Free speech blogburst: Show solidarity for targeted conservative bloggers;
Did Congress Pass a Law Stripping Citizens of the Right To Mention Brett Kimberlin's Felonious Past?
Convicted Bomber Brett Kimberlin, Neal Rauhauser, Ron Brynaert, and Their Campaign of Political Terrorism
This desecration of that holiest of sacred texts raises the question: What about the rest of the book? If we can't believe the assertions about Deep Throat -- and there is much there that is demonstrably untrue, of which the flower pot is only the beginning -- and we can't believe the portrayal of Informant Z, then what can we believe? How might the rest of All the President's Men -- indeed, the entirety of the Woodward-Bernstein canon -- fare under such strict Haldemanian scrutiny? It is, for honest and courageous researchers, a future avenue of enormous scholarly potential.
New Questions About Deep Throat in ‘All the President’s Men’
Yet Deep Throat, far from being principled, was consumed with ambition and leaked only for the most self-serving of reasons: to subvert the acting FBI director, L. Patrick Gray. Nor was Felt even a truth teller. His boundless contempt for the press—and even Woodward admits Felt was no fan of the fourth estate—is illustrated repeatedly by the numerous outright lies and half-truths he told Woodward in the year following the break-in, and simultaneously, the damaging facts he knew but consciously withheld from the cub reporter.
Our Story So Far
Apart from transforming Mark Felt into an undeserving hero, Woodward and Bernstein, via their account, have distorted the true history of how the Watergate scandal unfolded and who deserves the credit for cracking it. To believe Woodstein is to believe that the original federal prosecutors “missed the real story” when the truth is these same U.S. attorneys handed the Watergate special prosecutor a literal road map to every single successful prosecution of a higher-up.
What was the role of the press in all this? At best, during the unraveling of the cover-up, the press was able to leak the scheduled testimony a few days in advance of its appearance on television. IF Bernstein and Woodward did not in fact expose the Watergate conspiracy or the cover-up, what did they expose? The answer is that in late September they were diverted to the trail of Donald H. Segretti, a young lawyer who had been playing "dirty tricks" on various Democrats in the primaries. The quest for Segretti dominates both the largest section of their book (almost one-third) and most of their "exclusive" reports in the Post until the cover-up collapsed later that March. Unidentified sources within the government gave Bernstein and Woodward FBI "302" reports (which contain "raw"-i.e., unevaluated-interviews), phone-call records, and credit card records, all of which elaborated Segretti's trail. Through ~ the FBI reports and phone records, they located a number of persons whom Segretti had tried to recruit for his "dirty-tricks" campaign. The reporters assumed that this was all an integral part of Watergate, and wrote that 11 the Watergate bugging incident stemmed from a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage.... The activities, according to information in FBI and Department of justice files, were aimed at all the major Democratic Presidential contenders." They further postulated that there were fifty other Segretti-type agents, all receiving information from Watergate-type bugging operations.
As it turned out, this was a detour, if not a false trail. Segretti (who served a brief prison sentence for such "dirty tricks" as sending two hundred copies of a defamatory letter to Democrats) has not in fact been connected to the Water, gate conspiracy at all. Almost all his work took place in the primaries before any of the Watergate break-ins in June 1972; he was hired by Dwight Chapin in the White House and paid by Herbert Kalmbach, a lawyer for President Nixon, whereas the Watergate group was working for the Committee for the Re-election of the President and received its funds from the finance committee. No evidence has been offered by anyone, including Woodward and Bernstein, that Segretti received any information from the Watergate group, and the putative fifty other Donald Segrettis have never been found, let alone linked to Watergate. In short, neither the prosecutors, the grand jury, nor the Watergate Committee has found any evidence to support the BernsteinWoodward thesis that Watergate was part of the Segretti operation.
Howie the Weasel never disappoints
The high utility of myth and ignorance
On leaks, bias and truth
Woodstein gets played: Deep Throat, Gray, and Hunt's notebooks
Deep Throat: The irreconcilable differences between image and fact
Duke lacrosse: Custom, interest, and the pursuit of truth
'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'
George Orwell, 1984
Media and Permanent Political Class Attempt to Rewrite 2008 Election
POLITICO reported on a memo, "Shield Steve Schmidt From McCain Blame," put together in the waning days of the 2008 presidential campaign by associates of Schmidt to absolve him of campaign mismanagement. The memo lays out a strategy to shape conventional wisdom by targeting mainstream journalists and Republican talking heads and to blitz the media landscape with friendly talking points that would make it seem like even Ronald Reagan could not have won in 2008.The obvious purpose was to absolve the professional operatives of all blame, allowing them to get hired again and sell their “snake oil” magic to the next politician. The quid pro quo was simple: we give you exclusive “gossip” and minutiae and you get exclusive reporting and access.
If the mainstream media is not stupid, then it deliberately plays along with false narratives, knowing they are being spun, because reporters need scoops and access in the future from the permanent class of political operatives.
Playing nice is not a strategy (at least not a winning strategy)
Moran's bogus history lessons are part and parcel of the "permanent campaign" mode that now defines our politics. That mode goes beyond starting the next election cycle as soon as the last vote is cast. It also has a retrospective component as partisans try to re-write the history of past campaigns to gain useful talking points or to neuter issues that hurt their party.Thus, Willie Horton becomes evidence of Republican racism instead of the liberalism of Michael Dukakis. The Swift Boat Veterans become partisan liars even when they present unchallenged facts about John Kerry. John McCain lost because of Sarah Palin.
Gehry belongs to a small and exclusive club of "starchitects," who specialize in designing buildings that stand out from their surroundings, so as to shock the passerby and become causes célèbres. They thrive on controversy, since it enables them to posture as original artists in a world of ignorant philistines. And their contempt for ordinary opinion is amplified by all attempts to prevent them from achieving their primary purpose, which is to scatter our cities with blemishes that bear their unmistakable trademark. Most of these starchitects-- Daniel Libeskind, Richard Rogers, Norman Foster, Peter Eisenman, Rem Koolhaas--have equipped themselves with a store of pretentious gobbledygook, with which to explain their genius to those who are otherwise unable to perceive it. And when people are spending public money they will be easily influenced by gobbledygook that flatters them into believing that they are spending it on some original and world-changing masterpiece.
David Frum’s new novel is awful
Frum is a former conservative who is now trending liberal and may in fact be headed for the netherworld of Andrew Sullivanville; he has written many good nonfiction books about politics and culture, including my favorite, “How We Got Here: The 70s: The Decade that Brought You Modern Life — for Better or Worse.” The man knows how to write. But “Patriots” is a stinker. The thing is so filled with clichés, bad dialogue and obvious plotting that I’m not sure where to start....In short, “Patriots” is an alternate take on The David Frum Story. It tells the story of a clueless rich guy who comes to Washington (although Frum was never stupid), is mentored by the conservative movement, and then rebels against that same movement.
Why airport security was right to stop four year old Isabella?
The incident strikes at the very heart of the issue of profiling at airports and border crossings. We know from history that when terrorist profiling is used (the deliberate selection of people who resemble most closely the profile of a probable terrorist) that terrorists adapt. During the Battle of Algiers, the French pursued a policy of stopping and screening native Algerians at checkpoints, but allowed European settlers through with little or no monitoring. The terrorists responded by planting their bombs and other weapons on European looking women, who were easily able to infiltrate across the checkpoints, moving weapons across at will. In recent years, the Chechen insurgents have attempted to adopt similar practices through their use of ‘black widows’: women suicide bombers (usually the grieving relatives of Chechens killed by the Russians) who they believe are less likely to seem suspicious to Russian officials.
The Folly of Heather MacDonald
Good article on the perils of profiling
The effects of this non-accountability: those who engaged in misconduct (or worse) in the lacrosse case are free to offer repeat performances. Take, for instance, so-called sex crimes expert Wendy Murphy. Fresh from being deemed not merely an expert but an appropriate instructor for a Poynter seminar—even after a Poynter representative was informed of Murphy’s fabrications—Murphy was interviewed by AP education writer Justin Pope, who labeled her a “victims’ advocate who has filed numerous Title IX complaints on behalf of victims.”
What is the true function of a public editor
Media criticism and corralled rebellion
How One Left-wing Academic Star Portrays Lillian Hellman as a Role Model for Today
When she concludes that we should celebrate Hellman because she was proud of opposing only the opponents of Communism and rationalizing the Communists as well-meaning individuals, Kessler-Harris reveals that rather than being an impartial, above-the fray scholar, she is simply another member of left-wing academia whose members talk to themselves, bemoan the American victory in the Cold War, and eulogize apologists for Communism like Lillian Hellman as heroic.
'A Struggle Ensued': Lynch Mob Justice In Florida
The affidavit she has filed in support of this claim reveals she has no new evidence of a dispositive, persuasive nature to justify overruling Wolfinger's action.
Reaction to the George Zimmerman Bail Hearing
"What stood out to me was the number of disclosures that suggest the state's evidence is speculative, at best."
"Gilbreath acknowledges he has no evidence Zimmerman "confronted" Trayvon as opposed to that the two just met up"
"The state has no evidence contradicting that Zimmerman started to walk back to his car after the dispatcher told him he didn't need to follow Martin."
"He never claims Zimmerman attacked Trayvon or Trayvon didn't attack Zimmerman."
Unless forensics comes back with some smoking-gun evidence, it’s hard to see at this moment that Zimmerman’s guilt could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.This case may turn on poor police forensics work on the night of the shooting. But that’s not George Zimmerman’s fault.
NBC: We deeply regret our error that made George Zimmerman sound like a racist, and now you should leave us aloneAnn Althouse:
"That is the most outrageous, truly evil editing I've ever seen."
NBC Calls Its Deliberate, Frame-Up Editing of George Zimmerman an "Error;" Washington Post Then Calls It A "Screw-Up"
Trayvon Martin - Is Everything You Think You Know Just Media BS?
How Can We Trust the Media?
Matt Gutman and the mainstream media’s anti-Zimmerman bias
David Frum: Trayvon Martin, and the backlash against the backlash
Trayvon: How the Case Was Spun
Wolfe does not win literary prizes and is despised by many of the biggest names in the literary pantheon. (Check out "My Three Stooges" in Hooking Up). But Wolfe has this going for him: if the mark of greatness is having something to say about "where we are and where we are going", he trumps everybody on the list. Does anyone is Denver look up from her Sunday paper and say "this sounds just like a John Updike novel"? How many people turn on the cable news programs and think "Is Philip Roth scripting this"? Yet from Tawana Brawley to the Duke Lacrosse case, Tom Wolfe scouted the territory before anyone else.
