Sunday, April 25, 2010

David Kopel on Mayor Bloomberg

Sebastian seems to think David Kopel wrote a brilliant article in the Denver Post about Mayor Bloomberg.

I thought the article was so much mind-reading and doomsday predictions. Many of the complaints got a big "so what?" out of me. Here's an example.

But under the Bloomberg bill, every person who sells a gun just once at a gun show can be put in a permanent federal database. Suppose a man who owns seven guns rents a table one weekend to sell three guns, to pay for his family's summer vacation. Bloomberg requires that the gun show promoter keep a record of that person, and allows the federal government to collect those records.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

18 comments:

  1. Again, David Kopel is probably one of the most dishonest gun fetishists out there. And that's saying a lot since, the NRA is full of liars and prevaricators.

    Take the case of Theodore Fiddleman (aka Paul Blackman, NRA employee), many of Fiddleman's articles were co-authored with NRA adherent, Dave Kopel.

    When Fiddleman's/Blackman's sockpuppetry was initially disclosed, Kopel denied knowing Fiddleman was actually Paul Blackman of the NRA. He now admits he knew who Fiddleman was all along.

    Kopel is a lawyer and while his actions WRT Fiddleman/Blackman weren't illegal--they certainly raise questions as to his ethics.

    Additionally, Kopel was a Deputy Atty General of the US is the Reagan admin. under Ed Meese's DoJ. Kopel didn't last long in that gig; Kopel claims it was because he opposed the Reagan War on Drugs. Yet, how is it Kopel came to accept the position--under Ed Meese--whose drug policies were well-known and, indeed, a campaign issue? It's akin to not knowing Osama bin Laden favors terrorism.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Fiddleman was actually Paul Blackman of the NRA. He now admits he knew who Fiddleman was all along."

    And I suppose your real name is Jade Gold. Of course.

    "Many of the complaints got a big "so what?" out of me."

    Being that you are for far more stringent laws, I can see why.

    ReplyDelete
  3. FWM, of course, misses the point. Either FWM is truly clueless or merely untruthful...we'll see.

    Paul Blackman was, and is, a paid representative of the NRA. When he wrote letters to the editor or articles under his sockpuppet name--with Kopel--he was certainly violating ethical standards. After all, if you read an article or a letter to the editor espousing a certain viewpoint--don't you want to know if the author has a financial or other conflict of interest related to that viewpoint?

    In journalism, what Blackman and Kopel did was fraud. Journalists have been fired and had careers ruined for similar acts; e.g., the WSJ business writer who was caught touting companies he happened to own stock in.

    From the British Medical Journal:

    "More recently, JAMA received a letter from Theodore H
    Fiddleman, which was critical of a study it had published
    correlating tobacco firms' campaign contributions and legis-
    lation in favour of the industry. Fiddleman has now been
    exposed as an invention of Paul H Blackman, research
    coordinator for the National Rifle Association's lobbying and
    research arm.8 Blackman admitted to a string of essays and
    letters published since the 1970s under Fiddleman's name.
    JAMA fortunately uncovered the fraud before publication;
    Blackman's writing style had been recognised. "

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  4. "After all, if you read an article or a letter to the editor espousing a certain viewpoint--don't you want to know if the author has a financial or other conflict of interest related to that viewpoint?"

    Every person who writes a letter to the editor has a conflict of interest. That's why they are published in the opinion section of newspapers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Az Red is simply not telling the truth, per usual.

    Opinions are found in the Op/Ed section because they are, indeed, opinions. However, if one puts an opinion or letter or essay in the paper espousing, say, the wonders and benefits of offshore drilling--it is both dishonest and unethical for one not to disclose he or she works for an offshore drilling company.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  6. "After all, if you read an article or a letter to the editor espousing a certain viewpoint--don't you want to know if the author has a financial or other conflict of interest related to that viewpoint?"

    If someone has no interest in a subject, why would they waste their time writing a letter to the editor about it?

    If you write a letter to the editor, do you sign it as "Jade Gold, anti-gun troll extraordinare?"

    ReplyDelete
  7. JadeGold is certainly correct about the conflict of interest inherent in the Blackman/Fiddleman sockpuppetry. Of course he has good company in an NRA shill like John Lott and his dear student, Mary Rosh.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If i'm writing an letter extolling the benefits of offshore drilling, it should be obvious I have an interest in offshore drilling.

    But then again, Jade has never been one to catch the obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  9. JadeGold seem to have done quite an excellent job of diverting the discussion from Mikeb's question.

    The amazing thing about David Kopel is that he is a gunowner advocate who in principle SUPPORTS background checks at gun shows! What he supports is a federal law similar to Colorado's successful background checks at gun shows law -- a law that mandates background checks at gun shows and not much else.

    Kopel like many gunowner advocates just does NOT support a law like Bloomburg's proposal which would do much more than Colorado's more reasonable law.

    That those like JadeGold would rather ATTACK someone who would actually SUPPORT background checks at gun shows demonstrates that it's not really about background checks at gun shows but rather about the other things in Bloomburg's proposal and the other things which would follow.

    ReplyDelete
  10. JAdeGold: “Opinions are found in the Op/Ed section because they are, indeed, opinions. However, if one puts an opinion or letter or essay in the paper espousing, say, the wonders and benefits of offshore drilling--it is both dishonest and unethical for one not to disclose he or she works for an offshore drilling company.”

    JadeGold, I have heard others say that you are/were an employee of a gun control organization. In order to be ethical, you should fully disclose your history here since you post your anti-gun opinions and you may have a financial interest in gun control.

    I however am not and have never been a member of the NRA- so I guess my opinion counts.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The post by "JadeGold" is libelous. I never worked for the Reagan administration, and thus his whole story about me leaving that administration is a fabrication. As for Fiddleman-gate, I wrote two op-eds with my friend Paul Blackman, in which he used a pseudonym, and I used my own name. As the media reported at the time, I immediately and accurately responded to media questions about Paul's pseudonym.
    See http://www.westword.com/1995-08-02/news/off-limits

    David Kopel

    ReplyDelete
  12. David, Thanks for the visit and comment. I must say that although JadeGold was a bit brash in calling you "one of the most dishonest gun fetishists out there," I found his remarks to be completely credible.

    About your supposedly having worked for the Reagan Administration, JadeGold says you did, you say you didn't, what do you want me to do? Should I conduct an independent investigation to get to the truth? Anyone who knows me will tell you I don't do that kind of thing, so I'm afraid it's between you two.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Don't you have "shared responsibility" for Jade's libelous comments?

    Funny how unwilling you are to apply your theories to yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mikeb: "About your supposedly having worked for the Reagan Administration, JadeGold says you did, you say you didn't, what do you want me to do?"

    Is there a good way for Kopel to prove that he did NOT work for Reagan? Probably not -- a classic example of the difficulty of "proving a negative."

    So how about this? JadeGold made the claim, so unless he offers supporting evidence let's consider him to be a liar and remind him of it when he tries to make more such claims.

    I know that I will.

    ReplyDelete
  15. So how about this? JadeGold made the claim, so unless he offers supporting evidence let's consider him to be a liar and remind him of it when he tries to make more such claims.

    Sounds good to me. If JadeGold can not prove this, then I'd say it is safe to assume he is a proven liar.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think too quickly applying the "liar" label on someone says more about you guys than it does the target of your labelling.

    As a curiosity, do you guys who call JadeGold a liar talk like that to people face to face? I'm serious. I wrote a blog post about this once.

    I write on the blog much cleaner than I talk in real life. I still don't get in people's faces with accusations, but I talk like a guy who was raised in North Jersey which I was.

    So, I guess I'm asking two things. Do you who agressively argue on the blogs do it the same face to face? And do you use more profanity when speaking than when writing?

    ReplyDelete
  17. As a curiosity, do you guys who call JadeGold a liar talk like that to people face to face? I'm serious. I wrote a blog post about this once.

    If JadeGold made slanderous or libel comments about me while I was present, then yes I would call him out as a liar. Especially if he remained silent after being called out on it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mikeb: I think too quickly applying the "liar" label on someone says more about you guys than it does the target of your labelling.

    I don't do that "too quickly." I do it when:

    Someone make a totally unsubstantiated claim about someone else.

    The someone else forcfully denies the claim.

    The liar then runs away from the debate rather than providing any substantiation.

    Mikeb, isn't this an incredible opportunity? Just provide some credible evidence that Kopel worked for Reagan, and you have the ultimate proof that Kopel is dishonest. And wasn't that JadeGold's claim all along?

    ReplyDelete