Roger L. Simon: Yellowcake or Yellow Journalism?

I woke up this morning to a report on Drudge about Dr. Ayad Allawi personally shooting some fascist (excuse me, "insurgent") prisoners in cold blood with a pistol a few days before taking office as Prime Minister of Iraq. Disturbing news indeed--I didn't want to believe it. Allawi seemed like an intelligent and tough-minded(in a good way) guy to me when I had seen him in television interviews.

Also, I was wondering because the whole thing seemed rather vague with anonymous witnesses telling all to a Sydney Morning Herald reporter named Paul McGeough. (Well, at least it wasn't Robert Fisk).

Then I came upon Tim Blair's post RUMOURS REPEATED. Things started to make a little more sense to me. Tim linked to Iraqi blogger Zeyad who wrote back on July 1:

Another widespread and preposterous rumour is that Ayad Allawi has been showing up at IP stations and executing criminals himself, and I have heard this one from a very large number of people. [bold mine]

Blair also noted how ABC had also jumped on this unsubstantiated rumor bandwagon, blasting it out on their website. [Aren't they the ones usually knocking Drudge for that?-ed. Hey, he gets more hits than they do.]

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has issued a denial. They say Allawi never carries a gun. I don't know the truth of this obviously. Not too many direct sources on the matter here in the Hollywood Hills. And there are about as many possibilities as there are pills in my Lipitor bottle -- and I have a three month supply. Allawi (or his allies) may even have instigated the rumor himself to give the PM "street cred." And speaking of street cred... until I know better... in this post (Joseph C.) Wilsonian world... I am more willing to believe the blogs like Zeyad and Iraq the Model than I am the press.

UPDATE: Should Paul McGeough's membership in this organization be factored into our view of his report? It doesn't mean he's wrong, but it certainly means he has a bias. [Don't you?--ed. Yup.]

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Roger:
Whether the story is true or not is beside the point. The MSM has decided Bush must go and the war is wrong. Allawi is aligned with the enemy so any rumor ,true or not, will be thrown out.If Allawi was against the Iraqi government they would ignore the story. This is simplistic and cynical but the Wilson story and how they handled it is a prime example of how the MSM works and they won't treat Allawi any differently.

Roger:
I apologize, Dr. Allawi.This man has put his ass on the line and the least I can do is call him by his proper name.

Hmmm, at least one conflict between the Sydney Morning Herald story and the Australian ABC (not sure if it's any relation to ABC in the US) story--the SMH story says all were shot in the head, the ABC story says one guy was shot in the chest or neck. Considering that the source for the ABC story is the SMH writer this is pretty curious.

This is a new born baby meme parented by the "anonymous but trustworthy" sources and midwifed by the oh so trustworthy type of journalist that we've come to know and love. Details of baby's birth can't be given out just yet (note that the date of birth is still uncertain). That's because Dr. Allawi's schedule for the days in question has not been fully determined. Should Dr. Allawi be able to provide witnesses placing him at another locale on those days then expect to see a followup story citing a the "faulty memory" of the witnesses or "translation difficulties", but always without a retraction.

Should Dr. Allawi not provide definitive proof of something not occuring then baby meme will become toddler meme with the subtext of "have we replaced one monster with another". This will grow week by week accompanied by "the Iraqi people are no better off today than under Saddam" meme running alongside.

Even if this particular Rosemary's baby is successfully smothered in the crib, you can expect an octuplet sibling to grow in some dank basement like a mushroom, constantly nourished by these "journalist's" daily output. Watch for this crap to start showing up in the US papers within days, always hidden under the pretext that "it is being reported".

If Dr. Allawi ever decides to plug someone, I hope he starts with the appropriate journalist. It would help more than shooting a terrorist ever would.

We are seeing first hand the usual "power-challenge" dialectic which has obtained in the Middle East since everyone can remember. You can

Grass-fed beef might free you of that Lipitor, Roger - it's lower in cholesterol than chicken or fish, and tasty too.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has issued a denial. They say Allawi never carries a gun. I don't know the truth of this obviously.

Let's think for just a second: how plausible is it that Chalabi travels around Iraq in its current state unarmed? I certainly wouldn't. Assuming for a second that he doesn't normally carry a gun, he likely has a dozen or so armed Iraqi guards, any one of whom would likely hand over his pistol if asked, in addition to whatever security the coalition provides.

This report may or may not be true, but saying that "Allawi never carries a gun" is about the weakest possible basis for denial of this story.

The man would have to be a veritable Terminator to achieve six dead and one wounded before one of his American security stopped him,they would have issued him with the A team and given them instructions to keep him out of trouble.

Seems to me an anti-war type would be supportive of Allawi, since success for him would 1) end the war sooner, and 2) foster a democracy, and since democracies don't war with each other, make for a less war-like world.

The first thought that came into my head, and it's still there, is that I have heard speculation that the next wave of media frenzy will be the attempt to de-legitimize Dr. Allawi and the entire interim government.

The Western press is very gullible to Arab disinformation (see also Israeli/Palestinian conflict) because they refuse any attempt to truly understand other cultures.

Roger, even by your standards of refusing to believe any information that doesn't mesh with your prejudices, and smearing any sources of that information, this is a new low.

Paul McGeough is a fine, widely respected journalist, who has been in Iraq since before the war and has been writing about the middle east for years before that. No doubt, in the past you have unknowingly repeated stories that he has broken that cast light on the evils of Saddam's regime or the nature of the Islamicist threat, which of course you didn't question in the slightest because they supported your prejudices.

If you read the article (which you clearly haven't) you would see that it is extremely carefully reported and worded. McGeough is absolutely transparent about who his sources are, what they told him, and the circumstances in which they provided information. He sought comment from the appropriate authorities, and, indeed, in at least one case the response tended to confirm that there is substance to the allegations.

But, typically, you won't even confront the information in the article, instead preferring to smear the writer.

Your "explanation" doesn't even make any sense. Zeyad reported a similar story a few weeks ago as a rumor. McGeough has written an account that is based on multiple independent sources who claim to be eyewitnesses. But because it had previously surfaced as a rumor, you then assert that McGeough and the ABC are just repeating the rumor.

Does that mean that if it hadn't been circulating as a rumor before the independent reporting, the independent reporting would somehow have more authority? That is the only way that your reference to Zeyad makes any internal sense ... and it's self-evident nonsense.

And to any sensible observer, the fact that the nonsense originated with a cheap propagandist like Tim Blair is itself a measure of the seriousness of the story: Tim Blair always tries to spin away bad news about Iraq ... that this is the best he can do is a measure of the apparent solidness of the reporting.

And to round off this crap with a little homily about finding blogs more reliable than mainstream media ... well that's just laughable.

By the way, do you actually have any evidence that McGeough is a member of the organization whose website you linked to? Your link demonstrated that the organization happened to re-print one of his stories on its web site, but I can't see any claim of membership. His name does not, for example, appear on the list of "supporters". Nor does his name come up in a search of that web site in any other context than his reporting being cited or reproduced. You should provide your source or retract ... like a member of the grown-up media.

Roger:
Wilson is coming out to defend himself.He is appearing on McNeil-Leher on Monday alomg with a Memberof the 9-11 commision on Monday. My guess is it will be Rockafeller. I wonder how he will spin his story on how his wife had nothing to do with him getting the assignment while the memo says thatshe said he would be perfect for the job. Or how he knew about the forgery 8 months before the government had the proof. This should be interesting.

From McGeough article - Neither witness could give a specific date for the killings. But their accounts narrowed the time frame to on or around the third weekend in June - about a week before the rushed handover of power in Iraq and more than three weeks after Dr Allawi was named as the interim Prime Minister.

Sure Mork - extraordinarily credible, except that they can't even name the date. Why not, Mork? Possibly because they're terrible with dates? Or it was such a common place occurence that they just didn't note it at the time?

Maybe you can fertilize this drivel and get it to grow somewhere but I don't think you'll have much luck here. Feel free to try though, it's fun to watch someone make arguments without a single verifiable fact. I'd say you're just as credible - and credulous - as McGeough.

Mork of course is Tim Blair's pet Troll.They never manage a line like, "Excuse me Mr Simmon, but do you not think you could be in error?",no it is always the usual adolescent playground trollisms.Do they get given a template,just change the dates and names according to the rant?
I blame their glands.

Mork:
As I said in my original post I have no idea whether the story is true or not.But don't you find it odd that neither one of the "witnesses" could remember the date of the killings. There memories were very detailed about all that happened.I know that violence is common in Iraq but if I had seen President Bush shoot down 5 prisoners 5 to 8 weeks ago I think I could tell you the date, time, and what color tie he was wearing. Wouldn't you?

But don't you find it odd that neither one of the "witnesses" could remember the date of the killings.

Not really, Kevin. For one thing, the story suggests that these folks didn't find what happened all that remarkable.

For my own part, I find that unless I record something in a diary at the time, I have trouble remembering exactly what day things occured on, even as little as a week later. I confront this quite frequently in accounting for my time at work ... if I don't write something down at the time, I usually have to check emails and computer logs to remember what day I did what, even though I could tell you pretty precisely what it was that I had done.

So, the account in the story: that they couldn't specify the date but were able to narrow it down to a period of a couple of days three or so weeks ago, rings true to me.

Not a good analogy KevinP,Mork is one of those who will remember President Bush doing just that,it will be all over Australia by Sunday.

Mork, please direct me to the "grown-up media" you follow -- sounds much better than the one I'm aware of. Retractions and corrections -- ya know, on hugely significant topics, involving the inability to simply accurately convey a few lines of a commission's report, or the contents of a two-page memo -- are rare and usually extracted with great difficulty any more. Not saying anything askance about the journalist in question -- but sadly and truly the major media have variable credibility on Iraq for those with any background and access to other info.

I don't think Blair "spins" bad news from Iraq (in any case, the real bad news seems to be for Arab nationalist fascists, and the pernicious Arab political status quo in general, which suits me just fine). He does however mock some of the more outlandish errors and distortions (plastic turkeys), usually in a light vein.

The interim govt. did quickly reinstate the death penalty, though it seems unlikely the PM would be the one carrying it out -- but perhaps time will tell. The ferocity of Allawi's determination to finish the civil war tracks with the story, but Allawi's effort to simultaneously build institutions makes it seem unlikely. I haven't yet seen much info on how the Iraqi justice system is handling things since July 1, and whether they've yet passed sentence on anyone.

Allawi has alarmed some in hawkish quarters with amnesties and other carrots, and will surely give opportunities for those suddenly and mysteriously fastidious about harsh government measures in Iraq to exhibit their refined moral sensitivity as he deals firmly with Iraq's internal enemies (presumably not usually in the manner alleged here).

Mork,
"I have trouble remembering exactly what day things occured on, even as little as a week later."
Not knowing ones arse from ones elbow is not exactly a good advertisement for Trolldom,you should really get this short term asphasia treated,leave yourself a note.

Do you actually have anything to say about McGeough's article or Roger's post, Peter, or are you only interested in having a flame war with me?

I'm up for either, but Roger may prefer that we don't use his site just to hurl insults at each other.

BTW - whoever's writing your material ... well, you should ask for your money back.

After reading Mr. McGeough's interview with Maxine McKew of the Australian Broadcasting Company, please put me in the highly skeptical column.

McGeough's sterling witnesses couldn't even come up with the date of the alleged execution. In a police security complex, being close enough to hear every word spoken between PM Allawi and his interior minister (that is pretty damn close) - the odds of these "witnesses" being highly-trusted employees of the Iraqi government would have to be pretty high. And the odds of them NOT knowing the date of the alleged executions is small to nothing. Like, it isn't every day that a PM is going to pop seven terrorists in front of at least 17 people ("about a dozen" Iraqi policemen, four Americans, and the Iraqi interior minister).

But being fuzzy on the exact date makes it difficult for a defense based on a travel diary.

After that alleged demonstration, how likely is that two out of twelve identifiable cops are going to rat out a guy like PM Allawi to a Western reporter?

The two "witnesses" provided too much detail for the level of protection they demanded from Mr. McGeough. They can tell the exact minute the PM started his tour of the complex, they can repeat verbatim the words spoken between Alawi and his interior minister, they can count the number of eyewitnesses and their nationalities, but they can't recall the date?

These are the kind of things I forget. What day I had tuna for lunch. What day I went to the dentist.Was it saturday that the Dodgers beat the Angels 2 to 1 or was it sunday?But if I had seen the leader of Iraq whip out his pistol and go eastwood on a bunch of prisoners I would remember everthing. There account was very detailed so this wasn't just a ordinary working day at the office. How was your week Honey? Oh , nothing much, a few DUI's, a liquor store hold up, some paperwork...... oh yeah, I saw Dr. Allawi whip out his pistol and execute 5 prisoners!. Wow, when did that happen Dear? Oh , I don't know, I think I can narrow it down to 3 weekends ago but I am not sure, you know this stuff where leaders of countries do their own executions are no big deal and you know how my memory is, sheesh.

From the ABC (Australian Broadcast Company) interview with the inestimable Mr. McGeough:

MAXINE McKEW: "Your sources of course will be sought out by other news agencies after tonight."

"I've given undertakes that I would protect their identities absolutely and I have to stand by that."

Mr. McGeogh obviously deserves every bit of the esteem and honor that would be due to a person of ambassadorial rank. In fact, I believe I will give him the same respect that I reserve for Ambassador Joseph P. Wilson IV. On the basis of this interview and his article he certainly deserves it.

Kevin - maybe you're right ... it's certainly possible that I would remember the date if I saw something like that ... obviously I wouldn't know.

But, then again, I'm not necessarily even conscious of the exact date unless I need to write it down. Sitting here now, I could not tell you the exact date unless I checked a calendar (which I just did ... my guess was one day out).

I just don't see that as something that undermines the story. I find the questions in the last para of mrp's post a lot more significant.

But, you know, McGeough cites actual names of the people that were allegedly killed. It won't be too hard to at least find out whether those folks are alive, or whether they were in custody at the time and happen to be dead now.

Mork,Ive Already commented, as you so politely pointed out to Roger(If you read the article (which you clearly haven't)or don't you remember? The story has the distinct whiff of gorganzola to it, with more holes.
Please don't come the Don Vito with me, your material and your memory won't stand it.

Mork:
You keep trying to use your(and mine for that matter) ordinary day to day forgetfullness and try to compare that to seeing something as dramatic as a leader killing 5 people. And this happened weeks ago. Are you telling me that if you saw a multiple murder 5 weeks ago you wouldn't be able to sit down and figure out what day it happened.If I was a reporter and I had 2 seperate witnesses who couldn't remember the day that this action happened I would start to get a little suspicious.The fact that reporters are so willing to print anything that sheds a black light on anything that that could portray the new government in a bad light is nothing new. It could be true, but I would need better eyewittneses then that. By the way, Jason Blair was a respected journalist at the most respected paper in the states. That did not stop him from making stuff up or printing rumours or half truths.

Hopefully, a helluva lot more than 6 dead Syrian and Iraqi terrorists can be produced with a little effort. I would be sadly disappointed if we weren't killing 6 a day.

Well, Kevin, as I said, I don't know whether I'd not the exact date if I saw something like that. You don't, either, because it's just a long way outside our experience.

But the rest of your post makes it seem like you've already reached the conclusion that this story isn't true, and you're working backwards to find reasons why that's the case.

"This alleged incident has every anti-Bush and anti-Iraq War angle except for Halliburton. Look what publicizing the story "accomplishes": discredits the leader of newly sovereign Iraq just a week after the transition of authority; discredits the US and especially Bush for having gone to war to unseat one tyrant and then helping to install another thug; implicates US in another Abu Ghraib-like scandal, with Americans allegedly witnessing the event and not attempting to stop the executions or blow the whistle afterward; gives fodder to Moore Democrats and maybe even the Kerry campaign in the run-up to the conventions and election; shows the Iraqis as a hopeless lot who might as well have stayed Saddamized; implies a moral equivalency between terrorist jihadists and terrorist officials of new Iraq; belies the entire notion of bringing some democratic and moral governance to the Middle East."

I vote it "Best Troll Bait of July, 2004", too. The MSM won't be able to leave it alone and every time they refer to it another troll will ooze out from under its bridge.

Kevin P,
That rather knackers the " we all knew where we were when Kennedy was shot"thesis, I have had some horrendous experiences and I know exactly what day they were on.
But of course the argument is fallacious there are any number of corroborating events and people to that we cross reference with.

Rick,
Only low grade teeny Trolls so far,full of angst, acne and asphasia.
The intersting part of the story is that the Herald sought out the two men separately and interviewed them through a translator.Since the press have all through the war use Ba'athist translators it is obvious how this could have been staged without McGeough knowing.

Well no sense beating around the bush on this.PC is dead or should be when dealing with this new barbarism.
I believe it is just typical Mid-East rumour mongering and can safely be discounted.
BUT,frankly like Mr.Butler,I just don't "give a damn" if Allawi did exactly that.ANYONE who believes that Iraq can be freed of jihadi scum by holding hands and chanting is living in a state of denial.The Iraqi people want SECURITY;they have a right to SECURITY;Allawi has promised to deliver SECURITY.
Iraq is going to be ruled by the strong for a VERY long while until some day,inshallah,a true democracy evolves wherein the state by and of itself is the defender of the citizens.If the PM gets the reputation for defending ordinary Iraqis from these terrorist monsters, his popularity in Iraq will increase significantly.
I am NOT going to lose sleep over this and neither is ANYONE in Iraq.As far as I am concerned if this type of behaviour is liable to crush the foreign terrorists who are butchering everyone in sight,BRING IT ON.

Just for fun, I thought I'd look up Paul McGeough on Google; fortunately the first site that came up was the one containing the archive
of his columns for the SMH. Judge for yourself from the synopses whether he's got an axe to grind:

Saturday, May 15, 2004
The roots of revenge
The US now confronts a possible civil war of its own making, writes Paul McGeough.

Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Propaganda that no amount of spin can contain
The scandal of the Iraqi prisons is out of control, writes Paul McGeough.

Thursday, April 22, 2004
Tripping up on Iraq's crossed wires
The US is not only failing to engage with Iraqi politics to good effect, it is also engaging in tactics that will inflame things further, says Paul McGeough.

Wednesday, April 21, 2004
A force for resistance
Members of Iraq's US-crafted police force and civilian defence corps face a demoralising battle to get their authority respected by their fellow citizens, as Paul McGeough reports.

There's lots more. He could easily be reporting for the BBC on the non-capture of the Baghdad Airport.

The Middle East is a notorious breeding ground of all sorts of preposterous and insidious rumors. It is Conspiracy Theory Central. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are widely considered gospel truth. The Middle Eastern press makes Michael Moore look like Edward R. Morrow. I read recently how the Iranian government-controlled media was busily convincing its populace that the Iraqi insurgency's bombing campaign is actually secretly engineered by agents of the U.S. and Israel. Sadly, scads of Middle Easterners believe this outlandish theory.

In this kind of, shall we say, truth-free atmosphere, partisans don't hesitate to manufacture new rumors daily. Reporters must pay special care not to irresponsibly repeat such rumors without verifiable evidence. Saying that somebody told you something is true, but you can't divulge their identity, is quite rightly the most spurious type of evidence. It's inadmissible in court. Scientifically speaking, it's the equivalent of an unrepeatable experiment. Independent confirmation should be required before repeating such a libelous rumor.

There seems to be a suspiciously loose standard here. Let's say that two anonymous witnesses told a reporter that they saw President Clinton, say, or President Bush shoot five people. If a paper were to publish an article based entirely on these "eyewitness" accounts, without any other corroborating evidence whatsoever, and even without the witnesses' identities so that we could adjudge their relative probity, the paper would rightly face the direst approbation. (Well, maybe not if Bush was the subject.)

And yet it is deemed okay to base a story on such limited evidence because, well, I can only surmise because Allawi is not a Western leader.

Ironically, though, if Allawi had never been associated with the West, but rather, was Saddam Hussein's handpicked succcessor and had merely continued Saddam's bloody reign of terror, even merrily shooting scores of his people daily, the people crying foul right now would be blissfully complacent -- as they were throughout Hussein's regime (save for those who blamed the bleak state of Iraq on U.N. sanctions).

He could easily be reporting for the BBC on the non-capture of the Baghdad Airport.

Umm, he did. He and Fisky agreed that the Americans weren't there when they were.

He also reported that Saddam was clean-shaven on the first day of his trial, when he was sporting a full beard.

McGeogh is a propagandist, peddling rumors, and refusing to name his sources or make them available to anyone else for verification.

It would be interesting to see how much libel law Austraia has derived from UK law,because here if he made a similar unsubstatiated claim McGeough and his paper would end up sued down to their shorts.
Would McGeough be willing to test his claims in court?

PeterUK — Oh, that's easy. The evil industrial petroconspirators at Halliburton provided the gun oil to clean Allawi's pistol.

The really important question is, did he make them wear plastic trash bags and pose for embarrassing photographs first...

I see that Mork has gone to the trouble of getting himself a Typekey login in order to continue his favorite hobby. That's some serious trollin'.

That being said, I have found that the only way to deal with a persistent and obsessive troll like Mork is to totally ignore whatever he says. He is the poster child for the Do Not Feed the Troll campaign. This is his method of debate: ask mainly rhetorical or "have you stopped beating your wife yet" questions; if it looks as if his "points" are going to be demolished by someone, simply change the subject or do reverse-questioning or simply state that the opposer is obviously incapable of understanding the subject in question; at some point, switch sides so that he is arguing the very opposite of what he was arguing several comments up -- and pretend that this is what he was arguing all along; attack anyone who questions him. Anything to keep attention on himself and off anything else.

Anyway, you have all been warned. We haven't seen Mork around Tim's site lately, probably because everyone there got bored with him and then I banned all his IPs. Enjoy.

One possibility about this rumor I don't recall seeing is that the killings did not happen but Dr. Allawi 'planted' the rumor that they did. As one writer put it, 'Iraq is Rumor Central'. Rumors are often used by those in power as part of a propaganda campaign. In dealing with the Iraqis, it might just be helpful to be perceived as a person who will casually execute opponents.

My own suspicion is that the PM is too pragmatic to have killed a whole bunch of serious prisoners without extensive interrogation first. Iraq-style interrogation. (After which they might not have been alive to kill.)

So, I have doubts that the story is entirely true, but tend to believe the reporter's story is not knowingly false.

Glenmore — Your "So, I have doubts that the story is entirely true, but tend to believe the reporter's story is not knowingly false" begs the question of whether McGeough lived up to his responsibility to verify whether his claims are affirmatively correct. In short, did he check out their stories in any way and find any validating information?

Instead, he falls back on a standard hack journalist's weasel wording. He doesn't report that Allawi actually killed anybody, he simply reports that other people said Allawi killed them. From a factual, liability and grammatical standpoint, he is reporting what these alleged witness said, not what Allawi was determined to have done as verified through any efforts of McGeough's own. Of course he offers no evidence as to the veracity or even the existence of these supposed witnesses, either. In other words, "not knowingly false" becomes "hey, I don't know for sure that this is a lie, and you can't prove anything to the contrary." It's the equiavlent of writing, "Roger Simon, criticized by observers for being a fascist warmonger," as opposed to writing "fascist warmonger Roger Simon."

Unfortunately, McGeough has a documented history of writing stories that prove to be incorrect or actively falsified.

I'm experiencing a strong case of deja vu. Isn't this exactly how the "wedding party" incident was reported by the credulous Eric Westervelt on NPR? "I didn't actually visit the site myself, by some guy I never met who is 250 miles from here, in the middle of the desert told me over the phone that it happened, so it must be true. Right? Why would he lie to me?"

Paul McGeough seems to be a bitter anti-war shrillster, but where in the heck were his editors?

"Not knowingly false" is a mighty low threshold for publishing articles in allegedly serious media outlets like the SMH and The Age.

What I find incredible is the absolute irresponsibility of this story. A media outlet that publishes a story accusing a foreign leader of personally murdering people has an obligation to be absolutely sure about the veracity of what it writes. We don't know if this story is true based upon the information published, but if it is untrue, I hope that a libel action is commenced immediately against the reporter.

Reading Mork's brainfarts took back to the pre-Typekey days when joseph trolled the back alleys of this site.

'How many times are Western journalists going to fall for this stuff?'-Fresh Air

With respect,they are not 'falling for'anything.Either they just don't give a (blank) for ANYTHING other than a few colume inches in the propaganda outlet du jour or they are themselves dedicated warriors in the media propaganda campaign.
The days have long passed when anything the media reported could be accepted with just a grain of salt.Now increasingly the output of the MSM more closely resembles the efforts of Herr Goebbels.Truth is nice but NOT if it interferes with the goals of those who run the media systems.

Dennis,Pull yourself together man,this is no time to get softhearted,try a bit of weeding.

Syl,You are right.
It is the absolute certainty of the rightness of that bias that leads to the incompetence.That has long been the problem with the doctrinaire,"We are right"..."Why is it going wrong then?"..."Because it isn't being done properly,we'll get it right next time"..."Isn't that what you said last time?"
It is like the ancient alchemists trying to turn lead into gold.

July 16, 2004: Yellowcake or Yellow Journalism?

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post