Say Anything Blog

Hume’s characterisation of Roosevelt’s statement is clearly wrong but I agree that demanding a resignation because of it is silly.

Jordan’s comments about journalists dying because they were targeted by American soldiers have certainly been misunderstood haven’t they. Too bad he didn’t come out immediately with his clarification but it just goes to show that truthfulness and openness are the best policies.

I think Bill at INDC Journal said it best. If misquoting (or in this case, half-quoting) were a firable offense, the journalistic ranks would be very, very thin.

In fact, I’ll bet some of these same lefty bloggers would have to give up their trade, starting with O-Dub.

Now, at worst, Hume is guilty of some selective quoting.

At all the Federal Military Academies, the cadets and midshipmen are subject to an honor code that essentially states they will not lie, cheat, or steal.  We took this code very seriously and great pains were taken to ensure everyone knew there wasn’t any ‘wiggle room’ WRT the honor code.

On the issue of lying, we were taught that not only a deliberate falsehood was a lie but that incomplete truths, the omission of pertinent facts, and--yes--selective quoting were all examples of lies. 

I realize Hume isn’t in the military but he assumes a position of trust in the country.  People who watch the news will generally assume newsmen aren’t fabricating news stories.

Now, I’m under no illusion that Hume will resign because he works for Fox and, frankly, Fox isn’t a legit news organization.

I think Bill at INDC Journal said it best. If misquoting (or in this case, half-quoting) were a firable offense, the journalistic ranks would be very, very thin.

Bill INDC is full o’ crap.  There’s a difference between misquoting and deliberately rearranging a quote and omitting parts of it to provide a different meaning than intended.

Laugh laugh until you keel over in pain.

Global dimming has set in over what is left of the dim party.

Jadegold -

There’s a difference between misquoting and deliberately rearranging a quote and omitting parts of it to provide a different meaning than intended.

Yes, that is exactly what I was referring to. Very good.

A lot of journalists committ this offense (which is an offense) - none resign.

PS - Your story about the honor code touched my heart.

No, Bill, you’re still full o’ crap.

A lot of journalists don’t committ (sic) this offense.  Hume took quotes from FDR, rearranged them, omitted certain amplifying info, and twisted it to assert FDR had said something he did not.

That is not a misquote; it is a deliberate attempt to deceive.

It’s easy to discern the problem with Hume’s deception, Bill, even if you’re inclined to use the InstaCracker Defense â„¢( it’s all so complicated, especially when I’ve been caught lying.)

Simply stated, since you’ve elected to use the InstaCracker Defenseâ„¢, Hume was trying to foist the notion that FDR had envisioned SS as a system based on private accounts.

In reality, however, FDR stated quite clearly private accounts would be used, temporarily (key word), at the inception (also a keyword) of the program to cover those folks who were already retired and/or too old.

Of course, Hume also neglected to mention FDR’s words establishing the SS that we’ve had for the past 7 decades or so because it directly contradicted the implication ume was trying to make.

It’s not that complicated--except, of course, to those below the age of ten.

Hurts doesn’t it, Bill?

Actually some blogger mentioned this on their blog before Hume brought it up.  I looked at it and was going to write about it myself, but I looked at the text and decided that it was so horribly written that it didn’t really say anything.

I can see how some could interpret it one way and some the other.  I decided not to touch it because it (like so much of the news out there) is a phantom story.

King of Fools -

Exactly.

You see, Jadegold, not only is it not an egregious “dowdification” (named after Maureen Dowd, the still well-employedst for the NY Times) - I had to read the passage and Hume’s snip 5 times to decipher the problem, and it’s still a highly subjective offense - but specific quote distortions and misrepresentations happen in journalism all the time. It doesn’t make it “ok,” but it happens.

And people don’t typically get “fired” or “resign” for distorting quotes, they either issue corrections or ignore the error and move on, at which point ...

Blogs then bitch about the distortion, and nothing drastic typically happens - unless the offense is SO grave (say, using clearly forged documents and distorted and omitted testimony as the basis for a lengthy feature, just prior to a Presidential election) and the distortion is SO objectively true (aforementioned forged documents proven false by forensic analysis) and the stonewalling and denial so dissonant and arrogant (two weeks of asserting that aforementioned forged documents were legit), that heads actually roll - 4 months later.

Given the obstruse nature of the Social Security quote, the conclusion that Hume intended to deceive is subjective. I’m not sure he (or certainly you) even understands the passage completely.

If I’m wrong, please do me a favor and highlight, in detail, exactly how the quote was distorted. Don’t link kevin Drum or Media Matters, I want YOU to explain it to me, in detail. In your own words.

But none of this probably resonates with you, because you are all caught up in your subjectively tailored righteous rantings about the honor code, probably marshalled for the pointed purpose of fulfilling your previously held distaste for Brit Hume and FOX News.

Because let’s face it - otherwise, you’d be calling for the head of Maureen Dowd, Chris Mathhews, Keith Olbermann, Mike Barnicle and all of the other journalists that have willfully or unknowingly distorted quotes and stories in a dishonorable fashion.

Short version? You are full of crap.

And you just got a spanky.

You’re part of the problem, Bill..
The sooner we get rid of you, Hume,
and Gannon, the better off we all will be…
Why don’t you go back into the “private sector” after someone finds out
you were paid off by this administration too…
No one but the foolish, believe you.

Quite the celebrity thread you have here Rob! I went back to the original passages to compare what was said by Roosevelt and Hume. I note that both gents said voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age.

Roosevelt’s next sentence is It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.”

Hume’s concluding phrase is adding that government funding, “ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.”

I take Hume as stating that Roosevelt believed that self-supporting annuity plans would ultimately supplant government funding...principle #3 would supplant principle #2.

Note Roosevelt’s use of the term “old age pension plan” which Hume does not use. FDR talks about old age pensions, compulsory contributory annuities and voluntary contributary annuities. My reading is that the Federal Government proposes to pick up half of the tab for the old age pensions as described in his first principle. I conclude this because he specifically refers to the Federal cost of funding the old age pension being ultimately supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.

Self-supporting annuity plans are what you have in place now if I understand the American system correctly. The voluntary plans would be used to “top up” the compulsory plans, not to replace or take away from them. This is my reading of Roosevelt and also why I believe that Hume misinterpreted Roosevelt’s words.

I still wouldn’t can Hume over this issue. At the same time I would wager that FDR would not agree with Hume’s characterisation.

Jadegold -

“Instacracker.” That’s nice. And the trademark symbol is very clever.

Let’s go over this, I need the mental exercise. Social Security as envisioned by FDR consisted of 3 parts -

1. A temp benefit at inception to cover those uncovered by other means (pensions)
2. A mandatory annuity (the heart of the program)
3. A voluntary annuity (that was a complement to the required program)

Some say Hume’s quote can certainly be interpreted as fulfilling the spirit of FDR’s intent, because the current mandatory contribution/portion is about 2.75 times higher than the mandatory contribution (the meat of the program) that he envisoned as the payment required to sustain Social Security. Jane Galt made this point, but it’s almost an aside. President Bush’s rough proposals are in fact in line with some of what FDR had originally suggested.

But here’s where people say that Hume DID distort the quote - the problem lies in the fact that he seemingly declared that the voluntary part of the plan was intended to supplant the mandatory annuity, as you indicate.

But here’s what he really said:

In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, “Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age,” adding that government funding, “ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.”

Guess what? One of those “self-supporting annuity plans” IS option two, the “mandatory annuity,” AKA the present system whereby a worker contributes a portion of his pay to fund the program. You are mistakenly associating this AS “government funding” as espoused by FDR. What he meant was unsupported, non-renewable funding taken from the governments coffers or loans to cover those that hadn’t contributed and weren’t covered by pensions at the program’s inception.

You see, the mandatory annuity (current system) was thought to be “self-supporting” at certain rates of return, and it did replace the “government funding,” but demographic shifts that have drastically increased the retiree population have now made it fundamentally unsustainable.

And a funny thing happened on the way to your latest shallow comment - you misrepresented FDR’s quote and intention with a dishonest ommission, “because it directly contradicted the implication” you were “trying to make.” (To quote your problem with Hume)

Namely, that the voluntary annuity was strictly “temporary.” That’s a “keyword,” right, big boy?

From the Social Security Agency History:

The voluntary old-age annuities was a proposal developed by the Committee on Economic Security (CES) and supported by President Roosevelt. During the Congressional hearings on the Administration’s proposals, Edwin Witte, Executive Director of the CES, explained in more detail how the voluntary annuities would work and why the CES thought them necessary:

“The voluntary system of old-age annuities we suggest as a supplement to the compulsory plan contemplates that the Government shall sell to individuals, on a cost basis, deferred life annuities similar to those issued by commercial insurance companies; that is, in consideration of premiums paid at specified ages, the Government would guarantee the purchasers a definite amount of income, starting at 65, for example, and continuing throughout the lifetime of the annuitant. The primary purpose of the plan is to offer persons not included within the compulsory system a systematic and safe method of providing for their old age. It could also be used by insured persons as a means of supplementing the old-age income provided under the compulsory plan.

Not just as a stop-gap for those not initially covered, my friend.

Moving on:

It was the President’s view, and that of the experts on his Committee on Economic Security (CES), that ultimately the welfare pensions funded by the states with federal contributions would become unnecessary as the two programs of annuities would gradually come to obviate any need for such welfare type programs.

In short, while the mandatory annuity was the engine and guarantee of social security, and the voluntary annuity was “primarily” considered a “temporary” bridge to cover those that hadn’t had time to accure pensions, it was also likely considered a viable addition that could serve as a complement to the mandatory annuity. This is proven by the end statment that declares that the two annuities in tandem would both eliminate the need for the first part of the plan.

It wasn’t “temporary” (keyword), as your dishonest mischaracterization states.

And Hume’s mistake was that his quote implies to the outraged listener (based on the listener’s interpretation of “government funding” being “supplanted") that private accounts would replace govt funding.

What the quote actually says on its face - and is correct about FDR’s intent - is that BOTH annuities (mandatory and voluntary) were intended to replace the straight parasitic welfare portion (a temporary measure for uncovered retirees).

Brief Intermission

“[O]n the issue of lying,” you “were taught that not only a deliberate falsehood was a lie but that incomplete truths, the omission of pertinent facts, and–yes–selective quoting were all examples of lies” at the “Federal Military Academies.”

And given your high committment to honor, and the fact that you mark a vital difference between misquoting and “omitting parts of (a quote) ... to provide a different meaning than intended,” I demand that you resign from whatever “position of trust” that you hold in “this country.”

Because you have LIED.

On your honor, sir. On your HONOR.

Who, Bill?  Feh.

Nah...I meant King of Fools.

Quite the celebrity thread you have here Rob!

Who, Bill?  Feh.  I knew him when his claim-to-fame was posting pictures of stoned hippy goes trying to organize themselves into a march.

As to your summary about this matter, as I said in the post I think its a subjective matter.  It can be taken multiple ways.  I don’t think it was intended to deceive, I think it was intended to point out that, from a certain view point, FDR may have been in favor of a system much like Bush’s.  Of course, FDR is dead now and debating the point is about like trying to compare pitchers Walter Johnson and Randy Johnson.  You can put up a decent argument for each being better, but you’d never really know.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Here, I made a whole post about it:

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001572.php

This is indeed open to interpretation, though I would maintain that FDR’s original intent was closer to some of Bush’s proposals than the current system alone.

And beyond the interpretation about the validity of the quote, the calls for Hume’s head are beyond silly.

PS - I would also maintain that “Jadegold” is an idiot who currently has his pants down around his ankles.

Hume clearly intended to leave his mouthbreathing audience with the impression that FDR wanted for the SS system to eventually do away with the compulsory contributory annuities we have today in favor of private annuities.

And you clearly intended to misstate the fact that voluntary annuities were intended for strictly temporary purposes.

By your definition, you are a liar. And the only person humiliated in this exchange.

Bill INDC remains, sadly, full o’crap.

Quoting Jane Galt? Heck, why not quote Mr. Bowen’s dog as well? I’m certain Mr. Bowen’s dog might have something equally interesting to say about SS and the relative merits of Kibbles ‘n’ Bits.

No, BillINDC, you’re still lying and no amount of pretending that Hume meant this or could have meant that will change that fact.  Hume clearly intended to leave his mouthbreathing audience with the impression that FDR wanted for the SS system to eventually do away with the compulsory contributory annuities we have today in favor of private annuities. And he did this by rearranging FDR’s words.

Sometimes I think BillINDC derives some perverse sexual gratification out of humiliating himself on the internet(s).

Mike owes me a new keyboard.

Keep in mind I am close friends with 5 West Point grads, I attend BOTH USNA and USAFA and have an aquantance at both the Merchant Marine Academy and the Coast Guard Academy

Maybe they could send you a swell beer mug with the academy seal on it and you could drink away your regrets about not doing better in school.

Tell you what, though, JFH--let’s make a bet. Let’s bet that I did attend and graduate from one of the Federal military Academies you mentioned.  I’ll take the affirmative, you the negative.

Let’s bet $10,000.  Rob: you want to hold the money?

Has JFH disappeared?  Surely one who attends or attended BOTH Canoe U and Zoomie School wouldn’t shy away from such a bet.

Bill, it’s worse than that, jadegold is, in my opinion (Qualifying,s I don’t want to come within a ten foot pole of the hyper-rhetorical device of the far left to call everything they disagree with a LIE), misrepresenting himself…

He writes:

“At all the Federal Military Academies, the cadets and midshipmen are subject to an honor code that essentially states they will not lie, cheat, or steal. We took this code very seriously and great pains were taken to ensure everyone knew there wasn’t any ‘wiggle room’ WRT the honor code.”

What’s this “WE white man?!  I want the year and the Academy YOU attended, you ass!  WE DO taking lying very seriously, so seriously that we have honor boards to review each case to ensure that the accuser is correct.  You’re interpretation of the application of the honor code doesn’t sound like any grad I know.  (Keep in mind I am close friends with 5 West Point grads, I attend BOTH USNA and USAFA and have an aquantance at both the Merchant Marine Academy and the Coast Guard Academy)

Two aspects of the Hume case would almost make this case a slam dunk rejection.  One, you’d have to assume FDR statement was intended exactly like KOS, Drum and others had broken it down into their “3 paragraphs and an addendum”.  This is not certain at all (worst case, maybe, 80% certainty?).  Two, you’d have to assume that Hume’s select “quoting” was intended to purposely deceive in the worst case example as Franken tries to deliberately misquote.

Finally and most importantly, if you’re gonna pretend to be an Academy grad, you should the forger of the Rathergate memos, get you lingo right.  No grad would use the phrase “Federal Military Academies” (troll Smash or other milbloggers if you don’t believe me):

Federal?  Nah, we’d use “U.S.”
Military? Nope, we’d use “Service”.  Military is used exclusively for West Point.  Neither USMA or its sister Service Academies would use the term “military” to group all the service academies…

But, thanks for playing.

Oh, and JadeGold, WE would never call someone a liar based on a difference of opinion!  (Re: “No, BillINDC, you’re still lying and no amount of pretending that Hume meant this or could have meant that will change that fact.")

Au contraire, BillINDC, I never used the term ‘voluntary annuities.’ You did.

Was it good for you?

Come on, Junior Grade. Which Academy was it?

Well, Jg, which academy was it?

Hmmm… a bit too rich for my blood, how ‘bout lowering it a little and setting some ground rules:

First, how do you propose you prove that you did graduate from a Service Academy? 

Second, how do I know you are how you say you are (I’ve seen you trolling around for over 2 years now and I’ve never seen anything that reveals your true identity)

Third, a wage like this is probably illegal, but we can go the path of each of us donating to the other’s favorite charity for the loser.

Finally, What did you mean “your regrets about not doing better in school”?  I thought I did pretty well.

Still how do I know who you are?  Your name is spelled differently in many blog comments, can you give me a reputable source that knows your real identity (I know I can)

Are you saying a bet of 1000 dollars ISN’T painful?

JFH: $10,000 is the bet.  The idea is to make it painful to the loser.

I propose sending a certified copy of my diploma to Rob (if he’s willing)along with a cert. copy of my commission.  If that’s insufficient, I believe the Academy will forward a cert. copy of my diploma to whomever I designate.  I’d also be open to providing other info you might propose.

There’s nothing illegal to this wager.

“Finally, What did you mean “your regrets about not doing better in schoolâ€?? I thought I did pretty well.”

You implied you attended both Annapolis and Colo. Springs.  That’s uncommon, but not unheard of; usually, it means one has dropped/flunked out of one school and reapplied for another.

"Yes, JG but you hold all the cards especially with the anonymity… is there anyway to tie your email to an actual person that can be verified?”

Certainly. Do we have a bet? It seems you’re hung up on the minutiae.  We certainly can resolve this easily.

“BTW, can’t you think of another reason why I might have attended two academies other than (grin) “dropping or flunkingâ€? out? “

Sure. But I don’t care.

So what’s to prevent you from using someone else’s military ID and diploma?  Still hung up on the “minutiae” of being scammed.

Junior Grade, what is the hold up? RingKnockers don’t lower themselves to the level of “gaming” with the enlisted scum. Just tell us.

JFH: My email address is known to Rob; he could certainly provide that.  Additionally, a copy of my military ID would have a picture.  Again, these aren’t hard issues to resolve.

“Are you saying a bet of 1000 dollars ISN’T painful?”

Not particularly; but hat do you have to lose? You’ve already accused me of lying so your $10,000 should be safe, right?

Yes, JG but you hold all the cards especially with the anonymity… is there anyway to tie your email to an actual person that can be verified?

BTW, can’t you think of another reason why I might have attended two academies other than (grin) “dropping or flunking” out?

1K is on the table, you gonna give up a sure thing?… still the “minutiae” of a valid match between your email address () and a real person still needs to be worked out.  For example, I can easily get a more than a few bloggers than can validate my email address to my real name based on corrispondence going back more than a year… Can you?

JFH: $10,000; you really shouldn’t have any concerns since I’m probably bluffing.  Right?

The minutiae isn’t a big deal; I can furnish a digitally signed email.

1000 dollars and a sincere apologize should be enough for an honorable man.

I’ve explained my reasons why I think you are not who you say you are, all you have provided is an outrageous bet which I could cover but would be foolish to do (See famous Sam Sneed story: “If someone says, I’ll bet you..)

Better yet, how ‘bout just defending yourself like an officer, tell me your name, class, and academy.  And I’ll defend your honor if anyone ever questions it again.  And you have my word that I won’t reveal you identity to anyone.

"Probably bluffing” is the key, 10K is an awful lot to risk even though I’m 95% sure I’m right (which is why I DIDN’T call you a liar directly), especially because you can easily “fold” if I “call” you and resurface under another name and new email.

Okay, I’m clueless, what the heck do you mean by a digitally signed email… how does this confirm your identity? The digitally signed emails that I’m familiar with can be created by a fly-by night outfit just as easily as an established company.

At 10K, it would be much worthwhile for someone to run a con of fake identity than at 1K.

Come on, is there NO ONE in the blogosphere that can vouch for the famous JadeGold?!

OK, JFH, if you’re 95% sure--let’s make it $9500.  C’mon, let’s do this or you can apologize and head back to Freeperville.

Do a search on digitally-signed emails.

“At 10K, it would be much worthwhile for someone to run a con of fake identity than at 1K.”

Personally, I believe you’re creating excuses to back out.

But let’s not fill up Rob’s site--you know my email.  Let’s do this bet.

JuniorGrade, I have been gone most of an hour, you still ain’t got off the dime. Obviously you did not go to any military academy. You may have gone to Miss Manners Academy for Wayward Boys.

BTW, JG, you need to take a course in statistical risk if you think a one time gamble at 95% should reduce your maximum risk bet by 5%… I guess if I was just 50/50 I should have bet you 5000K (when again you can fold without putting up any cash)

In case you guys didn’t know it, when I’m not blogging I make my living as a private investigator.  Jadegold, if you send to me whatever credentials you feel will prove you served along with your home phone number I will run a reverse on that number to see if the name on the number matches the name on the credentials.  Then I will call the number to make sure it is your number.  I think you can feel comfortable enough with that.

Unless I’m missing something here, that should be proof enough for us all.  I’m more than willing to that if it will end this debate.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Thank goodness.  works for me. Will that work for you, JFH?

$10,000 the bet.

$10,000 and a sincere apology will do me just fine.  But it’s not about the money . It’s about imparting an important lesson to you.  Sometimes you need that painful reminder so as not to screw up again.

You’ve been out about 20 years now; surely, you can afford the $10K.

Nope, sorry 1K is as high as I go… should be good enough lesson for me.

Good ploy though, making the bet so ridiculously high that I can’t accept it.

Aw, screw it, I’ve given you a chance to get an easy $1000 (which still is a dent in my finances).  I’ve explained why I didn’t think you were who you represented, both here and in email, I’m tired of these threats, put up or shut up.  No money, just my shame, come on buddy, show it to Rob and if he’s satisified I’ll be satisfied.

C’mon, Junior Grade.  Put up or shut up.

BTW, my little black dog despises Social Security ponzi schemes, Kibbles and Bits, and you, in no particular order.  And that’s all she has to say about that, since, and I quote, “I have better things to do than be dragged into an internet conversation by some illiterate Leftard that obviously failed Reading Comprehension 101.  Now throw the damn ball!”

It is 0800 and still no answer. Guess that settles it.

Good ploy though, making the bet so ridiculously high that I can’t accept it.

Actually, it should be a good deal higher but I figured you’d balk if real money was involved.