I don’t know if – as the Wall Street Journal is implying pretty strongly this morning – Rathergate implicates CBS directly in “a partisan dirty trick,” (although the network certainly still has some ‘xplain’ to do, a whole lot of explaining).
All of this raises the question of whether CBS was a vessel for, if not a willing participant in, a partisan dirty trick two months before a closely contested Presidential election.
But if it’s not a dirty trick, it indicates a shockingly low level of intelligence on the part of the network – or at least some of its producers and anchorman. And I’m not just talking about their choice of someone as hugely unstable and biased as “Wild” Bill Burkett as an “unimpeachable” source. Yesterday I was watching the CBS video linked on Drudge in which Rather was interviewed giving his mea culpa to one of their own newswomen. It was the expected kind of pseudo-breast beating. But in it the anchorman informed us in the great unwashed (paraphrase here) that authenticating these documents was an inexact science at best. “There’s no DNA here.”
Wrong, Dan. This is the modern digital world. These things can be tracked down immediately and exactly. And they were! When I told this story to Charles Johnson over lunch – the man who launched a thousand blogs by posting his exact copy of the document by quickly typing the same words into Microsoft Word, he had a good laugh. He told me how a commenter on his site just tried to type the same document with an earlier version of the word processor (Word 4.0). Guess what? It didn’t match at all. The DNA, in that case, did not fit. If Rather had bothered to consult this man, he would have been able to see exactly how specific this digital DNA could be. But the question remains, had the anchorman done so, would he have had the intellectual capacity to have understood what he read. Maybe that’s the secret to being a good liar. You can’t comprehend what your critics are saying.
UPDATE: And dumber still.
Roger:
The USAToday is reporting that Joe Lockhart may have contacted Wild Bill. Dan probably misspoke about DNA, he wanted to say “DNC.” This is all getting curiouser and curiouser.
This affair stinks to heaven with the odor of political trickery based on lousy forgery.
The quality of the forgery and the defence of the authentication process, the sources and the tone indicates Rather’s willing participation in this hoax.
The USA Today’s interview with Burkett is really a clincher. See also great commentary at
http://allahpundit.com/
I hope there will be some rather serious consequences for Rather and his motley crew. His half-assed apology is not enough.
Of course there’s no DNA. Burkett claims he burned the originals to destroy all forensic evidence to connect the memos to his source.
Or, laser printers don’t have DNA. Take your pick.
The facts now coming out implicate a number of Kerry campaign operatives in the forgery scheme. Note: not just Democrats, but actual Kerry people, including a major Kerry fundraiser (Barnes), one of Kerry’s travelling entourage (Cleland), and one of his staffers (Lockhart).
Exactly what their participation was (active or relatively passive) almost doesn’t matter – the story line will (or should) be their involvement. How knowing their involvement was almost doesn’t matter either – the forgery was so crude and the provenance/chain of custody so bogus that they are caught on the horns of being either stupid or malicious.
And every day that this story dominates the news cycle is another day closer to a Bush victory. With Kerry campaign fingerprints on it, this has moved from being an opportunity cost to the Kerry campaign to a potential catastrophe.
I just can’t believe that Burkett burned the originals. It sure sounds bizarre. I just have to consider the fact that this could very well go up to the top of the chain. Better that we find out that these folks are capable of such tricks now than after Nov 2 . . .
“You’d have to be an idiot to believe all these scumbags selling conspiracy theories,” said Miss Tehrayzeh. Well, maybe she didn’t say that, but she probably would. As usual, she would be wrong.
Dan Rather talks about not running the forged documents, if he had known.
Kerry talks about voting FOR the 2002 October War Resolution (but doing everything else differently), if he had known.
Calling Calling Calling Anti-Vietnam War protesters. If you had known then, 1968-1974, what you know now, murders, boat people, Killing Fields, would you still think “get out now” was the GOOD policy?
This is the key question in the Moral Superiority War, and the PC folk answer yes.
http://tomgrey.motime.com/1095788321#343621
Sad state of affairs when CBS makes Liddy, Colson, and Magruder appear to be paragons of integrity. At least they were trying to steal real dirt.
ìI hope there will be some rather serious consequences for Rather and his motley crew. His half-assed apology is not enough.î
I expected Dan Ratherís resignation by no later than today. Does he have photos of Viacomís top executives enjoying sex with animals? What am I not getting? The situation concerning CBSí financial bottom line deteriorates daily. Somebody recently speculated that CBS may be worried about law suits—and even disciplinary action by the FCC. Perhaps an unemployed Dan Rather is more dangerous to them than one still receiving a steady paycheck?
SHADES OF “RAOUL”?
What I want to know is:
1) whether CBS is out beating the bushes (no pun intended)for “Lucy Ramirez” and
2) who in the world was Rather referring to when he alluded to “unimpeachable sources” back on 9/10?
As for the “Lucy”, she’s probably as real as James Earl Ray’s “Raoul” or OJ’s ” the real killer”.
As for the reference to “unimpeachable sources”, Rather couldn’t have been referring to Burkett,who is a known nutcase. If the term “unimpeachable”, in journalistic parlance, has the same meaning as the legal term, the credibility of those sources is, to CBS at least beyond question. Hmmmm, think of who would be Rather’s sacred cows : Cleland and Lockhart are the only people I can think of. Any other ideas?
Carl
If I were sitting on a Rathergate jury I would acknowledge that there is not enough evidence to convict CBS of complicity with the DNC to influence the election.
By almost any other standard, however, the willingness of CBS to coordinate to play dirty with the Democrats seems obvious. Rolling out the Fortunate Son campaign featuring images of Dan Rather brandishing memo-like documents so soon after the 60 MinutesII broadcast is way too coincidental. Edwards and McAufflife were exactly on point the very next day. How far in advance are these things scripted? Should we believe that Lockhart, at the insistence of CBS, talked to Burkett for “3 or 4 minutes” and never mentioned the documents?
Isn’t it way too coincidental that the actual source of the documents is generically indescriptive (Lisa Ramirez?) and that the supposed originals were burned even though they could have made the story real?
Some people don’t think it’s a big deal that CBS News worked hand-in-hand with the DNC to work a scam on the electorate. I do and hope that Dan Rather and CBS News go down hard.
Was it John Updike who wrote about Ted Williams that “gods, don’t do curtain calls.”
Dan the Man don’t do cross either.
“Here is my story, no questions, please !!!”
I must also reiterate my previous warnings that President Bush has not locked up the election. The liberal establishment has been at least somewhat successful in persuading many voters that while these particular documents are ìpossiblyî fraudulent—they are still essentially accurate; a lot of smoke often indicates a fire.
The constant them from here on end until election day will be the presidentís alleged incompetence in Iraq. Kerry may not be fantastic, but heís not the current president. Just about anyone would be better than Bush. We need a change. Look how horrible everything is going in Iraq. Did you see that American getting his head chopped off?
I watched Ed Koch on CNN. He did a good job pointing a finger at DNC/Kerry campaign and saying this story has just begun. It has daddy-long leg long, long legs. I hope he is used as the point-man on this. A Democrat taking Democrats to task is the best theater and blunts the force of any rebuttal by Lockhart and gang.
Ed Koch fingering DNC/Kerry campaign? Now this is going to be a really, really show. Gotta fill up that mega bucket with popcorn and sit back with my hubby watching it all unfold . . .
The MSM is already trying to place this scandal in the back pages so that the American people can supposedly focus on more important issues. Ed Koch is one of the few people who can make sure that this doesn’t happen. Letís hope that he continues to take CBS and the Democratic Party to task.
Ed Koch fingering DNC/Kerry campaign? Now this is going to be a really, really show. Gotta fill up that mega bucket with popcorn and sit back with my hubby watching it all unfold . . .
The blogosphere unite. Letters of thanks and support to Koch. Does anyone have the e-mail?
“BURNED THE ORIGINALS?!”
So what, now, is CBS’ defense: “We’re not dishonest, we’re just too stupid to be trusted with a broadcast license?”
Off topic (Mr.McEnroe thanks for the link to the Frum article.)
OT, but speaking of Democrat operatives, check out the connections between the Kerry canned-pain and RoK intelligence:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040921/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/kerry_south_korea
A pall seems to have fallen on our political opponents. The True Believers on the Left are taking this one pretty hard, at least the ones that frequent DU
Under normal circumstances, commenters linking to other bloggers’ websites is considered bad form, especially when a linked site has a POV distinctly opposed to that held by the hosting site. If Roger wants to terminate this comment with extreme prejudice, I fully understand.
But, cosidering the circumstances, I think a look at one particular DU website thread is warranted. (hat tip: Allahpundit.com).
Under normal circumstances, commenters linking to other bloggers’ websites is considered bad form, especially when a linked site has a POV distinctly opposed to that held by the hosting site.
It is?
“Or, laser printers don’t have DNA.”
You’re right. The color printer next to me has CMYB, though. That’s what Mr. Blather meant, I’m sure.
‘Was it John Updike who wrote about Ted Williams that “gods, don’t do curtain calls.” ‘
It was John Updike, the piece was entitled “Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu”, it was published in the New Yorker on October 22, 1960, and you can find it on the web at http://www.boston.com/sports/redsox/williams/july_7/updike_essay.shtml
The exact quote, the last sentence of the antepenultimate paragraph, is “Gods do not answer letters.” You’re close enough, though.
Silicon Jim:
I stand most honorably, gratefully and impressively corrected.
I went to the DU link. The thread is about getting out of the USA before the fascist storm hits.
Where does this stuff come from? Have I been in a trance for the past three years? I’ve asked this question on some leftie sites and only get hit with the Katyusah Rocket Response of hysterical rants. Anybody else as confused as I am?
Charlie,
It depends on the circumstances and the tolerance of the host for blatant traffic theft. I’ve seen very few examples of link abuse on this site, and that’s to the good.
Warthog :
The thread is about getting out of the USA before the fascist storm hits.
Hey, I am all for that. If these guys want to leave, so much the better. In fact, I would volunteer to buy up their homes — at a big discount, of course — as they ship out for the safe havens, wherever they are (Brazil?). Seriously, if they truly believe Bush is Hitler incarnate they would be fools not to scramble for safety.
Several religious sects have been founded on doomsday prophecies, and they are still around. These folks should set up their own church. Wonder who should be the founding prophet?
some folks on DU have mental health issues…
If we’re lucky, them moving away will have a kind of “Roe effect” in the next election cycle.
Ah, they’re just being drama queens over at DU. If you want some real liberal nuts head over to kuro5hin.org. At that site I once got in a debate with a Canadian who claimed he was leaving Canada because he was convinced the U.S. was planning an imminent invasion to steal Canada’s water supply. And that was one of the saner debates I’ve been in at K5.
I believe my initial take on who is behind the CBS story is about to be confirmed. There is an obvious connection between the DNC, Barnes [with Burkett as the fall guy] and moveon.org. It looks like there is active Kerry campaign participation, which really surprises me. I think it worked something like this:
Moveon.org and McAuliffe sat down at the beginning of the summer and discussed how they would exploit the NG story in the fall. They came up with the idea of using a friendly news source, i.e., Rather and 60 minutes [note to Dan: it wasn't because they respect your intelligence] to run a story with documentary evidence proving that Bush was a “deserter.” The problem was there was no evidence. Enter Barnes and Burkett. They would be the one-two punch for the story. Barnes would talk about how he used his influence as Lt Gov to get Bush into the TANG. [must have been tough given a roughly 1 out of 5 vacancy rate] Burkett would supply the testimony about the records and be given/forge documentary evidence. They then set up a franchise operations 527 ìTexans for Truthî to spread the word while the DNC began its own Fortunate Son campaign. All the parties, i.e., the DNC/Kerry, CBS and Moveon.org, all believed that they had control of the news cycle through the MSM. It didnít play because the Internet had matured sufficiently to bypass normal news channels. I am surprised that a red flag didnít go off when the Swift Boat ads came out. Perhaps they thought they had been successful in killing the story and as a result they were emboldened that their plan would work. If the DNC tried this sort of dirty trick in 2000 it would have been devastating. The DNC is clearly well behind the power curve on how information is transmitted. It is a product of their reliance on the MSM for propaganda.
Hey – maybe I can trade citizenships with one of those DU types. I’d get to stay in the ‘States without worrying about the work visas and they could move up to Nelson and smoke all the grass they could handle. Works for all concerned. As long as I can go back to Soviet Canuckistan for visits with the family its all good.
Remember that Anglo-Canada was founded by the United Empire Loyalists (I think Americans called them Benedict Arnold-type traitors?) who got out two jumps ahead of the tar and feathers. I guess this is just the latest exodus, though I’m sure it’s 99.99% talk (Remember Alec Baldwin?.
In all seriousness, I just don’t understand these guys. I mean, I’ve despised the various governments of Canada since I was old enough to know what they were, but I moved down here for a work opportunity, not to escape a PM I didn’t like. Let’s face it, compared to the rest of the world but for the UK, Oz and NZ, North America, on both sides of the 49th, is still far and away the most congenial place to live. Sure taxes in Canada are too high, and sure the Dems don’t like Bush, just like the Republicans didn’t like Clinton, but let’s have some perspective here. It’s great to be passionate about politics, but these people seem to forget that the US has elections evey 4 years – if you lose, try harder next time. If you lose again, try something different – and you can always filliuster the Senate even if you keep losing.
In the recent German elections the Commies and Nazis together polled 35% of the vote!!! Thank god or whatever tree you worship that such things don’t happpen in the US or Canada.
I went to the DU site as well, and the curious thing is their sense of cultivated paranoia, starting with the appelation “Underground.” Huh? What “underground?” They’re like the speakers at public meetings complaining about suppression of free speech, not realizing the irony.
The whole outfit bespeaks perspectives ranging from hysterical melodrama through galloping psychopathology. Where do they get this “fascist takeover” business?
On the bright side, it looks as though many of them are at least talking about moving elsewhere, which brightens up my morning.
Jerry,
More good analysis. I believe that this whole thing was hurried due to bad poll results. If the DNC/CBS machine had waited one more week they could have found a Selectric and then where would we be? The “originals” would never have been produced because ink and paper testing would have shown them to be forgeries.
Diva Dan would be holding up copies that could not be disproven because they had already bagged the signature “expert” and Stoudt would have been denounced as “just another Bush supporter”. Thr fraud/forgery charges would have been denounced as a Rep “coverup” and the slimebags “Favorite Son” campaign would have gone forward.
I’m glad MRP posted the link to the DUer’s. Look through it, if you haven’t yet. Try and find a word concerning the lack of ethics and basic morals shown by the DNC/CBS gang. I wish those people the greatest success in their efforts to emigrate. They add nothing here in the US. Yes, they are drama queens and poseurs and 99% will stay but we aren’t the better for it.
I must say, this whole thing is wonderful! Nobody was shot or blown to bits or decapitated; that pious hypocrite Rather gets knocked down a few pegs; the Democrats and their “knavish tricks” are exposed for the world to see; and the masses of leftoids who are howling about Bush’s stupidity find themselves party to a fraud that shouldn’t have fooled a child.
The only thing better will be seeing the movie – like “Wag the Dog”, only for real. I nominate Tommy Lee Jones to play Rather.
Listen folks,
My sister in-law is a cardboard cut-out radical feminist, Marxist socialogy professor. I used to visit her often during the Reagan heyday. She and all her lefty friends were so full of life back then, what with Iran-Contra, the whole Thatcher hating punk rock scene in England, etc. When Clinton was President it took the wind out of their sails. All they could do was mutter unenthusiastically about what a disapointment he and Hillary were.
Sure, they’re all screaming like hell about the fascist, imperialist, murderer in the White House. Sure, they want him to lose. But like little kids who can’t wait until Xmas, even if they get to unwrap all their toys, it won’t be long before they leave their choo choo trains out in the rain.
They know they’re toast and they just want it to be over already so they can go back to saying how stupid the American people are. It’s the only thing they know how to do.
Can anyone recommend a left-wing site with intelligent commentary, i.e., a reasoned argument on the other side of the issues (as opposed to the puerile ravings on DU)?
Sort of a lefty analogue of Roger’s site would be ideal.
Thanks.
David Thomson: true the election is not over–but Kerry’s reliance on his Iraq policy seems to me to be a recipe for disaster: He is, as nearly as I can count, on his third contradictory position on whether he would have invaded and on his second with respect to Saddam Hussein. And even better for the Bush Campaign he has all of these positions on tape–I can see the commercial coming! Wild card might be a terrorist act in the US or directed at US interests, but IMHO that plays into the President’s strength.
I thought the election would be close, but the state by state pols spell really bad news for the Kerry campaign–Kerry will have to start spending money to hold on to blue states soon.
In short, I suspect the race will tighten a bit–especially with the proliferation of flakey, widely disparate polls and media spin thereof, but the President looks a lot more secure today than he did in June. (Having said that, please dont stop playing Cassandra–keeps us focused).
David Thomson -
Rather resigning gracefully is a non-starter. Arrogance in shipping container amounts is what motivated a psuedo-journalist with forty years of experience to try to make this sorry fabrication work in the first place. If you ignore all the external noise, Rather & Co. are operating from the posture that “this evidence didn’t pan out, but we all know the story is about Bush ditching duty…”.
Arrogance. That word always sounds ugly, but when you mate it up with actual persons it really grates, doesn’t it?
From CBS’s perspective, if coordination with the DNC is revealed to be true (with Rather’s team’s complicity or even worse as blind foolishness), then walking Rather and his entire staff out of Black Rock with cardboard boxes in their arms and escorted by uniformed security on live TV won’t begin to repair the damage done to their brand.
Which is good. Like Terry McAullife said, “The graveyards are full of indespensible men.” I know, I know, he stole it – from DeGaulle, among others, right? One less MSM will make the others a little less prone to abuse our intelligence. I hope. Maybe.
If I had to choose between Rather, Jennings, or Brokaw for which one I might end up in a lifeboat with , I guess it would come down to which one had stashed a bottle of tobasco in their pocket before the ship sank. Without a staff of flappers and the power of the camera, none of them bring any value to a real world situation beyond protein content.
I’m feeling mighty disgusted for early on a beautiful fall day. Time to take a break.
O where is the Herblock of our time, to do justice to Rather and Company at CBS, the DNC and the Kerry campaign operatives, all the swamp creatures of the left, when we need him?
Occam’s Beard -
Do I hear crickets?
Occam’s Beard: I have wondered that myself–and thus far have not been able to find one. Is it possible there is no such thing as a reasoned left leaning argument?
Morgan,
Crickets? Sorry, I’m a bit slow today and don’t understand the reference.
RogerA,
I’ve wondered the same thing, but that can’t be true. There must be a reasoned argument on the left. I can’t believe that any perspective (even mine!) is co-extensive with reality, because a perspective is a model that necessarily simplifies reality enough to make it comprehensible. A model simplifies by applying weighting coefficients to various pieces of information, thereby determining which to view as central and which peripheral.
I’m essentially looking for the perspective with a set of such coefficients that is orthogonal to my own, to see if mine need revision. But so far, I haven’t found a suitable site worth bothering with.
Michael J. Totten cannot be described as a centrist or right leaning blogger. He has weeded out most all of the whackos from his comment section and there a number of left of center folks who are capable of reasonable argument.
Rick
I agree that Totten is generally excellent, and it’s refreshing to me to find a reasonable person I don’t always agree with. I was proud to be one of the first to “discover” him.
He was so short on commenters at that early date that he actually emailed me to thank me for my interest!
Jamie Irons
Rick and Jamie: Thank you; I read Totten a while back and he did have an eclectic group–then he went to Africa and I drifted away.
Occam’s Beard: Thanks for the mathematical explanatory model–this is one reason why I love this blog, BTW–it stimulates old synapses to refire! if you are familiar with factor analysis, does your orthogonal model rotate to reveal the factors?
RogerA
BTW–it stimulates old synapses to refire! if you are familiar with factor analysis, does your orthogonal model rotate to reveal the factors?
That’s one Charlie(Colorado) could handle!
Jamie Irons
RogerA,
Sure – just pursuing the quest for the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of the universe…
Sorry, hadn’t meant to geek out in my earlier post, it’s just the way I think about this.
BTW, Totten does look good. Thanks for the tip. Actually, I don’t disagree with him much, probably because he seems solid on the War on Terror, which to my mind dwarfs all other issues into insignificance. If we’re on the same page there, anything else is a detail as far as I’m concerned.
“That’s one Charlie(Colorado) could handle!”
I’m sure I could handle it too, of course someone needs to explain the big words to me.
Or maybe we could talk about cattle prods and jello?
OT Occam’s Beard and RogerA,
…just pursuing the quest for the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of the universe…
Here’s a start, if you’re not already familiar with it.
Jamie’s just remembering that he mentioned something to me that matches my professional work, and I — not really thinking about it — laid about six paragraphs of queueing theory on him.
Now you know why I’m single.
Wichita: Thanks for the link! I wondered what the mathematics undergirding face recognition technology might be, but was too lazy to research–I’m spending too much time reading blogs!
OT Occam’s Beard and RogerA,
…just pursuing the quest for the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of the universe…
Here’s a start, if you’re not already familiar with it.
Occam’s Beard -
The crickets thing was supposed to be a joke.
You asked “Can anyone recommend a left-wing site with intelligent commentary, i.e., a reasoned argument on the other side of the issues (as opposed to the puerile ravings on DU)?”
I responded “Do you hear crickets?”
No one responded, so there was silence, like at night, when you can hear the crickets. I was hoping it would be read to mean something like “everyone’s stumped”.
No offense was intended.
Clearly I need to take lessons from DennisthePeasant on cracking wise.
David:
I agree that the election is not over yet and Iraq is a problem, but it is an equal oppurtunity problem.
The truth is most people know we can’t just abandon those people and most people at this point, whether they admit it or not want people like Zarqawi dead. The murdering butcher.
Morgan,
No offense taken. I’d thought it might be a reference to a running joke (in the vein of “what’s the frequency, Kenneth?”).
I have mixed feelings on the difficulty of finding such sites. On a prosaic level, maybe it’s simply a searching problem. That’s hard to believe, however.
Possibly, there really are precious few reasoned positions on the other side. In general, it’s important to guard against that argument because it leads to a closed mind and smug dismissal of dissenting views. Still…the paucity of reasoned arguments does lend credence to that growing suspicion.
And that troubles me. Either those of a contrary political viewpoint have chucked reason over the side to gain altitude, or I’m missing something entirely, and I’m trying to figure out which is closer to the truth.
Haven’t read everything here at Roger’s neighborhood today, so I don’t know if this has already been cited, but Allah (PBUH) (scroll down) has cited Roger today, and in glowing terms:
Jamie Irons
Occam’s Beard -
I’ve also spent some time looking for such sites. I agree that it seems unlikely to be a simple searching problem.
I’m sure that sites like Roger’s are relatively rare. Maybe he does a superlative job of blocking out those who rant, but I think it’s more likely that a critical mass of reasonable people got here first; they have innoculated the site against puerile ravers. They and Roger set the tone, and people who want to drop a screed just don’t feel like this is the place to do it. That probably doesn’t happen too often.
On the other hand, it does seem to be easier to find a mildly right-leaning site than a mildly left-leaning site. I’ve often thought that the left is held together by being against some set of people rather than for some set of things, and that might provide a partial explanation for the absence of reasonable left-leaning blogs. If you are for the war in Iraq you need to think about costs and benefits, strategy and tactics, how it ties in with the War on Terror, and so on, but if you are against “Bushitler and Rove” you can easily fall into name-calling. So here at Roger’s place you get debates (friendly conversations, usually) about those things, but there you don’t have a debate. You all agree on one thing and one thing only – Bush and Rove (or all Republicans, or all conservatives, or all rich people) are evil. And maybe reasonable lefties don’t feel welcome there.
The most reasonable arguments I’ve seen from left-leaning posters have shown up here. Unfortunately, they all seem to have given up.
“Sad state of affairs when CBS makes Liddy, Colson, and Magruder appear to be paragons of integrity. At least they were trying to steal real dirt.” mwalls
That may well represent the most telling and concise summary of the significance of RatherGate to date.
Morgan,
Good analysis. I’d wondered if there was an age bias built in – younger people tend to be both more left-wing, more intemperate, and more certain of their opinions than those of us of (ahem) a certain age.
That seems especially true of a DU, which reads like the transcript of a frat house political discussion conducted well into the second keg. Perhaps they should call it DU(I).
Still, there must be some adults (judged by an intellectual, not just chronological, criterion) on the left who do not reflexively compare Bush unfavorably with the Antichrist, but have a reasoned basis for their beliefs. Where are they?
Occam,
You could try Obsidian Wings. It’s a group blog that’s centrist to mild rather than wild left. Lot’s of the lefty commenters are “received wisdom” types working out of the Alinsky playbook but there aren’t many real foamers.
Jeez, I hope this thread hasn’t died out. I’d never seen the “eigenfaces” thing, although I’d read about face recognition using that method. But it sure fits in with something i’ve noticed just because I’ve got a flypaper memory and no filters: that as I get older I see more and more people whose faces look “familiar”, and when I think about it I realize it’s because the face is similar in some way to someone else I remember.
I wonder if the eigenfaces are similar?
The second thing is something I started wondering about back when I was a covert med student. DNA basically is a simple coding system with some error correction — there are about 20 “symbols” (codons) that are meaningful, out of a possible 64, and a gene is a small number of codon sequences. (Jamie, I know I’m simplifying this outrageously, but bear with me.)
Since the number of codons is small, the number of codons per gene is limited, and the number of genes is certainly limited, we can calculate a number of possible different configurations — and it’s actually pretty small. Comparatively.
I wonder if this kind of fine morphology could be mapped to specific gene sequences?
Charlie, MOrgan, Occam et al: this is a fascinating discussion–both about the absence of the relatively few left leaning blogs and eigenvectors and values-I am still thinking thru the face recognition aspects of eigenvalues and how factor analysis and covariance structure modelling would provide the analytical basis for that field (CSM was th quantitative method in my dissertation–and I continue to rely on factor analysis as a wonderful methodological tool for exploratory research).
Re Occam’s point about the age factor, I always fall back on Bismarck’s aphorism about age and political philosophy: If you’re not a liberal when you are twenty you don’t have a heart; if you’re not a conservative when you’re forty, you don’t have a brain.
Charlie (c): I am assuming this is the kind of discussion that merits taking to your OT blog?
Rick,
Thanks. I’ll check it out.
I’d also like to thank WichitaBoy for the eigenfaces link. Fascinating! I’d wondered how they did face recognition.
Charlie, while the number of DNA codons is limited, and therefore a codon either is or is not present, the expression of many sequences is under promoter control that is continuously variable. So I believe you’d need to think in terms of density functions, rather than delta functions, to link DNA to faces.
And we can add, that if Dan feels there’s “no DNA here” — i.e. no proof that the documents are authentic — then he’s got no business presenting them to the public with his own endorsement that they are the real thing.
It shows in a nutshell what a deception the CBS story was — pretending the memos were authentic when once again Dan has admitted he had no proof of this whatsoever.
Occam’s Beard,
You’re welcome. Sorry about the double post.
RogerA,
Not to slide too deeply into the pit of pedantry but I’ve seen that 20-40 quote attributed to all sorts of people but never Bismarck before so I decided to do a little googling and sort it out. It appears to be originally due to Fran√ßois Guisot (1787-1874) in the form:
Here’s a good http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5952/unquote.html
He quotes from a book on this (must be true!), which says:
Here are a couple of other good links:
http://www.msu.edu/user/vanhoose/quotes/0018.html
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/000700.html
http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/001029.html
http://www.ranea.org/watts/archives/2003_08.html
The latter has a nice quote from Churchill which convinces me more than ever that I’m a “liberal” rather than a “leftist” (he says “socialist”)
When news first broke that Joe Lockhart had been contact by Mary Mapes,
he said he could not remember the name of the producer. This morning
on MSNBC, he said, “I think her name was Mary Mapes.”
Mary Mapes has been a top producer for the evening news and 60 Minutes since 1989. She is Rather’s main producer.
Lockhart was White House deputy press secretary, and then secretary
under President Clinton.
If she did, I am not sure how Lockhart can pretend like he had never
heard of her before. How can the deputy press secretary, and then
press secretary, not know one of CBS News’ top producers? He acted as if he had never heard of her.