots -- Dem, GOP or anything else -- would abjure such an individual.
More schtick.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that Hitler was elected and the Nazis were the largest party in the Reichstag by May of 1932 -- and the second largest party by 1930, a full three years before Hitler was appointed Vice-Chancellor.
Beyond that, I'm well aware of their violence and of the attempted putsch in 1923 and I have no idea how this affects anything in your argument. They cynically manipulated an easily swayed and desperate electorate with promise of grandeur and were, at the time of the election you discuss, the most popular political party in Germany. I'm not sure how you dispute this, regardless of their penchant for violence.
As for Venezuela, Chavez' election in 1998 was considered legitimate by nearly all observers, even if they didn't like him -- he was voted in due to the incumbent government's corruption.
The 100,000 Iraqi dead may be wrong. But your point was that Glenn avoided using the 30,000 number or didn't correct himself, but he clearly did.
Again, you can choose triumphant ignorance, or you can continue to bitch about Glenn not 'self-correcting' when he clearly has no reason to.
Sheehan and her gang of fever swamp leftie loons got exactly what they wanted - a blast of free publicity in the MSM and reams of blog gore spread across the 'sphere.
ReplyDeleteThe capital police should be apologizing to us, not her, for foisting yet another Cindy Sheehan mini-drama into our midst.
How much longer will we be forced to endure the pathetic visage of that impossible bore showing up whereever and whenever she is best able to make an ass of herself?
I guess only God knows.
One thing people who (miss)use democracy as an icon of uncanny brilliance, is that democracy also has its weaknesses and that includes the right of a majority to negate democracy itself. Happened before, happens as we speak and will happen again.
ReplyDeleteHypatia,
ReplyDeleteIt simply boggles the mind that you can continue to insist that Michael Moore and Osama bin laden "sound alike" on the basis of a third hand quote from the wall street journal. It boggles the mind because it simply defies reality. Moore is a former catholic seminarian, a working class product of american society, who believes strongly in the constitution and freedom of all kinds. Osama bin laden--not so much. Moore does not believe in the repression of women/Osama does. Moore does not believe in attacking american citizens or soldiers/Osama does. Moore is a famous film maker who has made many films exploring american society and culture/osama has not. Moore votes in american elections and is a concerned citizen of this country/Osama is not. What is the *factual* basis of the comparison--not the third order quote of moore "bragging?" about Osama but the actual comparison of their policy positions, their histories, their actual lives that makes any kind of comparison between the rumpled maker of movies and the killer of americans other than perverse?
You really shame yourself and your right wing friends when you allow yourself to parrott the accusation that any american citizen brave enough to take political stands in this political climate is in any way similar to osama bin laden--an authoritarian mass murderer.
aimai
Fly- you ask
ReplyDelete"Where is that information found? How about posting a link to back it up..."
Guilty of one my own pet-peeves: not putting up that link (sorry - was in a hurry.)
But I thought it was a commentator on Firedoglake this morning - but now can not find it (web crawlers have not updated yet for me to type enough catch phrases to locate it as of this writing.)
But I had come across this *editing* on other posts (Rook's Rant for instance - that articles read earlier had been edited and changed at a second viewing.)
But the one I saw was a specific reference to the "left Bloggisphere" having a postive impact in getting an edit to those word "Opposite message" removed as the *offending* text.
IF I can find It - I will post that link.
:-D
aimai is in denial: You really shame yourself and your right wing friends when you allow yourself to parrott the accusation that any american citizen brave enough to take political stands in this political climate is in any way similar to osama bin laden--an authoritarian mass murderer.
ReplyDeleteMichael Moore says he sounds like OBL. Taranto linked to Moore's web page where Moore gloated about it.
Facts are stubborn things, aimai.
Michael Moore says he sounds like OBL. Taranto linked to Moore's web page where Moore gloated about it.
ReplyDeleteJust once, because I hated this conversation the first time it raged here (even though I admittedly started it):
When Michael Moore wrote to George Bush that he sounded like OBL and asked Bush whether he thought Osama had a DVD player in his cave, that was called a "joke." Moore considers himself a humorist and a satirist - whether he is that is a different matter - and was so plainly mocking the notion that he and OBL sound alike that it's hard to believe that anyone thought it was serious.
Why would Moore want it thought that he and Osama sound alike? Is the idea that Moore and his followers like bin Laden? Probably.
I don't think anyone failed to realize that Moore's statement was a joke - they just pretend they don't know it's a joke to smear Moore by saying that he loves OBL, favors terrorism, wants Americans blown up, etc. etc.
This hypocrisy is terribly amusing. Leftists here all agog to agree with Glenn's (just) judgment on right-of-center bloggers who won't correct their error about Sheehan's arrest, are twisting themselves into pretzels rather than admit that Michael Moore bragged about Osama sounding like Michael Moore. So entertainingly, we are advised that, why, Michael Moore is a former seminarian.
ReplyDeleteWell, almost-Father Moore has gloated about (mass murderer and our enemy) OBL sounding like almost-Father Moore. That doesn't bother these patriots, not at all. No, he's a good Catholic boy, doncha know. Let's talk about that instead of Michael's happy ownership of sounding like OBL.
pfffft
You. Are. Sick.
ReplyDeleteWrite a letter of apology to Michael Moore immediately.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone failed to realize that Moore's statement was a joke - they just pretend they don't know it's a joke to smear Moore by saying that he loves OBL, favors terrorism, wants Americans blown up, etc. etc.
Oh gag me with a spoon. A "joke" that just so happens to be based on the same fact that people everywhere -- including some on the left -- were noting, namely, that Osama was tracking theme's in Moore's movie. Joke or whatever, Moore was bragging about what many others also knew to be true. (Tell me Glenn, did you think Michael's "joke" was funny?)
It has nothing to do with Moore wanting the U.S. blown up -- it has everything to do with Michael Moore delighting in sounding like the guy who does.
That. Is. Sick.
hypatia, you are kidding yourself. I couldn't care less about Moore, but the two situations are completely different.
ReplyDeleteQuestion my patriotism all you want, if it makes you feel good. Its roots are deep and your opinion of it affects it not in the least. If I was a big smartass and gloated at your silly attack, it would only reinforce your unfounded opinion, wouldn't it?
...I don't need to point out the parallel here, do I?
best of luck to you and yours, hypatia.
Fly:
ReplyDeleteAnd Steven Bates (Yellow Doggerel Democrat) says he's got other *edits* done by the WaPo to the AP story on this matter.
But he suspects it is the WaPo doing and not AP:
"The WaPo replaced an earlier AP article with its own article much more unfavorable toward Sheehan. They replaced the article content at the same URL, without comment. IMHO, there's some dishonesty on WaPo's part in doing that. ... I have before-and-after copies; i.e., I have proof they made the substitution."
(Still searching for the other one I referenced earlier tho'. *Smile*)
prunes, you consistently attribute to me things I neither said nor implied. I have not questioned your patriotism, but only sought to explain that I was not substantively comparing the Moore issue with those who won't make corrections about the Sheehan arrest.
ReplyDeleteYou have not come to Moore's defense, and I question the patriotism only of those who defend Moore's gleeful delight in sounding like OBL.
Now we are given to understand it was a "joke" -- he just, by the wildest coincidence, taunted the President with the same observation that many others were making, and did so thinking it was [vomit] "funny." But now, anyone who notes the similarities in Moore's points with OBL's, owes Moore an apology.
Well, I'd be ashamed to attach my name to the defense of a man who "joked" with our President about sounding like the depraved fiend who murdered 3,000 of our citizens. I sure as hell would not demand an apology from anyone else who says what Moore is so proud to acknowledge in his (vomiting again) joke.
Well, I'd be ashamed to attach my name to the defense of a man who "joked" with our President about sounding like the depraved fiend who murdered 3,000 of our citizens.
ReplyDelete(sigh) The whole point is that the President and his henchman exploited 9/11 and OBL - as usual -for domestic political gain by saying that OBL must have watched Moore's movie and that he sounded like he was reading from Kerry's talking points and even endorsing Kerry.
It was AFTER THAT that Moore said what he said - to mock that most disgusting exploitation of 9/11 and the attempt to tie OBL around John Kerry's neck.
If you are someone who overlooks or even tacitly endorses that sort of vile political smear - and you at least overlook it, if not endorse it - you are in no position whatsoever to sit in moral judgment of Moore for RESPONDING to those smears not by smearing back in kind but by mocking that stupidity with satire.
This is what you're doing:
GOP: "Hey! OBL sounds a lot like Michael Moore and endorsing John Kerry. LOL!!!"
Michael Moore: "Hey George, you think Osama watched my movie on DVD in his cave?"
Hyaptia: "That's absolutely outrageous how Moore is joking about OBL the Mass Murderer!!! Vile. Sick."
Do you really not see the absurdity in that?
And by the way, I warned everyone that the OBL/Moore debate is horrible but nobody listened.
Great Post, Glenn.
ReplyDeleteI would only add Malkin's "update," wherein she basically defended Sheehan's arrest because she would have broken the law, if she'd been allowed to remain.
So it was a good thing, just like a mini-Manzanar.
I did not mean to misintepret your posts, hypatia, but I can't really even follow your last one.
ReplyDeleteIt seems clear to me that the ObL/Moore link is Matthews', and Moore was joking about the absurdity of it, rather than getting his back up and taking offense.
You can't take offense from someone you don't respect, and I doubt Moore thinks much of Matthews.
It seems you feel that Moore should have responded in righteous indignation to Matthews. That may be what you would have done in a similar situation, but if anyone compares me to ObL, I'm going to blow it off. It's ridiculous and an attack like that only has any weight if the attackee gives it that weight.
Maybe Moore should have stayed quiet altogether, but patience and good form are not the particular virtues I'd really expect from Moore.
If you are someone who overlooks or even tacitly endorses that sort of vile political smear - and you at least overlook it, if not endorse it - you are in no position whatsoever to sit in moral judgment of Moore for RESPONDING to those smears not by smearing back in kind but by mocking that stupidity with satire.
ReplyDeleteI haven't said one word defending GOP pundits who liken Kerry or any Democrat to OBL. Michael Moore was not "mocking" those who said OBL sounded like his movie; asking President Bush whether he "had the feeling" OBL had seen his (Moore's) movie is a ,ratification, not a rejection, of the idea. EVEN some left sites were noting the similarities in the OBL video and the themes in Moore's movie.
Michael Moore is not, and is not in my mind, representative of Democrats. I don't think he even identifies as a Democrat. But he did admit -- gloatingly -- that Bush should "have the feeling" that Osama saw his movie.
Ya gotta keep it real. When you're wrong or make a mistake you must correct it if you want to be taken seriously ever again.
ReplyDeleteNick says to Hypatia:
ReplyDeleteYou're really amazingly dumb. It's shocking. But I'll break it down.
Closing his post with:
If you do not understand this, perhaps I can draw a digram for you and send it to you in the mail.
What was the famous Forrest Gump line? Was it "Stupid is what stupid does"?
BTW I got it already, my comment here points out the fact that MSNBC may have changed their story. Who knows.
ReplyDeleteShut up that fly? So much for the steadfast defense of free speech.
Now I know how Cindy Sheehan must feel. I think I feel a muscle spasm coming on in my typing finger, boo hoo...
As for Michael Moore, I like how the question of whether or not Mr. Moore is an embarrassment to Democrats immediately gets redirected to accusing "the President and his henchman" of manipulating public opinion after 9/11. Isn't that precisely what Mr. Moore is attempting to do?
"the OBL/Moore debate is horrible"
No kidding...
"The officers made a good faith, but mistaken, effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," Mr Gainer said.
ReplyDeleteHow were the policement made aware of the tenets of the old unwritten interpretation? Is through a tradition of passing down oral history of the good old days when they could quash whatever statement they disagreed with?
I was the first one to post a link to the MSNBC story in the thread last night. It has now been completely rewritten with on-the-record quotes from Gainer. Almost none of the original content is there.
ReplyDeletePlease also note that it is not uncommon for various news outlets to edit AP stories as they see fit. There's been some controversy within the blogosphere about this before.
And I have to add that Rep. Young's statements are incredible. They mistreated his wife, but Sheehan deserves it. That about sums up the State of the Union better than anything Bush could have said.
Shorter Jeff G: Christ, Greenwald . . . disingenuousness ...entire context . . . long quote . . . "consistent with the rules" . . . Mrs. Sheehan
ReplyDeleteapologized . . . wife . . . House Republican . . .good faith effort
PR move . . . House rules. . . stupid, I don't get to decide. . .
YOU jumped to conclusions. . . spin of a Capitol police . . a cause celebre . . . risibly contorted explanations . . .
disingenuously . . . off your nut. . . . dubious . . . omission . . . single me out . . .argumentative failings.
Christ Greenwald, take it, don't give it . . . risible . . . *sob* . . . pal
Forest Gump,
ReplyDeleteTry writing to the Policement maybe asking draw a digram for you, those will send it is through the mail to back you.
Nick Said:
ReplyDeleteHis [Michael Moore's] opinion is not dispositive of the truth
You only have to watch Farenheit 9/11 to see proof of the above.
Says the "Dog"
How sad that someone as logically-challenged as this "Hypatia" should use the name of one of the most accomplished female mathematicians in history.
ReplyDeleteLet's see if this blog will "self correct."
ReplyDeleteLet me start out by saying that I am not against Cindy Sheehan and I am against the Iraq war, BUT...
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/40C51.txt
Scroll down to Sec. 5104:
(f) Parades, Assemblages, and Display of Flags. - Except as
provided in section 5106 of this title, a person may not -
(1) parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the
Grounds; or
(2) display in the Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed
or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.
Her T-shirt with a slogan on it constitutes a "device designed to bring into public notice a...movement."
So, maybe the blogosphere might need to do some more self-correcting?
------------------------------------
Still, feel free to argue why one woman with a pro-war slogan was not arrested while another woman with an anti-war slogan was arrested.
Grover Gardner,
ReplyDeleteI just went directly to the original source, AP, and searched for stories within the past 7 days using the term "Sheehan" and got two stories on the arrest.
http://hosted.ap.org.
Police Apologize to Sheehan, Drop Charge Feb 2, 7:49 AM EST
Activist Cindy Sheehan Arrested at Capitol Jan 31, 9:24 PM EST
Note that the newest AP story is dated Feb 2, 7:49 AM EST, but the AP story presently displayed at MSNBC states "Updated: 8:18 p.m. ET Feb. 1, 2006".
questionmark,
Evidently many Bloggers relied on quotes in the same story, at MSNBC, that was later edited to remove those quotes. I have not yet seen both versions of this story myself. Nonetheless, I did update my post reflecting what ej posted with this:
UPI Carried the same quotes in part UPI Story.
I really would like to get to the bottom of it, so far it looks to me like MSNBC must have goofed somehow and had to retract a few of the quotes attributed to Capitol Police (anonymously).
The official release from the Capitol Police is here.
UPI does indeed use "We screwed up" attributed to an anonymous official, but I am not able to independently verify that the remaining quotes were used by major media outlets, (other than on Blogs) because I have not been able to find them.
If anyone has more, by all means let me know and I'll update my Blog accordingly.
"Shut up that fly? So much for the steadfast defense of free speech."
ReplyDeleteTypical. Absolutely no idea what the 1st Amendment means.
beervolcano, questionmark,
ReplyDeleteGold Star Families For Peace.
http://www.gsfp.org/.
beervolcano wrote: "Her T-shirt with a slogan on it constitutes a "device designed to bring into public notice a...movement."
ReplyDeleteA t-shirt meant to bring public notice to a movement would have read something like "Go Democrats" or "I [heart] the Black Panthers". Her shirt made no references to an anti-war group or movement, as that law reads. And it appears that's how the Captiol PD read the law as well.
To Beervolcano:
ReplyDeleteUnder your interpretation of the code provision, a baseball cap with a Red Rox logo on it is a "device designed or adapted to bring into public notice ...[an] organization." So is a Girl Scout uniform. Think of all the lawbreakers who enter the Capitol building every day !
Given the "plain meaning" rule of statutory construction - that is, that terms be given their usual, ordinary meaning unless otherwise specified - the term "device" is not usually applied to an article of clothing. I think you would find that to be true if you looked elsewhere in the codes.
In addition, given that the word is used in the phrase "flag, banner, or device," and the heading of that particular subdivision refers to "Parades, Assemblages, and Display of Flags," I'd say we can be pretty certain that Congress was not thinking of what people wore on their clothing in this context.
Way way way at the bottom of the thread, where no one will notice me... ::grin::
ReplyDeleteUs lib'rals keep calling bullshit and screaming hypocrisy when the right does this kind of thing. We're kind of silly. Conservatives are not hypocritical, not in their hearts. They complain about the 'liberal main stream media' and scream when it won't 'admit to error and apologize', because stuff like that enhances their position and authority with their own target demographic, and tends to erode and abrade the influence and charisma of the left.
On the other hand, when they are inarguably wrong, they refuse to admit it, because, well, that would tend to make them look fallible, and potentially cause some abrasion and erosion to their own stature. They don't want that, so, well, they don't do it.
The conservative movement is all about regaining a level of social dominance once enjoyed, and implicitely assumed to be God given and thus eternal, by white Christians in America, that has since been diminished by the success of progressive social programs and the steady popular acceptance, over the course of the 20th century, of tolerant liberal social policies. The conservative movement resents this loss of social dominance, and its members will do anything at all to reverse the trend. They are not hypocritical; this is their agenda and they are ALWAYS true to it.
Those of us on the left instinctively expect some sort of fairness in this dialogue, because, well, that's just what we're like. The right wing has no interest in fairness, they just want to win. And they are.
Just because the Capitol Police dropped the charges doesn't mean she didn't break the law. If you are speeding and a cop pulls you over, just because he decides not to give you a ticket does not mean you didn't break the law in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the capitol police just decided it wasn't worth fighting. Besides it already had the desired effect by neutralizing a potential disruption during the Presidents speech.
I wanted to respond to a comment from The Ugly American but first, I have to say, judging from his posts and the name, he completely missed the point of the book. I think he said (but I can't fathom it so I could be wrong) that he is a registered Democrat which indicates he doesn't quite get the point of why people become Democrats either. I have the feeling he is just trying to follow in his mom and dad's footsteps. Feel free to correct any of these facts that I have wrong because, as it's looking, he's living in some kind of Bizarro world....
ReplyDeleteBut - to the 100,000 dead - now updated to approx. 250,000 (which other people have noted already to correct him on his statement it's been discredited which, of course, is not true). Maybe what he was trying to say is people don't want to believe it which I think is a pretty safe statement to make and I would agree.
If The Ugly American would like to learn more about the John Hopkins study published in the Lancet - Democrat that he is, he might actually be interested in facts and science - go to www.thisamericanlife.org episode 300. There is an interview with the head of the study that is really amazing - Cheney has cited a previous study he had done for another country using the same methodology - Cheney thought that one was factual. There is also a link to the study itself.
We can't wait for threats to emerge.
ReplyDeleteBesides it already had the desired effect by neutralizing a potential disruption during the Presidents speech.
Desired effect? Who exactly desires the effect?
Who decides what a potential disruption is?
On the one hand, we have a judgment we should trust our law enforcement to be most prescient as to threat here. And then when such law enforcement admits it might have been um a little too prescient, we shouldn't trust what they say afterwards.
Maybe that is why we have laws, most of which we hope accord with the Constitution. So that whatever desired effects lay within such bounds. Or something.
Hypatia: You are totally off base about Michael Moore and the left's justified outrage about the assertion that OBL's words 'sound like' Moore's. The fact is, everyone sounds like somebody else regarding something.
ReplyDelete* Please read the following argument carefully. I am NOT comparing people to Nazis or Hitler, so I should be spared from being chastised for violating Godwin's law or whatever.
In fact, I daresay that most people sound like Nazis on some topics. Remember, the Nazis posted the words "Arbeit macht frei" ("Work will make you free") over the concentration camps.
Kruschev said, "He that does not work, neither shall he eat." So Kruschev sounded like the Nazis? (Well, crap, maybe some folks would think this a valid comparison.)
OK, how about this from Maggie Thatcher: "I do not know anyone who has got to the top without hard work. That is the recipe. It will not always get you to the top, but should get you pretty near." Does Maggie Thatcher sound like the Nazis? (Damn! This line of argument isn't progressing nearly as well as I'd hoped!)
OK, my point is that factions in total opposition will occasionally 'sound like' each other. It's inevitable that anyone who feels that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was unjustified -- arguably a major portion of the adult population of the Western Hemisphere -- will 'sound like' a terrorist such as OBL, who feels the same way. To say that this 'sounding like' phenomenon has any significance, though, is outrageously disingenuous. It implies that there is otherwise some likeness in aims, outlook, political philosophy, or allegiance to freedom, where no such likeness exists.
In short, it is rather like that politician who accused his opponent of being a "practicing thespian" -- a statement which may have technically been true but whose relevance was nil and whose intent was clearly to mislead.
In an environment in which wingnuts routinely make the most outrageous assertions about the left -- and are rarely called to task for it in the MSM -- the left was absolutely justified in reacting the way they did to Mathews's slur against Moore.
Wow. What a fever swamp of leftist idiotism.
ReplyDeletePeople denying that OBL used Michael Moore talking points (and he certainly did; I read them at his own website)...
...people claiming that the US military killed 250,000 Iraqi civilians (mostly children and women, of course)
What the hell are you kooks smoking?
---
Recovering Liberal
Hypatia,
ReplyDeleteYou just can't give it a rest, can you? Yada, yada, yada. Blah, Blah, Blah. You make the same [stupid to anyone with half a brain] points over and over, endlessly repeating yourself until our eyes glaze over. Honey, you're not convincing anyone. But you sure do like to hear yourself bloviate, dontcha? ;)
So Glenn Greenwald is your personal project now? Creepy.
OOooohhh,
ReplyDeleteCat Fight!!!!
Meow....pffftt...pffttt...pffttt.
Says the "Dog"
"While some parts of the blogosphere certainly 'self-correct,' other parts clearly do not."
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid that the more rabid bloggers frequently go out on limbs that are sawed off behind them, and don't bother to issue corrections; the most rabid do it constantly.
This happens on both sides of the political spectrum all the time, and only gets worse each year as the number of bloggers increases, and the common denominator lowers.
It was vastly better in late 2001 and in 2002, for instance. I expect 2006 will be yet worse, and 2007 more so, and by 2008, black holes may form.
The only cure is self-selecting whom you read.
Glenn Greenwald once again misses the point - there is a reason we have laws.
ReplyDeleteThe relevant law in the Sheehan removal during President Bush's State of the Union Address is this one:
TITLE 40 - PUBLIC BUILDINGS, PROPERTY, AND WORKS SUBTITLE II - PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS PART B - UNITED STATES CAPITOL CHAPTER 51 - UNITED STATES CAPITOL BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
…
Sec. 5104. Unlawful activities
…
(2) Violent entry and disorderly conduct. - An individual or group of individuals may not willfully and knowingly -
…
(G) parade, demonstrate, or picket in any of the Capitol Buildings.
Now let us be very clear here. Cindy Sheehan has been publicly annointed
"The New Face of Protest" by no less a leftist authority than the anti-American Nation magazine ... an identification which has also been widely accepted throughout "progressive" media circles.
That is a matter of public record. I simply remind readers of this salient fact to argue that it was not the T-shirt Sheehan wore that prompted the Capitol police to correctly remove her from the Capitol and arrest her Tuesday night.
Rather it was the face that Sheehan wore - the known "New Face of Protest" - which, by her wearing it, constituted an unlawful attempt to "wilfully and knowingly demonstrate in a Capitol building" as per 5104(2)(G) of 40 USC CHAPTER 51 as cited above.
I await a "self-correction" from the pompous Greenwald with little expectation he will ever climb down from his dudgeon to offer it.
The Ugly American wrote: [t]he 100,000 dead figure has been thoroughly discredited not by me but by experts.
ReplyDeleteI'm unaware of any expert who has thoroughly discredited that figure. Could you please point me to a source, and to the qualifications of your experts?
Shorter right wing nuts here and elsewhere:
ReplyDelete"You can't say anything we don't want you to say or do anything we don't want you to do! Ever! And if it isn't against the law it should be! Always! And that's that NYAAH NYAAH NYAAAH!"
Lawhawk wrote: "Heck, the folks that were supposed to know the law and rules inside and out, the Capitol Police, admitted that they didn't know them and shouldn't have acted against Sheehan or Rep. Bill Young's wife, Beverly."
ReplyDeleteAnd that's what it looks like now. Formally. But it is more likely that they DO know the rules, but that they were told to get that woman off the streets until tomorrow's papers are put to bed. By whatever means. Which they did. No one is denying that Sheehan is a powerful symbol.
BTW thanks a bunch for the link upthread to the article about Beverly Young. What a woman she is, if even only half of it is true!
--nbm
_ _ _
Ah. Now it's her *face* we object to.
ReplyDeleteFunny how Mrs. Young's equally inappropriate action is not mentioned.
Well - as to My comment posted to "Protein Wisdom" about various commentators at that blog with bits of *mis-reading* (mis-stating) of the regulations and case law. This has to do with these two operative issues:
ReplyDelete**The Capitol Police regulations (as recited in Bynum).
**The case law holding in Bynum v. The United States Capital Police.
These are:
"...the United States Capitol Police Board issued a regulation that interprets “demonstration activity” to include:
“parading, picketing, speechmaking, holding vigils, sit-ins, or other expressive conduct that convey[s] a message supporting or opposing a point of view or has the intent, effect or propensity to attract a crowd of onlookers, but does not include merely wearing Tee shirts, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that convey a message.”
and the case ruling that:
"...the Capitol Police are enjoined from restricting any acts that they believe constitute “expressive conduct that convey[s] a message supporting or opposing a point of view or has the . . . propensity to attract a crowd of onlookers.."
While the Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday:
“The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol...The policy and procedures were too vague...The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine.”
The Capitol Police are PRESUMED to KNOW their own Guidelines and Regulations - and the CASE LAW rulings specifically involving "The Capitol Police" as a Defendant.
To pretend this *too vague to understand* and and was *unwritten* is Shameful! And Incorrect as a matter of pure FACT.
Or that this represented a *good faith* effort on the part of the officers to violate their OWN Departmental Guidlines IS not a definition of "good faith" exercise of their duties and powers to me.
And as the Judge stated, his ruling was to prevent "confer[ing] on the police a virtually unrestrained power to arrest and charge persons with a violation” and “the opportunity for abuse . . .[which] is self-evident.”
I'm unaware of any expert who has thoroughly discredited that figure. Could you please point me to a source, and to the qualifications of your experts?
ReplyDeleteThere won't be one. The Lancet study's 100,000 figure is a very good estimate, and was compiled with the best statistical sampling techniques we have. It was the very same researcher (Les Roberts) using the very same methodology as he did in the Congo and those numbers were accepted by everyone. Only when the sitting party has a stake in the outcome do any fighting keyboraders pretend they know statistics.
The figure doesn't even take Falluja, the bloodiest battle, into account, since it was SO violent, it would skew the data upwards, even with around 30 other cities sampled. Also, the figure was calculated using the conservative Gaussian approach; if a more realistic probability mass function is used, the number goes yet higher.
You can see why people don't want to face these particular facts.
Ms. Sheehan reportedly attended an “alternative state of the union” press conference by CODEPINK, an activist group opposed to the Iraq war, that has staged numerous anti Bush rally's in the DC area. California Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey evidently met Ms. Sheehan (at one of CODEPINK's rally's), where she gave her a ticket to the SOTU address.
ReplyDeleteA fan of Cindy Sheehan gives this account:
"How did she get in? In a plot to terrorize Bush, Representative Lynn Woolsey, Dem from California, nothing more need be said, but I will say more, invited, even gave Cindy Sheehan a ticket to the speech – Gallery 5, seat 7, row A, while the treacherous Sheehan attended an ‘alternative state of disunion’ by the suspected terrorist organization Code Pink."
freepress.org.
Ms. Sheehan and others reportedly stopped by the White House and attempted to harass the president by shouting "You’re evicted" on the way to the U.S. Capitol building just prior to the SOTU speech.
Glen,
ReplyDeleteIf Jeff Goldstein is as big a wanker as you seem to imply, and for those who are not terribly familiar with him, he is, why is he on your blogroll?
Fly--It doesn't matter what Ms. Sheehan did before or after the event, what her politics are or with whom she associates. It doesn't matter why she attended the event or what her motives were in wearing the T-shirt or who gave her a ticket and why. She either broke the law or she didn't. If she didn't she had a right to be left alone, no matter how right or wrong you think she is.
ReplyDeleteHere are four links that debunk the flawed Lancet study that claims there have been 100,000 Iraqi deaths:
ReplyDeleteSexion
Slate
Chicago Boyz
Fumento
Thank you anonymous, but those criticisms aren't valid and (I don't mean to offend anyone) were clearly written by non-mathematicians. They misunderstand the results, which do not say that 100,000 have died by being bombed by Americans, but rather that death rates have climbed so high since the invasion that there are likely to be 100,000 deaths that would not have happened otherwise.
ReplyDeleteLinks 1 and 4 are complete bollocks. It basically just accuses Roberts of outright lying. They make many basic errors in interpreting the statistics. I'm not even going to waste time on them, because they don't make any points that the other two links don't make in a better argued manner.
Link 2 is better, but misunderstands the Gaussian distribution as spreading the probability mass out equally, which it certainly doesn't. Also, the smallest numbers under the PMF line are known to be impossible, so if anything, the number is more probably higher than 100,000. This is an understandable mistake.
Link 3: Pretends "clustering" would skew the data up. There is no reason to think so, given the methods used in picking the "clusters", and the "clusters" were complete neighborhoods. Pretends Falluja skews the data up. Blatantly untrue, did they even read the study? Asserts that those filthy lying Iraqis would misrepresent said deaths, even though the interviewers had no obvious connection to America or Britain. Easy to believe if you are a bigot. The author clearly did not understand the contents of the study. His "further thoughts" amount to: Johns Hopkins are liars, because their results do not agree with the more flawed studies that he happens to like better.
Nor do any of them even attempt to explain why the Congo study was widely applauded and cited, yet the Iraq study using the exact same methodology is criticized.
Innumeracy kills.
Further, consider this: it is the policy of the military to accept up to 30 projected civilian deaths to get just one target, like a former Baathist. If their statistical models project more than 30 will die, they don't launch the missle. If 30 or less civilians will die, they will make the strike and launch on the target.
You can look it up. Does the Lancet number sound high now?
And if that isn't enough, anonymous, see this.
ReplyDelete...this study has been "like flypaper for innumerates"; people have been lining up to take a pop at it despite being manifestly not in possession of the baseline level of knowledge needed to understand what they’re talking about.
Anonymous claimed: "Here are four links that debunk the flawed Lancet study"
ReplyDeleteThe Ugly American's claim was that the 100,000 figure had been refuted by experts. As far as I can tell, none of those four are statisticians, epidemiologists, or demographers; nor has any of them described their first-hand experience with administering a large-scale sample survey in the field, or even having planned a sample survey without going into the field.
Prunes wrote: "Also, the figure was calculated using the conservative Gaussian approach; if a more realistic probability mass function is used, the number goes yet higher."
Oh dear. Normally, I wouldn't correct this since the Lancet study is quite carefully done and the central estimate excluding Falluja of 98,000 additional deaths from mid-March 2003 to September 2004 is clearly defensible. However, since this is ostensibly a thread about the self-correcting blogosphere, I guess I should. The central estimate made no assumption about normality; likewise, the confidence interval was a non-parametric bootstrap estimate.
I don't accept your contention that Fumento's points are "bullocks." His most intriguing point is hardly worth brushing aside:
ReplyDeleteWant more evidence the researchers knew their paper wasn't worthy of wrapping fish? The 100,000 figure is allegedly the excess over pre-war Iraqi mortality, which they claimed was 5.0 per 1,000 people annually. Not only is that far below the U.S. rate of 8.5 per 1,000, it's even below Saddam's own 2001 propagandist figure of 5.66!
Can you still feel confident knowing that:
1. Their mortality figures are base on word-of-mouth rather than hard evidence?
2. They estimate a prewar mortality rate almost 60% lower than that of the United States.
3. The Lancet study works out to approximately 180 deaths a day, a figure that would almost certainly provide unlimited propaganda opportunity for our enemies to exploit?
So, no, I do not consider the 100,000 figure credible at all.
Maria Santa Lucia and Linda,
ReplyDelete"You just can't give it a rest, can you? Yada, yada, yada. Blah, Blah, Blah. You make the same [stupid to anyone with half a brain] points over and over"
Yeah, but that's nothing like Cindy Sheehan's imaginary relationship with "George" and the staged PR stunts designed to keep her in the national headlines every day.
prunes, ej, rc and anonymous,
Why don't you guys all get together with Sean Penn or somebody and hire a team of morticians so you can go over to Iraq to count the damn bodies already. Good Grief.
BTW - Welcome to the Gump family reunion...
Thanks, ej. I'm pleased to see that Crooked Timber makes a few of my same objections, independently.
ReplyDeleteThere is a good segment on the Lancet study and how it was produced here in RealAudio. Listen especially at about 25:00 to hear a VERY interesting segment on how the military projects casualties, which strangely is not noted in the page summary.
Further: the military has dropped somewhere in the neighborhood of 50,000 bombs. Literally. What do you think the average causualty rate is?
rc said: The central estimate made no assumption about normality; likewise, the confidence interval was a non-parametric bootstrap estimate.
Thank you for the correction!
on preview:
1. Their mortality figures are base on word-of-mouth rather than hard evidence?
Listen to the link I posted about the actual taking of the survey, then you tell me.
2. They estimate a prewar mortality rate almost 60% lower than that of the United States.
Do you mean the infant mortality rate? Because otherwise, I'm not sure that's right.
The infant mortality rate issue is addressed by Crooked Timber.
3. The Lancet study works out to approximately 180 deaths a day, a figure that would almost certainly provide unlimited propaganda opportunity for our enemies to exploit?
Have you watched any al-Jazeera? They broadcast such messages sometimes. How about this? Our cocked-up war certainly provides plenty of rhetorical ammunition for those few who actully do oppose the very institution of the USA. If you aren't seeing any such propaganda, you aren't looking very hard.
However, I must applaud the fly's lucid and arresting argument. Why haven't you yourself run for public office, with your silver tongue and rapier wit?
Quoting Fumento, Anonymous wrote: " The 100,000 figure is allegedly the excess over pre-war Iraqi mortality, which they claimed was 5.0 per 1,000 people annually. Not only is that far below the U.S. rate of 8.5 per 1,000"
ReplyDeleteYou find this Fumento's most intriguing point? Hmmm. Actually, it's more evidence that Fumento is not an expert. Those death rates are "crude" death rates, i.e., crude in the sense that they are unadjusted for age distribution. Because the US has a much more rectangular age pyramid, you can't directly compare Iraq's crude death rate with our crude death rate. You can, however, compare Iraq's crude death rate in 2002 with its crude death rate in 2004.
rc writes:
ReplyDeleteThose death rates are "crude" death rates, i.e., crude in the sense that they are unadjusted for age distribution. Because the US has a much more rectangular age pyramid, you can't directly compare Iraq's crude death rate with our crude death rate. You can, however, compare Iraq's crude death rate in 2002 with its crude death rate in 2004.
Even unadjusted for age distribution, the mortality rate (crude or otherwise) must be higher in every Iraqi cohort than the rate in the comcomitant US cohort. It doesn't make sense that the authors of the study would select such a low baseline unless they had a particular agenda to promulgate.
BTW, where in the Lancet study do the authors say that the 5.0 rate was "crude"? Moreover, why are they using this rate? And if they are only estimating the pre-war rate of mortality, how reliable can a study be that follows from what is clearly a very dubious assumption?
prunes writes:
ReplyDeleteListen to the link I posted about the actual taking of the survey, then you tell me.
I'm not impressed. Word-of-mouth studies are inherently less reliable than those compiled using actual legal documents from authoritative sources.
If you aren't seeing any such propaganda, you aren't looking very hard.
We're seeing plenty of the enemies' propaganda in the MSM and the blogsphere, examples of which are evident in this very thread. Even so, if there were truly an average of 180 civilian deaths a day over the period of the study, why isn't the enemy trumpting this example of our evident perfidy from the rooftops? Where are the bodies? Why does the enemy claim in its propaganda numbers that are an order-of-magnitude lower than the Lancet study?
We're seeing plenty of the enemies' propaganda in the MSM and the blogsphere, examples of which are evident in this very thread.
ReplyDeleteThis is where I quit. The terrorists are propagandizing you by falsifying data in the Lancet? Oh, and in blogs too?
What a joke. Sell your conspiracy theories to Alex Jones.
Glenn doesn't speak for me. I'm just an honest conservative citizen.
ReplyDeleteGlenn will you continue to be silent or support the whackos who are now adamantly supporting the bogus 100,000 deaths number (that you so carelessly through out? or will you tell the truth and risk offending your fans?
ReplyDeleteI've tried to make clear multiple times that I really have no idea how many people have died in Iraq - I doubt anyone does, including our Government, and you certainly don't, even though you want to claim that you do.
For that exact reason, when I wanted to make the point that there have been HUGE numbers of deaths, I picked the lowest figure that I heard -- the one given by George Bush -- which was 30,000. I also said that there have been reports that the number is as high as 100,000, which is TRUE. I never defended either number because I have no idea if they're accurate. How would I?
When you started bickering with even the 30,000 number, I specifically said that IT DID NOT MATTER what the number is for my point, which is that the number of deaths is enormous, regardless of what the exact count is.
I don't know what the correct number is and neither do you. For you, when George Bush speaks, it becomes The Truth. He said 30,000 - so now it's 30,000. That's not how I think, nor is it how any other rational person thinks. Nonetheless, I still used the 30,000 figure because it was the lowest total I heard, and since it was from the U.S. Government, it certainly wasn't lower than that, but I have no idea what the right number is.
The only point that matters is that it's a huge number. The U.S. government has an interest in depicting that number as being as low as possible and anti-war groups have an interest in depicting it as being as high as possible. There is no way to resolve those differences, at least there isn't for me, and I really don't have an interest in doing so.
Anyone who too eagerly defends one extreme or the other is, in my view, probably acting with motives other than really knowing what the actual number is.
Please stop saying that I claimed that 100,000 people died in Iraq because I never claimed any such thing. I pointed out that some reports have claimed that - which is true - but I specifically said I don't want to quibble about those numbers because the quibble is both irresolvable and irrelevant.
prunes said:
ReplyDeleteThis is where I quit. The terrorists are propagandizing you by falsifying data in the Lancet? Oh, and in blogs too?
The MSM has published this study everywhere, repeating it ad nauseum as if it were fact. It is not fact. This study immeasurable aids and comforts the enemy. Individuals in this very thread are also defending the study, regardless of its impact on our war effort.
Even if the study were true (which I do not stipulate), why aid the enemy by defending it?
An interesting question, that.
Anonymous wrote: "Even unadjusted for age distribution, the mortality rate (crude or otherwise) must be higher in every Iraqi cohort than the rate in the comcomitant US cohort."
ReplyDeleteUh, no it doesn't. There's a very characteristic age pattern to mortality (high for infants, low for young adults, high for the elderly) so even if a country has lower age-specific mortality across the board it can have a higher crude death rate if the age distribution has a much higher proportion of elderly. That's exactly why the US has a higher crude death rate. Fumento didn't know this, but it's taught in the first week in demography or epidemiology.
BTW, where in the Lancet study do the authors say that the 5.0 rate was "crude"?
Page 4, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence of the "Results" section.
Moreover, why are they using this rate?
As long as the age structure is the same both before and after the invasion, you don't need to calculate age specific mortality in order to get a ratio of pre- to post-invasion mortality. You'd absolutely have to do that if you were comparing across countries but, as I've pointed out, that's not what they were doing.
And if they are only estimating the pre-war rate of mortality, how reliable can a study be that follows from what is clearly a very dubious assumption?
What assumption was that? And their real goal was to estimate the pre- to post-invasion ratio, so the real concern is whether there are systematic biases that would occur in one situation that wouldn't occur in the other. The authors discuss several possible criticisms in the article, as any good article should.
The Real Ugly American insisted: "I didn't expect anyone to actually attempt to defend the bogus reporting on this study."
Evidently not.
"Careful reading clearly shows the study itself does not support the 100,000 deaths figure. And Yes Experts have stated they are bogus."
Then you shouldn't have any difficulty naming those experts, and their expertise. How about a pointer?
You caught me. I'm a terrorist. You win.
ReplyDeleteI can't force you to admit that 2 + 2 = 4.
Anonymous wrote: "Even unadjusted for age distribution, the mortality rate (crude or otherwise) must be higher in every Iraqi cohort than the rate in the comcomitant US cohort."
ReplyDeleteA quick Google shows this document from a Principles of Epidemiology course at the Public Health School at Pitt. Slide 13 of that document shows that comparing crude rates can tell you a different story than looking at age-standardized rates. Fumento didn't understand that. Any expert would.
Has no one ever heard of Cohen anymore? What a state of the world.
ReplyDeleteprunes writes:
ReplyDeleteso even if a country has lower age-specific mortality across the board it can have a higher crude death rate if the age distribution has a much higher proportion of elderly.
Hmmmm. The "much higher" proportion of elderly in the US (to cause the "crude" mortality rate to be so much higher) must be extraordinary in order for the difference Fumento illustrates, i.e., 5.0 per 1000 (Iraq) vs. approx. 8.3 per 1000 in the US. Are you comfortable with the wide disparity in those numbers?
You still do not address Fumento's point below, i.e., that even our enemies do not accept the number:
Even anti-war and anti-American groups and individuals have indicated the Lancet figure is outlandish. "These numbers seem to be inflated," due "to overcounting," Marc Garlasco, of Human Rights Watch told the Washington Post. The website www.iraqbodycount.com estimates about 14,000-16,000 deaths since the war began. The Evil One himself, bin Laden, in his pre-election video, made reference to the Iraq war and stated "over 15,000 of our people have been killed."
And you also haven't addressed another central question:
Where are the bodies?
rc addressed Fumento's "point" above.
ReplyDeleteI only mention that for the benefit of any other readers, I'm through with you.
Claim "victory" if you want, I don't care.
The facts as listed above are as plain as day for anyone who cares to read them, and no one can force anyone else to listen to facts.
That is something that you have to do for yourself.
Anonymous persisted: "Hmmmm. The "much higher" proportion of elderly in the US (to cause the "crude" mortality rate to be so much higher) must be extraordinary in order for the difference Fumento illustrates, i.e., 5.0 per 1000 (Iraq) vs. approx. 8.3 per 1000 in the US. Are you comfortable with the wide disparity in those numbers?"
ReplyDeleteAre you comfortable with the CIA's World Factbook?
Iraq age structure and death rate:
0-14 years: 40%
15-64 years: 57%
65+: 3%
Death rate: 5.5 per 1000
US age structure and death rate:
0-14: 20.6%
15-64: 67%
65+: 12.4%
Death rate: 8.25 per 1000
You still do not address Fumento's point below, i.e., that even our enemies do not accept the number: Even anti-war and anti-American groups and individuals have indicated the Lancet figure is outlandish. "These numbers seem to be inflated," due "to overcounting," Marc Garlasco, of Human Rights Watch told the Washington Post.
Glad you brought that up. Garlasco made that comment when he was read those numbers over the telephone, before he had a chance to read the study. Later, he checked with experts and now says that he believes that the estimate was carefully done. Obviously, he didn't check with Fumento, who is not an expert.
rc writes:
ReplyDeleteAre you comfortable with the CIA's World Factbook?
Yes, I am. And on this point your facts clearly answer the Fumento question regarding mortality rates. On this issue he was wrong.
I will answer the latter part of your note a little later.
found this in google blogsearch. the fact that she was arrested for doing nothing wrong is scary and truly highlights how insane things have gotten with Mr. Danger.
ReplyDeleteMay I defend Michael Moore here? I went to Moore's web site and found the quote. The wingnuts have, not surprisingly, twisted this all out of its context. Here is Moore in the same column talking about bin Laden before the quote that a couple of commenters have quoted from:
ReplyDelete"Bush refused to go after and capture Osama bin Laden. He fought, every step of the way, the investigation into the 9/11 attacks. Who on earth would oppose such a thing? If 3,000 people died at your place of work and your boss said we don’t need to find out why or how it happened, he’d be thrown out on his ear. Bush’s behavior after this great tragedy alone is reason enough for his removal."
This is not pro-bin Laden. This is anti-bin Laden and expressing anger at Bush for not maintaining focus on bin Laden. Remember Bush's 2003 comment that he doesn't "concern" himself with bin Laden any longer--something he needed to bury in the past two weeks of course.
It is when Moore addressed himself directly to Bush that the quote appears, but here is what surrounds the quote too:
"I know it’s gotta be rough for you (meaning Bush) right now. Hey, we’ve all been there. 'You’re fired' are two horrible words when put together in that order. Bin Laden surfacing this weekend to remind the American people of your total and complete failure to capture him was a cruel trick or treat. But there he was. 3,000 people were killed and he’s laughing in your face. Why did you stop our Special Forces from going after him? Why did you forget about bin Laden on the DAY AFTER 9/11 and tell your terrorism czar to concentrate on Iraq instead?
There he was, OBL, all tan and rested and on videotape (hey, did you get the feeling that he had a bootleg of my movie? Are there DVD players in those caves in Afghanistan?)"
Yeah, it was cheap to put a plug for his film in there. But the rest is clearly anti-bin Laden. The "tan and rested" is not a pro-bin Laden statement, but one attacking Bush for allowing bin-Laden to improve his poor health while Bush pushed ahead with the Iraq War.
CONCLUSION: Too often, we want a gotcha moment so bad against the "other side" that we sometimes don't read what someone else has previously interpreted. Moore did not say anything that is implied by the commenters. This is of a piece with those, starting with Time magazine, that dared to say there was equivalence to Moore and Coulter. Not even close. Coulter called for "impeachment or assassination" of Clinton. Why she wasn't prosecuted for that remark--her "joke" defenses were old before they started--is a tribute to the right wing having more power in this nation right now.
Anonymous wrote: "On this issue [Fumento] was wrong."
ReplyDeleteSo, the two most convincing points of evidence brought up by Fumento (that the CDR was too low in comparison to the US, and that Garlasco said the number of deaths was too high) have both been refuted.
Think he'll self-correct?
The Ugly American continues to claim that "Yes Experts have stated they are bogus" but has thus far not identified his experts and their credentials. Perhaps he's done so elsewhere but I can't find it in this thread.
Think he'll self-correct?
rc writes:
ReplyDeleteSo, the two most convincing points of evidence brought up by Fumento (that the CDR was too low in comparison to the US, and that Garlasco said the number of deaths was too high) have both been refuted.
Yes, you've refuted one of Fumento's many points. He, like many laymen (myself included) did not understand the meaning of the "crude death rate" that the authors of the Lancet study used to extrapolate their 100,000 death figure. Once explained it is clear that their use of the rate doesn't in-and-of-itself exclude the possibility that the study was accurate.
That being said...
Fumento makes many more points, and please recall that I posted links to four sites that questioned the study (there are many more such sites, I picked those at random). These sites provide enough reasonable doubt regarding the study to require "self-correction" (in regard to the study) unnecessary.
Slate, for instance, points to a parenthetic remark in the study, finding:
"...there was a 95 percent confidence interval that the deaths lay somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000."
It would seem, as Fumento said, that the authors simply split the difference to come up with their 100,000 figure. This is not a confidence-building datum.
One of the sites I didn't reference Innocent Accounting Errors, which includes an interview with Marc Gelasco regarding Iraq war casualties, quites John Slobada of Iraq Body Count as follows:
I think you're going to find, in the weeks and months to follow, that there's going to be very, very serious debates and criticism of the study, and maybe, at the end of the day, the figure will be retracted or modified. And one of the lasting problems of this is that then, somehow, everybody who's trying to do estimates of civilian casualties in Iraq might be tarred with the same brush, and the whole enterprise kind of written off.
Given these and (many other) such criticisms of the study, I find it incredible that anyone can still take it seriously.
Anonymous wrote: [Fumento] like many laymen
ReplyDeleteThat's the crux of it, isn't it? You've been relying on someone who isn't an expert in the field. You also pointed at other criticisms, none of which were written by experts.
It would seem, as Fumento said, that the authors simply split the difference to come up with their 100,000 figure.
To beat a dead horse, it might seem that way to someone who isn't an expert, and Fumento isn't an expert.
Given these and (many other) such criticisms of the study, I find it incredible that anyone can still take it seriously.
You find it incredible? Hmmm. Read this: One columnist, Fred Kaplan of Slate, called the estimate “meaningless” and labeled the range “a dart board.” But he was wrong. I called about ten biostatisticians and mortality experts. Not one of them took issue with the study’s methods or its conclusions. If anything, the scientists told me, the authors had been cautious in their estimates.
I don't find it incredible, but do find it discouraging, that you and The Ugly American rely on uninformed criticisms rather than the opinions of statisticians, epidemiologists, and demographers. I have not found a criticism by an expert that dismisses the study as "bogus," as The Ugly American claimed. That's why I asked for pointers. He still hasn't provided any.
Among experts in the field, there is about as much consensus on the Lancet study as there is consensus among climate scientists on global warming.
Seixon, can you describe your background and relevant experience?
ReplyDeleteSeixon, let me be sure I understand this: you don't have any specialized credential in these methods, your arguments require only basic low-brow statistics, the consensus of experts who do specialize in this area doesn't count, you possess the insight to see what the experts have overlooked, the earlier argument that was linked to was flawed but now you've come up with yet another completely new and non-partisan argument with a conclusion that happens to exactly match the previous one?
ReplyDeleteDoes that about cover it?
I presume you've submitted your critique to the Lancet? That will give it a chance to be evaluated on its merits.
Seixon, I wasn't asking about your training in order to dismiss your argument. I had dismissed your argument before I asked, immediately after clicking on your link and reading your critique. I was asking because I wanted to know whether you were in a position to understand where and why you screwed up: was it because you weren't an expert and erred in innocence, or did you know better and thus intended to mislead?
ReplyDeleteIt's Monday morning and I don't have a lot of time, so here are two quick points:
1. Lack of precision isn't the same thing as bias. As long as governates were excluded randomly, the paired sampling design increases imprecision but not bias.
2. You're right that peer-review doesn't do a good job about catching outright fraud. The cases you gave of published research that were subsequently found to be bogus were cases of cheating. You're saying that Roberts et al. actually manipulated the sample in order to include Anbar and exclude Dehuk and then made up a story about random assignment in order to cover it up, i.e., they perpetrated fraud. That's a strong charge, and one you don't back up.
Here's the bottom line for those few people who haven't come to their senses and stopped reading this thread: you argued in April that the Lancet study was wrong. You now admit your argument was flawed. Then you came up with a different argument to show the study was wrong. Even those who are not trained in statistics would see that as the the pattern of someone who wants to discredit the study regardless of evidence. Compound that with 1) your history of errors; 2) your lack of expertise; and 3) the inability to find experts who have discredited the study. I'd say you're going to have some trouble breaking into the scientific literature with what you've got so far.
If I had more time I'd give more detail but I'm thinking maybe I should just wait for version 3.0.
I wonder whether The Ugly American was counting you among the experts who had shown the Lancet study to be "bogus"? That'd be amusing.
Seixon, I've already pointed out where you went wrong. The problem appears to be that you don't know enough stat to understand the explanation.
ReplyDeleteI know this is unlikely to work, but I'm going to recommend that you listen to this, starting at about 30:45. It's streaming real audio and about 16 minutes long.
Per http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/40C51.txt there is a law that prohibits "display in the [Capitol] Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement." I'm betting that people higher up (e.g., Rove) told the police to drop the matter for tactical reasons.
ReplyDelete