Verities

Oops II: Michael Jackson's Lawyer Runs Into Trouble With A Double-Negative

I missed this yesterday, mostly because I'm avoiding the Michael Jackson saga like the plague. But here's what Jackson's attorney, Mark Geragos, said yesterday:

"If anybody doesn't think based upon what's happened so far that the true motivation of these charges and these allegations is anything but money and the seeking of money, then they're living in their own Neverland."

Read that again:

"If anybody doesn't think based upon what's happened so far that the true motivation of these charges and these allegations is anything but money and the seeking of money, then they're living in their own Neverland."

Now, fight through the double-negative.

Mark Geragos (in exchange for whatever ungodly amount of money he's charging Jackson) has, through his unfortunate use of the double-negative, said that the allegations against Jackson are not motivated by money.

Oops.

Oops: Byron York's Poorly-Timed Defense of Senate Judiciary Staffers

In The Hill today, Byron York writes about the "leak" of memos written by Senate Judiciary Democrats. Democrats have said they suspect that Republican staffers improperly obtained the memos.

York jumps into the fray with a column on page 14 defending Republicans. "At the moment," writes York,

there's no evidence to suggest that the memos were stolen. Democrats ... have no proof ... All in all, the 'apparent theft' of the memos is probably not a theft at all. ... Democrats have succeeded in changing the subject from their own behavior ... to the (apparently baseless) allegation of Republican misdeeds.

Again, that was on page 14 of today's edition of The Hill.

Oops. Page One of The Hill reports:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) announced last night that a committee aide has been suspended after an internal investigation determined that the aide had accessed sensitive Democratic computer files that were leaked to the press.

That's pretty embarrassing timing for York.

The online version of his column is updated (that's what you'll get when you follow the link above; here it is again.) York, even in the updated version, still tries valiantly to defend the GOP staffers (hey, that's what Byron York is for):

It's not at all clear if that means the staffer, or any other staffer, in fact stole the documents.

But even York is forced to conclude: "if that did happen, then whoever is responsible should be fired."

The front page article also notes:

Hatch’s dramatic disclosure reversed an earlier claim of innocence that came earlier in the day when he announced that the internal GOP investigation had turned up no evidence of culpability by the Republican staff.

Puzzling.

Hatch announced last night that an "internal investigation" determined that the GOP aide accessed the computer files.

Is this the same "internal investigation" that Hatch said earlier in the day had turned up no evidence? If so, why did Hatch make the earlier announcement, since it apparently wasn't finished. If they were separate "internal investigations," what does that say about the "internal GOP investigation"? That GOP investigators were dishonest, or incompetent?

All the Half-Baked Assumptions That Are Fit To Print

The New York Times (registration required) jumps into the Krugman cover flap, flatly stating:

"the British book jacket bears caricatures of President Bush as Frankenstein-like and Vice President Dick Cheney with a Hitler mustache. A dark scrawl on the vice president's forehead reads, 'Got Oil?'"

The article makes no mention of the "Got Milk?" campaign that is the obvious inspiration behind the picture. It offers no details to explain why the mustache is a "Hitler mustache." It just asserts that it is so. Doesn't even mention that the mustache is drawn in oil, which a reader could identify with the milk campaign.

I've covered the fact that the book jacket is an obvious reference to the milk campaign. Now: does the mustache on Cheney really resemble a "Hitler mustache"?

Here's the book cover.

Here's Hitler.

Notice that Hitler's mustache is very narrow, basically only as wide as his nose. This, of course, is what we mean when we refer to a "Hitler mustache." The mustache on Cheney, meanwhile, covers the length of his upper lip. It's a full-size mustache. The only obvious similarity to Hitler is that both mustaches are dark. In fact, the mustache on Cheney looks far more like Tom Selleck's famous 'stache:

Cheney mustache. Magnum, P.I. mustache.

Maybe Krugman is trying to draw a vicious parallel between Cheney and Magnum, P.I.? There's at least as much basis for that as saying the book jacket is a Hitler reference.

I don't know Paul Krugman. Never met him, wouldn't know him if he sat on my lap and gave me a big ol' kiss. Haven't read the book, don't plan to. So why am I so agitated about this? Simple. Baseless comparisons to Hitler are generally regarded as a low-blow, and an indication that you're lashing out wildly. It's bad form, and everyone knows it. So claiming that Krugman is comparing Cheney to Hitler is a pretty good way of discrediting him. Makes him look like an outrageous, daft ideologue. If baseless comparisons to Hitler are so bad -- and most of us agree they are -- than baseless claims that someone is making baseless comparisons to Hitler must also be pretty bad.

And that's what's going on here. There's no real reason to believe that Cheney is meant to look like Hitler in that picture. For one, he looks more like television's most beloved 1980s private dick. And for another, the doctored photo is an obvious spoof of the "Got Milk" ad. I've yet to see anyone make any argument to the contrary that is remotely convincing. Incidentally, Stephen Kirchner, who pretty much started this whole thing, doesn't mention Hitler in any of his posts on this topic.

Krugman's getting smeared. And the New York Times is casually throwing around Hitler references. I don't care all that much about Krugman, but I do care about both of these things.

Got Milk?

Mickey Kaus endorses the view that this picture of Dick Cheney depicts the VP with a Hitler mustache.

But the picture, in which the phrase "Got Oil?" is scrawled in -- you guessed it -- oil on Cheney's forehead, is a fairly obvious reference to the ubiquitous "Got Milk" ads that you've seen fourteen million times in the last decade, not a reference to History's Greatest Monster.

But Man Without Qualities chimes in to say it can't be a reference to the Got Milk ads. MWQ's "point" boils down to this:

"How are Europeans supposed to understand that image if they've never been exposed to the ads?"

He goes to the trouble of searching the UK Dairy Council's web site for references to the Got Milk campaign. Finding none, he concludes that our friends across the pond have "never been exposed to the ads."

Oh, really?

The Got Milk ads have been around for a decade. Ten years. The Dairy industry spends $150 million on it each year. The campaign has "spawned hundreds of GOT MILK? rip-offs" and "redefined marketing to such an extent that it’s taught in the nation’s top business schools" and "become a multi-million dollar licensing property."

Oh, and they've featured some of the world's most recognizable faces and bodies.

Are we really to believe that Europeans are completely unaware of this? Do a Google search for "Got Milk." You'll get 61,000 hits. Many of which feature reproductions or parodies of the ads, and many of which feature world-famous pop-culture icons. And you'll find sites like this and like this.

We know that pretty much the most common use of the Internet is viewing pictures of celebrities, right? And many of those attractive celebrities have appeared in 'Got Milk' ads. You've got to assume those ads have been seen by Europeans.

Actually, you don't have to assume it. The most damning point against MWQ's theory is that you can do a Google search for the phrase "Got Milk," limited to .UK domains. Try it. You'll get 843 results.

Including this article on the Teacher Support Network's UK web site.

And this press release on the Dairy Council's UK web page (oops, I guess Man Without Qualities just missed that one; he says "The UK Dairy Council site doesn't mention a "got milk?" campaign.")

And this BBC article, which references the "Got Milk?" campaing without feeling the need to explain to the Brits what it is.

In the Internet Era (not to mention the Celebrity-Worship Era) does anyone really think that this celebrity-driven $150 million/year marketing campaign is something the British are unfamiliar with? Well, anyone other than Man Without Qualities and Mickey Kaus?

That, with all due respect, is the stupidest thing I've heard this week. MWQ has a fantastic Blog, (far better than this little start-up, obviously) but, if I may offer a little advice: less time searching Dairy Council web sites, more time applying common sense.

UPDATE: Man Without Qualities clarifies: "When I noted above that: The UK Dairy Council site doesn't mention a "got milk?" campaign, I was refering to use of a "got milk?" campaign in the UK." Read more on his blog. That's a fair distinction. Fair enough, at least, that my earlier reference to the Dairy Council site shouldn't be read as a challenge to his accuracy or integrity.

Bill O'Reilly: Doormat Salesman ... and Future President?

Newsday has a peice about (in part) a possible Bill O'Reilly presidential campaign. Shockingly, O'Reilly talks about Levittown. Anyway, O'Reilly apparently sees himself as a "Teddy Roosevelt kind of guy."

You know what? Fine. Just get him off my television.

(By the way, O'Reilly is a big Earth, Wind & Fire fan. Who knew?)

If It Seems Too Dumb to Be True, It Isn't.

Last week's Democratic debate featured young people asking the candidates some good questions and several mind-numbingly dumb ones.

The worst of the bunch, do doubt, was the 'who would you party with?' embarrassment. Nearly as bad was the vapid "PC or Mac?" asked by Brown University student Alexandra Trustman.

Questions like these are exactly why people don't take young voters seriously. They create the impression of a nation full of moronic 20-year-olds trying to out-clown each other and not caring a whit about serious issues or the future of the country. Questions like this do a disservice to the candidates, the voters watching at home, and to millions of young voters who are sincere, thoughtful, intelligent and engaged.

Almost needless to say, it's the media's fault. The PC/Mac question wasn't Alexandra Trustman's idea, it was CNN's.

The next time some CNN newsreader complains that Americans don't pay attention to the news anymore, or that politicians don't talk in detail about serious matters, email them. Tell them to shove it up their ... well, just tell them they are the problem. Tell them they are making a mockery of public discourse.

MORE: There's No There There

Another thought on the "partisan" intelligence memo ...

How do you know there's nothing to this story? The people criticizing the memo don't quote it. InstaPundit doesn't quote it. He just refers to it. Steven Den Beste doesn't quote it, he quotes Fox News' take on it (that's sure to be fair.) Zell Miller's press release doesn't quote it. Sen. Kyl didn't quote it. This blog doesn't quote it. Neither does this one. The critics of the memo -- Miller and Kyl in the Senate, Instapundit, and the blogs referenced by Instapundit -- don't actually quote anything from the memo.

When someone in Washington writes a memo that's bad, the critics of that memo quote it. It's the best way to illustrate the memo's outrageousness. That's how you know this is a tempest in a teapot: the critics of this memo aren't quoting the damning passages because they don't exist.

So, my challenge to Zell, to InstaPundit, to Steven Den Beste, to all the others: What, specifically, is wrong with this memo? What are the specific passages in it that are so outrageous? I've read it, I don't see them. You've read it, you don't quote them. Please, tell the world, specifically, what's the problem?

Throwing the word "treason" around without evidence, as Zell Miller has done, is one of the most reckless things you can do in politics. It's up there with knee-jerk claims that someone is a "racist." You better have some proof if you're going to level a charge that strong. Zell doesn't have proof; his press release not only doesn't quote the memo, it doesn't even vaguely refer to anything about the memo. He just calls it "political," "polarized" and near "treason." That's disgusting.

Zell Miller: Lunatic? Or Partisan Hack?

A Democratic staff member of the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote a memo that seems to have sparked a controversy.

The all-powerful InstaPundit says the memo "will unfortunately confirm a lot of people's worst fears about the Democrats' seriousness on national security matters." And that it "should" "get as much play as the Rumsfeld memo."

Steven Den Beste thinks the memo indicates that Senate Democrats place partisanship ahead of patriotism. He suggests that investigations into the Bush Administration's use (or misuse) of intelligence "might cause more harm than good, and cost a lot of American servicemen, or American civilians, their lives."

Zell Miller ... well, Zell Miller has gone stark raving mad. He says that if the memo "is is not treason, it is its first cousin."

This is insane.

The memo in question should not have been written, but not for the reasons everyone is talking about. The memo basically boils down to: "The Bush Administration may have engaged in improper conduct regarding the reasons for going to war in Iraq. We should continue to investigate this, and publicize what we find."

That's not politicizing the Intelligence Committee, that's the Intelligence Committee doing its job.

The memo was stupid, but only because it suggested that the Minority was essentially "using" the majority. Which can only lead to less cooperation from the majority. That's dumb. But "treason"? Of course not.

There's nothing in the memo that says anything about an election, or about politics, or about helping America's enemies. There's nothing in the memo that can even be reasonably construed as helping America's enemies.

Since when is investigating and exposing possible wrongdoing by the Administration "treason"? It isn't now, it never has been, and -- not to put too fine a point on it -- Zell Miller is an idiot for suggesting it is. There's been one true, brazen display of partisanship in this affair: Zell Miller's. Miller has shown that he willing to cover up the Administration's possible wrongdoing regarding the war in Iraq. Why? Could it be because he's endorsed Bush for President? Miller's stance is shameful and offensive, but perhaps not surprising.

In 1993, Republican Congressman Jim Leach wrote in the Washington Post:

"From an investigatory perspective, Congress has a constitutional obligation to uphold its oversight responsibilities and pursue abuse of the public trust in the executive branch. While bipartisan probes are always preferable, the minority party in all Western democracies has a traditional responsibility to expose breaches of law or ethics of those in power, especially when the majority closes ranks to limit embarrassment."

The Democratic staffer who wrote the memo that has Zell Miller in a frenzy was merely doing what Jim Leach says is a "traditional responsibility." Zell Miller, on the other hand, is suggesting that to criticize his endorsed candidate for President is virtually "treason." Which is worse?

In 1996, Virginia Thomas (wife of Clarence Thomas and, at the time, a staffer for House Majority Leader Dick Armey) wrote a memo to Republican congressional committee chairmen asking them to search their "investigative files for damaging 'anecdotes' on corruption of 'Washington labor union bosses' and 'examples of dishonest or ethical lapses in the Clinton administration,'" according to Roll Call. [Roll Call, 4/29/96]

That is politicizing congressional committees. That is improper political use of tax money. That is an outrage. It's a broad, open-ended fishing expedition for anything that could be used against Clinton in an election year.

The Senate Intelligence Committee memo that has sent Zell (further) 'round the bend, however, merely outlines strategy for investigating fairly credible evidence that the Bush Administration has not been entirely forthcoming or honest regarding intelligence and the Iraq war. That's something the esteemed Rep. Jim Leach says is the minority's "responsibility."

Miller has either gone insane, or turned into the worst kind of demagogue.

Of course, it could be both.