House of Eratosthenes

This blog is named after a library administrator who lived in ancient times, but nevertheless figured out how big the earth is simply by peeking into a water well or two, using some logic, and doing some math. As such, we make a point here of looking at the same stuff everybody else is looking at, but then figuring out what it is that we’re looking at. In the FAQ (see question #8) these classifications are crudely divided into three large but functional divisions: Facts, Inferences Drawn From the Facts, and Things To Do.

Simply perceiving the world in a certain way, shouldn’t get anyone mad. But Lord, the times in which we live. Simply keeping in mind what it is you are seeing, really cheeses some people off.

On Friday I had poked fun at the imminent indictment of White House advisor Karl Rove, bemused at the idea that this inference was being perceived by so many as an empirical fact, resting as it did upon the writing of one blogger and one blogger alone, Jason Leopold. Actually, it was that, and Leopold’s reliance upon unnamed “sources” just like the National Enquirer whenever they report on how badly Jennifer Aniston wants a baby, how trashed Tina Turner is getting because of her cocaine addiction, the midnight temper tantrum Britney Spears threw when her husband’s came home with a stripper, etc.

My point is this: It is unwise to rely on nameless faceless “sources” when trying to strengthen the cognition of something that’s fun to think about, simply because it’s fun to think about. And yet, that is exactly when we tend to rely on them. “Sources say” something, and what the sources say, is seldom to never something that would come as an unpleasant shock. No no, it’s always mind-candy. Oooh, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie had a fight. That’s the stuff that zips down the anonymous Sources-Say pipeline much quicker than, let’s take as an example, the statistic that the average credit card holder is swimming in eight grand of unsecured debt.

Well, Jason Leopold is put in the position of backpedaling after enjoying his time in the limelight as a Bush-bashing blogger superstar. He said Karl Rove would be indicted, and the simple fact of the matter is that Karl Rove still isn’t. He appears to have an okay reputation, at least with the frothy foaming left-wing Bush-haters, so I guess maybe this is an unusual situation for him. I really don’t know. I don’t care. He’s going to stay famous virtually-forever for his “scoop,” regardless of the big letdown that came along when said scoop turned all soft & brown. But boy, is he mad.

Jason Leopold update on Rove Indictment Story
by Rob Kall

As editor of OpEdnews, I started wondering when Jason Leopold’s news that Karl Rove was indicted, which we made our main headline, did not show up in the mainstream news. He’s been superbly reliable and great and bringing news ahead of others. So I wrote to him:

I�m getting emails asking why the mainstream media aren�t reporting on Rove�s indictment. And now, one of my Trusted Authors has written this article

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_060515_karl_rove_indictment.htm

Any word you can give me on what�s up?

Rob Kall

Jason replied,

Rob

I have now been turned into the story�again. Robert Luskin and Mark Corallo, Rove�s attorney and spokesman, are liars. Damned liars. I have five sources on this. In the news business when you want to discredit a reporter and an explosive report you call the spokesman and get him to issue a denial. My reports have gone way beyond the spokesman and the lawyer to get to the truth. I am SHOCKED that the mainstream have followed this up by simply calling a spokesman.

Best

Jason Leopold

I responded to Jason, “Can I post this on our site? Or, do you want to write something on this?”

He replied,

You can add this:

I am amazed that the blogosphere would lend credence to the statements of people who have consistently lied about Rove�s role in this case. This is a White House that denied Rove�s involvement in the leak. This is a White House that has lied and lied and lied. And yet the first question that people ask is �why would Rove�s spokesman lie?� Because they can, because they do, and because they have. This is an administration that has attacked and discredited their detractors. I am amazed that not a single reporter would actually do any real investigative work and get to the bottom of this story. Surely, their must be another intrepid reporter out there that has sources beyond a spokesman.

Jason Leopold
Reporter
TruthOut.org

We also have word that Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame’s husband, also heard the same report of Rove’s indictment.

So now that the originally-offered timeframe of Rove’s imminent indictment has become a distant memory, and Rove stands unindicted, who ya gonna believe? A Bush-bashing reporter you’ve never heard of or your lyin’ eyes?

We’ve seen this kind of thinking before. Shortly after the presidential elections, when CBS had gotten in all that trouble over the counterfeit Texas Air National Guard memos, Congressman Maurice Hinchey said the falsity of the documents and the ensuing imbroglio was the White House’s doing. In other words, even when President Bush’s critics are caught lying, that is still President Bush’s doing, not theirs. Last December I got involved in a rapidly-descending exchange with a fellow blogger who could be best described as left-leaning libertarian with a penchant for Bush-bashing, and his argument could be best summarized in the deliberately-long-and-windy post I made a few days previous. To summarize: Someone said President Bush did something bad. Admittedly, this testimony is weak and faulty, and in an ordinary setting it would be unacceptable (single anonymous source, named source with history of falsehood, documents almost-proven to be forged). But the Bush-bashing blogger who brings it to your attention, believes it, and what’s more, zillions and zillions of other bush-bashing blog-readers also believe it. This makes the otherwise-faulty evidence, much more compelling — the fact that it is fooling a large number of people.

Because, you see, “this administration” has a “track record” of “lying and deception” consistent with what the weak testimony says it did. This is why people tend to believe the otherwise-faulty testimony, and in a sense, it becomes a non-issue as to whether the testimony is ultimately debunked or not. You have the character of “this administration” as proof. In honor of my young left-leaning libertarian friend, we occasionally refer to this train of thought as the “VanDyke Paradigm” here. If you’re into left-leaning libertarian stuff, or even if you’re not, you might want to check out his product here.

When they use the VanDyke Paradigm, announcing their support for the weak testimony, the Bush-bashers lose track of what proves what: The weak testimony is supposed to prove the bad character, and then once it’s called into question, suddenly the bad character proves the weak testimony. That’s the definition of the Paradigm: A proves B, then B proves A. There’s nothing in the argument that’s everlastingly solid, no motor-mount built onto the engine by which it could be fixed to the rest of the car. You wouldn’t use the VanDyke Paradigm to validate something upon which your life-and-limb depended, or to refute a looming danger to someone or something you care about. But in Bush-bashing land, that’s okay. You don’t say one thing to prove another thing…there are no facts and there are no inferences drawn from facts. It’s all just cheerleading.

I’ve been asking the following question and I have yet to receive a solid, sensible answer: If the “track record” of the administration is sufficient to bolster the claim of flawed testimony that would normally be unacceptable, what would we find if we were to reminisce and re-open that track record to inspection? More flawed testimony that would, under normal circumstances, prove nothing? Could it be that all this cheerleading is arranged on some kind of crazy mobius strip, with no beginning and no end?

More importantly, if the above hypothetical is indeed the case, and you Bush-bashers are putting yourselves in Jason Leopold’s awkward position now…isn’t that something you’d like to know up-front?

It’s curious that, to the best I can determine, this hasn’t captured anybody’s passion. As you can see from what Mr. Leopold wrote, once the truth emerges and they’ve been embarrassed, the typical Bush-bashing blogger is hardly inclined to take it in stride.

But then again, I guess Mr. Leopold is also in good company because of his proclivity for taking it out on the administration. Maybe that’s why there is so little concern about being fooled by what amounts to nothing more than gossip. If things don’t work out, you just blame Bush. Just like you do with rude europeans, whacked-out crazy terrorists, hurricanes, high schoolers who can’t pass their competency exams, your case of crotch-rot — it’s all “Bush’s fault.”

I wonder what kind of calculation the library administrator would have produced had he thought this way. I imagine he would have peeked in the water well when the sun was directly overhead, noticed it was dry, blamed the drought on President Bush, and gone home to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 a few more times, leaving the orthodox notion of a flat-earth unchallenged.

Update: Perhaps this is a topic for another post, but I can’t help but wondering something. I’m taking it as a given that everyone who thinks Rove is innocent now, will persist in that thought if Rove is indicted. And everyone to whom a Rove indictment will confirm his guilt, is already convinced he’s guilty of shenanigans now, and will remain everlastingly so even if no indictment is ever issued. Therefore, as a mind-changing propaganda tool, the indictment is completely useless.

But what should an indictment against Karl Rove mean? If ever this comes to pass and becomes an empirical fact, what inference would be drawn from that fact, that cannot be so strongly substantiated without it?

I believe both sides have lost track of that defining inquiry, with all this rampant speculation about what-will-happen and what-will-not-happen. Both sides. Completely.

Morgan,

Into the mirror our Mr. Leopold rants; “I want it to be!”, “It will be!”, “It has to be!”, “IT IS!”.

I think this poor lad is tettering at the brink of: credibility?, sanity?, a tall building? Pick one.

RR
- RunningRoach | 05/17/2006 @ 14:20

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Me, Or Your Lyin’ Eyes?Wednesday, May 17th, 2006

Me, Or Your Lyin’ Eyes?
Wednesday, May 17th, 2006