Who is really to blame for the Hurricane Katrina disaster? Get ready for it...






... the answer couldn't possibly be what BerwynIrish is hinting at, could it...?






I'm not kidding, brace yourselves......






ACORN!

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
Who is really to blame for the Hurricane Katrina disaster?

Damn, I guessed illegal immigrants, Osama Bin Laden and the French.
I'm so clueless about American politics. :(

Greenwald adds some perspective: The distracting benefits of ACORN hysteria

Quote:
...
ACORN has received a grand total of $53 million in federal funds over the last 15 years -- an average of $3.5 million per year. Meanwhile, not millions, not billions, but trillions of dollars of public funds have been, in the last year alone, transferred to or otherwise used for the benefit of Wall Street. Billions of dollars in American taxpayer money vanished into thin air, eaten by private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, led by Halliburton subsidiary KBR. All of those corporate interests employ armies of lobbyists and bottomless donor activities that ensure they dominate our legislative and regulatory processes, and to be extra certain, the revolving door between industry and government is more prolific than ever, with key corporate officials constantly ending up occupying the government positions with the most influence over those industries.
...
So with this massive pillaging of America's economic security and the control of American government by its richest and most powerful factions growing by the day, to whom is America's intense economic anxiety being directed? To a non-profit group that devotes itself to providing minute benefits to people who live under America's poverty line, and which is so powerless in Washington that virtually the entire U.S. Senate just voted to cut off its funding at the first sign of real controversy -- could anyone imagine that happening to a key player in the banking or defense industry?
...
If one were to watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh -- as millions do -- one would believe that the burden of the ordinary American taxpayer, and the unfair plight of America's rich, is that their money is being stolen by the poorest and most powerless sectors of the society. An organization whose constituencies are often-unregistered inner-city minorities, the homeless and the dispossesed is depicted as though it's Goldman Sachs, Blackwater, and Haillburton combined, as though Washington officials are in thrall to those living in poverty rather than those who fund their campaigns. It's not the nice men in the suits doing the stealing but the very people, often minorities or illegal immigrants, with no political or financial power who nonetheless somehow dominate the government and get everything for themselves. The poorer and weaker one is, the more one is demonized in right-wing mythology as all-powerful receipients of ill-gotten gains; conversely, the stronger and more powerful one is, the more one is depicted as an oppressed and put-upon victim (that same dynamic applies to foreign affairs as well).
...

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
This is why I really wasn't so concerned earlier, superpig, about addressing the substance of the attacks. I know these people and they are always, ALWAYS full of shit. From the video tapers to Fox News to the ground troops. Superpig convinced me to address the substance anyway (which I really didn't do fully, but there was much more to what I've said than the likes of Eelco would have you believe), and look what I get for my efforts. Nothing but straw man arguments.

You definitely deserve better than that. Thank you for taking the time to engage with me and address the videos themselves - it is much appreciated.

At this point, I'm finding ManaStone's link to be very persuasive. Why did Giles and O'Keefe word their answers quite as carefully as they did? O'Keefe's last sentence in particular puts very strong emphasis on the idea that none of the offices actually kicked them out, but that doesn't mean none of them refused to help, or that none of them called the police. If we assume that his intentions are to expose ACORN as corrupt, and it were actually true that none of them refused to help and none of them called the police, then he would have made the strongest claims possible. Why say anything weaker? Presumably, actual lies are the line he can't cross, or he risks getting done for libel.

It's possible that the police report is fake, but that seems a very quick route into conspiracy theory territory. That O'Keefe and Giles are being misleading is a simpler and more likely explanation.

That said, as much as I think we're now in agreement, I'm going to refute some of your other points anyway - partly for my own practice and partly because it might benefit you or anyone else reading. If you consider the matter closed at this point and don't want to spend time continuing to argue, I understand [smile]

Quote:
The guy is a veteran right wing activist

As true as that is, it doesn't necessarily mean he's going to be wrong. Activists will dedicate more time to trying to expose flaws in their target, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll make up flaws. The fact that he's a veteran activist should mean that he's better at what he does. What matters most is whether he's amoral, because that determines the extent to which he'd be willing to mislead people.

Quote: I found this from her to be very interesting

Quote:
1) Ask A Question: What if a “prostitute” and her alleged law school boyfriend walk into ACORN seeking housing for an underage brothel to fund his future congressional campaign?

2) Do Background Research:

1. Learn as much about ACORN housing procedures and protocol as possible.
2. History of ACORN and their effect on the United States

3) Construct a Hypothesis: ACORN is corrupt and it is in their nature to promote and disguise illegal behavior.

4) Experiment: Baltimore, DC, Brooklyn, San Bernardino, and…

5) Analyze and draw a conclusion.

How embarrassing for her and the ACORN haters. Numbers one and three are a real hoot. I kid you not, I just looked this up, and before I saw this, I already intended to point out that the video makers ran their "sting" operation not because they had any insider information that ACORN is involved in illegal activities, not because they had a hot tip that ACORN is systematically supporting/enabling/dabbling in prostitution, but because they hate ACORN.

That doesn't actually matter, though. I imagine that most homicide detectives become homicide detectives not because they have insider information on how homicides happen, not because they have a hot tip on a homicide, but because they hate that people kill each other.

Conjecture and refutation is how knowledge works. The hypothesis that "ACORN is corrupt and it is in their nature to promote and disguise illegal behavior" is a perfectly valid hypothesis; if ACORN is not corrupt, then it is also a fairly easy hypothesis to refute. Extreme positions like that are often better hypotheses precisely because they're easier to refute. Again, the problem is not that she approached the situation with a bias towards a particular outcome - we always approach an experiment with a theory or outcome in mind, because without one we couldn't have designed the experiment - but that she apparently refused to acknowledge that the experiment didn't confirm her bias. That is, as they say, bad science.

Quote: Original post by superpig

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
The guy is a veteran right wing activist

As true as that is, it doesn't necessarily mean he's going to be wrong. Activists will dedicate more time to trying to expose flaws in their target, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll make up flaws. The fact that he's a veteran activist should mean that he's better at what he does. What matters most is whether he's amoral, because that determines the extent to which he'd be willing to mislead people.

I agree but... these days right wing activists don't have a sterling reputation for honesty, especially when it comes to ACORN, which they've gone after for partisan purposes for years now. That said, ACORN should have responded to the ongoing assault by doing a better job of policing itself. When the right's attempts to target it for voter registration fraud failed (blew up in Alberto Gonzales face actually), ACORN leaders should have been on the look out for assaults from other directions.

For what it's worth, I realize I never addressed the videos. I didn't have ample time on the day you posted the links to them and when I finally had time others had already responded in ways I found suitable so I let it be. I agree with BerwynIrish on this issue, so I was happy to let go of that part of the thread.

Quote: Original post by superpig

Quote:

Quote: I found this from her to be very interesting

Quote:
1) Ask A Question: What if a “prostitute” and her alleged law school boyfriend walk into ACORN seeking housing for an underage brothel to fund his future congressional campaign?

2) Do Background Research:

1. Learn as much about ACORN housing procedures and protocol as possible.
2. History of ACORN and their effect on the United States

3) Construct a Hypothesis: ACORN is corrupt and it is in their nature to promote and disguise illegal behavior.

4) Experiment: Baltimore, DC, Brooklyn, San Bernardino, and…

5) Analyze and draw a conclusion.

How embarrassing for her and the ACORN haters. Numbers one and three are a real hoot. I kid you not, I just looked this up, and before I saw this, I already intended to point out that the video makers ran their "sting" operation not because they had any insider information that ACORN is involved in illegal activities, not because they had a hot tip that ACORN is systematically supporting/enabling/dabbling in prostitution, but because they hate ACORN.

That doesn't actually matter, though. I imagine that most homicide detectives become homicide detectives not because they have insider information on how homicides happen, not because they have a hot tip on a homicide, but because they hate that people kill each other.

Bad analogy. What would you say of homicide detectives who target an individual for constant murder investigation out of hate for the target? There's no body, there's no crime that they have been assigned to investigate, there's nothing but the detectives' hatred for the target.

Quote: Conjecture and refutation is how knowledge works. The hypothesis that "ACORN is corrupt and it is in their nature to promote and disguise illegal behavior" is a perfectly valid hypothesis; if ACORN is not corrupt, then it is also a fairly easy hypothesis to refute. Extreme positions like that are often better hypotheses precisely because they're easier to refute. Again, the problem is not that she approached the situation with a bias towards a particular outcome - we always approach an experiment with a theory or outcome in mind, because without one we couldn't have designed the experiment - but that she apparently refused to acknowledge that the experiment didn't confirm her bias. That is, as they say, bad science.

You seem to agree that she's trying to pass herself off as applying the scientific method. If not then skip the rest of this. Science doesn't start with an out-of-the-blue hypothetical "what if..." like she started with. It starts with an observation. Your hypothesis is a potential explanation for the observation. She had no observation. She had only the hope that she could embarrass ACORN. Whatever else you may say about the merits of her methodology, it is not the scientific method that she is using. This goes back to the first point in this post. Nobody had or has any reason to suspect ACORN of whatever the hell they're supposed to be up to. They are simply on a mission to embarrass or destroy ACORN. It sickens me that she used this perversion of the scientific method to try to legitimize her participation in the vendetta.

All those other kinds of evidence we've mentioned that they don't have against ACORN? The story would be a little different if something like that had kicked this off. But no, this was kicked off with the intent to manufacture evidence of arbitrarily chosen wrong-doing. ACORN's only major problem is that they drew the short straw when American conservatives were looking for their next target.

[Edited by - BerwynIrish on September 21, 2009 12:12:35 AM]

I owe Eelco an apology. While I still don't appreciate the straw men and the subsequent avoidance of copping to it, it was wrong of me to lump him in with the "ground troops" of the conservative smear machine who are "always full of shit" and it was childish of me to say I was laughing at him.

Irony alert!

Part 1: 25 Senators who voted to cut off ACORN opposed contracting reform in 2006 ...23 of the very same House members who voted to strip ACORN of funding had opposed a measure to investigate scandal-plagued military contractor Blackwater, who had been implicated in killing 17 Iraqi civilians.

Part 2: Whoops: Anti-ACORN Bill Ropes In Defense Contractors, Others Charged With Fraud

Quote:
...
The congressional legislation intended to defund ACORN, passed with broad bipartisan support, is written so broadly that it applies to "any organization" that has been charged with breaking federal or state election laws, lobbying disclosure laws, campaign finance laws or filing fraudulent paperwork with any federal or state agency. It also applies to any of the employees, contractors or other folks affiliated with a group charged with any of those things.

In other words, the bill could plausibly defund the entire military-industrial complex. Whoops.
...
Lockheed Martin and Northrop Gumman both popped up quickly, with 20 fraud cases between them, and the longer list is a Who's Who of weapons manufacturers and defense contractors.
...
The weapons manufacturers might have a better line of defense in court, however. Immediately after the bill passed, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), a constitutional whiz, noted that the measure appeared to be a "bill of attainder" -- specifically targeting a company or organization or individual -- and is therefore specifically barred by the Constitution. If it's not targeted at one group, then Northrop Grumman is in trouble.
...

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish

Quote: Original post by superpig
That doesn't actually matter, though. I imagine that most homicide detectives become homicide detectives not because they have insider information on how homicides happen, not because they have a hot tip on a homicide, but because they hate that people kill each other.

Bad analogy. What would you say of homicide detectives who target an individual for constant murder investigation out of hate for the target? There's no body, there's no crime that they have been assigned to investigate, there's nothing but the detectives' hatred for the target.

As long as the detectives aren't building a false case, or unduly harassing the person, I have no problem with them targetting that person. I might have a problem if there's a shortage of detectives and they should be spending time on other cases instead, but if, realistically, they wouldn't have the motivation to work on any other case, then it's better than than nothing.

Quote:

Quote: Conjecture and refutation is how knowledge works. The hypothesis that "ACORN is corrupt and it is in their nature to promote and disguise illegal behavior" is a perfectly valid hypothesis; if ACORN is not corrupt, then it is also a fairly easy hypothesis to refute. Extreme positions like that are often better hypotheses precisely because they're easier to refute. Again, the problem is not that she approached the situation with a bias towards a particular outcome - we always approach an experiment with a theory or outcome in mind, because without one we couldn't have designed the experiment - but that she apparently refused to acknowledge that the experiment didn't confirm her bias. That is, as they say, bad science.

You seem to agree that she's trying to pass herself off as applying the scientific method. If not then skip the rest of this.

Yep, I agree that she is.

Quote: Science doesn't start with an out-of-the-blue hypothetical "what if..." like she started with. It starts with an observation.

No, that's not possible: for, how could we decide which observation to start with? We always, always start with theories, for without them we're unable to interpret the world. The theories tell us what to bother observing.

This is the fundamental operation of science, the kernel of the scientific method: conjecture and refutation. Karl Popper explains it in more detail than I ever can.

ACORN strikes back: ACORN sues filmmakers

Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- ACORN filed suit Wednesday in Baltimore, Maryland, against two filmmakers who secretly recorded videos embarrassing to the agency, claiming the pair violated state law by recording their conversations without permission of the employees involved.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction preventing the further distribution of the videos.

The recordings represented "clear violations of Maryland law that were intended to inflict maximum damage to the reputation of ACORN," the community organizer's attorney, Arthur Schwartz, said. "Unfortunately, they succeeded."

Defendants James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, conservative activists posing as a pimp and a prostitute seeking advice on setting up a brothel with underage girls from El Salvador, recorded the videos in Baltimore and three other cities.

Breitbart.com, registered to Washington Times conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, is a co-defendant in the lawsuit. Contacted by CNN, Breitbart had no comment on the suit. O'Keefe and Giles did not respond to requests for comment.
...