Free Republic

Wait . . . You may have posted the only picture of John Kerry actually wearing his Magic Hat . . . unless others have more.

My friend, a former Elizabeth cop, told me that just after the NY Post article about the roadside adventures of Governor McGreevey, he was talking to one of his buddies on the Elizabeth police force. The guy said that back in 1997 when McGreevey was running the first time against Governor Christie Whitman, the Elizabeth police caught him in a compromising position with some guy in a car that had been pulled over onto the shoulder on Front Street, right near the Goethels Bridge (Elizabeth to Staten Island, NY).

Then Mayor (and Senator)McGreevey apparently told them that he and his passenger were driving on the Turnpike and got tired, so they pulled over to take a rest . . . on Front Street in Elizabeth!

Naturally, it never came out . . . that is, the story never came out!

I got to thinking about that. Why wouldn't they want to leak the story to at least embarrass him enough to get him to "back out" of the race? (No pun intended.) The more I think about it, the more I think it is because normal people would not do something that would so intentionally and primarily mortify and hurt his family . . . his parents, his wife and, over time, his children. If it was just him, they might have.

McGreevey, however, didn't give that a moment's thought . . . once it became clear he was going to be exposed. He publicly mortified everyone associated with him, and most of all, in a few years, his children will be subject to ridicule. And the best proof of that, is that this book, with all the sordid details, could have been written with no other motivation than for him to cash in.

Play the victim, and purposefully subject the very people you should care the most about, to an extreme and ongoing embarassment. When you think about it, that is a rather clear-cut form of child abuse on his part. People have been charged with intentional infliction of mental distress for far less hurtful actions.

The bureaucrats who run the child abuse section of the Division of Youth & Family services, however, would not dare give it a second thought. They're too busy chasing down some exasperated parent who smacked their kid on the rump in the super market because he defied them and was opening a package of cookies sitting on the shelf.

GianniV,

Your comment may be more serious than you thought, and for people other than just his former wife. If she was potentially (and unknowingly) exposed to AIDs, or some other sexually transmitted disease (STD), so too would the child have been during birth.

And remember the following? In February of 2003, he proudly posted on the Governor's website a press release and photograph of himself giving blood, in violation of all the rules for donation. Just after he resigned, a few postings appeared on Free Republic, including one from a story that appeared in the Asbury Park Press, here,

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1281624/posts

and an earlier one I posted, here,

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1279385/posts

So, we now know that he engaged in a virtually endless string of sexual encounters with utter strangers in highway rest stops over the years, making his exposure to STDs on multiple occasions a virtual certainty. Yet, he very publicly gives blood in complete derogation of all known rules applicable to donation. Why? To get himself a little free publicity for his next political race.

Believe me, there is no shame with this guy. And just think about the impact this book will have on his kids. They will be forever subject to the humiliation it would inevitably entail, but he could care less. To him, it’s just a grab for the cash, so he will say the most humiliating and degrading things about his pathetic past life, regardless of the effect on people he should care for the most. Today, I actually heard of a person in the New Jersey Democrat staff for the New Jersey Legislature making the argument that writing this was a good thing because it will ensure his ability to make substantial child support payments! Gee, how about not writing it and going out and actually working to help support the child, instead of obsessing in the mistaken belief that his vile and pathetic life is the center of our thoughts?

Mitchell: Hummah na, hummah na, hummah na . . . wait a minute . . . what I meant to say, when I said what I said, was not intended to actually mean what it sounded like I meant when I said the actual words I spoke, especially after you read outloud my actual comments from 2003, and even though they sounded like they contradicted what Tim Russert said when he said whatever I think he said to the prosecutor, quite a bit later, and even if it was somewhat different from the words he said or didn't say to Scooter Libby, despite the fact that although I wasn't there to hear whatever he said to anyone, I just know he didn't say anything different that what he has already said, because Libby has to be guilty doesn't he, and so even though what I said sounded like I said something other than the actual words I said would sound like I meant, when I said what I said. Is that clear?

Imus: Huh? Uhhhh . . . Wha? Heh?

Me: Hey, Andrea . . . do you think Scooter will be tempted to suppoena you as a witness, and play your taped comments from 2003 for the jury, and then play your verbal exchange with Don Imus on the air just the other day, and then ask you to explain it all to the jury, so that it can help them determine if he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to each and every element of the offenses charged?

I GUESS WE KNOW WHY FITZGERALD DIDN'T CALL ANDREA MITCHELL AS A WITNESS!! HEH!

Maybe a good way to drill it into the heads of the softees, is to put together a factual Top Ten List of reasons why this is such a ridiculous bill. The most fun would be using studies put together by liberal think-tanks as the proof! Here is one for starters:

10) The population of those being released from prisons contains a rapidly increasing number of "churners," or "those who have already failed once on parole and been readmitted to prison, and released again . . ." which, for example, in New Jersey, has risen from 18% in 1980 to "over one third of all admissions by the late 1990s," http://www.njisj.org/reports/prisoner_reentry.html. It is the "fastest growing category of prison admissions."

This provides stark proof that a rapidly increasing percentage of those being released from our prisons -- those very same people Hillary Clinton and, her co-sponsor, John Kerry, want to become our "brandy newest" voters -- will soon either violate their parole, or commit some new crime against law-abiding citizens in our society, and eventually go back to jail. And that's just the ones we're catching!

Nice logic! We know more and more of them every day are re-offending or violating their parole, so we should just LET THEM NULLIFY THE VOTES OF EVERYONE ELSE! HUH?

"One more thing, why should he ever get a security clearance again?"

He may never get his security clearance back again. As I understood the stories, this is not guaranteed; it is just the first opportunity he will have to request getting the clearance back.

If Berger asked for that as a part of the negotiation, his motivation would be pretty obvious . . . he would want to get the clearance back in time to be a National Security "player" in the presidential campaign of Hillary in 2008. However, if the three years was proposed by the prosecution side, a cynic would see it the same way, with the following proviso. He could be firmly turned downed for reinstatement in July of '08, and the news of that rejection could be leaked, which would put Hillary on the defensive for wanting to involve a convicted criminal and security risk in her administration.

Realistically, I don't think Sandy Berger has a snowball's chance in hell of ever legally eyeballing classified documents ever again, and that suits me just fine. What we are seeing from the sidelines is a game the prosecutors are playing to get as much cooperation out of him as they can get. They know Sandy Berger did this to cover Bill Clinton's tail. Those notes had significance.

Sorry for the misunderstanding Beckwith.

My entire prior comment, including the conclusion -- Your answer -- "I've never beaten my wife," -- is the right way to respond. – - was merely directed to Archangelsk because he said he had plum forgotten “the lawyer Latin for this type of question.”

I remembered, and thought I might direct him to a few sources of logical thinking. Judging from many of his responses, they could certainly be put to good use.

Alas, some things just don’t take! Note, for example, a classic example -- bookended ad hominem arguments, surrounding an accusation that someone else was using an ad hominem argument! You just can't make this stuff up:

“And you write like a fricken idiot. I point out facts, you ad hominen [sp] attack. Smart move, keyboard warrior.”

As to Sidney Blumenthal, Salon’s Talbot says they initiated the discussions that led to his quick departure -- Salon! He is now also writing a book on Presidents and race . . . I suspect a polemical screed in the making. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/268471p-229923c.html

The question, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” as others have noted, is not strictly a logical fallacy, in the sense of a fallacious argument. It is a form of attack question intended to trick the responder into an admission against interest, no matter how they answer, because it presupposes the answer to a preliminary question. So, it is what is generally known as a “loaded question,” or ”complex question.” It presupposes you have, at some time, beaten your wife, which may not be true at all . . . . it may also be true that you do not have a wife, in which case your interrogator didn’t do his homework!

If you prefer the Latin, Plurium Interrogationum – “many questions,” the demand for a simple answer to a complex question. It differs slightly from Petitio Principii, or “begging the question,” in which the conclusion is assumed as established or proved in one of the premises.

For a good sources on this and other logical fallacy inquiries, you might enjoy the following links.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/badmovesprint.php?num=37

http://www.lkwdpl.org/thinkingcity/usefulterms.htm

http://education.gsu.edu/spehar/FOCUS/EdPsy/misc/Fallacies.htm

Your answer -- "I've never beaten my wife," -- is the right way to respond.

Congratulations, Buckhead.

Dan Rather was on Letterman Wednesday night and a story was filed this morning on MyMotherLode.com by AP reporter, David Bauder (link below), in case you hadn't seen it.

Back in the fall when Dan Rather was busily defending the CBS Story on the bogus Bush Guard Memos, he vigorously defended the story as having been validated by a "preponderance of the evidence," and the authenticity of documents as having been validated by CBS document experts!

We've come a long way.

Now, Dan has apparently switched to a new standard. On Letterman's show, Rather boasted that with all the time and money of the investigatory panel headed by former AP chief Lou Boccardi and former Reagan attorney general Richard Thornburgh, they:

"could not demonstrate that the documents were not authentic, that they were forgeries."

First, that statement is false. The Panel did indeed demonstrate that the documents were not authentic and that they were forgeries. The demonstration was in the form of the expert opinion contained in the Appendix of their report. Their expert found that the documents were fakes. But the two panel members chose to ignore this - the only valid evidence they had - in reaching their conclusions.

So, they did demonstrate that the documents were fakes, a demonstration fully in concert with the demonstrations of others, from Buckhead to Newcomer -- but they were just unwilling to adopt this in their conclusion.

Secondly, is it not pathetic that Rather boastfully suggests this is a defensible standard by which to judge "purported" copies of documents being used as a basis for any legitimate news story, let alone one intended to destroy the candidacy of a sitting President!

http://www.mymotherlode.com/News/article/id/D88K0CU00

Here is the portion of the story containing Rather's brand, spankin' new standard:

"Rather said that to his mind, two of the panel´s most important conclusions were that it could not demonstrate that political bias played a part in the stories or conclusively account for the origins of the documents in question.

"CBS´s Sept. 8 story began falling apart when experts questioned the legitimacy of documents supposedly written by Bush´s National Guard commander that suggested the future president had received preferential treatment."

"'Although they had four months and millions of dollars, they could not demonstrate that the documents were not authentic, that they were forgeries,' Rather said."

Just in case anyone takes seriously the comments about ths being a cruel joke by Karl Rove, this boat was conceived and the building of it begun (keel laid, etc.) during the Clinton Administration. Remember him? Here is the brief to-date history of the USS Jimmy Carter.

General Characteristics: Awarded: June 29, 1996
Keel laid: 1998
Launched: May 13, 2004

The Commissioning is what is up and coming this year.

But . . . I still say is is completely outrageous!

What's it going to do? Shoot ping-pong balls that will float to the surface, and then drop harmlessly in the Iranian desert?

I hear it will have special top-secret equipment to automatically regurgitate wildly false accusations of racially charged voter fraud and suppression in Florida elections, no matter what the real results were.

Plus, it will also be used to turn a blind electronic eye to any allegations of massive genocide, such as those that occurred in Cambodia in the late 1970s.

I suppose some day they'll also use it to calculate the White House tennis court schedule with a special on-board computer.

Word is it will also be specially equipped to assume guilt. And have you ever heard of a nuclear reactor that could “sin in its heart?” Could be scary.

Surely it will have a giant "malaise seeder/spreader" on board, AND a highly sensitive "malaise detector." So, it will be able to roam the ocean floors leaving a trail of ill feeling. Then, at just the right time, it will suddenly detect the global glumness, and announce it to one and all! Neat, huh?

Best of all, I hear it will have the likeness a giant ferocious bunny rabbit prominently painted on the prow, fiercely intimidating a flummox-faced Jimmy Carter, dressed in an Elmer Fudd outfit, all the while holding a canoe paddle in one hand, and nervously licking his lips.

Finally, it will be a classic disinformation vessel, able to broadcast pure hokum with a straight face, such as claiming, as this U-boat's namesake did recently, that our Revolutionary War “more than any other war up until recently, has been the most bloody war we‘ve fought.”

This is just such an outlandish idea -- an attack submarine named after Jimmy Carter! Is this Karl Rove’s idea of a cruel joke on Carter – will people will laugh so hard because it will remind them once again what a sad and bumbling mediocrity our 39th was . . . and still is?

The story hit the regular press, including Channel 3 KYW TV News in Philadelphia this evening. Here is the Gannett story, which was in the Camden Courier Post.

http://www.courierpostonline.com/news/southjersey/m111604d.htm

The story unfortunately downplayed the ex-Governor's intentional lie on the screening application, and does not focus on the fact that there is an incubation period between contraction of HIV and the ability to detect it in the donated blood. Even when donated blood is tested using Nucleic Acid Testing (NAT), there is a 10 day or longer gap, during which contracted HIV would not be detected. That fact continues to underscore the reason for the CDC's continuing policies regarding donation.

http://www.thebody.com/cdc/news_updates_archive/aug8_02/cleansing_blood.html

As noted in the above article posted on the CDC's public service HIV/AIDS Newsroom website,

"Since 1999, American blood banks using highly sensitive nucleic acid have tested for HIV in donated blood, cutting the transfusion transmission risk to just 1 in 2 million. The procedure works very well except when a donor gives blood up to ten days after becoming infected, as is believed to have happened in the Florida Blood Services case. Within that window there may not be enough virus in the sample for the test to detect."

MVPEL,

My apologies . . . I intended my response with the postings of the specific NJAC postings as a response to MVPEL's comment. But, the information is now out there! Thanks for his comments. Yes, I hope McGreevey did insert the "Do Not Use" message in the envelop. But it certainly seems to me that, even if he did, the misuse of the system and the waste of resources at a time of blood shortage is an outrage in itself.

Trochilus

Interesting observation. The only way to be sure would be to trace the records, which could be readily done because New Jersey, like other states, requires highly detailed records to be kept.

Under the New Jersey Administrative Code (NJAC) at section 8:8-5.1, is a requirement that, “[r]ecords needed to trace a unit of blood or blood component from its source to final disposition shall be kept for at least 10 years ….” And NJAC section 8:8-5.1(f)(2) specifically requires the ability to “trace a unit of blood or blood component by a sequential numeric or alphanumeric identifier from source (donor collection facility) to final disposition (for example transfused, shipped, autoclaved) ….

Finally, NJAC section 8:8-6.5(f) has a requirement that every donor “shall have signed a written statement confirming that: … (4) Blood or blood components shall not be donated for transfusion purposes by a person if the person has reason to believe that he or she has engaged in high risk behavior.”

So, the determination could be made.