Update 1/8/11 8:31AM PST: All Four Media Matters Attempts Completely Blown Apart.
Update 1/5/11 16:32 PST: Just returned from work, then hit the gym, did some plinking in the backyard with my AK, played with my twin pit bulls and then prayed. Not to worry, any valid entries will be examined. I will certainly look at Media Matters' three new entries as time permits, probably reviewing in detail over the weekend. Promise.
The contest closes on 2/15, so new entries -- so long as they follow the very simple rules -- are still accepted. The reason there are a couple of basic ground-rules (and I'm open to suggestions as to how to gauge a "lie") is that I'm simply looking for the Fox equivalent of a Rathergate memo; an Al Qaqaa series of hit pieces; or a John McCain lobbyist affair fabrication. Game-changers, in those cases, all designed to turn elections. Real meaty lies, if you will.
Media Matters' big entry is that Elena Kagan didn't ban the military from Harvard Law? Everyone knows she did -- that's why it was such a huge issue at her confirmation hearing! And we have the DOD emails to prove it. That's the best lie they can come up with?
But I'm still hoping someone will come up with a real lie by Fox News Channel reporters. Just one! That's all I ask!
Update 1/4/11 17:31 PST: Media Matters pwnt. Hard.
Below, I've posted the actual emails from DOD recruiters that were entered into the Congressional record.
• Were military recruiters allowed to interview students on campus? No.
• Were military recruiters given any mechanism for interacting with candidate students on campus? No.
• Were military recruiters given permission to visit the campus in any recruiting capacity? No, they were refused permission.
• Were military recruiters even allowed to send in job openings for posting on a freaking law school bulletin board? No.
• Did the military believe their access to students was cut off? Yes.
• Did Kagan herself believe she had effectively cut off access to her students because of DADT? Yes.
• Was Kagan openly "hostile" to the idea of the military recruiting on campus? Yes.
• Did the military spend months trying to figure out how to get access to recruits? Yes.
• Did the military finally have to escalate, getting the USG to threaten to cut off $300 million in funding, before they could get access to students? Yes.
Recognizing their epic fail, Media Matters has posed three new "lies", which I will review as time permits. Remember, libs, the contest closes on 2/15. Considering only a handful of progressives have even figured out the very simple rules, you still have an awesome chance at winning the Krugerrand!
A couple of days ago, MSNBC media star Keith Olbermann appeared to suffer a Tourettes-like attack, cursing Fox News repeatedly on Twitter. His incisive message: the Fox News Channel is "100% bulls***".Knowing that FNC kicks the crap out of every other cable news outlet, which means Americans find it the most trustworthy source of information, I launched my One Krugerrand Fox News challenge. The first person to document one lie repeated by Fox News Channel reporters can win a 1-oz. Krugerrand worth around $1,400.
There are only a few simple rules -- like providing a link to a transcript or video on a trustworthy site. Even so, amidst the hundreds of responses I received from outraged progressives, only a handful of budding Marxists even figured out how to post an entry that conforms to the rules.
Well, with nothing better to do during the day than respond to bloggers' challenges, Media Matters took a shot at the gold. Some crackpot named Matt Gertz wrote the following earlier today.
Following Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court, several Fox News reporters falsely claimed that while she was dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan "barred" military recruiters from campus:
Megyn Kelly: "[T]he criticism of Kagan is that while she was dean of Harvard Law School, and she was dean in 2003, she decided to continue a policy of banning the military from the campus because they didn't like the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy."
Bret Baier: "The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee has asked the Pentagon about its recruitment efforts at Harvard while Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was dean of the law school there. Kagan barred recruiters in protest of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy."
Carl Cameron: "In the Clinton White House, she recommended compromised policies that worry conservatives over abortion and guns. As dean of the Harvard Law School, she made headlines supporting a controversial wartime ban on campus military recruitment."In fact, Kagan did not support a "ban on military recruitment" at Harvard Law, and Harvard law students had access to military recruiters during her entire tenure as dean. As we've
noted:Throughout Kagan's tenure as dean, Harvard law students had access to military recruiters -- either through Harvard's Office of Career Services or through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. Kagan became dean of Harvard Law in June 2003. In accordance with Harvard's pre-existing nondiscrimination policy, she barred the school's Office of Career Services (OCS) from working with military recruiters or the spring 2005 semester after the U.S Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that law schools could legally do so. During that one semester, students still had access to military recruiters via the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. During the fall 2005 semester, after the Bush administration threatened to revoke Harvard's federal funding, Kagan once again granted military recruiters access to OCS.
Indeed, according to data we obtained from Harvard Law School's public information officer, graduates entered the military during each year Kagan served as dean, and the number of graduates from each of the classes that could have been affected by the prohibition on Harvard Law's OCS working with military recruiters was equal to or greater than the number who entered the military from any of Harvard's previous five classes.
CNN accurately reported on Kagan's actions in this May 10, 2010...
Mr. Ross, you owe me one ounce of gold.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Media Matters is a suitably trustworthy site. I know, it's a stretch.
Now, do I trust the Defense Department or a Soros-funded, Marxist front group?
Because the Defense Department has over 800 pages of documentation that says Media Matters is full of crap. Mr. Peabody, set the Wayback Machine for June of 2010.
Before her confirmation, the Christian Science Monitor reported the real details of how Kagan's recruiting ban worked:
The issue does not lend itself to 10-second sound-bite questions or responses... [but] In 2004, Kagan barred military recruiters from using the law school’s office of career services to meet with students interested in military service... The action was controversial because it came at a time when the United States was at war in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
...In her statement announcing that military recruiters would be barred from the school’s office of career services, Kagan said: “I am gratified by this result, and I look forward to the time when all law students have the opportunity to pursue any legal career they desire...”
...Administration officials and other Kagan supporters stressed that a student veterans group agreed to help facilitate student access to military recruiters during this period... The clear suggestion was that Kagan’s policy change had no real impact on military recruiters. But the recent release of 850 pages of Defense Department documents tells a different story.
Polite and patient military recruiters were told by Harvard officials to call back later. They received this response again, and again, for weeks until the recruiting season had ended... “The Army was stonewalled at Harvard. Phone calls and emails went unanswered,” an Army recruiter said in a March 2005 memo. “The [career services director] refused to inform students that we were coming to recruit and the [career services director] refused to collect resumes or provide any other assistance.”
One Air Force recruiter’s memo concludes: “We shouldn’t allow [Harvard Law School] to play this game.”
A de facto ban is still a ban. And the DOD itself says it "was stonewalled" by Kagan's policy. Gee, this is a tough one. Do I trust the DOD or Soros Matters?
Matt, you've really outdone yourself this time: that was quite an epic fail you pulled off. No gold for you!
Next time, try one of Fox' big lies. Like this one. Oops. That was The New York Times. My bad.
As an aside, Matt, do I rate my own tag yet, like Jammie Wearing Fool?
Update: Yes! They gave me my own tag. Does this mean they'll apologize for their Dealergate fabrications now?
Update II: Matt Gertz gets up off the canvas to post a humorous screed entitled, "Doug Ross Still Owes Me $1,400 In Gold."
In it, he summarizes all of the key positions. Except one.
Curiously, he fails to mention the military recruiters -- the most important parties to the affair -- who say they were banned, "stonewalled" in their words -- from recruiting. They could not get any access to Kagan's students.
Furthermore, Kagan said she was pleased with that development. "Gratified", was the word I think she used. She was gratified that the military could not get access to students -- not because of anything the DOD had done, but because of a policy created by Bill Clinton.
I just pwnt Media Matters so hard I think I pulled a muscle.
Update III: For the final word in this matter, let's go to Senator Jeff Sessions grilling Kagan, as documented in the Congressional Record:
01:02:03 I WOULD JUST SAY WHILE MY TIME IS -- IS RUNNING DOWN, I'M JUST A LITTLE TAKEN ABACK BY THE TONE OF YOUR REMARKS, BECAUSE IT IS UNCONNECTED TO REALITY.
01:02:17 I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AT HARVARD.
01:02:19 I KNOW YOU ARE AN OUTSPOKEN LEADER AGAINST THE MILITARY POLICY.
01:02:22 I KNOW YOU ACTED WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REVERSE HARVARD'S POLICY AND DENY THOSE MILITARY EQUAL ACCESS TO CAMPUS UNTIL YOU WERE THREATENED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OF LOSS OF FEDERAL FUNDS.
01:02:37 THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED.
Update IV: I suppose the ABA Journal, the DOD, and Senator Jeff Sessions are all "lying", too.
“I’m just a little taken aback by the tone of your remarks because it is unconnected with reality,” Sen. Sessions said near the end of his 30-minute question period, which he spent almost entirely on the recruiting issue. “I know you acted without legal authority to deny access to military recruiters...”
...“You did what DOD wanted [only] after they went to the university counsel and the president [of Harvard] and said [Harvard was] going to lose some $300 million in aid, isn’t that a fact?” Sessions asked... Kagan said the DOD’s request went through “a discussion,” and ultimately Harvard agreed to reinstate military recruiters’ access to the law school’s career office...
And from DOD emails entered into the Congressional Record:
To: Sullivan, John, Mr., DoD OGC, Koffsky, Paul, Mr., DoD OGC
Subject: FW: AF Phase I Letter to Harvard Background
I just got back and going through my e-mails . . . Harvard Law School is delaying and providing a ``slow role'' to Air Force's efforts to recruit during the Spring recruiting season. Seems they have delayed sufficiently in providing permission that the Season ending March 4th may already be ``too late''. Any advice? ...
Subject RE: Harvard Phase I Pushups
. . . checked with Army JAG Recruiting and Major Jackson provided the following.
``Hi, Ma'am--
The Army was stonewalled at Harvard Phone calls and emails went unanswered and the standard response was--we're waiting to hear from higher authority...
From: Carr, Bill, CIV, OSD-P&R
To: Dr. Curt Gilroy, SES, OSD-P&R
Subject: S: 3-22-06/Solomon Olive Branch--Or Not
...Dean Kagan is a case in point below as she reportedly ``encouraged students to demonstrate against the presence of recruiters . . . (and to) express their views clearly and forcefully.'' Not a true fan of ``equal in quality and scope'' it would appear. Despite that (or because of it) we'll want to reach out to academe to find a sober means of accomplishing our varied purposes within statutory intent, but we lack a venue . . . and AALS is too hostile to constructively . . .
Subject Harvard Law School
Thursday 10 March 2005
Sir, I just received a phone call from Mr. Mark Weber, Assistant Dean for Career Services, Harvard Law School. All my previous communication has been with one of his staff members, Ms. Kathleen Robinson, the recruitment manager. He stated that he was calling because he ``felt bad that they
had left us without an answer'' and wanted to pass on the contact data of the president of the Harvard Veterans Student Group. He stated that the faculty had still not decided whether to allow us to participate in on-campus interviews and that the official on-campus interview program for Spring 2005...
... I asked him if I could at least post a job posting via their office and he said no. He stressed that I could contact interested students via the Harvard Veterans Student Group but that his office could not provide any support to us...
...By delaying until the last minute (or never providing an answer) to the AF request to recruit, the AF is unable to organize and schedule the recruiting effort in time to participate in the HLS program which ends on March 4, 2005. We shouldn't allow HLS to ``play this game.''...
Executive Summary:
• Was the military allowed to interact with students via -- or even post job openings -- at the Law School? No.
• Did the military believe their access to students was cut off? Yes.
• Did Kagan herself believe she had effectively cut off access to her students because of DADT? Yes.
• Was Kagan openly "hostile" to the idea of the military recruiting on campus? Yes.
• Did the military spend months trying to figure out how to get access to recruits? Yes.
• Did the military finally have to escalate, getting the USG to threaten to cut off funding, before they could get access to students? Yes.
Media Matters == pwnt.
| Some edumucation for young progressives | ||
 Whom Despots Fear |  What really happened |  To the Congress: |
227 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 227 of 227Doug Ross has shown his true colors as a lying, censoring bully. I had submitted a lengthy post discussing the issue at hand at 4:13 pm EST today (1/5/11). But apparently because I had used reason and facts to back up my points, and because reason and facts are contrary to Ross's worldview, my post has now disappeared as though it had not been submitted in the first place. I wonder how many other well-reasoned arguments submitted here have been similarly censored...
Two days and STILL no response to Tomorrowsprogressives challenge. Even after repeated prodding. The only thing doug said is he is glad to be featured on 'a socialist hate-site.'
You honestly don't have a single thing to to say to show that you don't owe tomorrowsprogressives for satisfying the conditions of your bet? What a coward!
At least with the Media Matters issue you tried to backpedal and explain yourself... Now you realize what a stupid idea this was in the first place, don't you, Doug.
@Anon 6:10,
I just got back from work and you can tell from my posting schedule over the last, I don't know, forty years, that I don't blog during the day. I blog in the evenings after I return from work, lift weights, plink in the backyard with my AK, play with my twin pit-bulls and pray.
The update in this very post, which you didn't read, states that the contest closes on 2/15. At last count, there are a total of six entries. Four from @mmfa. The first was easily dispatched (everyone knows Kagan banned the military from recruiting at Harvard, that's why $300 million were at stake).
@AnnaLovesBooks also had a valid entry in the first thread, and I still have not identified the lie she stated was there. Obama's quoted statement was intentionally ambiguous and LGBT groups misinterpreted it along with Fox, if indeed they misinterpreted.
@Anon - 5:06. No posts --- none --- have been deleted except for a couple by one particular person who I know and who got emotional. That's it. Several people, liberal and conservative, have reported missing comments, but I didn't delete them, nor would I.
As time permits, I will address the additional @mmfa items.
Cheers, Doug
my main problem is with your ability to judge this fairly. The way you have judged the primary quote from Media matters has demonstrated this.
CNN: Kagan banned military recruiters from using Harvard Law's Office of Career Services, but not from campus.
Sessions: Kagan banned military recruiters from using Harvard Law's Office of Career Services, but not from campus
The source Ross cited to support Fox: Kagan banned military recruiters from using Harvard Law's Office of Career Services, but not from campus.
And everything I have read thus far stats the same thing.
But how you you respond? you just will keep digging until you will fine SOMEONE who will say something different, then presto chango you win. You judging this challenge is like the couch of a basketball team also being the head Referee.
BTW, if you said that I have banned clowns from coming to my birthday party and you have the testimony from one or two clowns that said that they were not allowed at said party then is you first statement true?
Using simply logic I know it could be, in order to confirm that I have banned clown then you will need to prove that my verbal and or written policy is that all clowns should be banned.
The testimony of DOD recruiters does not prove your case, you need to go further and show that they where BANNED as a method of policy. Your own link from the christian science monitor works against you, for one second do you believe that the SCM would leave our the HUGH BOMBSHELL that they were BANNED? Of course they would not, and in the link it simply does not say they were banned!
So, until you have shown that then I don't see any reason why I would put up my submission.
Wow. I haven't seen a ass kicking this fast since Parley stepped into the ring with Tyson.
Uh, schmucks, apparently you didn't get the memo. One of the commenters here said what you apparently can't understand:
###
On the statement of Megyn Kelly: "[T]he criticism of Kagan is that while she was dean of Harvard Law School, and she was dean in 2003, she decided to continue a policy of banning the military from the campus because they didn't like the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy." - Well, was there criticism of Kagan in this regard? Seem to me there was, therefore Kelly’s statement is TRUE.
On the statement of Bret Baier: "The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee has asked the Pentagon about its recruitment efforts at Harvard while Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was dean of the law school there. Kagan barred recruiters in protest of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy." - Two parts here - Did the top Republican on the Committee ask the Pentagon about its efforts? I see nothing showing he didn’t, so that part is TRUE. Did Kagan bar recruiters in protest of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy? Seems the evidence indicates that was the case, so no lie there. And if that was not a lie then it would mean on the whole Baier’s statement was TRUE.
Carl Cameron‘s statement: "In the Clinton White House, she recommended compromised policies that worry conservatives over abortion and guns. As dean of the Harvard Law School, she made headlines supporting a controversial wartime ban on campus military recruitment."
- Two parts to this also… Did she recommend compromised policies on abortion and guns? Yes, so TRUE to this. And when she was dean at Harvard Law School did she make headlines concerning said ban? Yes, she did. Part two is TRUE also.
It would seem to me that Mr. Gertz should understand more about what he’s talking about before making such claims.
###
I will give you one simply way to Resolve this whole argument once and for all. Look at this quote.
Kagan banned military recruiters from using Harvard Law's Office of Career Services, but not from campus.
using logic, PROVE this statement is incorrect! Using only PROOF, refute this statement, if you can do that then you win! Also, you will prove CNN wrong to boot, so it would be double good news for you. I will personally praise George W Bush if you can do this, I will give to the GOP if you do this, I will even donate money to you if you do this!
All will be yours if you can PROVE that the statement
Kagan banned military recruiters from using Harvard Law's Office of Career Services, but not from campus.
is a lie.
@anon - 8:27p.
Easy. Read the DOD emails.
"[Harvard Law] delayed sufficiently in providing permission [for interviews]."
Recruiters asked for permission to visit and recruit.
Permission was denied.
The recruiters were NOT ALLOWED TO RECRUIT ON CAMPUS. PERIOD.
Permission was denied. They weren't even allowed to post on opening on the Law School bulletin board.
Get it? Am I talking slowly enough for you to understand now?
I am still waiting in your proof, if I look up dictionary.com I find the work Ban.
Verb
to prohibit, forbid, or bar
You need to show me where her policy was to prohibit, forbid, or bar, the military from the campus.
BTW, if it was that then it means any military recruiter would not be ALLOWED on campus, meaning campus security (or someone else) would be called in and would prohibit, forbid, or bar them. DO you really see this happening?
Also this must come as proof that this was her policy. Also, please attach the whole email from DOD or link to them, proof is not your words on a blog.
Schmuck, all of the DOD emails are on this original post. Confusing, eh?
If the military asked for permission and it was repeatedly denied, what do you call it?
I call that a ban on recruiters.
Case closed.
ok, I think I got to the heart of the argument, the statement
If the military asked for permission and it was repeatedly denied, what do you call it?
I call that a ban on recruiters.
Even if I was to say that was true, I dont think you have proved that but lets say for the sake of argument you did. How were they denied? Where they told that NO MILITARY RECRUITER would be allowed on campus? that is what we know as a BAN. have you proved that point? NO. For example, is a college has a Ban on Vodka then no vodka will be allowed on campus, if they ban clowns then no clowns or people dressed like clowns will be allowed on campus. It is really simply and I will ask it again, where does it say that they were BANNED from coming on campus. I will make it even easier, where does it say they were only allowed to come on campus?
Sorry Doug but you really need to pay up. They've got you fair and square, at least be man enough to follow through on your bets.
Typical liberal science. Doug, you will pay-up by consensus, not by fact.
Just keep changing the rules Doug. We know that's how you operate. First it was just "one lie". Now it's "game changers".
Best regards from the land down under. Where we look at American political commentators and think "What fucking clowns."
Doug, 2 points:
1) The denied military recruiters access to the OFFICE OF CAREER SERVICES, NOT THE ENTIRE CAMPUS. THAT is why this whole bit is a lie. Fox "reporters" said "campus," not "office of career services." Big difference.
2) Could you clarify which Fox News personalities you consider to be reporters so we know exactly which lies to point out?
- Please read the latest update to this post. The military recruiters were denied permission to visit the law school. Period.
- @Idontgetit - I could care less what that group says. Read the DOD emails. All independent branches of government were prevented from recruiting at HLS. In fact, the emails reveal they weren't given even so much as the contact info for that "veteran's group" until it was too late.
Read the emails.
And don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out of the blog.
I have zero tolerance for the people who are destroying our country -- who mock and ridicule the Constitution, who rip the fabric of the greatest country ever seen on the face of the Earth.
These socialist nuts must be defeated and crushed before our society collapses due to their failed welfare-state policies.
THIS is exactly why your offer is a scam
I have zero tolerance for the people who are destroying our country -- who mock and ridicule the Constitution, who rip the fabric of the greatest country ever seen on the face of the Earth.
These socialist nuts must be defeated and crushed before our society collapses due to their failed welfare-state policies.
After reading that does ANYONE believe that your post about fox news lying will be treated fairly? You are exactly like most of those in the far right. You shout buzz words but hate details.
If you were watching a basketball game and you heard the refs shouting this at another team do you believe that would be a fair game?
The GOP cloaks itself as conservative but then this happens.
http://bit.ly/4GCM1d
of course the standard response is to start talking about democrats, but in Logic you hear that is what is called a Ad Hoc Attack. The GOP cannot stand on its own record so it must bash democrats!
Your whole site a a sham good sir, there is simply no counter views and you only seem to be drinking the Fox news and GOP cool aid.
Come on, Doug... I'll take on your delusion that "stonewall" is the same as "ban" and that "career counselling office" is the same as "the entire f***ing campus" and that Media Matters "lied". In that case, let's drop that topic and "refeudiate" my claim.
Thank you for responding to my post. I just wonder why it doesn't show up in the comments. Did you delete it?
Doug, the DOD e-mail you quote in your last update proves once and for all that recruiters were NOT banned from campus:
"He stressed that I could contact interested students via the Harvard Veterans Student Group but that his office could not provide any support to us..."
You damn yourself with your own evidence. Pay. Up.
"On the statement of Megyn Kelly: "[T]he criticism of Kagan is that while she was dean of Harvard Law School, and she was dean in 2003, she decided to continue a policy of banning the military from the campus because they didn't like the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy." - Well, was there criticism of Kagan in this regard? Seem to me there was, therefore Kelly’s statement is TRUE."
Are you serious with this? Really, Doug? Is Kelly's assertion of criticism the issue here?
Good grief, man. Put away the tap shoes and show some dignity. We're embarrassed for you.
Of course, I have now looked at your blog and you have clearly become quite comfy embarrassing yourself as a manipulative pure partisan.
Reason left this barn a long time ago, so I guess it's time I shut my yap and let you get to your usual personal insults... embarrassing.
I have zero tolerance for the people who are destroying our country -- who mock and ridicule the Constitution, who rip the fabric of the greatest country ever seen on the face of the Earth.
Wow. Talk about being your own worst enemy.
Doug,
Hi from Canada.
Pay up, you coward.
- a polar bear
Doug,
Hi from Canada.
Pay up, you coward.
- a polar bear
All of Media Matters four attempts at documenting FNC lies are pwnt here, in this monumental beclownment of the Soros-funded, Marxist front group.
Dear genius: this is my last response to you, since you're exceedingly dense. Even Media Matters has not given up on this particular challenge after seeing all of the DOD emails.
Each one of the following questions have been answered by the emails, which describe a military recruiting ban by Kagan and HLS.
• Were military recruiters allowed to interview students on campus? No, they were explicitly denied permission.
• Were military recruiters given any mechanism for interacting with candidate students on campus? No. The third-party organization information was not provided them in time to recruit effectively.
• Were military recruiters given permission to visit the campus in any recruiting capacity? No, they were refused permission.
• Were military recruiters even allowed to send in job openings for posting on a freaking law school bulletin board? No.
• Did the military believe their access to students was cut off? Yes.
• Did Kagan herself believe she had effectively cut off access to her students because of DADT? Yes.
• Was Kagan openly "hostile" to the idea of the military recruiting on campus? Yes.
• Did the military spend months trying to figure out how to get access to recruits? Yes.
• Did the military finally have to escalate, getting the USG to threaten to cut off $300 million in funding, before they could get access to students? Yes.
Case closed, Mr. Rocket Scientist.
Your explanations and protests continue to show that Media Matters is correct. Many other sources reported that recruiters were still allowed on campus; they just didn't have the cooperation of the OCS that they used to. Your continuing to point to this information to supposedly support your position does not change that FOX falsely reported that there was a full campus ban of recruiters. Media Matters met your dare, so man up and pay up.
Post a Comment