A few preliminary comments to frame this story:
- Again, this is how the news media sets out to fix a Presidential election.
- Like so many of these incidents, by the time it has been spun, distorted and manipulated, the typical voter has no idea what really happened and lacks the time or interest to find out.
- The double-standards applied to smear Donald Trump in service of the Democratic party can only be described as nauseating, because it goes beyond unethical and beyond corrupt to truly sickening. This sort of thing has been going on for most of a decade.
- Because Ethics Alarms has to cover this [insert word for disgusting substance here] this blog and its author have to put up with constant accusations of “supporting Trump” and pushing right-wing narratives. I resent that, and I resent having to take time to discuss stories like this. I, along with everyone else (except that many of those everyones like the Left’s trashing of democracy) have been watching the mutated Left, also called the Axis of Unethical Conduct here, breach all previous standards of fair politics and journalism ethics in its determination to destroy and defeat Donald Trump. After all, he is, due to some warped cosmic sense of humor, the major obstacle to its ultimate triumph. This assault on the public’s ability to know what is happening around it is, as I have said repeatedly, the worst, most dangerous and most important national ethics scandal since Jim Crow, or maybe McCarthyism.
- I don’t want to write about this crap; I don’t have time for it, and doing so confers no benefits on me whatsoever.
With that off my metaphorical chest, here are the key points in the story. Characterizations may differ, but I am confident that what follows is accurate:
1. Last week, there was a wreath-laying ceremony for the 13 American service members killed at the Abbey Gate during the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal ordered by President Biden.
2. The withdrawal itself and the disastrous consequences of it are sore points with the Administration and the Democrats, and it has been “memory holed” as much much as possible.
3. For example, Biden has stated more than once that no servicemen have died during his administration. Because this easily-disproved misrepresentation has been uttered by Biden (and not Donald Trump, who lies all the the time, you know) the news media has excused it as a “speako.”
4. Neither Biden nor Kamala Harris nor any official representative of the White House had the courage or decency to attend the ceremony. Biden was relaxing on a Rehobeth beach, though to be fair, he was also working tirelessly to free the Gaza hostages. Neither Biden nor Harris even released live statements acknowledging the event.
5. The Gold Star families invited former President Trump to attend the ceremony, and he did. This made Biden and Harris look bad, and it should have.
6. The Axis alertly directed its propaganda arm, the mainstream news media, to protect Harris’s campaign by attacking Trump. Maggie Haberman, the pure partisan reporters who had built her career at the New York Times by savaging the former President before, during and after his Presidency, dug up a Trump-hating family of a Green Beret who died in action to shift the focus of the incident to reflect negatively on Trump as he honored the fallen soldiers rather than to reveal the callousness and incompetence of the Democrats who got them killed. The family conveniently complained for the Times’ purposes that Trump’s campaign had filmed Master Sgt. Andrew Marckesano’s gravesite without their permission and that Trump had stood in an area where campaign photography isn’t allowed.
7. The fact is that Trump’s photographers were given permission from the families at the ceremony. Marckesano’s gravesite was inadvertently caught in background of the video. The double standard is particularly revolting because Biden used shots of Arlington National Cemetery and flag-draped caskets in one of his political ads in June. The names on the gravestones are visible in the video as a caption quotes Biden saying “Donald Trump doesn’t know a damn thing about service to his country.”
8. Responding to the latest Haberman hit job, the families that invited Trump released this statement:
8. Then, following through on the next phase of the Axis project, Kamala Harris, who is habitually beneath contempt, had the gall two days ago to attack Trump for “politicizing” the event that she didn’t have the decency to attend, aying that she respects America’s war dead but that Trump doesn’t. (Who advises this woman?). In response, eight of the families of the fallen posted withering videos. Here’s one…
Here’s another….
9. So guess how the New York Times covered this humiliation of Harris (and itself, really)? This way:
Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!
And now, the crème de la crème! Senator Tom Cotton appeared on “Meet the Press” yesterday (It’s hard to believe that I never missed an episode when Tim Russert, a liberal journalist with integrity and professionalism, was the host, as I see what that program has become) and current hack host Kristin Welker‘s partisan agenda was on display as she tried to support Haberman and Harris:
WELKER: The bottom line, I guess, though, Senator, is it ever appropriate to make campaign content at military grave sites?
***
[REVISED Note: I previously wrote that “the photos have not been used as ‘campaign content.'” I was not aware, when I wrote that, of this Tik-Tok on Trump’s account. The video isn’t a campaign ad; I don’t know what you would call it. It is fair to call the video “campaign content,” but that’s not a term used in any of the ANC regulations.
The visitor rules require advanced permission for an “organization” to take photos (or video) of a ceremony under conditions where Arlington itself would be appearing to endorse the organization. I don’t see that being a reasonable interpretation here. If the families asked for Trump’s campaign to take shots, I cannot tell from the wording of the applicable regulations if that removes any violation. The main document at issue here is this one, regarding media at the Cemetery. The relevant provisions:
- “All visitors, including persons attending or taking part in memorial services and ceremonies, shall observe proper standards of decorum and decency while in an Army National Military Cemetery. Specifically, no person shall:
- “Engage in any orations, speeches, or similar conduct to assembled groups of people, unless such actions are part of a memorial service or ceremony authorized by the Executive Director.” [Trump did not.]
- “Display any placards, banners, flags, or similar devices within an Army National Military Cemetery, unless first approved by the Executive Director for use in an authorized memorial service or ceremony.” [Trump did not.]
- “Distribute any handbill, pamphlet, leaflet, or other written or printed matter within an Army National Military Cemetery, except a program approved by the Executive Director to be provided to attendees of an authorized memorial service or ceremony.” [Nope.]
The other relevant document is the Army Public Affairs Program handbook. It seems to prohibit political or campaign events, but unless the theory is that a candidate can’t even appear or participate in a ceremony with the invitation of the families involved, which I don’t thin holds up, then Trump didn’t breach this document either.
As far as I can see the law that supposedly prevents a campaign event at Arlington is the Hatch Act. There is no way what Trump did could be called a violation of the Hatch Act.
If Trump really had violated any law, you know the Biden Administration would rush to prosecute him. He didn’t. This was a smear job, like so many other we have seen.
Now back to “Meet the Press”:
COTTON: He didn’t take campaign photos there. These families, Gold Star families, whose children died due to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s incompetence, invited him to the cemetery, and they asked him to take those photos because as they told me yesterday when I spoke to Kelly Barnett and Darren Hoover, the parents of Taylor Hoover, who has Arkansas ties, they don’t get to go to the beach on Labor Day. They don’t get to have BBQs. This is their one chance to have a memory of their children to commemorate their service and to honor their sacrifice. They wanted President Trump there, they wanted to take those photos. You know who those families also invited? Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Where were they? Joe Biden was sitting at a beach. Kamala Harris was sitting at her mansion in Washington, DC. She was four miles away. Ten minutes. She could’ve gone to the cemetery and honor the sacrifice of those young men and women, but she hasn’t. She never has spoken to them or taken a meeting with them.
Welker, who is really, really bad at her job—but historic! She’s the first female “Meet the Press” host, so it’s okay, see, that she’s terrible—-was reduced to a pathetic huminahumina retort….
WELKER: Well, they did meet with them during the dignified transfer! [So there!]They were with them during the dignified transfer.
Except that “they” weren’t. Biden was but Harris wasn’t, and Harris was the one attacking Trump. Welker was caught in a flat-out lie, sooooooo NBC lied to cover for her! Look…
No, Welker didn’t “imply” that. She stated it as fact. As fact. NBC could have said “We were mistaken. Welker incorrectly said that Harris attended the “dignified transfer,” and that was untrue. ‘Meet the Press’ apologizes for misinforming our viewers. Again.”
Doing that, however, would have too clearly admitted that Welker, like almost all of the NBC reporters (and ABC reporters , and CBS reporters, and MSNBC reporters, and CNN reporters, and NPR reporters, and The Times, and The Washington Post), sees her current mission as winning the Presidency for Harris and the Democrats, and misinforming the public is a necessary strategy in achieving that mission.
Is there a better word for all this than “nauseating”?
this one
Ethics Alarms 
I vote diabolical instead of nauseating.
If you don’t want to appear biased, you probably shouldn’t spend your first couple points irrelevantly crapping on the Democrats.
You also failed to mention the Army’s comment about the incident. Why?
Thor
The Army worked diligently to block the event and it took the Speaker of the House to intervene. Congress, not the Executive has oversight and management of military cemeteries. The secretary of defense and his generals are too focused on ensuring diversity and politics to worry about national defense.
The only people using this for political gain is Harris and the DNC. Had they not made a big stink about the family’s invitation to Trump none of the condemning videos of Harris and Biden would have been necessary.
Force a defense of a legitimate act through lies and deceit and be prepared to get skewered
Bingo.
You also failed to mention the Army’s comment about the incident. Why?
Because it was irrelevant and politically biased, just as you would expect? That would be my conclusion.
The families there had a clear right to permit Trump’s team to photograph them, and the so-called “ban” on political activities at ANC is a long-standing joke, because I have seen hundreds of photos depicting Arlington in campaign and political contexts over the years.
They also stated that the invitation of the former president was not done for political purposes, and how could it have been if they invited Harris and Biden as well? If they had all been photographed together and Harris had used the images in a campaign ad, I daresay no one would say “boo.”
This is the transparent double-standard of the Democratic establishment including, by the way, the Army, which has numerous Democrat supporting generals at the top of its ranks, elevated by the Democratic administration. Having them pan Trump’s presence there is totally predictable, and even if no photos had been taken, there still would’ve been complaints about his presence there. No doubt the Army would’ve probably found some pretext to claim he did something morally reprehensible even if he just showed up and prayed.
My judgement of your comment: Ignorant and biased. I recommend you do better.
It’s not politically biased or irrelevant at all.
Why not? Because you agree with it? Stating a conclusion without defending it is not how debate works.
If you want to take on Jack’s position, perhaps you should come better armed.
Because I agree with what? It’s odd to not include it when the story heavily relies on it.
The story doesn’t depend on it at all. The Army’s commentary is completely irrelevant. Trump in this case objectively did nothing wrong. If Biden or Harris had done exactly the same thing, no criticism, no Times stories, and of course nothing from the Army.
I disagree with everything you just said
I’d assume it’s pointless trying to convince you otherwise.
Your challenge: Explain what you disagree with using specific arguments and facts. If you don’t, won’t or can’t, then You won’t be able to comment here.
Why? So you can eventually ban me for not agreeing with you? No thanks. You’re obviously biased. The Army releasing a statement (which they rarely do) is of course relevant to the story. It’s insane I would even have to explain why, so I’m not going to
No, so you can explain your point of view and give readers and me a chance to respond. That’s not insane. That’s how discussions work. If there is some way the Army’s statement changes anything I wrote, I’d love to see the theory. I visit my father (and mothers) gravesite at Arlington. I could invited Trump and Biden. If they came, I’d let them take photos. No one could stop either from coming. Any photo of Dad’s grave would tend to show others. If the photographs were not used in an ad, I would not assume they were taken for campaign purposes. And if the Army said otherwise, my response would be “Bite me.”
You’ve got until tomorrow at 8:00 am, at which time, absent a substantive argument, it will be clear that you are a bad faith commenter and not worthy of the forum.
I mean the Army’s story is obviously relevant since it gives another side to what actually happened.
Not including their side of the story is odd. Trump also used footage from his visit on his official Tik Tok. Which he wasn’t allowed to do. When he was told he wasn’t allowed to film there, one of his staff members pushed a worker.
That’s definitely newsworthy.
I can’t convince you this is relevant if it’s not already obvious.
Here’s the video Trump’s campaign posted: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8JFkegb/
It doesn’t though. What Trump did at the gravesite isn’t political activity, unless the position of the Army is that no candidate for office, including a former President, can ever visit a gravesite, law a wreath, or be photographed in the process.
I hadn’t seen the Tik-Tok video. I’ll add the fact that it was posted after the event, but the video can’t be called a violation of any law. If the sequence was, as it appears to be, the families OKed the photography, Trump did nothing political at the Cemetary, the video was turned into an obviously amateur Tik-Tok post with negative commentary by Trump over it, that doesn’t change the misrepresentation of the visit at all.
Again, the altercation is completely irrelevant, and the Army’s characterization in a factual dispute carries no weight at all. It wouldn’t be admissible in Court.
I’ll add the video or a link to the post. Thanks for that.
Thanks for adding it but I don’t agree that the video Trump posted to his Tik Tok where he also says “should have never happen” isn’t political.
I also disagree that the Army’s comment isn’t part of the story. It is part of the story and I don’t know how it wouldn’t be. “Trump team member was told not film at Arlington and then pushed a cemetery employee” is 100% part of the story.
You didn’t even mention the report filed by the employee who said they were pushed by a Trump team member. It’s a major part of the story you just left out.
Read what I just posted as a revision. I agree that it’s political.
“Trump team member was told not film at Arlington and then pushed a cemetery employee” is 100% part of the story.”
It’s not part of what I was writing about, and still isn’t. What Trump’s staffer did or didn’t do has no bearing on whether it was appropriate for the former President to be there. From reading the relevant documents, it’s seems clear to me that the Arlington staffer was out of line, and again, with no report and no investigation, that part of the incident is too ephemeral to
care about. What do you think is important about it?
To clarify, are you referring to the Army pointing out that Trump didn’t have permission from Arlington National Cemetery to bring his own photographers, which is against their rules? That’s what puzzles me most about the whole situation.
If I integrate the stories together from both sides, it sounds like some families invited Trump for photographs where their relatives are buried, but that might have been against the cemetery rules. A staff member tried to stop Trump from bringing the cameras, but for some reason there was an altercation–I haven’t seen anyone denying that Trump’s staff pushed the cemetery staff member. Then Trump’s staff took the photographs, and apparently used them to create a video for social media.
There’s some nuance we’re probably still missing, but I don’t think Trump looks good in this. Even if we ignore the staff member getting pushed, I’m disappointed the Arlington National Cemetery is apparently not enforcing its own rules about photography. I was hoping that Trump would be easier to hold accountable because he’s not as good at distracting people from when he violates rules. Maybe we need more clarification on what laws apply to the TikTok video.
Is that the side of the story that you were looking for? Can you help provide clarity on what laws, rules, or policies were supposed to have prevented Trump’s cameras and subsequent video?
EC, you’re a bit behind the curve, not your fault. I just included the relevant rules links and more context in the post. There are no rules against photography. What there is are vaguely worded ambiguous language prohibiting an “organization” from taking film of a ceremony to promote that organization. That’s not what happened here. The former President appearing at this event is newsworthy. If a news organization could film it, then so could Trump’s staff. If the family asked to have the event filmed, then the footage was not taken for political purposes. Once it was shot, there could be no prohibition of the Tik-Tok bit. That is 100% protected by the First Amendment. From an enforcement standpoint, it would be impossible to prove that Trump violated any rules The precise kind of activities prohibited did not occur. If the family asked for the photographic record, then it would be impossible to show that the photography was taken for campaign purposes, only that after it was taken, the video was used for political, partisan speech.
And to argue that I can attend an Arlington ceremony but a former President can’t is ridiculous, and unconstitutional, in my view.. This only became an issue because it was Trump. If Harris or Biden had done exactly the same thing after being invited, no employee would have tried to stop them. No one would have been trying to present it as a rules violation or worse still, a legal violation.
That mostly makes sense. I was under the impression that a news organization could not have filmed it, according to the law. It seems like Trump or his aides could have taken personal photos for himself and the families who invited him, and it would have been fine. They could have even posted those to social media.
However, when his campaign staff comes in with professional equipment and then the video gets posted to Trump’s TikTok (in his role as a public figure, not as a private citizen) then it seems like that’s violating the laws surrounding the cemetery. (I got details about how the rules work from this source, so let me know if I’d be better off going straight to the law on the books: https://www.axios.com/2024/08/29/trump-arlington-national-cemetery-rules)
So are we saying that Trump didn’t violate the law as written, or that the law is ambiguous enough that it’s not enforceable, or that it’s unenforceable because it’s unconstitutional? Or is it possible Trump did actually violate the law by bringing the professional photographers and posting the video?
The Axios story is sort of accurate, typically Axios. The logical and factual weakness in the accounts is this: the fact that a Cemetery employee tried to block Trump’s staff and photographer doesn’t mean she correctly was interpreting the rules and knew what she was talking about, and based on the rules as published, she didn’t. The “altercation” aspect is irrelevant. Meanwhile, the media accounts that “she didn’t press charges because she was afraid of ‘retaliation’ is BS, and should not have been printed—that’s just another sideswipe at Trump. I suspect that she didn’t press charges because her charges couldn’t be substantiated and because a superior told her, “Pssst…you were out over your skis here, Drop it.”
“So are we saying that Trump didn’t violate the law as written, or that the law is ambiguous enough that it’s not enforceable, or that it’s unenforceable because it’s unconstitutional? Or is it possible Trump did actually violate the law by bringing the professional photographers and posting the video?”
Like so, so many rules, laws and traditions that this administration and the Axis has wrecked by its determination to Get Trump, the laws and rules would be fine under normal circumstances. Elected officials and Presidents sitting and past have had their photos taken at Arlington: only in this case was it used as an excuse for a political attack. (I remember a Ted Kennedy ad long ago that included a quick shot of him with his family at the Eternal Flame. He was Senator at the time. No ANC employee tried to stop his photographers from taking the pictures. Later, they were used in a campaign ad. Reading the rules, the issue is whether the event itself at ANC is “political.” If it was something that was going to occur anyway, like a wreath ceremony for families of the fallen, a political figure’s participation in it doesn’t make the event a political event, at least as the rules are written. Similarly, photographs and videos are acceptable if their intent is to record the event (as in the case of the family asking for such a record.) When was the decision made to use it in the Tik-Tok? If after the ceremony, then the rules weren’t broken. And good luck trying to prove otherwise.
As for the law involved, that’s the Hatch Act, and the point is not to make the Army or ANC appear to endorse a political campaign. Maybe that’s why the Army felt compelled to issue its statement, but the wreath laying didn’t do that, and no account suggested that the event was interpreted by anyone as the Army illegally endorsing Trump. Meanwhile, Biden officials have really violated the Hatch Act several times. So 1) Trump didn’t violate the rules as written, the event didn’t violate the Hatch Act by any stretch of the imagination, the rules are clear enough except regarding past Presidents being invited to participate in a ceremony, and the Constitution would prevent a ban on taking photos at such an event unless the purpose of the photos was to create a political ad, which cannot be proven in this case.
And it seems to me likely that the ANC staffer who started the altercation was an anti-Trump zealot who overstepped her authority and is not a lawyer.
It sounds like the law is mostly unenforceable, then. Taking pictures is allowed, and using existing pictures for campaigning is allowed, but taking pictures specifically for the purpose of campaigning is not allowed, but unless people are staging the pictures like standard photo ops with poses and equipment, there’s no way to prove a picture is being taken for campaign purposes.
That’s all well and good, but does that not mean that Trump still violated the spirit of the law? How does that reflect on him? Even for people who prefer him over Harris, can we still not criticize him for it? It sounds like we’re in rationalization territory: 1. Everybody Does It, 2. They’re Just as Bad, 5. Compliance Dodge, 31. The Troublesome Luxury, 43. The Hillary Inoculation, and probably some others I haven’t thought of.
Or are we saying that it’s ethically and legally fine to take normal personal photos in Arlington National Cemetery and use them for campaign purposes, and only the big staged photo ops are unethical and illegal? I could buy that, but I’d prefer it to be spelled out so I know that we’re not making ad hoc exceptions for Trump just because people have unfairly criticized him for other things.
“That’s all well and good, but does that not mean that Trump still violated the spirit of the law?”
I don’t think so. What’s the spirit of the law/rules? If the spirit is unconstitutional, which banning former Presidents from doing what any citizen can do would be, then he should violate it. I’d be very surprised if he or anyone in the campaign thought responding to the families invitation could possibly violate the rules…and again, the law(The Hatch Act) wasn’t violated in spirit or letter.
Try this: what if Harris and Biden had joined Trump, as they were invited to do. Do you think anyone would have accused Trump of breaching protocol then? Yet he and his photographer would have been doing the exact same thing, along with White House photographers.
I think “it’s ethically and legally fine to take normal personal photos in Arlington National Cemetery and use them for campaign purposes, and only the big staged photo ops are unethical and illegal” is exactly what the current rule is and has been understood to be all along. But the language in the text could certainly be clearer.
I should clarify: By the spirit of the law, I don’t mean the purpose for which the law was originally written. I mean the reasons why people in the present day might still want to keep the law around.
People want to trust that the honored dead aren’t being used for partisan propaganda. Is that trust being broken, even if the law isn’t?
Maybe there’s no constitutional way to make a law about what you do with your personal pictures of Arlington National Cemetery, as long as they were taken in a personal manner. That’s not the core issue here.
The core issue is that some people see Trump’s activity in this situation as a reason to distrust him, and others don’t. If we can clarify the expectations that apply to the context of cemetery photographs and how they are used, we can establish some agreement on to what extent we expect this event to affect people’s trust towards Trump.
If only the big staged photo ops are unethical and illegal, then we can conclude that what Trump did was fine, the staff member was wrong to try to stop them, everyone failed to deescalate the situation appropriately, and posting the photos was fine.
Then we can apply the same method to more consequential disagreements that inform our future efforts, now that we’re confident we can reach the same page.
How does that sound?
“some people see Trump’s activity in this situation as a reason to distrust him”
Some people take Trump’s existence on Earth as reason to distrust him.
The rules and regs are pretty clear (though not clear enough) that staged photo-ops for promotional or political purposes are forbidden. Since this was an event that was not staged as a photo op, and because Trump was invited, he’s 100% in the clear.
I don’t think you can reach the same page if disparate standards are weaponized for partisan attacks, as occurred in this case. Thor’s most recent comment is strong evidence of that.
You can’t force people to trust all the same people you trust. The way to build trust is to talk things through, starting from another person’s point of view and exploring using constructive principles until you get to a place you yourself can recognize and work with. You can’t skip the part where you listen to people explain how they see the situation, because without knowing where they are you won’t know how to navigate them to where you expect them to be. You also can’t skip the part where you reflect on why you care what they believe, because then you won’t know where you expect them to be in the first place.
Taking for granted that other people either see things your way or are lost, and will either come around or they won’t, is not going to make anything better.
You expect when you tell people they’re wrong, they’ll go and do the work to figure out why you’re right? Because you have a law degree and a blog and people pay you money to talk about ethics? Suddenly my approach doesn’t look so naïve in comparison.
Yes, it’s work to establish mutual understanding and respect and work with what a person already believes, but my system makes that work so much easier and more effective. It’s much more rewarding than yelling at people for not already realizing you’re the source of truth. Plus, I get to learn from people so I can have better ideas and become better at what I do.
EC: “…but does that not mean that Trump still violated the spirit of the law?”
Maybe, maybe not. Whatever “the spirit of the law” is, who makes that call? Every public appearance Trump makes is going to be recorded, and it wasn’t illegal to do so here. What happens to the recordings subsequently is immaterial to the actions at the events, where he didn’t appear to make any overt political performances. We can certainly discuss how appropriate the later use of some recordings may have been, but that’s a purely subjective exercise.
because she was anti-Trump.
How do you know this?
staged photo-ops for promotional or political purposes are forbidden. Since this was an event that was not staged as a photo op, and because Trump was invited, he’s 100% in the clear.
That’s not the rule. It specifically states:
Additionally, ANC will not authorize any filming for partisan, political or fundraising purposes, in accordance with the Hatch Act, 32 CFR 553, and AR 360-1.
It seems Trump used his film crew and footage for political purposes since he posted it on his Tik Tok with the caption “should have never happened”
I’m also going to side with the Army on this one.
I checked out those rules cited. The Hatch Act binds the cemetery administration and staff, not the visitors. 32 CFR 553 governs who is eligible for interment in the cemetery, and AR 360-1 doesn’t mention cemeteries at all except for listing wreath ceremonies performed by past presidents. So far, I haven’t seen a federal law that applies to the guests. It seems that “ANC will not authorize any filming for partisan, political or fundraising purposes” mostly means that the cemetery can’t coordinate with people to hold political events, and if someone holds an event that looks too much like one of those and is disruptive or disrespectful to the visitors or those interred, then the cemetery can remove them at their discretion.
Trump is a public figure and arguably inherently political, but if he behaved sufficiently like a private citizen then he would be allowed to film, and what he does with the footage afterwards is more a matter of his public image than cemetery rules. If he were to post a very disrespectful video, he wouldn’t be breaking rules, but he would (hopefully) lose significant support.
The Army decided not to go after Trump for posting the video, which confused me at first. Having delved into the issue further, I think it might be they decided that his activity and video were actually appropriate according to their own criteria.
Does that make sense?
Yes. That’s entirely accurate. Bingo.
The rules have historically been interpreted narrowly.
Think of presidential visits to Arlington, for example.
Because your mind is made up, and facts confuse you. Got it.
NOTE TO EC: Ok. How do you deal with this kind of attitude?
Well, to begin with, I wouldn’t imply to people that I thought they were brainwashed just because they didn’t already trust and distrust all the same sources I do.
In my experience, condemning people for not already seeing the world the way I do doesn’t inspire them to want to know anything about my point of view. They see it as vindication, because if the best I can do is appeal to my own authority, my point of view must not have any merit to back it up. I also do a disservice to anyone who shares my point of view, reducing their credibility by putting forth my own assumptions as if they’re conclusive. People are going to think we’re all like that. (Unless, I suppose, the person I’m condemning is like me, but most of the time I’m not talking to someone like me. If we want to accomplish anything useful, someone in the conversation has to be like me, so if the other person isn’t like me then it’s up to me to be like me.)
Instead, I act in ways that create the possibility of people changing their minds. If they don’t change their minds, I lose nothing and still set a good example for the record. I build up my own good communication habits so I can do better next time.
Have you noticed that I don’t tell people things are true so much as I ask them to think about how they would know if they were true or not?
But EC, this means that you are endorsing and enabling subjective reality. There is a point where people are wrong, and need to be told they are wrong whether they have the maturity and integrity to accept it or not.
Not in the slightest. This is how rationalists argue, and you’d be hard-pressed to find a community more committed to the idea that objective reality exists and we can learn about it. The process by which we learn about it does not involve demanding that other people believe that we know more than they do.
The key is to realize that if we can learn about objective reality, that must mean there are techniques that let us do that no matter what we start out believing. Otherwise there would be points of view that make it impossible to learn about objective reality no matter what, and we’d have no way of knowing if we were in one of those already. If that were the case, there’d be no point in worrying about it. Even so, we find that certain practices let us make more reliable predictions that help us get what we want. And now you know how we derive our reality-discovering techniques.
Once you know those basics of epistemology, the most useful approach in an argument is simply to learn about someone else’s beliefs, pretend you believe them as well, and then apply the reality-discovering techniques to identify and fix any inaccuracies in that worldview. Suspending our assumptions and rederiving what we believe from someone else’s perspective is not that difficult with a little practice, and it keeps the argument on track and lets you find the most persuasive points to make. And every time I rederive my own point of view, it changes for the better.
If you’re really skilled, you can show people how you rederive those reality-discovering techniques from scratch so that they understand why they work.
What this does it let you make arguments that speak for themselves. You don’t need people to trust you, but they will anyway because you earn it instead of demanding it. Conversely, demanding people see things your way and accept it as the right way is an argument that both requires trust and diminishes it.
Keep in mind I hate letting people be wrong. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t keep making these points. But ruthless methods are not always the most effective way to achieve ruthless goals. Is it really surprising that charging headlong at an obstacle isn’t always the best way of defeating it? I find nothing uncomfortable about starting from someone else’s point of view and rederiving my own because I know it’s the most effective way to stop someone from being wrong. If you’re willing to kill to establish and maintain peace, where’s the dishonor in taking up a wrong perspective so that you can chart a course from there to a more accurate one? I don’t fear losing my way because I know that if the reality-discovering process doesn’t return me to where I was, it’s because it’s taking me somewhere more accurate.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” The key word here is “entertain,” as with a guest. Welcome the thought into your mind and treat it with hospitality in order to take its measure alongside other thoughts. Do this even for thoughts you’ve already dismissed before. Don’t just look at why you think it’s false. Look at why other people think it’s true. Then figure out what they would need to look at to conclude for themselves that it’s false.
Again, have you noticed that I don’t tell people they are wrong so much as I ask them to think about how they would know if they were wrong or not? Do you notice what they do afterward? They actually consider the possibility. What I do lowers the level of maturity and integrity required for people to change their minds, and they become more mature and integritous in the process. They become better afterwards. That’s how education works. We match someone’s pace for a bit so that we can show them how to match ours. That’s not the same thing as coddling someone; it’s part of the process by which they learn to stand on their own feet. They can’t do that if you treat all ignorance as willful.
Worst case scenario, what happens? With my approach, a person might not change their mind about what the best option is, but they’re willing to listen and explore better options in the future. They trust that I have things to say worth listening to. With your approach, they’re not persuaded, and they have another data point telling them that everyone with your point of view is arrogant, biased, and a waste of time. Even if you’re right about what the best option is, you weren’t willing to do what it took to get other people to see it, and so you might as well have done nothing at all.
“Here lies the body of William Jay
Who died maintaining his right of way;
He was right, dead right, as he sped along,
But he’s just as dead as if he’d been wrong.”
Thor: “It seems Trump used his film crew and footage for political purposes since he posted it on his Tik Tok…”
Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
Exactly. I should have thought of that, but Latin makes me break out in a rash.
Other way around. We’re dealing with human motivations here, which are goal-oriented and therefore can be influenced by expectations of the future. In this case, it’s not “after this, therefore because of this”. It’s “this person used the fruit of an action to take another action, so the second action must have informed the intent of the first.” That’s still an inference which may or may not be true, but it’s a more accurate description of the reasoning.
That’s the rub isn’t it?
It seems the cemetery worker saw Trump and the video gear he brought and told them about the rules but was pushed aside.
Looking at the Tik Tok video, there had to of been video cameras, maybe a few, and it probably set off alarm bells for the worker. Which it seems she was correct since Trump did eventually use the footage in a political capacity.
I also agree with your questions about “can we never criticize Trump when he’s wrong because he’s been unfairly criticized previously?”
1. The video gear did not make the invited appearance an infraction.
2. “Told them about the rules.” She told them they couldn’t shoot there. She was wrong. She hadn’t read the regulations.
3. The cameras set off alarm bells because she was anti-Trump. Again, nothing in the rules prohibits taking video of a ceremony.
4. Did you not read what I wrote? There is no prohibition on how pictures are eventually used. The question is whether an event is being held to promote an organization or cause. That is not why the wreath ceremony was held. The staffer had no right or power to presume that an invited guest was staging a campaign event.
5. “can we never criticize Trump when he’s wrong because he’s been unfairly criticized previously?” is irrelevant, because in this case he was not wrong, and was criticized unfairly.
I’m getting mixed messages about the rules, and one source said the cemetery has certain areas where photography isn’t allowed. I’m not sure if personal camcorders would be allowed. I’ll have to go straight to the sources for this.
Excerpted from the official website:
https://www dot arlingtoncemetery dot mil/Media/Media-Policy
Photography
“Photography is permitted within the grounds of Arlington National Cemetery. Photographers who are members of news organizations need to make arrangements for a media escort by contacting the ANC Public Affairs Office at 703-614-0024.
“We ask media and cemetery visitors to respect the solemnity of Arlington National Cemetery by refraining from taking pictures of or filming someone who is visibly mourning. Please ask for permission to film or photograph those visiting a gravesite.”
Photo Use Policy page
“Any original photographs taken while at Arlington National Cemetery do not require a release from Arlington or the Department of the Army. Photographers may keep and use photographs they have taken as they wish.”
The Washington Post said that the cemetery said, “Federal law prohibits political campaign or election-related activities within Army National Military Cemeteries, to include photographers, content creators or any other persons attending for purposes, or in direct support of a partisan political candidate’s campaign.”
I checked out their official media policy PDF but didn’t find the “federal law” they were referring to, just the cemetery’s own policies. (I’m pretty sure Army regulations aren’t the same thing as federal law.)
It seems like the cemetery has some discretion over how to treat people with cameras, and while one staff member didn’t want to permit Trump, the Cemetery administration disagreed when the situation was brought to their attention and decided it would be better to have allowed Trump to take his pictures. Does that sound accurate?
Yes that makes sense.
I would just add that I don’t think Trump violated a federal law, just that he violated the rules of the cemetery set by the Army.
The Army doesn’t allow political filming at the cemetery because they aren’t allowed to look partisan. That’s where the Hatch act comes into play. And since the cemetery is owned and operated by the Army, any political filming could look like a violation or that the Army supports one candidate over another.
It’s a shame Trump eventually used the footage for political purposes because it doesn’t help his case at all.
I honestly think if Trump didn’t come in with video film gear and it didn’t appear like he was filming something for his campaign, none of this would have happened. But unfortunately he did use the film for political purposes, so it appears the cemetery employee’s instinct was correct here.
Yeah, Trump seems to be pretty bad at managing his image among people who disagree with him. He could have filmed inconspicuously, like you said, and he could have posted his video and statement to a personal account, which his followers would probably be subscribed to anyway, and then he’d be able to get all the campaign benefits while still being completely within his rights as a private citizen.
I suppose one could look at it as Trump the citizen giving his personal footage to Trump the public figure to do the campaign, but that gets into subjective issues of trust again. People who agree with the point he’s making would be more inclined to feel it was appropriate and sincere, people who disagree would be more likely to feel it was inappropriate and manipulative, and nobody would learn anything. If he were aiming to change people’s minds, he could have done much better than what he did.
The Tik-Tok account is, indeed, his personal account, not a campaign account.
Is @realDonaldTrump a personal channel? What’s his official one?
If it is a personal channel, people may not all think it’s a good look for him, but as a private citizen he’s allowed to share his personal footage with a political campaign for editing and then post the resulting video to his own social media. The only shaky part would be whoever he brought in as the camera crew and how they all conducted themselves.
Again, a large part of this depends on whether the viewer sees Trump’s actions in this situation as sincere or manipulative. As long as he wasn’t disturbing the other visitors, I don’t think Arlington National Cemetery is willing to make such a subjective call and say he wasn’t allowed to do it.
I would have recommended that he be more circumspect about the whole thing. He could have made statements separately from posting footage of himself visiting the cemetery. For that matter, I believe that filming oneself attending a cemetery at all is virtue signaling, but I know how much humans like to see their leaders attending events and acting like they would otherwise have chosen to be there.
A political campaign is all virtue-signaling, all the time.
What “case”? The case that everything he does is intrinsically corrupt and evil? I wouldn’t change my behavior to assuage those who were biased against me to that extent. That is giving them power that they don’t deserve and haven’t earned.
“But unfortunately he did use the film for political purposes, so it appears the cemetery employee’s instinct was correct here.”
Why do you keep saying that? He wasn’t violating the rules or the law, and “instinct” is not justification for making a claim that isn’t backed by by the printed regulations.
It was an introduction, and is in the category of “full disclosure.” Making assignable conclusions fro conduct isn’t bias. The Democrats have become the real danger to democracy, and this is just another example. I advise reading up on what EA has been covering all this time.
Wait, also, did you not mention the police report and the accusation someone in Trump’s camp pushed someone who worked at the cemetery?
Again, relevance? That is a legal matter having nothing whatever to do with the substance of the complaints against Trump. If such a thing took place, the police should charge the individual with assault, whether he was with Trump’s team or Trump himself.
The attack on Trump’s visit was all about a perception of politics. This extra-curricular is once again proof that the best way to avoid addressing the facts is to change the subject.
That doesn’t work around here very well, pal.
An incident report is not a police report and General Kellogg who was in attendance neither saw nor heard any jostling of a cemetery worker nor did any of family members. Are you saying the gold star families are liars?
Because the videographers claimed a cemetery worker accosted them and had what they described as a mental break we can conclude that something occurred but we cannot assess who was acting improperly. Given that the families, Trump and photographers were given permission through the Speaker of the House who cleared the roadblocks it seems the cemetery worker was overzealous and acted in a partisan manner because he or she failed to determine if the ceremony was approved.
Here’s a test: answer that yourself. I read the story. There were two accounts, the Arlington staffer made no report, it didn’t involve Trump, and the Times reported it to somehow throw mud on Trump although nobody can say with authority what happened. I made the decision that it added nothing to the matter being examined, and it didn’t. If I had used it, it would be to show further evidence of the media bias against Trump.
i seem to remember some similar news story years ago about Trump staffers infringing on some protest going on near some DC church to snap a campaign photo holding a bible or something (the horror!)
Weeks later, come to find out the photo and protest were different days, blocks away, and the police operations to clear protesters had nothing to do with Trump.
The shoving story reminded me of the above and i wondered what was really going on. As headlines morphed to “Kamala and Biden didn’t even get invited!” I knew the real story was sour grapes.
Someone shoved where security is ensconced is a non-story. Go rip off your cloths and run across the field at your next sporting event and report back how long it takes to get shoved.
Weeks later, come to find out the photo and protest were different days, blocks away, and the police operations to clear protesters had nothing to do with Trump.
Those police operations had to do with this.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/31/politics/trump-underground-bunker-white-house-protests/index.html
The decision to physically move the President came as protesters confronted Secret Service officers outside the White House for hours on Friday – shouting, throwing water bottles and other objects at the line of officers, and attempting to break through the metal barriers.
That protest was not all that peaceful.
And who knew at the time if what was in those water bottles was water?
I recall a speaker at the 2016 DNC convention a gold star father named Kahn gave a minutes long diatribe about Trump.
No part of the media explained that Mr Kahn was an immigration lawyer specializing in middle eastern/Afghani persons. Trump threatened Kahn’s livelihood because of his called for ban of persons from the countries at the heart of terrorist cells
Was the dignified transfer the same event Biden kept checking his watch at?
Yes. Note that I didn’t mention that detail either, because, like the Army’s statement and the alleged dust-up at the cemetery, it has nothing to do with the smearing of Trump.
Biden also kept talking about Beau at the event, as if he was relevant in any way.
It’s relevant to the rebuttals that “at least Biden was at something”.
He wasn’t. His mind was wherever he thought he needed to be next.
It’s not relevant to the main discussion here, but I think it would have been appropriately relevant if Cotton had mentioned it in response to Welker, as she tried to excuse Biden while she disparaged trump.
I agree with that.
Thor shows all the characteristics of a paid DNC operative. Note the comment number going through the roof.
Thanks for posting on this, Jack. I’m not even going to bother reading your post, just as I haven’t read a word of the “coverage” of this “controversy.” I assumed from the start it was a set up. As the Dems would say, this is truly a nothing burger. Assholes.
His September 3, 2024 at 3:12 pm post is more reasonable than the average shill, and like EC, I see his point. Posting the video to TikTok, for the benefit of his supporters, I would argue was in bad taste. I agree with Jack that no rules were broken, since he was not there for a pre-arranged campaign event, but I can understand the ick factor. But Biden and Harris, who didn’t even bother to show, are estopped from expressing righteous outrage.
Thank you. I think the main issue is that it doesn’t have to be a prearranged campaign event and the Army’s policy (not a Federal law) is they don’t let filming to be used for political or campaign reasons since the Army isn’t allowed to seem partisan or support a candidate. And since the Army is in charge of ANC, that’s the policy they have in place to prevent that.
“…they don’t let filming to be used for political or campaign reasons…”
I think you’re almost there, but with a bit of tweaking needed.
As I understand it:
The policy is that no campaign speeches, political rallies, etc. can be held on the grounds, no matter if they’re filmed or not.
Memorial ceremonies, like Trump attended, can be held and filmed.
How the film might be used afterwards, even if arguably unseemly, as Gamereg noted, is not under the control of any government entity, nor should it be, as that would surely be a First Amendment violation.
Thanks for your persistence.This should have been clear, oh, about ten clarifications ago…
It’s not illegal to film or take photos that are then used for political reasons, the Army just has a rule against it and won’t let you do it if they think that’s what you’re doing.
“ANC will not authorize any filming for partisan, political or fundraising purposes.”
So if you’re filming and that film will be used for political reasons, the Army will kick you out of the cemetery.
OK, that’s your last comment on this post.
You are adamantly refusing to pay attention to what multiple participants here have explained, including me and the always excessively fair EC. That is NOT the Army’s rule, and that has been explained repeatedly. You either don’t understand the constructions of rules, or you deliberately pretend not to.
Either you don’t get it, or you are deliberately sticking to a false interpretation because you want to.
OK. I get it.
On to another topic.
That’s my rule.
Oh my, I guess I was too optimistic in my assessment of your progress. Either that, or not aware of the government’s continued attempts at using mind readers.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-11-30-mn-8812-story.html
Last year, after he had announced he would be running for reelection, Biden gave a speech at Arlington on Veterans Day. After leading off and, of course, making it about himself with stories of Dead Beau, a good chunk of it was devoted to claiming responsibility for recent improvements in veterans’ benefits, with lots of “I” and “we” peppering the text. He even threw in Jill a time or two.
Was Joe using Arlington for a political speech?
Not under standard interpretations.