JK Rowling denied top US honour

[Archimedes88]

Does she weigh the same as a duck?

She turned me into a newt!!

But you got better!

"How can you tell if she's made of Wood?"

"Build a Bridge out of her!"

 

[quack35]

Oh. Wow. This shows just how stupid we are...

Hey, speak for yourself...

 

[zoozilla]

Oh wow, I'm scared that these people are in high authority...

If this gets you scared, you shouldn't read about the endless other completely stupid things the US government's been doing.

 

[SimuLord]

What did J.K. Rowling do that was worthy of the Presidential Medal of Freedom? She wrote some books that got kids reading, whoopdee doo. Were their alleged reasons for denying it stupid? Yes. Did she deserve it? No. Next you'll be wanting to give one to the lady who wrote the Twilight books.

Worse than that, Rowling wrote books that got kids reading more Harry Potter books. Those kids weren't generally interested in expanding their literary horizons beyond their latest fix of muggles and Quidditch and whatever other weird-ass things were in that book series (I've never had any desire to read them, but my wife runs her yap about them and expects me to care...like a typical Potter fan.)

 

[MadMikey]

Ok can we please leave out that the Bush administration was full of people who claimed to be Christian....lets just focus on that they were stupid....there are plenty of Christians that aren't stupid enough to think that Harry Potter is a minion of the Anti-Christ or whathaveyou...We aren't all morons...Just those brainless enough to think that just because someone claims to be one of us means that he'd never ever do something outside our understood moral values....like starting an unnecessary war or lieing about it...or torturing people....you know those kind of things! There are enough pretenders out there giving the rest of us a bad name...We certainly don't need non-believers pointing it out to us. thanks.

 

[UAProxy]

Someone needs to throw an honest-to-goodness witch at them, so they can actually tell the difference between true witchcraft (a relatively harmless practice nowadays with Wicca's new age spin) and, to quote a certain potions master, "Wand waving and silly incantations."

 

[Barciad]

A mate of mine is a Catholic who lives in the US. For the past year, he has been working with me in Korea. He despairs at what he is going to be going back to in the next few days. As a side note, has anyone seen that His Dark Materials is in the top ten list of most banned books in the US, again?

 

[Mr Wednesday]

Actually, i think that was exactly what she was doing.

So, presumably George Lucas is promoting usage of the force.

Well yeah, in that it has brought up an awareness of a concept called the force and people has gone off with it to chase their own ideas on the subject.

It's not direct promotion, but the method is still likely to get people in the mood for looking it up.

Hence why we now have a Jedi religion.

The "Jedi religion", is a joke.

 

[PhiMed]

[Source: BBC News [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8282356.stm]]

Harry Potter author JK Rowling missed out on a top honour because some US politicians believed she "encouraged witchcraft", it has been claimed.

Matt Latimer, former speech writer for President George W Bush, said that some members of his administration believed her books promoted sorcery.

As a result, she was never presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

The claims appear in Latimer's new book called Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor.

He wrote that "narrow thinking" led White House officials to object to giving Rowling the civilian honour.

The award acknowledges contributions to US national interest, world peace or cultural endeavours.

Past literary recipients of the award include John Steinbeck and Harper Lee.

Others denied the privilege under the Bush administration included Senator Edward Kennedy, who died in August this year.

Latimer claimed, in his book, that the veteran politician and health care activist was excluded because he was deemed to be too liberal.

Looking back at the Bush era, I can't believe that all this happened only a few years ago. To accuse someone of "sorcery/witchcraft" is really keeping with the times, assuming of course we are in the middle ages.

I cannot believe that this was actually a valid concern amongst US politicians. How on earth did they manage to get elected?

Edit:

It seems that a lot of you have focused on the issue that she was up for an award in the first place. Well honestly, if you have managed to overlook the "encouraged witchcraft" part then I may have to spell out the main issue here:

a) Do you think the people responsible in taking away her honour had a valid claim by saying "she encouraged witchcraft" in her books.

b) Even if she was encouraging witchcraft (by some stretch) is it justifiable to deny someone of an honour/award because of their beliefs.

Or you know, you all can continue discussing the fact that she was not worthy of the award in the first place.

I think the issue is that just because someone wrote it in some sort of expose' doesn't mean it's true. I think it's entirely possible that Mr. Latimer is a liar. He did work in Washington, after all.

As far as her having her award "taken away", did she really? She didn't meet the criteria for the award anyway. You listed a description of the qualifications for the award, and she doesn't meet a single one of them.

I'm not a Rowling hater. I've read all the Potter books at least twice each and I've seen all the movies. That being said, this guy is clearly saying this to sell books. There's absolutely no reason to believe this happened, and even if it did the only result was that someone who didn't deserve a particular award failed to receive it.

Bush sucked, but some of the things that are being "revealed" about him lately are hyperbole. Someone could write that he sacrificed babies to Jesus, then ate their hearts to gain their strenght so he could fight against "abortioners", and a lot of people would believe it. Most importantly, though, even more people would buy the book.

A lot of people in here are too willing to believe everything they hear or see without doing any sort of research. Now, I don't care about Bush one way or the other but when these tell-all books come out, well, I just have trouble believing their veracity. Oftentimes they stretch the truth or flat out lie to improve book sales or get a bit of comeuppance as former disgruntled employees; or it's just the author's way to make a name for themselves. Perhaps there are other reasons, but usually those reasons for writing them are for less than savory purposes.

Here is a picture of Mrs. Bush reading Harry Potter and she is even quoted on her website for promoting the book for children literacy programs. Sorry, but I am of the opinion that many Excapists practice schadenfreude with their knee-jerk reactions and wishful thinking.

THIS

 

[PhiMed]

Or you know, you all can continue discussing the fact that she was not worthy of the award in the first place.

Well I think that was the obvious point of debate!

After all which is more unusual?

1) Bush administration pandering to the moronic right wing fuck bags from the bible belt and his own 'born again' Christianity.

~or~

2) A British author of twee childrens' books being given the highest order that the US President is able to bestow.

Really?. I could have sworn been accused of withcraft to be more of an "obvious point of debate" here rather than the merits of an author.

As far as her having her award "taken away", did she really? She didn't meet the criteria for the award anyway. You listed a description of the qualifications for the award, and she doesn't meet a single one of them.

Well she was denied the honour. The specifics entailed in that statement is never mentioned in the source so we can only speculate what "taken away" means here.

You do raise a valid point though, just because it was reported by the media does not make it the truth. Somehow though, there is this lingering suspicion in my mind about the what if....what if it is true?.

Can someone be preposterous enough to claim witchcraft?. I wouldn't put it past anyone I met on the street let alone a politician.

I think there's an important distinction between "was denied" and "did not receive". The second phrase is undeniable, but as for the first...

Based on the criteria for the award that you snipped, she should not have been considered for the award in the first place. She fails to meet a single stipulation for candidacy. If the stated reasons for her removal from consideration are true, then this is a story. Otherwise, this is comparable to someone not receiving a Nobel Prize for science based on their work feeding the needy on the West Bank. Sure, what they did was admirable, but the award is completely unrelated to their endeavors.

While the claim that our former president gave creedence to charges of condoning witchcraft is certainly disturbing, it feels remarkably like piling on an administration that has enough legitimate and demonstrable criticisms that could be levied against it as it is. Unless hard evidence is put forward that this is true, I'll continue to view this as an attempt to profit from otherwise well-earned intense anti-Bush sentiment.

Well, as much as I would love to argue conjecture here I would rather use some simple logic.

The distinctions between "was denied" and "did not receive" honestly does not matter here, the source says: "As a result, she was never presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Why?

"He wrote that "narrow thinking" led White House officials to object to giving Rowling the civilian honour.

If she actually never met any of the criteria for the award then why was her name put up their in the first place?. This is after all one of the highest awards for a civilian, not a lottery. So surely if someone is going to be considered for it there would have to be a committee or someone who would be responsible for making sure that all the names on the short list have met at least some of the criteria for the award. After all, it's a bit insulting to add someones name to a competition if you know they have no remote chance of winning, right?

Even if her name was dropped in by pure accident or negligence, then at least telling the person the truth, i.e- "you do not meet the criteria to be eligible for this award" would have been sufficient.

Saying the person "encouraged witchcraft" however is lame, regardless if she deserved the award or not.

First off, no one told Rowling that she encouraged witchcraft, and the only person who has suggested this phrase was ever used is a guy who's trying to create controversy in order to sell books.
Second, unless you've found a source I could not, there is no publicly available "short list", so the only person who claims she was ever even under consideration is the guy mentioned in the previous point.
Finally, I get the feeling that you really want to believe this is true, and nothing anyone here can say will convince you that this guy just might be another bs'er trying to make a buck off of political ill will.

 

[Skeleon]

Why would a British author receive an American civilian award?
Anyway, if "sorcery" really is the only reason they denied her this honour, they are pretty close-minded.
Harry Potter follows the basic principle of Good versus Evil.
Star Wars wasn't about Christianity, but the basic concepts of Good versus Evil apply.
Is Star Wars bad for having a pantheistic "Force" instead of a god? No, of course not. It's bad because of the prequels.
Long story short: I disagree with the reason for denying her this honour and it's very sad that only Christian ideals can result in acknowledgement by these knuckleheads.

 

[philosophicalbastard]

And Ted Kennedy? Seriously? Yeah, he totally deserved one for crashing his car and leaving a woman to die. The man was hardly the saint that everyone is remembering him as.

Well I prefer to remember people for the good things they've done, and not the sins they commited.

O.T.: Anything I could say has been said at least a hundred times.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

First off, no one told Rowling that she encouraged witchcraft, and the only person who has suggested this phrase was ever used is a guy who's trying to create controversy in order to sell books.
Second, unless you've found a source I could not, there is no publicly available "short list", so the only person who claims she was ever even under consideration is the guy mentioned in the previous point.
Finally, I get the feeling that you really want to believe this is true, and nothing anyone here can say will convince you that this guy just might be another bs'er trying to make a buck off of political ill will.

Going in reverse order:

As I said before I couldn't care less about JK or her award and I really don't want to believe that this is true, I have too much to loose by believing otherwise. My sanity is kept intact by knowing that the leaders of the free world are/were actually competent people and proving otherwise means that I would be grievously distraught in knowing that the world has spent a good amount of years listening to a bunch of baboons. So let me make this clear Phil, I don't really want to believe this is true or I might have to eat myself at the sheer stupidity of what has been said.

That said though, since this is a discussion I would like to explore all *possible* outcomes. And yes, while your suggestion of "this might be someone trying to make a buck out of political ill will" is valid and sound it is hardly the only explanation. At least until someone comes along with evidence to say that the claims made in the book are false. Or until JK herself comes along and responds to these reports.

Until then, everything is just speculation. And while I don't want to believe that this story is true either, it doesn't seem out of character for the Bush administration to have pulled this stunt. Another incident to occur quite recently on similar lines but not related to this topic in particular is children's writer Philip Pullman's trilogy His Dark Materials been ranked second on the 2008 US banned books list by the American Library Association (American Library Association banned books [http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/sep/30/american-library-association-banned-books]). While I suppose in this instance the parents and the Catholic League had a hand in it's fate (even though this children's book wasn't offensive, to me at least) I don't see how, judging from this reaction, to not be surprised when someone yells witchcraft at Harry Potter.


Now as for the short list, I said before I wasn't quoting a source but it's only reasonable to assume that some form of filtering criteria had to take place for such a prestigious award to be granted. It's not going to be a "pull a name out of a hat" approach, that I am sure of. Whatever the criteria was used during the process (again, logically) someone would have had to notice JK's name. And if it wasn't supposed to be there then it would have been removed.

Besides, for those claiming the "Presidential Medal of Freedom" is for US citizens only well:

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is bestowed on individuals of any nationality who are deemed to have contributed to US interests, world peace, or any cultural or social advancement.

(http://io9.com/5370447/rowling-snubbed-by-white-house-for-promoting-witchcraft)

All I am saying is that if JK's name was in the running for the honor, then it was there for a good reason. Someone (at least initially) thought she deserved it and then didn't, there is nothing inherently wrong with that provided that the reasons for exclusion are sound. And that is all that I am questioning from this source.

 

[Cody211282]

Ok ill make her a deal, ill give her an award, if she gives me 10% of her current income, all the money she has now, and money she will make, i honestly think in a year i could buy my own island, so ya i dont feel sorry for her

oh and with the bush administration being morons, when was the last time we didnt have one that was?

 

[Gruthar]

Yeah, this was a few years ago, when Evangelical and other hardcore Christian fundies had a good deal of clout within the Republican party. I think this was just a result of conservative politicians trying to pander to them; I doubt many of them actually cared. Those sorts of actions are one of the things that has come back to bite the GOP now, such that the current Republican party is ideologically fragmented. Certainly only a handful of Americans actually believe that the Harry Potter series is blasphemous.

 

[PhiMed]

First off, no one told Rowling that she encouraged witchcraft, and the only person who has suggested this phrase was ever used is a guy who's trying to create controversy in order to sell books.
Second, unless you've found a source I could not, there is no publicly available "short list", so the only person who claims she was ever even under consideration is the guy mentioned in the previous point.
Finally, I get the feeling that you really want to believe this is true, and nothing anyone here can say will convince you that this guy just might be another bs'er trying to make a buck off of political ill will.

Going in reverse order:

As I said before I couldn't care less about JK or her award and I really don't want to believe that this is true, I have too much to loose by believing otherwise. My sanity is kept intact by knowing that the leaders of the free world are/were actually competent people and proving otherwise means that I would be grievously distraught in knowing that the world has spent a good amount of years listening to a bunch of baboons. So let me make this clear Phil, I don't really want to believe this is true or I might have to eat myself at the sheer stupidity of what has been said.

That said though, since this is a discussion I would like to explore all *possible* outcomes. And yes, while your suggestion of "this might be someone trying to make a buck out of political ill will" is valid and sound it is hardly the only explanation. At least until someone comes along with evidence to say that the claims made in the book are false. Or until JK herself comes along and responds to these reports.

Until then, everything is just speculation. And while I don't want to believe that this story is true either, it doesn't seem out of character for the Bush administration to have pulled this stunt. Another incident to occur quite recently on similar lines but not related to this topic in particular is children's writer Philip Pullman's trilogy His Dark Materials been ranked second on the 2008 US banned books list by the American Library Association (American Library Association banned books [http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/sep/30/american-library-association-banned-books]). While I suppose in this instance the parents and the Catholic League had a hand in it's fate (even though this children's book wasn't offensive, to me at least) I don't see how, judging from this reaction, to not be surprised when someone yells witchcraft at Harry Potter.


Now as for the short list, I said before I wasn't quoting a source but it's only reasonable to assume that some form of filtering criteria had to take place for such a prestigious award to be granted. It's not going to be a "pull a name out of a hat" approach, that I am sure of. Whatever the criteria was used during the process (again, logically) someone would have had to notice JK's name. And if it wasn't supposed to be there then it would have been removed.

Besides, for those claiming the "Presidential Medal of Freedom" is for US citizens only well:

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is bestowed on individuals of any nationality who are deemed to have contributed to US interests, world peace, or any cultural or social advancement.

(http://io9.com/5370447/rowling-snubbed-by-white-house-for-promoting-witchcraft)

All I am saying is that if JK's name was in the running for the honor, then it was there for a good reason. Someone (at least initially) thought she deserved it and then didn't, there is nothing inherently wrong with that provided that the reasons for exclusion are sound. And that is all that I am questioning from this source.

You contradict yourself. In one sentence you state that your continued sanity rests on this being untrue, and in another you state that this is not out of character for the Bush administration. If you already believe that the administration would have no qualms about pointing and yelling, "she's a witch! Burrrrrrrrn herrrrrr!" then you need this to be true in order to confirm your preconceived notions.

As for the statement that they did not "pull a name out of a hat", really? You don't say? I said there was no publicly available short list. I had never heard her name associated with this award until this story, so the only person who states she was on it is a controversy miner.

You say that until someone presents evidence that this is untrue, it should not be discounted. Why? Latimer presents no evidence, just his word. A man makes an absolutely outrageous accusation without a shred of evidence and with millions of dollars worth of motive to lie. According to you, though, the burden of proof lies with the accused. That's just about the most ridiculous, least logical thing I've ever heard.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

*snip*

It's not a contradiction. Saying something is plausible is different to saying something actually happened. One is a logical presumption the other is unequivocal fact. I am saying it is seemingly possible for events mentioned in the source to have occurred (i.e- it's not out of character for the Bush administration) but I am hoping in reality that it hasn't. They are two things that are not in contradiction, it's me saying "I don't want it to be true" but "it may very well be true". I hope I have cleared that up for you.

"As for the statement that they did not "pull a name out of a hat", really? You don't say? I said there was no publicly available short list. I had never heard her name associated with this award until this story, so the only person who states she was on it is a controversy miner}

I admit I don't know how this award handing procedure runs but I don't think there will be a publicly available short list because it wouldn't be open to the public. Then again if you insist to remain on this point, (which I believe to be "JK could possibly never have even been on the list"), I put it to you to ponder why hasn't someone who was actually involved with the awards respond to these statement by saying, "hey wait a minute, JK Rowling was never even considered for this award..you are talking crap!" or something along those lines.

If you are doubting that JK was even on the list, because this was reported by "a controversy miner" then surely someone (either the people responsible for the awards or JK herself) would have responded with a correction telling us otherwise. The mere fact that no one has said, "hang on..that name was never even selected for the honour" tells me that at least some parts of the source has some weight behind it.

As for you third point:

Once again I never said that the Latimer's story is true, I said it's possible that it's true. Until evidence comes either way (proof that he is lying/not lying) facts remain as "plausible" rather than "untrue". Why, you ask?. Mostly because no one from the accused side has brought up anything to counter that specific point. Sure there is the usual mud-slinging, questioning of character and character defamation been thrown about but has anyone refuted the "witchcraft" point?. No!. No one has denied the claim about JK nor have they proved Latimer wrong about the awards. So very simply, until someone can provide evidence to prove or disprove the source then it stands as it is now; a very plausible event.

You say that until someone presents evidence that this is untrue, it should not be discounted. Why?

Seriously?. Are you suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with wanting evidence before disproving a point that is in doubt?. Is that what you are trying to say?. Or are you cleverly trying to say that we should ignore evidence even if it is proven to be true?.

I let you think about that for a while..

A man makes an absolutely outrageous accusation without a shred of evidence and with millions of dollars worth of motive to lie. According to you, though, the burden of proof lies with the accused. That's just about the most ridiculous, least logical thing I've ever heard.

Yes, he has the motive, means and opportunity to lie and be rewarded handsomely for it but is that what he really did?. The only way to find out is with evidence. I haven't read his book and chances are that you haven't either. Who's to say he hasn't provided evidence for his claims in the book?. Who's to say the book itself isn't evidence?. Has he named names, pointed fingers, drawn graphs, taken photographs, questioned authority?. I don't know.

This is why I said that your explanation is hardly the only explanation because even your views require evidence to prove the point. Just because he has a motive to do something doesn't mean that he is automatically going to do it. Where is the evidence to prove foul play, like you suggest?.

The fact of the matter is that Latimer got the ball rolling when he accused the Bush administration. The ball is now in the accused's court. If the accused are to respond they may as well do it while providing evidence, otherwise it's just going end in a stalemate. I don't care who provides the evidence, as long as there is evidence, and, since it is the accused who are responding, what's wrong with asking them for the evidence?. Afterall, it would only serve to strengthen *their* case against Mr. Latimer. I see nothing "least logical" about that.

To me, the news article and Latimer's claims are sadly not outlandish, at least not to the point where I can go "There is no way that happened!". Neither is it concrete enough for me to think "this absolutely happened". From what I read, this is a plausible scenario at best. It may be true or it may not. No one will know until someone comes up with evidence but until then, I shall regard it as I always have: as a plausible scenario.

 

[PhiMed]

*snip*

It's not a contradiction. Saying something is plausible is different to saying something actually happened. One is a logical presumption the other is unequivocal fact. I am saying it is seemingly possible for events mentioned in the source to have occurred (i.e- it's not out of character for the Bush administration) but I am hoping in reality that it hasn't. They are two things that are not in contradiction, it's me saying "I don't want it to be true" but "it may very well be true". I hope I have cleared that up for you.

Semantics. "It is not out of character for the Bush administration" is a vague, subjective statement based on your own biases. The fact that you hold these beliefs doesn't make them inherently logical. I will admit that the assumption that these events are possible is a logical one. The assumption that they are plausible, however, is not.

"As for the statement that they did not "pull a name out of a hat", really? You don't say? I said there was no publicly available short list. I had never heard her name associated with this award until this story, so the only person who states she was on it is a controversy miner}

I admit I don't know how this award handing procedure runs but I don't think there will be a publicly available short list because it wouldn't be open to the public. Then again if you insist to remain on this point, (which I believe to be "JK could possibly never have even been on the list"), I put it to you to ponder why hasn't someone who was actually involved with the awards respond to these statement by saying, "hey wait a minute, JK Rowling was never even considered for this award..you are talking crap!" or something along those lines.

In case you haven't noticed, unless there are criminal charges involved, most of the Bush Administration has been pretty silent lately. Maybe they don't feel like addressing every crazy person who invokes their name. Besides, there are livelihoods at stake here. Trash novelists have to make a living, too, right?

If you are doubting that JK was even on the list, because this was reported by "a controversy miner" then surely someone (either the people responsible for the awards or JK herself) would have responded with a correction telling us otherwise. The mere fact that no one has said, "hang on..that name was never even selected for the honour" tells me that at least some parts of the source has some weight behind it.

Ah, the old "confirmation by silence" argument. I suppose you believe that the 9/11 truthers, UFO enthusiasts, staged moon landing advocates, ghost hunters, JFK assassination conspiracy theorists, birthers, and bigfoot chasers have been confirmed, as well.

As for you third point:

Once again I never said that the Latimer's story is true, I said it's possible that it's true.

Actually, you said it's plausible, but whatever

Until evidence comes either way (proof that he is lying/not lying) facts remain as "plausible" rather than "untrue".

No, they don't. He needs to prove his claim. He brought it up. Until then, plausibility is a function of evidence and personal opinion.

Why, you ask?. Mostly because no one from the accused side has brought up anything to counter that specific point. Sure there is the usual mud-slinging, questioning of character and character defamation been thrown about but has anyone refuted the "witchcraft" point?. No!. No one has denied the claim about JK nor have they proved Latimer wrong about the awards. So very simply, until someone can provide evidence to prove or disprove the source then it stands as it is now; a very plausible event.

I've already addressed why the accused might not step forward to address this. You don't humor the man with tinfoil on his head. But let's look at the converse to your argument. If there was ANY veracity to his claim, don't you think that someone in the media would've picked up on it other than to say, "This guy says it in his book." Look, Jeneane Garofolo was on Bill Maher this weekend. Those two made no mention of it. Don't you think that, as much as those two love ripping on Bush, if there was anything at all to this, one of them would've at least mentioned it? No one's running with this story because there's nowhere to go. This guy's word is all there is.

You say that until someone presents evidence that this is untrue, it should not be discounted. Why?

Seriously?. Are you suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with wanting evidence before disproving a point that is in doubt?. Is that what you are trying to say?. Or are you cleverly trying to say that we should ignore evidence even if it is proven to be true?.

I let you think about that for a while..

Okay, I thought about it, and I came to some interesting conclusions. I realized that your version of thinking is the exact opposite of what I and the rest of the world call "logic". See, most of us expect someone who makes a sensational claim to offer some proof of it before we accept it whole cloth. You, on the other hand, immediately take their statements at face value, and turn to the subject of their statement, asking for a refute of the claim. I'm sure you really sincerely believe that cold fusion was invented in the 90's, if this is how you view the world.

A man makes an absolutely outrageous accusation without a shred of evidence and with millions of dollars worth of motive to lie. According to you, though, the burden of proof lies with the accused. That's just about the most ridiculous, least logical thing I've ever heard.

Yes, he has the motive, means and opportunity to lie and be rewarded handsomely for it but is that what he really did?. The only way to find out is with evidence. I haven't read his book and chances are that you haven't either. Who's to say he hasn't provided evidence for his claims in the book?. Who's to say the book itself isn't evidence?.

I am. A book can contain evidence, but on its own cannot be evidence. It can cite documents and sources, but the book itself is, by definition, hearsay.

Has he named names,

I thought we were talking about evidence. "Naming names" is not evidence unless you're talking about corroborative statements

pointed fingers,

Seriously? How is that evidence?

drawn graphs,

Also, not evidence. Summarization of data, perhaps, but not evidence

taken photographs,

Hooray! Something that actually meets the definition of evidence! Hey, you named a bunch of things, you were bound to get ONE of them right.

questioned authority?.

Awww, too bad. Thought you might be on a roll there for a while. Oh well. You'll get them next time.

This is why I said that your explanation is hardly the only explanation because even your views require evidence to prove the point.

No, they don't. Burden of proof always lies with the accuser. That's why we set up our judicial system that way. Otherwise "rule of law" becomes "crazy witch hunt."

Just because he has a motive to do something doesn't mean that he is automatically going to do it. Where is the evidence to prove foul play, like you suggest?.

Where is his evidence of his claims? You're trying to place him on trial, to make him the defendant, but he's the one who's making accusations.

The fact of the matter is that Latimer got the ball rolling when he accused the Bush administration. The ball is now in the accused's court. If the accused are to respond they may as well do it while providing evidence, otherwise it's just going end in a stalemate.

You really must hate our justice system. You must watch The Crucible and think, "I wish the world was more like that. McCarthy really had it right.

I don't care who provides the evidence, as long as there is evidence, and, since it is the accused who are responding, what's wrong with asking them for the evidence?.

Witchhunt

Afterall, it would only serve to strengthen *their* case against Mr. Latimer.

"If you're not a Communist, then you only need to prove it"

I see nothing "least logical" about that.

To me, the news article and Latimer's claims are sadly not outlandish, at least not to the point where I can go "There is no way that happened!".

Outlandish and impossible are not synonymous. For example, It's not impossible for Michelle Obama to have participated in a gang bang with 5 members of the KKK, but if someone suggested it I would certainly think it was outlandish. But I suppose you would want proof that she didn't.

Neither is it concrete enough for me to think "this absolutely happened". From what I read, this is a plausible scenario at best.

Plausibility, in this case, is subjective. It's certainly possible. But that doesn't make it plausible. Plausibility implies likelihood.

It may be true or it may not. No one will know until someone comes up with evidence but until then, I shall regard it as I always have: as a plausible scenario.

And that's where your logic fails. You dislike the past administration so much that you're willing to give creedence to this man's claims, demanding proof of the accused rather than the accuser. If you want to believe this is true, that's fine. But not even the most vitriolic Bush-bashers in the country have picked this story up and run with it.

 

[Dragonearl]

Spoiler: this is insane

*snip*

It's not a contradiction. Saying something is plausible is different to saying something actually happened. One is a logical presumption the other is unequivocal fact. I am saying it is seemingly possible for events mentioned in the source to have occurred (i.e- it's not out of character for the Bush administration) but I am hoping in reality that it hasn't. They are two things that are not in contradiction, it's me saying "I don't want it to be true" but "it may very well be true". I hope I have cleared that up for you.

Semantics. "It is not out of character for the Bush administration" is a vague, subjective statement based on your own biases. The fact that you hold these beliefs doesn't make them inherently logical. I will admit that the assumption that these events are possible is a logical one. The assumption that they are plausible, however, is not.

-I like how you threw "semantics" into this and clearly convoluted everything that was in here. You have clearly chosen to define what's "vague", "subjective" and "plausible" by your own criteria, which is fine, but then you accuse someone else of doing the same thing you did. Only you went one better by saying "The fact that you hold these beliefs doesn't make them inherently logical". So, then surely by that logic what you are believing is also illogical. Is it just me or is that statement just bonkers

"As for the statement that they did not "pull a name out of a hat", really? You don't say? I said there was no publicly available short list. I had never heard her name associated with this award until this story, so the only person who states she was on it is a controversy miner}

I admit I don't know how this award handing procedure runs but I don't think there will be a publicly available short list because it wouldn't be open to the public. Then again if you insist to remain on this point, (which I believe to be "JK could possibly never have even been on the list"), I put it to you to ponder why hasn't someone who was actually involved with the awards respond to these statement by saying, "hey wait a minute, JK Rowling was never even considered for this award..you are talking crap!" or something along those lines.

In case you haven't noticed, unless there are criminal charges involved, most of the Bush Administration has been pretty silent lately. Maybe they don't feel like addressing every crazy person who invokes their name. Besides, there are livelihoods at stake here. Trash novelists have to make a living, too, right?

- So you are saying that, um?. Wait what are you saying?. There are livelyhoods at stake?. yes!. That hasn't stopped the administration before. They have been more than willing to take people down a few pegs in the past, why is this guy so special?. They are not responding to the accusations?. Some might call that guilt.

"trash novelists have to make a living, too, right?" Seriously, what does that mean in context to what you wrote?. Do you even know?.

If you are doubting that JK was even on the list, because this was reported by "a controversy miner" then surely someone (either the people responsible for the awards or JK herself) would have responded with a correction telling us otherwise. The mere fact that no one has said, "hang on..that name was never even selected for the honour" tells me that at least some parts of the source has some weight behind it.

Ah, the old "confirmation by silence" argument. I suppose you believe that the 9/11 truthers, UFO enthusiasts, staged moon landing advocates, ghost hunters, JFK assassination conspiracy theorists, birthers, and bigfoot chasers have been confirmed, as well.

"Confirmation by silence" by definition means that one party does not respond to a given topic; thereby silently giving conformation to the other party. I don't know where you have been but "the 9/11 truthers, UFO enthusiasts, staged moon landing advocates, ghost hunters, JFK assassination conspiracy theorists, birthers, and bigfoot chasers" all have heated debates and discussions about their respective authenticity. It's actually well publicized over the media, so it's not really examples of "confirmation by silence" since you know, no one is really been silent about it. So whatever point you were making is horribly moot.

As for you third point:

Once again I never said that the Latimer's story is true, I said it's possible that it's true.

Actually, you said it's plausible, but whatever

-Plausible = Seemingly or apparently valid = apparently reasonable = possibly true = logically possible.

Until evidence comes either way (proof that he is lying/not lying) facts remain as "plausible" rather than "untrue".

No, they don't. He needs to prove his claim. He brought it up. Until then, plausibility is a function of evidence and personal opinion.

-Personal opinion you say?. Interesting!.

Let's push aside the possibility that the author might in fact have given evidence in his book, you scuttle past this and go on to say that "personal opinion" is a factor in plausibility.

So tell me then Sherlock, when someone writes a book about his time in the White House, especially with a book titled as: Speech-less: Tales of a White House Survivor AND ESPECIALLY since a synopses of the book can be easily found, deduce to me if the book will contain:

a) Japanese Calligraphy

b) A Garfield Comic Strip

c) His personal opinions

d) An essay about the curtains in the oval office

Why, you ask?. Mostly because no one from the accused side has brought up anything to counter that specific point. Sure there is the usual mud-slinging, questioning of character and character defamation been thrown about but has anyone refuted the "witchcraft" point?. No!. No one has denied the claim about JK nor have they proved Latimer wrong about the awards. So very simply, until someone can provide evidence to prove or disprove the source then it stands as it is now; a very plausible event.

I've already addressed why the accused might not step forward to address this. You don't humor the man with tinfoil on his head. But let's look at the converse to your argument. If there was ANY veracity to his claim, don't you think that someone in the media would've picked up on it other than to say, "This guy says it in his book." Look, Jeneane Garofolo was on Bill Maher this weekend. Those two made no mention of it. Don't you think that, as much as those two love ripping on Bush, if there was anything at all to this, one of them would've at least mentioned it? No one's running with this story because there's nowhere to go. This guy's word is all there is.

-I don't know who these people you mentioned are but is a news story only proven credible when these two people mention it on their shows?. Have you considered that maybe they haven't heard the story or care about it very much to air it on. I mean digging into a former administration is hardly topical right?.

You say that until someone presents evidence that this is untrue, it should not be discounted. Why?

Seriously?. Are you suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with wanting evidence before disproving a point that is in doubt?. Is that what you are trying to say?. Or are you cleverly trying to say that we should ignore evidence even if it is proven to be true?.

I let you think about that for a while..

Okay, I thought about it, and I came to some interesting conclusions. I realized that your version of thinking is the exact opposite of what I and the rest of the world call "logic". See, most of us expect someone who makes a sensational claim to offer some proof of it before we accept it whole cloth. You, on the other hand, immediately take their statements at face value, and turn to the subject of their statement, asking for a refute of the claim. I'm sure you really sincerely believe that cold fusion was invented in the 90's, if this is how you view the world.

-Easy there!. Don't categorise the rest of us with your own definitions of logic.

See in the real world people are free to make claims and accusations, it is the 1st amendment I believe in the US constitution. Therefore people tend to abuse this right and more often than not you get tons of weird and sensational claims making its way through history. The funny thing is that those making the claims are free to do so without any evidence.

For instance I could make a post right now in the escapist telling people that I am an alien from Mars. Most of you won't believe me without evidence, some of you quite alarmingly might believe me. However, regardless if I have evidence or not my voice has been heard (or seen in this case) by a substantial number of people and therefore it will get passed along as either credible proof of ET or another joker on the internet. It doesn't change the fact that people will still come to read my post and draw their own interpretations. The only way to silence me is to prove that I am a fraud, meaning that someone up to the task has to do that.

This is why the courts have the whole "innocent until prove guilty" clause. Similarly, the Bush administration can claim innocence until evidence comes along to say otherwise AND so can the author of the book claim validity of his work until proven otherwise. He cannot be ignored like you are trying to do merely by words. If he is to be proven wrong like you say he is, then the Republicans must prove evidence to show that. Likewise for the world to take this author seriously he must prove evidence to back his claims.

The thing I notice that you are failing to grasp here is that this man, the author, he did the accusing and the accusers in general, have the luxury of making claims without evidence. That is a fact of life sadly. Having evidence to back your accusations is the difference between a good accuser and someone who hasn't thought things through properly BUT it doesn't change the fact that anyone can make an accusation regardless of having proof. Unless it's a court trial anyone can start off with a yarn having next to no evidence. Why anyone would chose to do so is beyond me but personally, having faced a landlord that tried to claim my apartment security deposit over scratches that he claimed were made by me is an example of someone making use of the "no-evidence" accusations maneuver.

See, in that scenarios I was been accused of something that I did not do. Did he have evidence to prove what he was claiming? No!. I had to show him the apartment walkthrough sheet and threaten him with taking the issue to the small claims courts before he dropped it. I had to show the evidence here, me, the accused. This scenario applies to the OP.

The world out there doesn't operate by your textbook definition of logic, so don't bring the rest of us into your Utopian world.

A man makes an absolutely outrageous accusation without a shred of evidence and with millions of dollars worth of motive to lie. According to you, though, the burden of proof lies with the accused. That's just about the most ridiculous, least logical thing I've ever heard.

Yes, he has the motive, means and opportunity to lie and be rewarded handsomely for it but is that what he really did?. The only way to find out is with evidence. I haven't read his book and chances are that you haven't either. Who's to say he hasn't provided evidence for his claims in the book?. Who's to say the book itself isn't evidence?.

I am. A book can contain evidence, but on its own cannot be evidence. It can cite documents and sources, but the book itself is, by definition, hearsay.

-So you alone have decided that this book doesn't contain any evidence or that it's completely hearsay without reading page one of the book?. I don't know if I find that more appalling or the next point about your argument that I am going to bring up


I laughed particularly hard when you said "A book can contain evidence, but on its own cannot be evidence." and "It can cite documents and sources, but the book itself is, by definition, hearsay".

-Have you heard of "lab reports", "project reports", "quarterly evaluations" or "CVs" to name a few?. These are documents or sometimes even books, that contain detailed evidence about, say, an experiment, a project, an evaluation, or even character references and they are almost always used by your superiors as evidence for your evaluation. So already your "a book on it's own cannot be evidence" argument has failed because each of these are books that are used as evidence on a day to day basis. Just ask any university student or prospective job-seeker.

-Then you went and said "It can cite documents and sources, but the book itself is, by definition, hearsay".

a) Why?. If it provides tangible evidence (i.e- documents and sources) why is it hearsay?.

b) How is "the book itself" by definition hearsay? What definition have you used here?. The definition dictionary according to you?

c) How can you make such a claim without analyzing the evidence (if there is any)?. Are you the sort that judges a man on the surface and not by what by the evidence dictates?.

Lets take a step back and analyse what you have just said but with a little perspective.

The author in the OP has made a sensational claim in his book. A book that you yourself have not read and have no idea if it contains evidence or not. So far though, it's all good, no harm no foul. However, you decide to upset the whole applecart by bringing in assumptions and presumptions. When you say "It can cite documents and sources, but the book itself is, by definition, hearsay" it is like you saying:

"The book can present the readers with evidence but by definition it is all hearsay"

The only logical answer for this mangled sentence of yours is, that you "think" it's hearsay because it's been written by, what is in your mind, a dubious source. You personally have a biased view of the author so you think that any evidence (if any) in his book will be tampered with or illogical.

If you came to this conclusion from an unbiased viewpoint then there is nothing wrong with this but your previous posts and wording such as "controversy miner" leads me to suggest that you are not really having an objective view here.

Now to put into scale how catastrophically wrong your argument is, I want you to consider all those books written by ancient historians, scientists, philosophers. People who during their time, brought about "sensational claims" to a less than accepting world. Like those that said the world was round, or the earth goes around the sun. I mean they did their homework, they took notes, noticed the curvature of the ocean, studied the constellations, wrote books, made publications, quoted more documentations and made further citations in their.

Just like you, people back then screamed "hearsay" and the more common "heresy" to such claims. They had evidence though, which is the only contesting point in your scenario and mine, but then you went and said "It can cite documents and sources, but the book itself is, by definition, hearsay".

Which neatly bring me to my point: I am not saying that the author is a revolutionary or a Charles Darwin. But like the latter, the author in the OP has made a "sensational claim". If he has evidence or not I don't know but for the sake of argument and for your point about "hearsay" let's assume he has done so. In this "hypothetical" scenarios you have clearly stated that anything presented in the book "by definition" is hearsay.

So then by that logic would have dismissed the Origin of species or the Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis because they were written by people who at the time were considered dubious/ presented "sensational claims" to the public/controversy mining?.

Again, I am not saying this White House worker belong in the ranks as these great men BUT in context, and considering you stated that a book by definition is hearsay (because of a controversial author) I ask you: will you so easily dismiss one of these well known books?

Logically you should say, "No, it's because they have evidence and documented sources..." oh no wait!. Honestly, if your logic existed in the 18th century......

Has he named names,

I thought we were talking about evidence. "Naming names" is not evidence unless you're talking about corroborative statements

- I think that is what the OP meant, considering no one has read the book yet.

pointed fingers,

Seriously? How is that evidence?

- Do you not know how interrogations works?. It's very simple, person A accuses person B of something. Then someone who gives a crap goes to person B and asks him some very tough and tricky questions. This cycle will continue for awhile and sometimes other people get involved but eventually (most of the time anyway) corroborative evidence can be gathered via this method.

drawn graphs,

-Actually I can't make sense of that one either. Hmmm...

taken photographs,

Hooray! Something that actually meets the definition of evidence! Hey, you named a bunch of things, you were bound to get ONE of them right.

-Ok everyone is been stupid here!. Unless the man was an official white house photographer (which he isn't- he's a speech writer) there is no way photographic evidence can even be considered for this case.

questioned authority?.

Awww, too bad. Thought you might be on a roll there for a while. Oh well. You'll get them next time.

-I don't understand the OP here either but you are hardly making sense yourself. Try to keep your points relevant and that is to everyone who is looking to make coherent arguments.

My god man. There is so much of incorrect fallacies in your arguments that if I were to point them all out this post will be unfathomably long. It was funny at first then I noticed how you continued towards not making sense which is why I am intervening now.

I tired to point somethings out at the start but my lord there is so much more that's left to be desired. I couldn't even touch the latter half..so I didn't even bother correcting them. I swear the things you have said like "You dislike the past administration so much that you're willing to give creedence to this man's claims, demanding proof of the accused rather than the accuser" is quite in contrast to what you are actually saying halfway through.

The point is that this has gone way WAY off topic. The OP was about the author of the Harry Potter books been denied her award because of witchcraft. This was reported by several media sites so we know that it happened. Why can't there be two people with two opinions here instead of people arguing over something that has no say in their immediate lives.

So know what, either contribute something new here or let it go.