...in reading some moronic commentary on Usenet about Dan's Unexcellent Adventure, that this little incident provides a pretty fool-proof intelligence test. Anyone who still believes, at this point, that the documents are genuine, or even could conceivably be genuine, has to be an imbecile.

Of course, someone who believes that they may be false, but now considers them irrelevant because the underlying story must still be true (and conveniently, because they're obviously forged), is simply bereft of logic or ethics.

I wonder when CBS is going to say we have to stop. After this debacle and the Israeli spy ring story that wasn't(Dan's been quiet on that) the time might be right for Dan to step down as Managing Editor. If Howell Raines can fall on his sword perhaps Rather can, at least, lean on it a little.

Some of us just aren't paying much attention to this yet. I'm not sure what it has to say that might influence my vote. Both sides have some very dedicated people willing to go too far in the name of getting votes and I don't like any of it.

Yes and no, Rand.

There are probably a large number of people who who are uneasy with analyzing printed text for anachronisms themselves. They know computers haven't been around forever, and that the way people produce printed text has changed, but the details of spacing and superscripts and so forth are hazy to them to begin with, and not the kind of thing they could be certain they understood without a fair amount of mental concentration.

We should not have contempt for their non-left-brain intelligence, either. They may (for example) know God-all about music, or have amazing insight into the mind of a six-year-old child, or be so good at anticipating the next move of a soccer forward that it seems like they read minds. Not everyone has the same set of mental aptitudes.

Such folks would probably tend to trust expert opinion, up to a point. They know experts may have an agenda, and that may cloud the expert's judgment, but they may feel more comfortable with the human-social task of evaluating an expert's trustworthiness than with the technical-geeky task of deciding whether the Rather memos were kerned and what that means.

For these people it probably comes down to which expert they want to believe, and people can choose their experts for a lot of complicated social reasons that have nothing to do with epistemological optimality.

For example, people may choose whom to believe based on where their loyalties lie. And let's not knock this -- that social instinct keeps many a marriage alive, as well as many an employee loyal to his employer and soldier to his Commander in Chief.

I'm not saying you're wrong that knowing that CBS is full of sh** is a good test of intelligence. I'm saying that you should not assume that what people say out loud about CBS accurately reflects what, in their heart of hearts, they know. That is, you probably do have an accurate test -- but you also have no reliable way of collecting the data you need to implement it.

Plato, what you're saying is that it comes down to the definition of intelligence (like the recent popular books on "emotional intelligence"). OK, but that's just moving the problem and goalposts.

Yawn.

Lets talk about space.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24633-2004Sep15.html

Alfred, I'd be delighted if everyone made up their own mind from primary source material. In this case, CBS provides the PDF files, the military has provided (at least) the bulk of Bush's authentic records, available online.

In this particular case, 'experts' are besides the point for a lot of people. But if you want their opinion, listen very carefully to what they're all saying. (Not what Dan is saying they said, he isn't a primary source.)

But the way this has gone down, CBS has shown that they were 'Expert Shopping'. They've asked more experts than agreed with them - then discarded every single thing that didn't point toward the story they wanted to tell. Doctor Shopping is a felony, Judge Shopping is also serious, doing something similar in science isn't going to get you into Science or Nature.

Plato, what you're saying is that it comes down to the definition of intelligence...

Not really, no. Let's stipulate that all successful inductive explanations of collections of facts depend on g, what we attempt to measure by IQ. I personally don't believe in emotional intelligence any more than I believe in Cartesian dualism, and for similar reasons.

What I said is not that intelligence can have multiple definitions (gah!) but that equally intelligent people will have unequal success with different types of collections of facts. An analogy: success in sports clearly depends on strength and coordination. Nevertheless, some people do better at tennis and some at baseball.

What I am saying overall is akin to a Heisenberg Principle, if you like: I agree you could measure intelligence if you could find out what people really thought about CBS. But I suggest you can't find out what they really think, because what they say will be too strongly colored by the social forces at work.

Perhaps if you wait half a dozen years. . .

Quote from Plato: "What I said is not that intelligence can have multiple definitions (gah!)"

Oh but it does:

in·tel·li·gence Pronunciation Key (n-tl-jns)
n.

1. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
2. The faculty of thought and reason.
3. Superior powers of mind. See Synonyms at mind.
2. An intelligent, incorporeal being, especially an angel.
3. Information; news. See Synonyms at news.
4.
1. Secret information, especially about an actual or potential enemy.
2. An agency, staff, or office employed in gathering such information.
3. Espionage agents, organizations, and activities considered as a group: “Intelligence is nothing if not an institutionalized black market in perishable commodities” (John le Carré).

Quote from Bill White: "Lets talk about space."

Okay!

Looks like Shuttle External Tank #120 is ready for the application of foam insulation.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15038

Links to some high res pictures of the tank assembly facility in New Orleans.

It should not be expected that the vast majority come to a conclusion based on direct examination. We always rely on others for the bulk of our knowledge. The question is one of credibility.

Here we have forgeries of the most infantile kind, yet a major player is willing to stand by them. ...not to mention, likely knowing they were forgeries before making a report.

The real question is how so many people in our society can be so delusional or haters of truth.

This does not bode well for the future.

...and did anyone read that SS1 is getting uprated engines (just to throw some space stuff in.)

Were the Niger uranium documents forgeries? How about the alleged Iraq - al Qaeda meeting in Prague?

Nail Dan Rather to the wall, fine by me, but that does not prove GWB obeyed orders about his flight physical. And he has still screwed up Iraq big-time.

By the way, I have been reading about paraffin wax solid rockets. Waaay cool. Go Stanford!!

Baby, light that candle! :-)

Were the Niger uranium documents forgeries? How about the alleged Iraq - al Qaeda meeting in Prague?

I don't know. Or care, since I don't hold any of my views based on them.

Nail Dan Rather to the wall, fine by me, but that does not prove GWB obeyed orders about his flight physical.

Your logic is broken, Bill. There's no proof that he was ever given such orders (other than obviously forged documents), let alone that he disobeyed them.

And one more time--NOBODY WHO IS INCLINED TO VOTE FOR HIM CARES WHAT HE DID PRIOR TO AGE FORTY.

"...does not prove GWB obeyed orders about his flight physical. And he has still screwed up Iraq big-time."

Here we have encapsulated everything that is wrong with the Anybody-But-Bush campaign. First we have a fixation on events of over thirty years ago, followed by an assertion of an opinion presented as fact.

In the first case, a little research (or for those of us who lived through those times, a little remembering) shows that the issue is a lot more complicated, and presenting false doucmentation as fact does nothing to clear it up. If anything, it just reifnorces the belief that it's time to MoveOn™.

Second, if you think he "screwed up", then tell us how, and what you (or your candidate) are going to do better to fix it. It's up to you/your candidate to pursuade those who don't agree with you/him that a change of policy is necessary, and that your policy prescriptions will make things better. An assertion from authority that it's "screwed up" only works with the people who already agree with you.

Third, there are other issues out there. Find them and use them. Vague promises, secret plans and platitudes are a recipe for losing. Try details, just this once.

"And he has still screwed up Iraq big-time."

Depends on how you define "screwed-up".

The invasion phase was brilliant by any objective analysis.

The nation building phase is not yet complete and it is far too early to pass judgement on it.

Turn it around: Say these memos said Kerry didn't deserve his medals and finagled his way out of Vietnam. Imagine that, instead of a demonstration with a typewriter and other obvious tests, CBS trots out a SINGLE, obviously biased "eye witness" who says "They're fake, but that's close to what I wrote about Kerry."

Bill, would you say "Nail Dan Rather to the wall, fine by me, but that does not prove Kerry didn't cheat to get out of Vietnam"?

Rand,

Many of us who are inclined to vote against him don't care much about what he did before age 40 either. He changed when he found his faith. It is the new man I intend to vote against.

Rand, fool-proofing an intelligence test is probably not such a good idea...

Those who beat their swords into plowshares can no longer accomplish anything by falling on them.