Rambling Rhodes

Canine Cross-Examination

Leave it to Reuters to deliver an important news story that just gets my brain buzzing with all sorts of outlandish imagery. Not that my brain needs much in the way of prompting when it comes to conjuring outlandish imagery. My brain routinely conjures outlandish imagery consisting of Jennifer Aniston, myself, a waterbed, and a French maid costume, with virtually no external prompting whatsoever. And speaking of Jennifer Aniston, here's Jennifer Aniston.

Anyhoo. . .

According to a Jan. 13 Reuters news report out of Tallahasee, Fla., The Florida Supreme Court questioned a drug-sniffing dog's track record on Wednesday in a hearing to determine how competent a canine must be to justify a police search.

It's a tricky question, to be sure. Especially considering that Razor, the dog in question, back in 2000, following a positive car sniff-out of one Gary Alan Matheson, during the ensuing search:

Officers found methamphetamines, morphine, hydrocodone and drug paraphernalia.

Good dog, Razor! Well done! Slap me some paw, little brother! Oop, but wait just one second. Matheson's attorney has some questions for little old Razor.

But Matheson appealed his conviction and said the search was illegal because deputies could not reasonably depend on the dog, which though nationally certified had a history of mistakes.

"The question is whether Razor was sharp," Chief Justice Barbara Pariente chimed in during arguments.

"There is a question whether all dogs are equal," Justice R. Fred Lewis said.

Well, now they're just being mean to poor little Razor, in my humble opinion. Still, I really think that the only way to answer these tough and probing questions is to get Razor up there on the stand to defend himself, and this is where the outlandish mental imagery starts to creep in.

THE SCENE: A hot, muggy, Tallahassee Supreme Court room. Ceiling fans swirl away to no effect. Supreme Court justices, fanning themselves with hastily-made fans constructed out of 2000 Presidenctial recount briefings, anxiously await the testimony of Razor, who is outside the courhouse at the moment, relieving himself on a fire hydrant. Finally, Razor enters the courtroom, padding along the oak floor, tethered by his K-9 handler's leash. Razor appears confused and a little anxious.

BAILIFF: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

RAZOR: *quizzical canine tilt of the head* *nervous growl followed by a yip*

JUSTICE LEWIS: Please be seated, Mr. Razor. Could we get him some water?

MATHESON ATTORNEY: Now, Mr. Razor, if that is your REAL name, how would you rate your performance as a drug sniffing dog?

RAZOR: *scratches his neck, then proceeds to lick himself in a private manner*

COURTROOM ATTENDEES: GASP!

CHIEF JUSTICE PARIENTE: *slamming gavel forcefully* Mr. Razor, need I remind you that this is a court of law?! We do not allow this kind of behavior within these hallowed walls! We demand that you stop licking yourself immediately!

RAZOR: *throaty growl, followed by a sneeze*

MATHESON ATTORNEY: You see, ladies and gentlemen, that's the kind of rebellious and careless response police have come to expect from Razor. He's a rebel. A maverick. And he's been an inconsistent drug sniffing dog to boot. My client, though arguably a drug addict of the highest order, had no business being singled out by a rogue canine like Razor here.

RAZOR ATTORNEY: Objection! Razor's not on trial here! He's a good boy! Aren't you, Razor?

RAZOR: Woof!

RAZOR ATTORNEY: Yes, you are! You're such a goooood boooyyy!

CHIEF JUSTICE PARIENTE: That's quite enough of that! Order in the court! Order!

And it was at about that point when I started thinking about Jennifer Aniston, myself, a waterbed, and a French maid costume all over again.

And, yes, I am the one wearing the French maid costume. Why do you ask?

Now for a random listing of famous females in an attempt to boost my site traffic:

Amanda Overmeyer. Amanda Overmeyer. Amanda Overmeyer. Amanda Overmeyer. Amanda Overmeyer. Jessica Alba. Jessica Biel. Amanda Overmeyer. Lindsay Lohan. Emma WatsonWatsons, all.. Evanna Lynch.. Denise Milani. Amanda Overmeyer. Emma Watson. Mila Kunis.. Mila Kunis. Now, back to listing famous females in an attempt to boost site traffic.. Jessical Biel. Jessica Biel. Jessica Biel. Jessica Biel. Jessica Biel. Jessica Biel. Jessica Biel. Jessica Biel. Jessica Biel. Jessica Biel. Jessica Biel. Jessica Biel. Jessica Biel. Jessica Biel. Evanna Lynch. Evanna Lynch. Evanna Lynch.

Happiness Is. . .

Having your site linked by this site.

I get about seven or so visits a day from there.

UPDATE: This particular search, I believe, was a first. Sure made me laugh.

Now, in an attempt to even FURTHER boost my web traffic, here's Eva Mendes and Nicole Graves mentioned several times: Eva Mendes. Eva Mendes. Eva Mendes. Eva Mendes. Eva Mendes. Eva Mendes. Eva Mendes. Eva Mendes. Eva Mendes. Eva Mendes. Eva Mendes. Nicole Graves. Nicole Graves. Nicole Graves. Nicole Graves. Nicole Graves. Nicole Graves. Nicole Graves. Nicole Graves. Nicole Graves. Nicole Graves. Nicole Graves. Nicole Graves. Nicole Graves. Nicole Graves. Nicole Graves. Nicole Graves. Nicole Graves. Nicole Graves. Nicole Graves.

The Coleman Grill

I'm thinking about just ripping through every Nick Coleman column that he writes, partly because it's just so strangely gratifying. Some would say I'm just being a meanie conservative, but I would counter with: whatever. Anyhoo. Shall we?

Wisconsin cheddar is the best cheese in the world, and I will swear to it until my dying day. Or until the Minnesota Dairy Research and Promotion Council pays me more to promote Minnesota cheddar than I get from the cheeseheads in Wisconsin.

Why does he have to do this? Every. Time. A nonsensical segue into a column that has virtually nothing to do with the opening paragraph. I'm thinking: a column about cheese? Cool. But no.

What am I offered?

In actual fact, I try to eat only Minnesota cheese and am not on the payroll of any nefarious Wisconsin cheddar cartels. These days, however, motivations are not always clear when some media types passionately push cheese curds or other hard-to-swallow products on the American public.

*sigh* It's cheese, cheese, cheese. . . and then, screech, we're talking about media types. Media types peddling cheese curds, no less. WTF?

Alarm bells have been set off by the news that Armstrong Williams, a syndicated columnist and conservative commentator, failed to disclose that he was paid $241,000 by the U.S. Department of Education to promote the controversial No Child Left Behind Act. Instead, he took the money and ran, calling NCLB "the best legislation that has been put forth in the last 20 years to raise the academic standards of inner-city and urban schools."

As I opined to Joshua, this Williams thing stinks. He was a moron for a.) taking what amounts to a bribe and b.) not disclosing it. It's pretty common sense. I'm more disgusted with the CBS "memogate" thing, to be sure, for largely professional reasons. Primarily, the CBS report positioned itself as hard, breaking news, news that, if true, which CBS claimed (and still claims) it was, probably would have reshaped the political landscape at the time the report aired.

And CBS has online000519.html">other problems, too.

Armstrong Williams, by comparison, is largely regarded, even by Coleman, to be a conservative commentator. If you're listening to him or reading him, chances are you know that you're getting a big blast of conservative air blown up your ass. The bribe was wrong, there no question about it. But, there's some pretty big and important distinctions that can be drawn between the CBS thing and the Williams thing. Does Coleman mention the CBS report at all though? Hmm. Nope. Instead, we get:

During last fall's election campaign, South Dakota Democrat Tom Daschle was regularly thumped by two Web sites whose operators -- it was revealed after the election --were paid by the campaign of Daschle's Republican opponent, John Thune. Neither of their blogs disclosed that they were being paid by Thune, who is Senator Thune now. And the episode should raise a huge red flag.

Keep in mind that Coleman touts himself to be a media representative who is politically neutral, and a servant of the public, when it comes to his columns, even though the last time he can remember endorsing or defending a Republican was back in 1990, and even that's a shaky claim. So, yup, we get the evidence of two South Dakota blogs being paid by Republicans, yet Coleman seems blissfully unaware that the likes of Atrios (a.k.a. Duncan Black) is partially funded by the likes of Media Matters, or that his royal screamness, Howard Dean, made an unbelievable amount of online money through what amounted to a blog.

And it's not as if the White House coordinating with the media is somehow a new development, specific to Republicans.

Some have suggested that Daschle's blog-flogging is a harbinger of things to come, warning that the unregulated "blogosphere" offers a ripe medium for abuse and surreptitious attack.

Forgetting, of course, that the blogosphere has also emerged as an extremely useful tool, acting as a watchdog counterweight of the mainstream media (MSM) (see also, CBS) and calling attention to stories that the MSM may have downplayed (see also, the fall of Trent Lott) and, perhaps most importantly, exposing a bi-sexual female IT geek as a male novelist IT geek. But, no, for Coleman, the blogosphere is simply a ripe medium for abuse and surreptitious attack, even though you'd be hard-pressed to find an example where a blog's abuse and surreptitious attacks actually had a big impact on anything.

Money always talks. But when it goes underground to finance hidden attacks, it also corrupts. Which is why any columnist or commentator who weighs in on politics and public policy should be required to promptly and fully disclose whether they are being paid to promulgate their views.

Finally, Coleman writes something that I can agree with. But then he goes and jumps the shark.

Most mainstream commentators know that taking money under the table will mean not getting paid by their employer much longer. But in our blog new world, not everybody discloses their hand, or their motivations. The Armstrong Williams case demonstrates that we have reached a point where transparency is required. Jeffrey Dubner, from the online site of the American Prospect, suggests commentators take an oath:

"I swear that I have never taken money -- whether directly or indirectly -- from any political campaign or government agency -- whether federal, state, or local -- in exchange for any service performed in my job as a journalist (or commentator, or blogger, or whatever you think I should be called)."

Good, as far as it goes. But the word "undisclosed" should be added, making the oath read: "I swear that I have never taken any undisclosed money..."

So, there you have it. Every blog that comments on anything, from the biggest political heavyweights, to the lowliest catblogger, should have to put up a disclaimer announcing they have never taken undisclosed money, directly or indirectly, from any political campaign or government agency.

In the spirit of Nick Coleman's grand disclosure plan, I have a confession to make. I made close to $9,000 in freelance writing projects last year, and I wrote all of those projects on my home computer. As such, when doing my taxes, I claim those freelance projects in the name of my own personal company, Rhodes Media Services. Therefore, I claim some of my computer expenses, such as a new keyboard and mouse and printer costs, as tax write-offs. Therefore, I indirectly have taken money, and will continue to take money, from the government agency known as the IRS. This blog deeply regrets if its readers have been misled in any way by my nefarious government-financed shenanigans. And I won't even get into the issue of blogads, which comb through your recent entries and post related ads.

And another sentence should be added to the effect: "If I accept any payment to promote or advance a political campaign or candidate, I will promptly and publicly reveal it."

Jeez, at this rate, all blogs will consist almost entirely of disclaimers.

If such an oath had been subscribed to in South Dakota, the bloggers who beat up Daschle would have had to reveal their paid relationship with Thune. Or later be revealed as liars.

Yeah, those dastardly SD bloggers really beat up on Daschle, what with their linking to news stories and stating their opinions. For Daschle's part, I think he briefly had a blog, too, called "Travels With Tom" or something like that (yes, really). As far as I know, it didn't have a disclaimer on it.

"I see no reason for anybody with a keyboard or a microphone to have a problem with taking this oath," Dubner says.

There isn't any.

I don't even have the mental energy to take on that idiotic assertion.

UPDATE: blogging.html">More commentary here. Not Coleman-related, but political-blogging-compensation-related.

Dig In

I'll dig into this tomorrow.

But, you know, I think Coleman does this kind of thing just to incite people. Who knows?

Late To The Game, Butt. . .

Okay, so I'm a little late to this photoshop contest. Still, I feel I have to contribute. And I'm a terrible Photoshopper, especially with the tools I have here at work.

This in no way represents my views on the book, which I haven't yet read.

Finstad Responds To Coleman

Brad Finstad replied today to Nick Coleman's amazingly stupid (even for Coleman) column:

Not anti-immgrant

Just as Nick Coleman states in a recent column that he hates to pick on young lawmakers, I hate to pick on veteran columnists who haven't completely studied the details of proposed legislation before making criticism ("Stern reminder for all at Capitol," Jan. 5).

In this case, Coleman blasted legislation that I'm sponsoring regarding immigrants and took the criticism to the level of a personal attack.

My bill would require immigrants to make an attempt at learning English after one year if they receive welfare benefits. To me, this is not an unreasonable request. In my opinion, if you are settling in Minnesota and utilizing government welfare assistance, attempting to learn the language could help you become an even more productive citizen.

Coleman was correct about one thing: Many German immigrants settled in southwestern Minnesota, and few of them spoke English. He fails to point out that these immigrants didn't receive welfare benefits to create New Ulm and the other towns in the area.

We have thousands of immigrants in Minnesota who work hard, earn a living and don't speak English. I applaud them. They are part of what makes Minnesota such a good state in which to live. They are living the American dream, just as our ancestors did.

My bill would help non-English-speaking immigrants who aren't as successful become more marketable in the state's economic system, and realize dreams of their own.

Rep. Brad Finstad, New Ulm, Minn.

I think I can safely hand the victory over to Finstad on this one. I wonder if Coleman will respond. Probably not.

Now, in an attempt to boost Web traffic, I'll post a name that's been in the news lately: Laure Manaudou. Laure Manaudou. Laure Manaudou. Laure Manaudou. Laure Manaudou.

The Bias Thing

One of the guys at Power Line picked up on a few things that I noticed, too, about Mary Mapes. Most notably:

On July 23, Michael Smith, a freelance journalist in Texas who was working on the story along with Mapes, sent her an email that began: "I am close to something that the Bushies are worried about..." Mapes responded: "I desperately want to talk to you....Do NOT underestimate how much I want this story."

On July 30, Mapes sent an email to one of her superiors at CBS in which she wrote: "...there is some very interesting Bush stuff shaking out there right now...Re...his qualification [sic] and refusal of service in Vietnam, etc. Lots of goodies."

On August 3, she emailed again: "There is a storm brewing in Austin re the Bush stuff....It is much more intense than it was four years ago and there is a strong general feeling that this time, there is blood in the water."

Now, I would normally be quick to say "Aha! Pure evidence of political bias!" And, I'm still a little convinced that was probably the case. However, there is an alternative explanation, and it's an explanation that still hints at bias, but at least it's non-partisan bias.

Since Nixon and Watergate, the press redefined itself in many respects, not the least of which has been in its appraisal of those in power. The Watergate scandal set the media bar exceedingly high. It was no longer a case of reporting on the activities of the White House; it became a case of trying to unseat whomever happened to be in the executive seat, whether Democrat or Republican.

The mainstream media is positively allergic when it comes to White House reporting. They automatically deeply suspect and mistrust everything that comes out of the West Wing. Their holy grail is all about taking down the president, no matter their political affiliation. Why? For one thing, it's the story of a lifetime; they can go down in history as the person, or people, who brought down a sitting president. That's pretty heady stuff, no matter what side of the political spectrum you're sitting on. For another thing, a story like that breeds even more news stories, and it's the kind of thing audiences tune into. In a word: revenue.

Therefore, it's entirely possible that Mapes and the folks at CBS were operating under a bias that truly was non-political. They may have fully believed they were truly delivering "truth to power." It's still a bias, and a rampant bias at that. And I'm not sure, exactly, how to fix that problem.

Journalism 101

Well, here it is. It's a bit late, but it's nice to see a little journalistic integrity being displayed here.

It's a long report. Very long. And it covers a lot more than simply whether CBS report relied on forged documents (which it doesn't admit, surprisingly). The length and depth of the report, however, explains why it took since Sept. 22 for it to come out.

Given the sheer length of the report, and given that I'm at work, trying to juggle other, work-related, material, I can only point out some excerpts on the fly.

Smith told the Panel that when Lieutenant Colonel Burkett provided the documents on September 2, he said that he had received them anonymously in the mail. Mapes had a different recollection of what Lieutenant Colonel Burkett said at the same meeting about the source of the documents. Mapes said that Lieutenant Colonel Burkett stated that he received the documents after he was interviewed on a national television show in February 2004 concerning President Bush’s TexANG service, but did not say how he received them or from whom. Mapes added that she spoke to Lieutenant Colonel Burkett on several occasions over the next couple of days to get more information about the source of the documents. Ultimately, Lieutenant Colonel Burkett told Mapes on either September 4 or 5 that he had received the documents from another former Texas Army National Guardsman, Chief Warrant Officer George Conn, a statement that Lieutenant Colonel Burkett would later admit was not true. Mapes and her team of associate producers did virtually nothing to attempt to contact Chief Warrant Officer Conn to confirm this story and further trace the chain of custody of the documents.

Oops.

Given the tight deadline, Miller did not have sufficient time to learn the fundamentals of document authentication. Had she known the basics, she would have realized that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to authenticate the Killian documents because they were copies, the alleged author was dead and no person could be located who was alleged to have been present when the documents were prepared. She instead called various people who she believed had experience in the document and handwriting field to identify potential examiners with requisite expertise. After approximately six hours of work on Friday, September 3, Miller had found four examiners who seemed to have expertise in document and handwriting authentication and who were willing to work over the Labor Day weekend.

Again. Oops. Mind you, I'm all for obtaining a scoop, it's one of the driving ambitions of every beat reporter in the field. But, here you have some grainy, Kinkos copies of supposed damning documents in front of you, and you boil down your vetting process to six hours, with four examiners who were "willing" to work over the Labor Day weekend? Jeez.

On Tuesday, September 7, Rather interviewed Ben Barnes, and a number of excerpts from this interview appeared in the September 8 Segment. The Panel has several concerns about whether the airing of the Barnes interview excerpts constituted fair and accurate reporting by 60 Minutes Wednesday. For example, the excerpts pertaining to Barnes conveyed the 13 unmistakable impression that President Bush gained entry into the TexANG through preferential treatment. Barnes stated, however, that he did not know if his call to a TexANG official back in 1968 made any difference with respect to President Bush. Further, Mapes had been told previously by several former TexANG officers that President Bush entered the TexANG without any preferential treatment. Finally, Mapes confirmed to the Panel that there was conflicting information about whether there even was a waiting list to get in the TexANG as of the spring of
1968. At a minimum, these issues should have been disclosed to the 60 Minutes Wednesday management, but they were not.

I've been trying to revisit my belief that media organizations are biased, primarily thanks to input from Joshua Norton and David Grenier. Still, I've basically come to the conclusion that there is bias, both left and right, throughout the mainstream media. Here, Mapes had supposedly been pursuing a story about Bush's TANG record for "years." Therefore, it stands to reason that she had a preconcieved notion as to what the "truth" actually was, which led to errors in judgement like that illustrated above. One thing newsrooms consistently do is to rotate reporting beats so reporters don't become too familiar with a topic area and develop their own opinions, opnions which can slip into their work. This seems to be what happened here. Which, as I read further. . .

2. Was pursued intermittently for over five years, which could cause the correspondent and producer to become too personally invested in the story;

And I love this part:

Rather does not appear to have participated in any of the vetting sessions or to have even seen the Segment before it was aired.

Then we have this little bit of comedy gold:

All agree that they knew virtually nothing about Chief Warrant Officer Conn, who at that time was thought to be the ultimate source. Mapes and the vetters
have different accounts as to what she told them about Lieutenant Colonel Burkett. Most of the 15 vetters told the Panel that they did not think they heard the name Bill Burkett as the source of the documents prior to the airing of the Segment but did know that the source was a former National Guardsman. Even if the name Bill Burkett had been mentioned, all the vetters said it would not have meant anything to them.

And yet Rather went and said that the source of the documents was "unimpeachable," for a report on which he wasn't even a part of the vetting process, let alone a report he didn't even both to review. Fabulous.

This alleged confirmation by Major General Hodges started to march 60 Minutes Wednesday into dangerous and ultimately unsustainable territory: the notion that since the content of the documents was felt to be true, demonstrating the authenticity of the documents became less important.

In other words, fake but accurate.

Over the next week or so, CBS News issued a number of press statements and CBS Evening News reports that staunchly defended the September 8 Segment despite increasingly strong indications that the reporting for the Segment was flawed. The Panel finds that these statements and reports contained numerous misstatements and inaccuracies. Moreover, the Panel finds that once serious questions were raised, the defense of the Segment became more rigid and emphatic, and that virtually no attempt was made to determine whether the questions raised had merit.

Ouch.

The Panel finds that Lieutenant Colonel Burkett could not be reasonably described as an “unimpeachable source,” 21 given his own inconsistent public statements, as well as his criticisms of President Bush and the National Guard. Further, the statement was inaccurate because the Killian documents were not
backed up by forensic document experts.

Oh, and Rather will be leaving CBS news prematurely, if you didn't already know.

Mapes told the Panel that before Lieutenant Colonel Burkett turned over any of the documents, he had pressed her to arrange for him to be put in touch with someone from the Kerry presidential campaign so that he could provide the campaign with strategic advice on how to rebut the attacks by the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” group.

Right then and there, Mapes should have slammed on the brakes, in my opinion. If someone calls and promises to give you some damning documents, but only if you put him in touch with a presidential campaign (and why did Burkett seemingly know that Mapes could deliver that?), you should realize that your journalistic fibers are being stretched, if not torn asunder.

Oh, and Mapes got the axe, too, appropriately.

Whether or not permission was given to Mapes, the Panel finds this contact to be highly inappropriate. The September 8 Segment had a strong political focus and it was to air in the middle of a hotly contested presidential campaign.
While it is certainly proper to receive information from a variety of sources, this contact crossed the line as, at a minimum, it gave the appearance of a political bias and could have been perceived as a news organization’s assisting a campaign as opposed to reporting on a story.

The Panel did not conclude that the piece was politically motivated, however. Even though they admit that:

While the Panel was not asked to look at any other segments of 60 Minutes Wednesday, it did not find any evidence that the flaws of the September 8 Segment carried over to any other segment.

Odd, that.

Overall, I have to admit that the thoroughness of the report is impressive, to the tune of 234 pages, and the findings, at least upon cursory review, seem to be fair and balanced. I'm sure the blogosphere will be tearing through the report like a cat with toilet paper over the next few days. But, the report authors have addressed that, as well:

Inevitably, some inside and outside CBS News will fault a few, if not many, of the Panel’s findings and conclusions. We will have been too tough, too easy, intrusive, timid, unfair, naïve, gullible or more. This is not a simple story, but we are confident that we have told it fully and fairly.

We'll see what other people think shortly, I'm sure.

UPDATE: Like I said: Rathergate.com, ratherbiased.com, Instapundit.com, Andrewsullivan.com.

Folks like Sullivan and Instapundit are pointing towards political bias in the 60 Minutes piece, which I suspect as well. However, it was not the job of the panel to expose political bias. They weighed the pros and cons of such a theory, and plugged it into the broader picture of the journalistic meltdown that resulted in the story. I think the panel did a good job examining the political issue, and they, correctly, treated it as a sidenote to the larger investigation.