ACORN "pimp" arrested for illegally accessing Senate office; tampering with phone system

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

Post halfway written, not forgotten

No doubt.

[elucidator]

Another damned, thick, square post! Always scribble, scribble, scribble! Eh! Mr Bricker?

• Chauncey, Duke of Cumberbund

[MaxTheVool]

@ElvisL1ves

No doubt.

That seems fairly uncalled for and unsupported.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

This seems to have started a trend. Create a fake (edited) video, distribute it widely, and it will accomplish its mission, despite being false – the corrections will never catch up to the original charges.

The latest is a video of a Congressman being accosted on the street by some young people – he appears to react aggressively and even attack one of them. But the video is obviously edited, with parts of the interview cut out. So who knows what was actually said to him, and what answers from him were excluded. But that doesn’t seem to matter – this edited video is being distributed widely, media in his district are publicizing the story, and he is facing lots of attacks. He may lose the election this fall over this (which is probably the intended result). All over a probably faked video. Yet the media seems content to just echo comments about it, without ever pointing out that it’s clearly edited.

[emacknight]

@t-bonham@scc.net

This seems to have started a trend. Create a fake (edited) video, distribute it widely, and it will accomplish its mission, despite being false – the corrections will never catch up to the original charges.

The latest is a video of a Congressman being accosted on the street by some young people – he appears to react aggressively and even attack one of them. But the video is obviously edited, with parts of the interview cut out. So who knows what was actually said to him, and what answers from him were excluded. But that doesn’t seem to matter – this edited video is being distributed widely, media in his district are publicizing the story, and he is facing lots of attacks. He may lose the election this fall over this (which is probably the intended result). All over a probably faked video. Yet the media seems content to just echo comments about it, without ever pointing out that it’s clearly edited.

But that’s not the media’s job, it’s ours.

When the Bush Memos were released, but first reaction was, “YES, BUSH IS FINALLY BEING RAKED OVER THE COALS FOR SOMETHING!!!111one.”

And after dancing around a bit, I sat back down and said, “no way in hell is something this good going to be true.” I’m sure you could find people that still think the memos were real. Or still believe that Bush skipped out on his National Guard duties.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@emacknight

I’m sure you could find people that still think the memos were real. Or still believe that Bush skipped out on his National Guard duties.

I believe he did not meet the requirements of his National Guard duties to the letter. I no longer believe he “skipped out”.

[ElvisL1ves]

@MaxTheVool

That seems fairly uncalled for and unsupported.

I am beginning to agree. My apologies.

[MaxTheVool]

@ElvisL1ves

I am beginning to agree. My apologies.

Of course, Bricker still hasn’t responded. Let’s mock him gently.

Hey, Bricker, yo mama responds to SDMB posts so slowly, she’s still responding to a post that got graped by the grapist.

[Gyrate]

@MaxTheVool

Hey, Bricker, yo mama responds to SDMB posts so slowly, she’s still responding to a post that got graped by the grapist.

Oh snap…

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@MaxTheVool

Of course, Bricker still hasn’t responded. Let’s mock him gently.

Hang on now! Perhaps Bricker has not been around posting for the past 11 days, and that’s why he has not responded. Hang on a mo’, I’ll check…

OK, 115 posts in the past 11 days… Hmmmmm Never mind.

But wait! I’m sure that he’s had a lot more important things to post about! Hang on again…

Oh. I guess Pokemon, Punchbuggy and who Al Gore is boffing are more important than the reply to you MaxTheVool. Sorry about that.

[ElvisL1ves]

Maybe he could just post the half he said he’d written already.

Or even do the honorable thing and admit he’d been full of shit. Well, one can fantasize …

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

Everyone does it.

Now, that doesn’t mean that any amount of double standards should be shrugged off. What it does mean is that if your mission in this thread is to absolutely positive demonstrate without a doubt that liberals will, on the whole, be some amount more forgiving of Michael Moore than of O’Keefe or Limbaugh or Anne Coulter; well, we surrender. You got us. And we got you. Because everyone does it to some extent.

I don’t.

At least, I try mightily not to, and if called on it, I’ll make every effort to undo it. But before posting (or speaking) a condemnation of anyone, I will always ask myself how I’d feel if the roles or the situation was reversed.

Look back through my posting history. In the recent past, I’ve defended Obama and his staff on the charges that he did something improper or illegal with Sestak. I’ve pooh-poohed suggestions that Etheridge committed a “lock 'em up” type crime by grabbing the videographer.

I always, always, always try to figure out the standard first and then apply it to the facts. When I defend or attack on policy, of course, it’s because I generally believe that conservative policy is better for the country than liberal policy. But I don’t flip-flop on issues based on who they will benefit.

I agree that most people do, to some degree or other. I don’t agree that I do.

Now if you want to try to claim that the double standard in this case is far beyond the usual level, and rises to such gross extent that it must be condemned and rooted out; well, feel free to attempt to make that claim. But in that case, (a) it really ought to be a separate thread, and (b) the burden of proof is on you.

No, I’d say it’s about average. But the blasé admission that sure, we have double standards, and sure, we’re condemning O’keefe and not Moore for equivalent acts, is an admission that not too many folks besides you are willing to even make. And even you vitiate the admission by claiming it’s so par for the course as to be unremarkable.

I guess I feel like this thread has kind of gone like this:

Some liberal: O’Keefe is a scumbag dishonest jerk
Bricker: But O’Keefe and Michael Moore did the same things, and you liberals don’t hate Michael Moore, therefore you’re hypocrites
Some liberal: Buzz off you meaniefaceconservativejerk, we’re discussing O’Keefe being a dishonest jerk
Bricker: See how no one ever actually addresses the point I’m making?

Not exactly.

Some Liberal: O’keefe dishonestly edited his films! That’s evil!
Bricker: But so does Moore, and you don’t complain about him.
Some liberal: Buzz off you meaniefaceconservativejerk, we’re discussing O’Keefe being a dishonest jerk
Bricker: See how no one ever actually addresses the point I’m making?

See the difference? My complaint is that by attacking O’Keefe for dishonest editing, the implicit complaint is that dishonest editing is the problem. But the liberal doesn’t really believe that, because when faced with dishonest editing intended to skewer the NRA, he shrugs.

The complaint about disliking dishonest editing is a phony one.

The REAL complaint is, “Okeefe’s used dishonest editing against an organization that does good work!”

But no one wishes to formalize that complaint, because it weakens the attack. Everyone can get behind the concept that dishonest editing should be the subject of reproach. But discussing the real complaint requires the additional agreement that ACORN was a good organization, doing good work, and was thus an unworthy TARGET of that attack, especially given its disastrously effective result.

You are saying this as if it’s some massive shock or evidence of some massive hypocrisy. Of course people are angry because of the result. That’s the only reason anyone’s ever heard of this jackass. People post random political screeds or whatnot on youtube dozens of times a week. There have been multiple feature films taking strongly conservative viewpoints (Ben Stein’s Expelled, for instance). I’m sure a fair number of them (and presumably, similar things with liberal viewpoints) are just as deceptive and dishonest as O’Keefe’s ACORN video. But they’ve all been forgotten by history. And thus, we’re not angry about them. The fact that no one is ranting about them is in no way tacit approval of their tactics.

Um… who, besides you, is conceding this point? The quickest way to defuse my point, it seems, would be to do what you’ve done: say “Yes, yes, we’ve all heard about O’Keefe because of the results. And we’re angry about him because of the results. That causes us to examine what he did, at which point we find massive dishonesty, at which point we rant about it.”

But apart from your concession, everyone else angrily rejects the preposterous notion that Moore and O’keefe could belong to the same taxonomic genera, much less be compared in a more fundamental way.

(THIS POST IS UNFINISHED, BUT POSTED HERE IN PART).

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

That’s a very interesting point you’re making, the idea that what ACORN was really guilty of was having too much of a “help the little guy” mentality… something which is itself probably a good thing, but which can be taken so far that it leads to ignoring the actual laws. And what’s really interesting about that interesting point is that it’s the first time it’s been mentioned in this entire thread. Partly because you’ve spent all your time trying to make liberals look like hypocrites, and partly because what ACORN was found guilty of in the court of public opinion, due to O’Keefe’s video, was NOT “trying a little too hard to help the little guy” but was “helping pimps get mortgages for houses where they could keep underage trafficked sex slaves” or whatever. This is another facet of the total dishonesty of O’Keefe’s approach, in which the crimes he (arguably) caught (entrapped?) ACORN people committing were deliberately designed to be as salacious and sensational as possible, which pretty much destroyed any chance of an actual reasonable discussion of the actual issue.

Yes, that’s a fair summary. And I have no doubt that O’Keefe designed his “sting” precisely to prey on that tendency of ACORN workers. He did not, for example, come in and say, “Help me set up a tax shelter to cover underage Central American prostitutes, and this fat envelope of cash is yours to keep!” He created a situation to prey on the “help the underdog” instincts of the average ACORN do-gooder, and by presenting it that way, got enough quasi-bites that he was able to parlay it into the sexsational scandal idea.

Kinda like getting a gun from a bank.

In other words, again, what’s the ACTUAL complaint? That he contrived to use ACORN’s weakness for helping the underdog against them? That he used a situation that could be spun into a worse idea?

Or that he did this against ACORN?

Frankly, I’ve never actually watched the originally released video, nor have I read any of the various reports from the groups who have investigated the issue. Certainly, it would not shock me if things went down basically the way you’re implying. ACORN was a big organization employing lots of people some of whom were probably just dumb or unethical, and some of whom were probably good, ethical people struggling really hard to make a difference under very trying situations where lots of gray areas frequently came up; who would at times end up making poor choices. And of course none of the above might be the case. But we don’t know.

No, and of course there’s nuance aplenty to be had here, as a sober and rational discussion of the situation would undoubtedly highlight.

I don’t think I was saying “emotionless and legalistic” was a negative. Rather, I was saying that in a situation like this, where people are already upset and passionate about the issue, and then you jump in and simultaneously (a) hijack the thread, and (b) call everyone a hypocrite, you should not be surprised that the vast majority of responses you get are NOT emotionless and legalistic.

I’m not surprised, I suppose, but I’m still a bit… amused, maybe, not note how quickly “fighting ignorance” goes out the window when one’s own sacred cows are being gored.

And editing is, at some level, in its very nature, dishonest. That’s why I keep coming back to saying that the burden of proof is on you to come up with an example of a liberal-leaning interview/documentary whose editing/dubbing/etc is anywhere near the same league of dishonest as the O’Keefe thing.

And I have offered up the spliced Charlton Heston shots from “Bowling for Columbine” in response. Moore’s voiceover says that ten days after Columbine, the NRA held a “rally” in Denver, and then proceeds to show Heston speaking at the annual meeting and again on different days, one of them a YEAR after Columbine in another state, all implying that this was the NRA “rally” he just spoke of.

How is that not, from an honesty standpoint, IDENTICAL to O’Keefe’s deceptions?

(2) And, while I haven’t gone in and counted, “most” liberals certainly don’t seem to be a fan of Michael Moore doing similar things, even in the vastly-less-dishonest and arguably-not-dishonest-at-all scene with the bank and the gun.

Look at the Moore thread. Look at the defenses offered for him.

Can you be more specific about which speech you’re talking about and the context in which it shows up in the movie?
.
.

Answer deferred pending further details of what you’re asking about.

Sure.

In Bowling for Columbine, the following sequence occurs:

[ul]
[li]Sobbing children outside Columbine are shown[/li][li]Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket over his head and saying “I have only five words for you: ‘from my cold, dead, hands’”[/li][li]Moore voiceover: “Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association.”[/li][li]Cut back to Heston, continuing, “I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says ‘don’t come here. We don’t want you here.’ I say to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we’re free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don’t come here? We’re already here!”[/li][/ul]

But…
[ul]
[li]The Denver event was not a “rally,” but the corporate annual meeting, whose date and time had been fixed for over a year, as required by law[/li][li]The NRA canceled all ancillary events (several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies)[/li][li]The “cold, dead hands” snippet was not from Colorado, but from a year later, at Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his thank-you speech for the gift of the musket.[/li][li]Moore’s edit (covered by a panning shot of the crowd) deletes Heston’s first sentence, which was, “As you know, we’ve canceled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that.”[/li][/ul]

Moore then cuts to Heston noting that Denver’s mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying “I said to the Mayor: As Americans, we’re free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don’t come here? We’re already here!” as if in defiance.

Actually, Moore put an edit right in the middle of the first sentence, and another at its end! Heston really said (with reference his own WWII vet status) “I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I’ve run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing.”

Moore cuts it after “I said to the Mayor” and attaches a sentence from the end of the next paragraph: “As Americans, we’re free to travel wherever we want in our broad land.” He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a photo of the Mayor before going back and showing Heston.

Moore has Heston then triumphantly announce “Don’t come here? We’re already here!” Actually, that sentence is clipped from a segment five paragraphs farther on in the speech. Again, Moore uses an editing trick to cover the doctoring, switching to a pan shot of the audience as Heston’s (edited) voice continues.

What Heston said there was:

"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."

"NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity."

(POST NOT COMPLETED - THIRD PART TO FOLLOW)

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

So if Bowling for Columbine had come out exactly as it was, but somehow it had kicked off a massive groundswell of anti-NRA opinion, and the NRA had been driven into destruction, would I be angry about it? Probably not. More like bemused. But I would also not be shocked if NRA members were even more angry about the movie, and spent even more time ripping apart the parts they found to be dishonest, than they actually were/did. In fact, it’s patently obvious that that’s how they would react.

Yes, that’s true – that’s how they would react.

But YOU wouldn’t react that way, and you explain why:

Note that there’s an important distinction, though, in that ACORN is an organization that is out there actually doing things for people, whereas the NRA is (in general) an organization that is out there lobbying for a position. ACORN being destroyed means (at least potentially) real impacts on people who suddenly have fewer resources to help them get home loans or whatever. The NRA being destroyed means that people who hold a reasonable political opinion on one issue suddenly don’t have that one particular group representing them to lawmakers. Apples and Oranges.

Well, for the person who can now own a firearm in Chicago because the city’s draconian laws have been eliminated, and thus saves his family’s lives when their home is invaded, I suspect the analysis may come out a bit differently.

You are, in other words, doing the same thing here: it’s an important distinction because ACORN is GOOD, and the NRA is, at best, good.

The real complaint continues to be that O’Keefe used his slimy and dishonest tactics against a target that (a) did good in its own right, and (b) helped elect Democrats as opposed to Republicans, which is also (self-evidently) a good result.

So when O’Keefe is excoriated for his tactics alone, it’s a fundamentally dishonest implicit claim: that his tactics are the problem. No, no – his tactics are forgiveable if used by someone we like against someone we hate. His tactics are not the problem: his choice of target, combined with his tactics, is.

As you point out above, if he had used honest tactics to sick ACORN, he might have been the target of grumbling and ire. So I agree that his target alone does not create the problem.

But at the same time, you agree (I hope) that his tactics alone do not create the problem.

So what I object to is the myopic litany of complaints about his tactics, as though it were principled disgust at all things chicanery. It’s not: it’s ire at a sacred cow being gored by a cheater.

And so far as I can tell, there is exactly one person in this thread willing to acknowledge the truth of that claim. (Well, two, counting me).

(DONE)

[elucidator]

Readers Disgust version: Liberal hypocrisy! Everybody come see the liberal hypocrisy!

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Readers Disgust version: Liberal hypocrisy! Everybody come see the liberal hypocrisy!

Bricker: Liberal hypocrisy! Everybody come see the liberal hypocrisy!
MaxtheVool: Yawn. So what else is new?
Crowd: No way! No hypocrisy here! Lying is always bad, except when we do it!

Yeah, would’ve gotten the post up quicker if I had gone this route.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

1. You still failed to show equivalency.

2. Even if you had, the defense of “But Billy does it too!” did not work when I was 5, and it does not work for you now.

[Algorithm]

@Bricker

But the liberal doesn’t really believe that, because when faced with dishonest editing intended to skewer the NRA, he shrugs.

Am I allowed to be liberal and think:
[ul]
[li]Moore is a dishonest prick.[/li][li]O’Keefe is a dishonest prick.[/li][li]Comments about Moore or his dishonesty belong in a thread that is about Moore, not one that is about O’Keefe[/li][/ul]

Or is that equivalent to “shrugging”, thus making me a hypocrite? Would it be okay to believe the above 3 items if I were a conservative?

[emacknight]

@Bricker

I always, always, always try to figure out the standard first and then apply it to the facts. When I defend or attack on policy, of course, it’s because I generally believe that conservative policy is better for the country than liberal policy. But I don’t flip-flop on issues based on who they will benefit.

I agree that most people do, to some degree or other. I don’t agree that I do.

Bullshit. If that’s true, there is a guy named Bricker posting in this very thread, call him on his bullshit. He is at this very moment exhibiting the very traits you are condemning, but you seem okay with it when he does it. Is it perhaps because he is a conservative that shares your views?

Unless that’s not what this is about. Personally I think it was a shitty attempt at a magic trick: *Hey, look at my right hand, over here, while my left hand pulls a rabbit out of my ass. *

And it was certainly successful. We’ve completely stopped talking about O’Keefe and the shit he pulled. You managed to make this about liberal hypocrisy, while managing to convince yourself that you aren’t a hypocrite. Well done.

@Bricker

At least, I try mightily not to, and if called on it, I’ll make every effort to undo it. But before posting (or speaking) a condemnation of anyone, I will always ask myself how I’d feel if the roles or the situation was reversed.

You’ve been called on it, man up.

@Bricker

Look back through my posting history. In the recent past, I’ve defended Obama and his staff on the charges that he did something improper or illegal with Sestak. I’ve pooh-poohed suggestions that Etheridge committed a “lock 'em up” type crime by grabbing the videographer.

Yup, Helen Thomas has a Jewish friend, and Michael Richards has a black friend, well done.

[emacknight]

@Bricker

So when O’Keefe is excoriated for his tactics alone, it’s a fundamentally dishonest implicit claim: that his tactics are the problem. No, no – his tactics are forgiveable if used by someone we like against someone we hate. His tactics are not the problem: his choice of target, combined with his tactics, is.

As you point out above, if he had used honest tactics to sick ACORN, he might have been the target of grumbling and ire. So I agree that his target alone does not create the problem.

Because it’s never been just about tactics. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of douche bags using the same shitty tactics. It’s what passes for journalism these days. It’s a matter of tactics plus results.

Consider: [A] Shooting a gun recklessly. Bad in it’s own right, but otherwise harmless and done frequently. ** Shooting a gun recklessly and causing someone to die.

When discussing case ** there will be plenty of complaints about reckless gun use. There are complaints BECAUSE someone died. All the other uses are annoying and worthy of some complaint, but when there is consequence there will be more complaints.

@Bricker

But at the same time, you agree (I hope) that his tactics alone do not create the problem.

So what I object to is the myopic litany of complaints about his tactics, as though it were principled disgust at all things chicanery. It’s not: it’s ire at a sacred cow being gored by a cheater.

And so far as I can tell, there is exactly one person in this thread willing to acknowledge the truth of that claim. (Well, two, counting me).

(DONE)

His tactics are shitty, and deserved to be criticized. We as a society need to stop encouraging that sort of shit. It’s only mildly funny when Jay Leno or Stephen Colbert do it. But it’s fucking sickening when it’s passed off as journalism.

O’Keefe describes himself as a journalist. He presented his videos as journalism. That is a key distinction between him, Colbert, and Moore. If O’Keefe has said, “hey look at this funny video I made mocking ACORN.” We could have all had a good laugh and moved on.