Sunday, May 03, 2009

That pesky gulag

(This post is moot, BTW. Just so you know...)

Back in 2004, the day after George W. Bush was elected to a second term, after I'd done my crying I wandered over to a neighbor-of-sorts who'd I assumed had voted for him, and asked, quietly, only half in jest - "Will you come visit me in the gulag?"

To my surprise he exploded. "You are so full of $%^&!"

At the time the overreaction baffled me. Now I think I understand better; and what's more, I could - conceivably - be headed there after all.

So, y'all, if I do go, I hope you'll feel free to drop by.
(either there or the place with the straightjackets, if I'm merely losing my marbles)


Bring books, please.

12 comments:

George said...

Anna, we share a fear of the gulag. But rejoice, you have nothing to worry about - Obama got elected.

Anna Haynes said...

> you have nothing to worry about

I'm in agreement with you George, that this isn't something to worry about; the story I've been chasing has headed off in a different direction.

Michael R. Kesti said...

I appreciate that you didn't name me, Anna, but I don't mind owning up to being the “neighbor-of-sorts” (we had adjacent cubicles for a time while working simultaneously at a local firm) to which you here refer in order to ask you a couple of questions.

Were you incarcerated, detained, or otherwise held in a prison or jail of any variety at any time during George W. Bush's presidency?

I am fairly sure that I have never provided you with information concerning any of my ballot choices and absolutely certain that I did not tell you that I voted for George W. Bush so will you please specify the journalistic technique(s) you used to determine and justify reporting that I voted for Bush?

I bet you a $50 donation to Hospice of the Foothills that you delete this comment and/or fail to provide responsive answers to the questions I have presented in this comment.

Anna Haynes said...

> I bet you a $50 donation to Hospice

Excellent! Hospice thanks you for your $50.

> Were you incarcerated, detained, or otherwise held in a prison or jail

No.
The impetus for this post was that in my investigation I was running into spookworld - a *lot* of people at most one or two steps removed from the CIA - and was concerned that the regs. put into place by Bush et al could potentially result in Consequences (negative) to someone who pointed this out, using names.

> will you please specify the journalistic technique(s) you used to determine and justify reporting that I voted for Bush?

Inference. People who hold the views you do, and have the personality type that you do, form the core of Bush's support. And if you hadn't voted for Bush, presumably you'd be willing to say so, to either a) show me up as having made a mistake and/or b) help me tune my epistemo-meter to work better in future.
(depending on whether your motivations were negative or positive)

And the reaction to my "gulag" Q was not one that would have come from someone who'd voted against Bush.

I'll give 50 bucks to Hospice if I inferred wrong, Michael. Let me know.

Michael R. Kesti said...

>> I bet you a $50 donation to Hospice

>Excellent! Hospice thanks you for your $50.

Are you authorized to speak on their behalf?

>> Were you incarcerated, detained, or otherwise held in a prison or jail

>No.

Thank you for this unambiguous response.

>The impetus for this post was that in my investigation I was running into spookworld - a *lot* of people at most one or two steps removed from the CIA - and was concerned that the regs. put into place by Bush et al could potentially result in Consequences (negative) to someone who pointed this out, using names.

I suspect that your concern is as unfounded now as it was then but I will donate another $50 to HotF if you produce any verifiable evidence that indicates otherwise. Make it $500 if you are actually arrested and/or incarcerated. I pledge to bring you a book, too, if possible.

>> will you please specify the journalistic technique(s) you used to determine and justify reporting that I voted for Bush?

>Inference. People who hold the views you do, and have the personality type that you do, form the core of Bush's support. And if you hadn't voted for Bush, presumably you'd be willing to say so, to either a) show me up as having made a mistake and/or b) help me tune my epistemo-meter to work better in future. (depending on whether your motivations were negative or positive)

As I recall, you hadn’t previously asked for whom I voted, immediately walked away after I colloquially expressed my opinion of your query, and shortly thereafter sent me an email expressing your desire that we not again converse. Regardless of my motives, how was I to know that I was expected to inform you of my ballot choice? When was I supposed to inform you?

Inference and presumption are certainly valid techniques for journalistic investigation but reasonable, reputable, respectable journalists report facts. I am amazed that one as intelligent, educated, and well-read as you, purporting to be a journalist, does not live by that standard. I am not surprised, however, as you have previously indicated your willingness to accuse armed only with suspicion. As I have previously told you, this, I believe, is why, to use your words, others have been treating you as if you were a rattlesnake.

>And the reaction to my "gulag" Q was not one that would have come from someone who'd voted against Bush.

This declarative statement appears to express what you believe to be a fact. It is, instead, logically faulty, an example of black and white thinking, and incorrect. I haven’t voted for a major party presidential candidate in the previous six presidential elections and did therefore vote against George W. Bush and John Kerry, too.

>I'll give 50 bucks to Hospice if I inferred wrong, Michael. Let me know.

Your inference was most emphatically wrong. It was also incorrect.

I fully intend to make good on my donation pledge but I will first allow at least several days to elapse in order to ensure that all of my comments remain undeleted for at least a reasonable time. I admit that this extends my original conditions but trust that you will be able to deal with it.

Anna Haynes said...

Thank you Michael, for setting me straight. So - just so I know for sure - you are saying that you did not vote for George W. Bush in the 2004 election?

(I want to be sure I understand correctly, before I write out and send the Hospice check. I'm guessing - and it's an educated guess, no more - that this doesn't mean he voted for Kerry.)

and re the "rattlesnake" business, for other readers - I think this comment is relevant, and this series of posts exemplify the sort of actions that have elicited it.

FYI to readers, if any - in email I recently asked Michael two questions - whether he has ever been compensated (directly or indirectly, cash or otherwise) for expressing his opinions online, and whether he believes that engaging in such hidden payola punditry is unethical; in neither case was he willing to say.

Anna Haynes said...

p.s. re my "I'm guessing - and it's an educated guess, no more..." -

Moral of the story, if you don't want to look stupid: don't skim a comment that you're replying to.

Michael R. Kesti said...

Did you intend that last part (i.e., "The moral of the story...") to indicate that you were able to determine the answer to your question, "...you are saying that you did not vote for George W. Bush in the 2004 election?"

Anna Haynes said...

> Did you intend that last part...

yes I did; sorry if it wasn't clear enough

Anna said...

For anyone who has trouble wrapping their brain around the idea of stumbling upon spookworld, I feel your pain - last year I was in your shoes. Here's some background reading that may help:

* Carl Bernstein's 1977 Rolling Stone article on CIA and the media ("our greatest asset is the New York Times...");

* 2003 LA Times op-ed, The CIA is Back on Campus - highlights political science faculty as especially prone to CIA entanglements

* Daily Kos 2006 Daniel Ellsberg interview, particularly Part 2 ("Judith Miller, the New York Times and Government-Controlled Press")in which Ellsberg points out the evidence indicating the New York Times acted as part of the CIA wurlitzer in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Anna Haynes said...

Me again.
The more I chew on this exchange and the Nov 2004 one that inspired it, the odder it seems - why would someone have lashed out like that if they didn't have a dog in the fight?
Maybe it was just from having a bad day, but if so, it must have been a really bad day.

of course, Nov 3 2004 was a really bad day...
:-}

Also, just for the record, I was sloppy above - in response to "...specify the journalistic technique(s) you used to determine..." I snapped back "inference" - where obviously that ain't no journalistic technique. I was explaining how I came to believe I knew how my neighbor-of-sorts had voted; and this here post in question wasn't written as journalism.
(I think this is all pretty obvious, but just in case it wasn't, hopefully this clarifies it.)

Anna Haynes said...

A minor oops re my "spookworld" comment above -
It misdescribed the David N. Gibbs piece The CIA is Back on Campus, which is from 2003 (and I don't know if it appeared anywhere other than CounterPunch.)

The Gibbs LA Times op-ed that I meant to link to is Academics and Spies: The Silence That Roars, from 2001.