We are not bloggers, We are independent, peer reviewed journalists.
-- Wizbang, a far right blog.
There have been a number of new developments in the case of the Killian memos. I have been sitting on them for a bit, for two reasons: first, while they are interesting, they are not earthshaking, and second, because it is now very, very close to the election, and there are in general more important stories to pursue. Nevertheless, here are those updates, because they are remarkably instructive as to how the "scandal" came to be, in the first place, and indeed how most "scandals" are generated by the right.
They are also, in their predictable intensity, a part of a continued narrative that leads through political landscapes from the White House to the lower depths of the far-right movement, and illuminates a great many things along the way.
New TANG Document Released by the White House
Briefly.
As most everyone has heard by now, one of the documents released by the White House upon court order on Sept. 24th was, lo and behold, a memo from the Texas Air National Guard dated 19 February 1971. The memo, entitled Appointment and Federal Recognition and also marked "Coordination and File Copy", was typed in a proportionally spaced typeface. The memo has a letterhead indicating it originated in Austin, Texas. The authenticity of the document is unquestioned.
Considering that the entire framework of the forgery! claims against the Killian memos rests upon the notion that (a) such a typeface was impossible during the period when this memo was written, and (b) even if it was possible it was only using very advanced equipment, and (c) it was a dead-solid certainty that there was no possible way some military backwater like a Texas Air National Guard unit in Austin, TX, would have one, the discovery of this memo -- a half-page document marked "Coordination and File Copy", originating from Austin, unequivocally produced on a typewriter using a proportionally-spaced typeface -- might presumably have those that made the above assertions on what machines the TANG may or may not have had recheck their logic. To date, however, I am not aware of any mentions of this new piece of evidence among those making the previous typeface assertions.
The second and perhaps more important twist to the story is that, of course, this document came from the White House, and came only after a recent court order obliged them to release it. Though it is brief, this is hardly an insignificant document. The body of the document says, in its entirety:
Appointment and Federal Recognition
First Lieutenant George Walker Bush
[address censored]
I am pleased to forward for your personal files your appointment as a First Lieutenant in the National Guard of Texas and your Federal Recognition in the Air National Guard of the United States. This Certificate and order should be carefully preserved as they are the official documents confirming your Appointment and Federal Recognition.
So the memo in Bush's records noting Bush's appointment as a First Lieutenant, the document that admonishes "carefully preserve" as the second of the only two sentences on the memo, the one that clearly says on the top of the page that it is a "file copy", just happened to be missing until now. The one document from Austin, so far, that just happens to be produced on a device very similar to the one responsible for the storm of controversy surrounding CBS in the last few weeks.
As it turns out, it hasn't been missing at all; Paul Lukasiak and others have confirmed that this document was previously released back in 2000 as part of a previous Freedom of Information Request. It subsequently disappeared, without explanation, from the 200 pages of records released on September 10th and 17th, 2004, during the blistering GOP-led typeface attacks on the authenticity of the Killian memos -- when this single document would have largely disproven the GOP-led, blog-fed talking points -- only to reappear without fanfare under the most recent court order on the 24th.
The trail of coincidences, it is fair to say, is at least noteworthy. But, in the end, it was by far the least relevant of the two events of the week.
Preliminary Analysis by David Hailey, Utah State University
While the new document proving that the TANG in Austin, TX was using proportional-spaced typewriters at least as early as 1971 has been treated with a resounding silence, a preliminary analysis of the Killian memos by Dr. David Hailey of the Interactive Media Research Labs at Utah State has resulted in blistering attacks from the right against Dr. Hailey, personally, and Utah State, collectively. (Dr. Hailey explained in an interview with journalist David Neiwert that it was a preliminary document intended for use by him and his students; David's site Orcinus is a good starting point for Hailey information.)
The premise of the document is simply that the font of the Killian memos is not, in fact, Times New Roman; this is hardly surprising to anyone who has been following the story or who has actually looked closely, e.g. at a magnification greater than one, at the memos in question. Dr. Hailey asserted in the paper that the document font was most likely a derivation of a font family called Slab Serif, and quite probably a subfamily called, for obvious reasons, Typewriter, which has existed since at least 1923. In addition, Dr. Hailey described numerous pieces of forensic evidence that the device that produced the memos was, in fact, mechanical, due primarily to wear patterns and other type imperfections.
I did not link to the piece when it first arrived on the web because, clearly, it was a work in progress, and because even if solid it did very little to advance the overall story as already known. The Killian memo story has been pushed forward almost entirely by an unending stream of half-cocked assertions that, after mere minutes of research, do not hold up; there seemed little reason to jump on that wagon again, until the information was solid and ready for wider publication.
The paper linked on the IMRL website was, however, discovered by others. Because the paper was, in some places, perhaps confusing (at least, to the good folks at Wizbang) -- specifically, the first "discovered" draft did not describe the methodology used by the professor very well -- Wizbang! immediately published multiple stories declaring they had caught the professor red-handed in an attempted "fraud". (To add to the drama, Dr. Hailey continued to edit the draft document after they had discovered it, clarifying some of the points that his new readers were apparently finding confusing. This was particularly unforgivable, and taken as hard proof that Hailey, now "discovered", was "covering his tracks" and "attempting to save his job.")
An Attack Begins
Most of the invective from the original post calling Hailey a "fraud" and "charleton" has since been removed; it was removed as of October 4th, one day after journalist David Neiwert linked to them with a piece stating that Utah State's attorneys were strongly considering civil action against the bloggers. However, some remains:
And Professor, if you are reading this- and I know someone will mail it to you, I have downloaded your entire website as evidence and I saved screen caps of it, so don't bother delete it. I also had an interesting phone call with the head of your department. You might give him a call.
Did you think we were stupid?
More still can be seen in the comments to the original post [Ed. - the comment thread has now been shut down entirely by Wizbang] along with more evenminded posts that attempt (and fail) to add balance to what would soon become a rather ugly witchhunt. Dr. Hailey's contact information, including email address and home phone number, as well as that of his USU boss, were posted repeatedly at sites such as LGF, FreeRepublic, and ConservativeRevolution, alongside comments such as "haha... feel free to contact this joker...", resulting in the predictable acts of right-wing "journalism" against Dr. Hailey:
Since posting his findings on the Web, Hailey has for the past week received hundreds of e-mails that he now simply forwards to a file he created called "hate mail." The subject line of one e-mail reads, "In more ways than one, you are a fascist hack."
Hailey's plans are to read through the mail more thoroughly for another research project but not until he is "emotionally stable." He said he couldn't sleep Thursday night because people are attacking his credibility and credentials.
...
Without a request for an interview, USU President Kermit Hall called the Deseret Morning News with his own take on the situation.
"Whoever it is," Hall said of the e-mails, "is clearly trying to intimidate the university and trying to intimidate Professor Hailey."
Wizbang, at this point, was unapologetic, and the commenters were of similar opinion:
Freelance journalist David Neiwert wants us silenced for having the temerity to question an academic research project.
We are witnessing skirmishes, gathering into battles, and melding into a revolution against the elite who seek to rule us through their tight fisted control of information. And we are taking up arms (or pens, or keyboards) to join the fight.
Should we be labeled "jihadists"? Possibly. "Patriots"? Yes. "Libertarians"? Most definitely.
The lawyers they send to silence us will find their heads upon the pikes of the First Amendment. The Brokaws and the Rathers and their ilk should hope to find themselves so fortunate.
(Note to said lawyers and future judges: this is all figurative. And I hate to have to add this note, but based on past displays of ignorance, I feel I have no choice.)
Sued? Free speech man. Hey David Neiwert your a fucking wanker! How about trying to sue me for my opinion.
To quote John Kerry: "Bring it on."
Sharp words. Today, however, from Wired, an update:
At first, Hailey thought it was funny that his type-matching exercise ticked people off enough for them to write. By the second day, he was far from amused. By the end of the week, the tenured academic literally cried in relief when university officials called him to a meeting to express their support;
many of them had received numerous e-mails demanding his dismissal and calling him a liar or a fraud.
It's one thing to go to a university and point out that there are these problems," Hailey said. "It's another thing to start character assassination."
Wizbang owner Kevin Aylward says that was never the intention but admits the language used in postings got out of hand.
...
For Aylward, the matter's already moved to the back burner. He shut the comments down in the main Hailey thread. Guest blogger Paul wrote a coda, expressing dismay about the personal attacks that followed his first post.
"I was admittedly rude with my first post. With the benefit of hindsight, it was not my finest hour," he wrote. "But some of the things you people are doing is just beyond the pale."
Utah State Counsel Craig Simper, who has been monitoring Hailey's situation for the university, was struck by leaps to conspiracy theories and assumptions that a downed server meant Hailey was being fired.
"One of the bloggers claimed it's not the crime; it's the cover-up. This conspiratorial mentality is absolutely scary. It's incredible," Simper said, adding, "It's very chilling."
Simper said the university may suggest researchers posting work, particularly in controversial areas, change some procedures, such as clarifying when materials are in draft form.
Simper also was concerned about suggestions -- accompanied by phone numbers -- that university personnel be contacted at home.
"Just because you can get this information it shouldn't be widely published," he said.
For our part, we will refrain from judgment on whether or not the change of language and subsequent retractions posted on Wizbang were heartfelt, or prompted by contacts with attorneys from Utah State. It would seem, if nothing else, that what was heralded less than a week ago as a right-wing journalistic revolution has been pulled up abruptly. At least, this once.
The Journalism of an Ideological Movement
In these two small stories, as well as numerous others that have launched themselves with a vengeance immediately after the first debate, we have seen two self-contradictory ideas being spread by the far right. First, that they are engaging in fact-checking, by attacking personally and professionally those established journalists and academics who present information not compatible with their views. Second, that they are engaged in journalism through the injection of false, faked, or purely speculative "stories" via those same channels. The Killian memo controversy has morphed into a sort of Lord of the Flies tribal triumphalism among certain far-right blogs, in which they celebrate their success at getting their talking points adopted into the mainstream, with little regard for whether or not those talking points are actually factual.
This triumphalism, in turn, has further encouraged the production of an entire series of Drudge-like "stories" that, in cooler times, would be laughed from the national stage, and at minimum still require the audience to accept the far-right assertions of a universal conspiracy (against them) by politicians, academics, journalists, media figures, nearly all foreign powers, and several of the laws of nature.
Over the past few days, we have seen a number of new "stories" being flogged mightily among the same far-right blogs that are responsible for many past "scoops" and conspiracy theories. (Many of these sites have published "discoveries of chemical weapons in Iraq", for example, with clockwork regularity, only to drop the stories without correction or remorse when official channels report that tests revealed no such materials.) Most revolve around the first Bush-Kerry debate, and any possible explanations for Kerry doing so well and Bush doing so badly.
Foremost among them are the various "proofs" of cheating by Kerry. Kerry brought something to the lectern, something which you, I, and every TiVo-owning soul in the country was correctly able to identify as a pen, and we same observant souls were correctly able to identify Bush making the same extremely suspicious pen-obtaining motion. Mere videotape of this was, however, unimportant, as it was the Firm and Certain Knowledge of every right-wing paranoid nutcase freak that it was certainly something suspicious and illegal. (We should not be surprised; in a world in which any random three lights in the sky, when photographed poorly, become absolute evidence of alien invaders, the infuriating fuzziness of a television screen is bound to be a plot to prevent us from discovering... something sinister.)
Images soon emerged which settled the question. The reaction of "peer-reviewed journalist" Charles, at LGF, was representative:
As I wrote in another topic, I'm not apologizing for my part in the Pocketgate brouhaha. None of the bloggers who covered this have done anything that warrants an apology. The questions were legitimate, given the information supplied to us by mainstream media, even if the answer--supplied by the same mainstream media only after the questions arose--is that nothing improper took place.
And it's a bit depressing that this country is now willing to accept blatant flouting of debate rules, because it was "only a pen." Kerry was specifically forbidden to do this, by rules to which he agreed after much negotiation--but he did it anyway, apparently without even thinking.
So chalk another one up to the wunderkinds of the right that keep our journalistic standards safe each night. Alas, however, even with Charles' own begrudging nod to actual photographic proof, some of his readers would not be so easily deterred:
So please do explain why in the video this so called pen looked like white paper. Do we not believe our eyes?
That was NO black pen Kerry had. The DNC had the black pen pic ready to go - they knew Kerry would be pictured from every angle.... the Cheats!!
But, you know, there ARE pens that have digital display on their top ends, are radios, even some that are two-way radios, others that tell time...
So, perhaps we should take a closer look at the specific pen Kerry used and why Kerry used that pen [...]
I hear ya. I see that too. There's something in the other hand' the one not reaching into the pocket, and it's white.
...anyone else notice that the Kerry handlers knew
exactly what it was that he removed from his jacket (thereby violating the rules). Not just a "pen" but a "black pen."
How many people remember, days later, the color of a random pen they may have had on their person for no significant purpose? Just wondering...
The devastation brought upon our democracy by the pen was not ignored, either:
But I digress, it's not the pen...it's the blatant flouting of the rules that depresses me. As a New Yorker, who experienced 9/11 firsthand, I just can't begin to express my anger at this sort of un-American, protofascist behavior. Apalling. Sickening. More than a little depressing. Where is this country going? The toilet bowl, that's where. I feel like vomitting.
As an aside, this person must go to pieces on a daily basis. It is fortunate Kerry did not come out wearing a hat; some percentage of America would have dropped dead from the shock of it.
And simultaneously, yes, there erupted an attempted but short-lived storm of controversy over the fact that Kerry and the moderator, Jim Lehrer, shook hands and exchanged words. This, is was taken to mean, was evidence that Lehrer had provided the questions to Kerry in advance. Of course, the same handshake and pleasantries were exchanged by Lehrer and Bush, and were not taken as evidence of a sophisticated plot.
And so on, and so on, it goes.
Science, Politics, Intimidation, Censorship, and the Far Right
This, then, is a week's worth of examples of the sort of journalism that the far right chooses to put forward, triumphantly, as "fact-checking" mainstream sources. This is the future of both scientific research and professional journalism, as espoused by self-proclaimed leading lights of the conservative movement.
It is not difficult to imagine, after these past years, a world in which scientific peer review consists of accusing each and every dissenter of outrageous fraud; of organizing harassing telephone calls to them and anyone associated with them; of coordinated attempts to get anyone who posts research that disagrees with your own worldview immediately fired and removed from any further post in academia or elsewhere. Dr. Hailey's experience is anything but unique; other non-anonymous figures, such as fellow dKos resident maha, have received similar threats and phone calls for stating their own opinions, online and on television, in the Killian case. Some bloggers take pains to remain anonymous, for precisely those reasons.
In a more civilized but no less censorous fashion, of course, the Bush administration itself has repeatedly and consistently been accused, usually by the involved scientists themselves, of simply censoring or canceling scientific studies from the EPA and other government entities which would put White House policies and "factual" assertions in unfavorable light. It was recently confirmed that the administrator of Medicare threatened to fire the program's chief actuary with termination if he released his cost estimations to Congress in advance of the Medicare restructuring bill being considered by -- cost estimations which were double those the White House was asserting to the Congress at the time. (Investigations showed the pressure on the actuary to be, comfortingly, "not illegal.")
Pseudoscience, newspeak, conspiracy theories, and flat-out lying have become staples in the ideology of the new "movement" conservatism, from the White House to the farthest-flung true believers. Objectionable scientific research, such as on the effects of global warming, the evidence of human evolution, as well as simple facts of history, such as America's various past dealings with the Hussein regime in Iraq, are simply denied, point-blank. Images of the coffins of American soldiers are censored; reports even of the numbers of Iraqi civilian casualties are censored.
As a growing number of politicians, academics, and journalists have noted, these are not constituents of "conservativism", at least not directly, any more than they would be of overreaching liberalism. They are torn from a more primitive philosophy that has little to do with fiscal responsibility, or social mores, or any of the other cultural or national definitions of "conservatism" itself. Simply put, it is not conservatism. To call it such, as many conservatives themselves are beginning, however meekly, to point out, is merely another lie.
And so, we look for another name, and find one waiting for us.
In his ongoing series, journalist David Neiwert quotes Robert Paxton's astonishingly definitive work, The Anatomy of Fascism, and highlights Paxton's compelling and succinct "foundations" of this primal movement, perhaps the best description available:
In that sense, too, fascism is more plausibly linked to a set of "mobilizing passions" that shape fascist action than to a consistent and fully articulated philosophy. At bottom is a
passionate nationalism. Allied to it is a conspiratorial and Manichean view of
history as a battle between the good and evil camps, between the pure and the corrupt, in which one's own chosen community or nation has been the victim. In this Darwinian narrative, the chosen people
have been weakened by political parties, social classes, unassimilable minorities, spoiled renters, and rationalist thinkers who lack the necessary sense of community.
These "mobilizing passions," mostly taken for granted and not always overtly argued as intellectual propositions, form the emotional lava that set fascism's foundations:
- a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions;
- the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual, and the subordination of the individual to it;
- the belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against the group's enemies, both internal and external;
- dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effect of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences;
- the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;
- the need for authority by natural leaders (always male), culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny;
- the superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason;
- the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group's success;
- the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group's prowess in a Darwinian struggle.
-- The Anatomy of Fascism, pp 40-41.
Note, again, that this list is an academic description of fascism, not conservatism.
The list should be chilling.
I have chosen an inflammatory title for this essay, an offensive title, with full deliberateness. It is not a description of the present; instead, in a crude four words, it paints the pencil-lines of both a surprisingly near past, and a chilling, fragmentary vision of a dozen possible futures that could mirror it. We live in a time when words have been almost completely stripped of their power, on both sides, and it sometimes takes a force of nature, or a momentary invocation of a true and universal evil, to jar the consciousness awake into considering what the rest of the words mean.
I now drop you, the reader, into a place probably very different from where you thought I would at the beginning.
Look around. The landscape is the same as it was at the beginning of the post.
Only the lighting has changed.
And Professor, if you are reading this- and I know someone will mail it to you, I have downloaded your entire website as evidence and I saved screen caps of it, so don't bother delete it. I also had an interesting phone call with the head of your department. You might give him a call.
Did you think we were stupid?
Paul - Right on, brother! You are just abso-frickin'-lutely righteous for exposing this lame ass shill.
Maybe we need to find out which mail order campus gave him his PhD as well.
Death to all who oppose the blogosphere. You will be assimilated.....
good work! i checked out the open web folder and there's a lot of stuff there. anything else incriminating? i have a friend on the faculty at USU and i'll ask him if he knows anything about this guy.
looks like a good case for a professional ethics violation.
Here's his email address
dhailey@english.usu.edu
haha... feel free to contact this joker...
dhailey@english.usu.edu
I got here through Power Line.
Excellent Job!
Keep it up.
ConservativeRevolution.com posted this guy and his boss's home phone numbers. You just gotta love bloggers.
I see it. You nailed him. His liberal weenie knees are shaking, and even the patches on his tweed coat have sweat on them. I will write a letter to that department head. And a letter to the school newspaper.
I wrote the head of Prof Hailey's department telling him to look into the forgery. I encourage everybody to write him.
jsmitten@english.usu.edu
and cc David Hailey at
dhailey@english.usu.edu
I just submitted the link to Charles' Blog on Professor David Hailey to Eye Witness News at number of TV stations in Utah, please do the same where you live.
No doubt any future employers of Mr. Hailey's will be made aware of his prediliction for fraud.
Consequences, my good professor, consequences.
I'm sure we all wish David Hailey good luck in his new career. Maybe he'll try banking next.
Oh lookie! even a phone #!