In this case, unsolicited, uninformed letters — thanks in large part to “progressive” academic SEK’s completely dishonest characterization of a post I wrote.
From someone calling himself George:
He can’t be shook bitches…keep it coming. Behind closed doors he is laughing at all you pathetic needle dick motherfuckers. In your eyes he couldn’t possibly be smart enough to write his book. However, there is no denying that he is still slowly squeezing the life out of that grimy, decrepit, fish belly white, warmonger. What’s next? Obama did not graduate from Columbia, or Harvard Law. Obama was not president of the Harvard Law Review. It’s all a sham Harvard and is lying on his behalf. He is not really running for president. It’s really some white dude in black face.All you people are so much smarter than Obama. REALLY…With your Talk Radio, Fox News, Sinclair Broadcasting Group, The American Spectator, National Review, The Weekly Standard , your right wing blogosphere and your Op ed writers. Not to mention your professional liars like Bill Kristol, Glenn Beck, the infiltrators a the AP plying their trade in the MSM. All this and he is still kicking your asses. It is really happening people; a nigger is beating the right wing horde. Bend over and take like a man, just relax and it won’t hurt so much. Resistance is futile, or on inauguration day I predict strokes, heart attacks and exploding heads. I just can’t wait.
Btw: We also know that mcsame barely graduated from a school he only got in because of rich white peoples affirmative action. We know the retard crashed five planes. We also know he is another mental midget like the last one you supported. We know he can’t speak without cue cards. I won’t even mention that bitch Mayor Failin….did any of her spawn graduate middle school. I know for sure that head of cabbage she carries around like a new purse wont, also: Reagan.
But George couldn’t stop there. In fact, he emailed me seconds later with this follow-up:
Next, Andy McCarthy looks into whether John Brown wrote The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. Because, you know, there wasn’t anything in Douglass’s background to suggest he could have written such a stylish and penetrating book.And then….Andy McCarthy will expose the following authors as the lying niggers that they are.
Booker T. Washington
August Wilson
W.E.B. Du Bois
James Baldwin
Zora Neale Hurston
Richard Wright
Claude McKay
These “arguments,” for those who haven’t been keeping up, are in “response” to a post of mine on the theoretical ghostwriting by Bill Ayer’s of Obama’s memoirs — a post that, according to SEK (and uncritically linked by The Atlantic) represented “a hypothetical which, if true, suggests all the unsavory things” I “already believe about Obama.” To anyone who bothers to read it, however, it “suggests” no such things — and is in fact a rather academic exhortation on the various beings of agency.
As I told SEK last evening in the comments to Dan’s post, I have no trouble articulating “all the unsavory things” that I “already believe about Obama,” and I am well prepared to do so in any number of appropriate contexts. Which is why his response to my post on ghostwriting was so completely dishonest. I also noted that SEK, rather than excerpting any of the post in which I purportedly suggest “all the unsavory things” I “already believe about Obama,” merely provided the link and his inaccurate and dishonest description, knowing, as he must by now, that those predisposed to read his political hackery are similarly predisposed to avoid confronting primary texts, especially those from villainous “right wingers” who, by the Atlantic’s lights, are the kinds of “low-info voters” who have no business pretending to engage in literary criticism. On my preparedness to do so I’ll let my record stand — while noting that I don’t miss the irony of those who have long been in favor of “democratizing” interpretation and sounding the death knell of authorial control in favor of an ascendancy of “interpretive communities” suddenly pretending that one needs some kind of special political sensibility in order to properly engage in textual pursuits.
At any rate, here is what I actually argued in my post:
Jack Kerouac’s On the Road, literary “detectives” recently discovered, was in fact a carefully constructed piece edited and labored over to give it the appearance of a free-flowing bit of extemporaneous observation and insight. And of court, such literary technique is hardly new — or even in any way disreputable: successful stream of consciousness fiction is perhaps the most carefully constructed of all imaginative fiction, relying for its power on giving the perception of the thought process rendered in words, without mimicking the thought process in any but the most conventional and superficial ways (compare its output to, eg.,“free writing”). The genre is, in a sense, self-enclosed and self-fulfilling — a celebration of a particular technique that simulates a referent that is, when all is said and done, nothing more than itself.Which is why when I talk of Obama’s memoirs, I place “Barack Obama” as literary construct in quotation marks: there is, in any verbal recounting, necessary recourse to narrative technique and tropes — so it is hardly controversial to separate Barack Obama from “Barack Obama” as he exists in words alone.
Where the interest lies is at the point of agency and authorship. For if Bill Ayers has indeed ghostwritten at least portions of Barack Obama’s memoirs, as some are alleging, then it is fair to say that the “Barack Obama” of those memoirs is more even than a construct: he is at least partially a fictional character, given that it is “his” words that ostensibly create “him” –making it follow that, if the words creating him are not his own, then “he” is really a kind of living literary portmanteau, a blend of influences, an ontological hybrid insofar as he exists publicly. [And this would be the case were Obama himself simply fabricating the stories that supposedly were lived out by “Barack Obama”]
To be clear, there is a gradation of difference between the “narrativized” and slightly fictionalized version of “oneself” that is the inevitable product of writing in the genre of memoir or autobiography, and the narrativized and slightly fictionalized version that is the product of a ghostwritten [or fabulist] piece. And that difference occurs on the level of the language used to create the “oneself” construct.
If the charges are true, and Obam’s memoirs were in fact written by Bill Ayers, at least in part, than it is clear that at least in part, Barack Obama is a creation of Bill Ayers, not with respect to the historical events of Obama’s life, but with respect to how those events are presented, and how the presentation itself speaks to the “person” doing the presenting.
On that meta level, “Obama,” as we’ve come to know him through his memoirs, is more Ayers than he is Obama. Because from the perspective of “literariness” (if such a thing can be said to exist), the presentation is equally as important as the presented.
Meaning that Obama’s ties to Ayers go even deeper than we’ve previously surmised. Because if true, these revelations over authorship strongly suggest that Ayers is, in a very real sense, “Obama’s” creator.
SEK has gone out of his way, since I called him on his dishonesty, to try to “recontextualize” my response in order to tease out the nefarious Obama Hate that hides within its pixelated blackness, unseen to all but the highly trained theorist’s eye. He notes how sad it is that I would be taken in by Cashill’s “sea imagery” argument such that I’d use it as a launching point to make a critical argument about whether or not Obama’s memoir was ghostwritten by Bill Ayers. Doing so, he concludes, marks me “a hack.”
Leave aside for the moment this strange idea that one cannot use a dubious analysis as a springboard for a perfectly reasonable one, or that one should never use an unpersuasive text to launch an argument that others may in fact learn from (in one fell swoop, SEK undermines the entirety of new cultural materialism as a valid critical pursuit! Bravo!).
Because beyond even that rather sloppy thinking, our crack scholar failed to do any secondary research (which would have entailed nothing more taxing than dipping into the comments of the post in question), and so missed an important bit that should have 1) preemptively defused his attempts at misdirection, and 2) saved him the following embarrassment. To wit, in the comments to my original post I write, re: sea imagery and the post itself:
I agree, I’d need to see much more before I accused Obama of anything. This analysis is based off of another’s conclusions, obviously — though the author is an academic and separate from WND, the venue in which the pieces were published.So yes, think of [my post] as an analysis of a hypothetical. One thing that struck me was the discussion of nautical tropes — which failed to redouble back to the poem, where apes were fig stomping under the sea.
At any rate, we’d need other Obama works to compare the books to, and even then, editors tend to smooth things out a bit.Still, if one goes merely by the New Left guidebook, something of this sort is not to be dismissed lightly.
I’ve bolded the important bits for SEK, so he cannot hope but find them this time around, and thus prevent any further bother to me by the likes of George — people who haven’t the capacity to read and understand on their own, but who rather rely on “specialists” like the folks at the Atlantic, or SEK, to do their misreading for them. Sadly, they can operate a keyboard and an email program, and seem to think themselves entitled to hurl their venomous, imbecilic rants at any who displease them.
I ask again — for the twentieth time now — that you read the post in question. Note that the only conclusions it draws, and even then, only if the premise turns out to be true, are conclusions that would have been drawn in just about every case wherein the bulk of what we know of a public figure’s past comes from his pair of memoirs.* And those conclusions, far from being suggestive of every unsavory thing I believe about Barack Obama, were rather disinterested observations that flow from an exploration of language, the narrative process, and the differences in gradation between the author as historical figure, the author as author, and the author as “author.”
Were I a leftist writing this kind of benign analysis, I doubt very much I would have been deluged with the suggestion that I somehow implied that Obama didn’t have the stuff to write a memoir because I think that he’s 3/5 of a human (or rather, 3/5 of a human on his father’s side).
But because leftists like George are driven by outrage, emotion, and a decided lack of intellect — and are steered in a certain way by betters like SEK, who, after the revolution, will assume the role of the elect — I am in fact confronted by such idiocy and self-righteousness, which, were I to allow the literary critic in me to come out once again, is suggestive, I’d argue, of a kind of hamfisted paternalism and projection, much as one might expect from those who pretend to champion the Other (the unspoken acknowledgment being that the poor dears can’t be expected to champion themselves!) while not even fit to wipe their own asses.
****
*as Dan notes explicitly in an update:
Here’s the thing: there would’t be such questions regarding O! if he didn’t lie about that gun survey, if he didn’t lie about his relations with Ayers, if he didn’t lie about his connections with ACORN, if he didn’t lie about his Wall Street aspirations, if he didn’t lie about the nature of the work he did for a financial newsletter, if he would release his medical records, grades, if he weren’t hiding his thesis, if he didn’t claim he wasn’t around when Wright made those bizarre and racist speeches, if he didn’t claim he thought Ayers was rehabilitated, and on and on. Unfortunately, yeah, it’s bad enough that it makes almost anything seem plausible.Also, from the one sample we’ve got, his poetry is crap, even by undergrad standards. Is not a man capable of such heinous verse capable of practically any vileness?
I was going for something more subtle, but in my defense, I had no idea at the time I’d be dealing with readers of the online Atlantic.
All you people are so much smarter than Obama.
For my part I will own this one.
Also I do for real hate Baracky cause he’s a socialist. He wants command economy healthcare and command economy volunteerism and command economy automotive manufacturing and command economy energy production and command economy education and he’s against free trade and every goddamn body has to join a union. And that’s just off the top of my head. Creepy socialist prick.
Cold Civil War underway, I think.
It’s funny, because I thought it was the conservatives that eschewed intellectualism. Leftists – I present “George” … your base.
Sigh. And not a Lincoln in sight.
Well done, JeffG!
I know for sure that head of cabbage she carries around like a new purse wont
And that demonstrates, again, why The Left is morally bankrupt.
And, Happy – he wants to increase those who don’t pay taxes from 38 to 44%. With those 44% all getting checks from
the governmentthe other 56% of the population.Not the “change” I bet a lot were hoping for.
I don’t think Lincoln was a Lincoln in sight when he got going, hf, to be fair.
I’m as guilty as George for pointing out George’s guilt.
WAIT FOR IT!
oh. Those aren’t non-contributing losers, Carin, them’s Baracky’s base.
…kind of hamfisted paternalism and projection, much as one might expect from those who pretend to champion the Other
The Negro needs SEK and thor. But not as much as SEK and thor need The Negro.
Oh, and hope you’re feeling better, Jeff.
We’ve got half the country who will eat up the Oliver Stone caricature ‘W,’ and the millions worldwide who will eat it all up and say “yummy, I want more.” And if Obama wins, we’ve got Nuremberg-esque show trials for the Bushco, and all the loyal Dems who voted for the war will testify against the Bushitler saying they were misled, just following orders really. And then the Obama raises all the taxes and says “5 year plan for one million hybrids” and military funding goes down god knows how much; maybs the O! will forgo all those bourgeois intelligence briefings b/c they’re made by icky people who know nothing of social justice and then Iran merrily proceeds along the way to nuclear hood and fuck. I hate the O! too. If you’re gonna call me a racist, at least be all equal opportunity and say I hate white people too b/c he’s half white.
JeffG
“George” is a glorious member of the Left Cult. Criticizing him makes you a racist/sexist/genderist/yadda yadda yadda.
George is just a goofball I think. He sounds angry. Just really mad about something or other. Maybe he’ll feel better after lunch.
Fan mail from some flounder?
Dan
Actually “George” is a head of cabbage, he’s just projecting.
and just a general rhetorical rant … why does the Left go so batshit over Trig in public?
And I see O! triumphantly giving a speech in Europe proclaiming an end to the American era, Fareed Zakaria style, we’re gonna give the $845 Billion and more monies later to the poor people and the UN knows how to handle it well I talked to them and they said they’d do it right, its only fair to let them distribute the monies. The world might love us then and make O1 feel all tingly.
“GEORGE DOES NOT REPRESENT US! HOW DARE YOU USE HIM AS AN EXAMPLE!” — SEK, forthcoming.
preemptive answer: he represents one part of “you”. And you, as the intellectual vagina to his Asian gal’s ping pong ball, represent another. Deal.
“why does the Left go so batshit over Trig in public?”
The collective internal screaming of a million womens who aborted their babies but maybe felt not-so-good about it afterwards but have to carry their pain and demand “choice” so other know it. Liberals so compassionate.
Yes, Jeff, it’s my fault someone sent you an angry email. I suppose I should write a post blaming you for all the angry email I get every time I comment here.
As for this:
I also noted that SEK, rather than excerpting any of the post in which I purportedly suggest “all the unsavory things†I “already believe about Obama,†merely provided the link and his inaccurate and dishonest description, knowing, as he must by now, that those predisposed to read his political hackery are similarly predisposed to avoid confronting primary texts, especially those from villainous “right wingers†who, by the Atlantic’s lights, are the kinds of “low-info voters†who have no business pretending to engage in literary criticism.
I am currently—as in, right now—being chided by JD because he’s too stupid to click on a link. Plus, you know, it’s a stupid argument, because:
Which way do you want it, Jeff? Did they not click on the link and therefore not know who to send the email to, or did they click on it and know?
As for the rest, I claimed that you used a piece of pure hack-work to base a series of hypotheticals on, and on the basis of these hypotheticals, you wrote this:
When I wrote “all the unsavory things you already believe about Obama,” what I meant was, to use your words, was “Obama’s ties to Ayers go even deeper than we’ve previously surmised.” Presumably, you believe those “ties” to be “unsavory,” don’t you? So please, tell me again how I mischaracterized your post by claiming you wrote “a hypothetical which, if true, suggests all the unsavory things you already believe about Obama.”
How did he know about the “needle dick” thing? Who talked?
“You know, we need to send more troops so we’re not just bombing innocent civilians.”
I suppose that must be a lot more subject to misconstruction, Scott.
Poor poor put upon SEK. Can’t we haters see He/she/it’s the real victim here?
Jeff is particularly prescient today. Must be the blue pills.
Hey, it just occurred to me to wonder if Neo was being offered viagra…
Presumably, you believe those “ties†to be “unsavory,†don’t you?
But he did not say that in that post, SEK. Evaluation of the character of Ayers and why Obama seems to have an affinity for hanging with such characters was not in that post and an entirely different subject for another post.
My evaluation is that you wished to dismiss in toto JeffG’s analysis by attributing to it what wasn’t present.
Typical MO, but no less, shall we say, unsavory in its ubiquitous presence in Left of Center academia or “mainstream media”.
BEHOLD MY PERSPICACITY!
No, it’s not your fault someone sent me an angry email. It’s your fault someone sent me an angry, uninformed email — because they got their bad information from you. You are their superior, SEK. They take what you say as an article of faith — else why would the Atlantic choose to link what is in no way at all what you described?
If you’d like to write a post blaming me for all the angry email you get when you comment here, have at it. But do try to be honest this time in your “analysis.”
Am I JD?
And really, do you get away with this kind of nonsense at UIrvine?:
Yes, Scott. I did in fact write that IF Ayers in fact was the ghostwriter of Obama’s memoirs (the sea imagery didn’t sway me, and I’d need to see more, said I — but IF), IF Ayers helped write Obama’s memoirs, and GIVEN that much of what we know publicly and historically of Barack COMES from those memoirs, THAN yes, Obama’s ties with Ayers go even deeper than we’ve previously surmised, HAVING NOT PREVIOUSLY SURMISED THAT HE WAS, TOO, RESPONSIBLE FOR HELPING CREATE “BARACK OBAMA” AS A LITERARY FIGURE.
Beyond that, “all the unsavory things you already believe about Obama” and “Obama’s ties to Ayers (IF…THAN) go even deeper than we’ve previously surmised” are not remotely in the same ballpark, and was completely conditional anyway. Is how you mischaracterized my post.
If you still don’t get it, perhaps one of the “eighth-wits” here can draw you a fucking diagram.
“dismiss in toto JeffG’s analysis by attributing to it what wasn’t present.”
Its those dang codewords again. SEK has the special ability to see the under layers by virtue of his leftism. Its like a sixth sense I hear.
Scott, you don’t need a Fucking Diagram, do you?
Hi Scott. I’m starting to feel this Baracky guy is a lot more dividey than advertised. Dash thinks so too. I’d feel better if he wasn’t friends with a for real terrorist what hates America, but it’s unacceptable that he lied about it I think. In the real world not NPR world that’s a big red flag.
Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of DuBois’ later stuff was ghostwritten by the Soviets.
SEK–living proof that even heads of cabbage can obtain college degrees.
Here’s a diagram of the Large Hardon Collider.
He accused us of being “eighth-wits?” I’m moving up in the world.
Its really not so hard to understand why we’re a bit suspicious Mr. SEK. Barack says Ayers is just a guy in his neighborhood, then we find out they did the Woods Foundation and Annenberg CAC together with quite a lot of monies to give out. Then Mrs. O works in same law firm or something with Ayers’ also terrorist wife. I think its more a rabbit hole than anything else. If it’s no biggie, why the deception?
None of this explains why Ayers looked at Baracky and found a soulmate I don’t think. Just like that socialist party in Chicago. And that hateful marxist church. That’s just too weird. It’s like he’s a magnet for this sort of thing where he attracts all this stuff he says he’s against.
Behold, the Power of If:
“The Greek term for an inhabitant of the ancient region of Laconia, in the southern Peloponese, and of its capital Sparta, was Lakon. The Spartans were renowned for not using two words when one would do. There is a story that when Philip of Macedon threatened an invasion of Sparta, he said: “If I enter Laconia, I will raze Sparta to the ground.” The Spartans’ only reply was “If”.”
Whatsit that a president gets? 3,000 appointments out of the little plum book? Not unreasonable to ask who Mr. Bama is gonna give out those positions to now is it?
That’s Blaxploitarxism, hf.
Maybe. But impending socialisms make planning difficult. It’s very frustrating.
Darleen:
But he did not say that in that post, SEK.
No, he only said it in this one, this one, and every other one with the name “Alinsky” in it. Hence the “already thought.”
Jeff:
IF Ayers helped write Obama’s memoirs, and GIVEN that much of what we know publicly and historically of Barack COMES from those memoirs, THAN yes, Obama’s ties with Ayers go even deeper than we’ve previously surmised, HAVING NOT PREVIOUSLY SURMISED THAT HE WAS, TOO, RESPONSIBLE FOR HELPING CREATE “BARACK OBAMA†AS A LITERARY FIGURE.
So what you “already thought” about those ties was “unsavory,” and you used the Cashill piece to surmise, via hypotheticals, something about those connections. That’s all I said. You’re apparently upset because I said it—or because someone else linked to it. But whatever, you’ve come unhinged.
Also, all your capitalizing of “IF … THAN” looks sort of silly when I wrote “a hypothetical, which if true.” I’m fairly certain anyone reading that can understand you were talking about a hypothetical. I’m sorry, you were talking “disinterestedly” about a hypothetical, you just happened to write this about a book Obama’s purported to have written instead of the one McCain is known to have co-written with Mark Salter.
Maybe the lefty academia types are all about the radical makeover for the country, with all those uppity hicks like Palin getting in the way and people finding out about Ayers et al. they’re justified in their huffiness, no?
How’s your new computer?
Scott, you don’t need a Fucking Diagram, do you?
Depends. Will it show the goalposts as Jeff’s got them now, or as he’ll have ’em in ten minutes?
Heh, I’ve got McCain’s book, and “Mark Salter” happens to be on the cover. Its really not about Macs life so much as about the lives of other people.
I’ve got McCain’s book, and “Mark Salter†happens to be on the cover.
Which is why I wrote “co-written.”
Implied pejorative & very different type of book.
oh, hey! is that a rabbit over there?
new pc hit a snag. he’s on the floor til the desk gets fixed. It’s a custom desk he built to go with it but he used his pc to build the desk and this one is heavier so the sliding tray the tower sits on kind of got unanchored or something. I could do it but the guy that built it, I think he wants to have his voila moment or whatever so I’ll wait til he can come by Saturday. It’s very beautiful though. I’m swamped at work right now anyway so it’s not a really big deal to wait. On topic: I don’t get why the controversy over who wrote Baracky’s book is such a big deal other than that he doesn’t have any other real accomplishments. But jeez. Socialism sucks whatever the authorship I think. I don’t want change if it means I have to become European.
Implied pejorative & very different type of book.
Not at all. If you’re “disinterestedly” interested in how co-writers help shape autobiographies, then you’d approach a book with a known co-writer or acknowledged ghostwriter, not one with neither. That suggest “vested interest,” which a quick look back at all the posts about Ayers/Alinsky/Obama proves to be true.
What exactly are you getting at SEK? I don’t think Bama’s books are ghostwritten, nor do most people here I think including Jeff. If anything Ayers/Wright is more likely an inspiration for the “White people’s greed runs a world in need” tropes and the idea of radical change through elected office.
SEK
You have just admitted, as has been pointed out several times now, that JeffG DID NOT evaluate Obama’s character in THE POST IN QUESTION.
That’s it, Scott. Deal with the fact that JeffG’s post was dismissed by you based ON OTHER POSTS.
an unhinged left-wing douche criticizing one of Jeff’s weird, dense ramblings on…something or other. Making it better is SEK, who in a quest to score points off of Jeff’s ambling into nowhere-land, electrocutes himself.
What Dan said.
I feel badly Obama is wiping the floor with the GOP.
this is a cool blog though.
I’ve been reading Herodotus, and, man, sometimes I come across something as disconcerting as reading about the Moro Islamic Liberation Front — descriptions of things from the Island of Lesbos. Here’s a “Lesbian army”, there’s a “Lesbian mixing bowl”.
The imagery tends to make me chuckle, though.
Actually, I assume politicians have ghost writers until it’s proven otherwise.
Deal with the fact that JeffG’s post was dismissed by you based ON OTHER POSTS [BY JEFF – ed.].
Nothing to deal with, Darleen. I admitted, and I’ll admit again, that I consider Jeff’s thoughts about Obama and Ayers to be of a piece—and that that piece is unsavory. If he’s upset because I linked his thoughts on Obama/Ayers to his thoughts on Obama/Ayers, there’s nothing I can do about that. Nor is there anything dishonest about it. If I linked his thoughts on Obama/Ayers to someone else’s thoughts about Obama/Ayers, I could see the problem.
There, clicked on your link, douchenozzle. It is still an aggressively dishonest title. I do not see how clicking on the link made your title any more, or any less, dishonest. But, now you cannot accuse me of clicking on your fucking link.
I think we should introduce SEK and Barrett Brown. They should get along famously.
I still don’t think Baracky is going to win, mcgruder person. Socialism would be a big step and I don’t think that’s what people want. Except for socialists, and they’re stupid socialists.
“Actually, I assume politicians have ghost writers until it’s proven otherwise.”
Certainly a fair perspective. It is quite curious how the little known, little accomplished pol from Chi town got, what, a $40,000 advance for an autobiography.
I, for one, don’t think it’s ghost written. Pols do have the unique ability to bloviate.
It’s just hurts me that here in my America we have to argue whether the terrorist wrote the socialist’s book for him or with him or whatever. That’s just creepy.
SEK, et al.
Wouldn’t the implication of Jeff’s post seem to be (assuming ghostwriting occurred) that the school of thinking that Ayers represents is one that many in the US are quite receptive to?
BRD
62.
Most def. Also the gaps of Obambi’s life we presumably aren’t allowed to know about so say our MSM betters.
he’s upset because I linked his thoughts on Obama/Ayers to his thoughts on Obama/Ayers
Argumentum ad hominem, circumstantial type.
Next.
What y’all, including Scott, haven’t figured out is that there’s no deception here. Scott is totally sincere. That doesn’t make him right, but he is being truthful.
To Scott, Bill & Bernie are just part of the scenery — a pair of unremarkable academic types who stand out about like a particular potato in the produce department; if anything they get a little sneaking admiration, because back before they got gray and fat they actually did “stick it to the man” where he and his friends can only dream. They’re part of his community. An attack on them is an attack on Scott, which he will defend with his usual snark and verbosity.
By a relatively weak analogy: Those of us who are members of the wider Christian community consider Philip Hagee totally unremarkable — we may or may not agree, or even sympathize, with his specific message, but there’s no way he stands out in the crowd, and we get more than a little puzzled when SEK and his ilk[1] go ballistic about “Teh Patriarchic Theocracy” with Hagee as a principal.
The analogy is weak because Hagee really isn’t a principal, where Ayers is — John McCain didn’t build his political philosophy as a member of Hagee’s church, and Obama clearly did build his political philosophy based on Ayers’s theories and policies. It’s strong enough to illuminate the events, though.
Regards,
Ric
“…he’s somebody in my neighborhood. I do not exchange ideas with him on a regular basis.”
Paraphrased. But a blatant, bald faced, lie.
And the moment he lost any chance of my support, not that such support would have risen above the level of staying home and simply not voting.
The intervening months have been a study in media apologia and favortism and dishonesty about both their chosen candidate and the lengths they will go to support him.
I read two chapters of “The Audacity of Hope”. That book was not written by the man whose name is on the cover. There you have my opinion, which is a factor in my decision on who will get my vote.
So he’s a liar. My own observation leads me to doubt his authorship of “his” autobiography. His public record fails to conform to the legend presented by his packagers and today’s media script. Crucial parts of his CV are absent entirely.
His economic policies are incoherent, but stand as monuments of statesmanship when placed next to the vacuum that is his foreign policy intentions.
The leap to O! would be worth maybe a chuckle or two except that we have already actually installed two other mental/ethical deficients in Reid and Pelosi, who both arrived at their posts after literally decades of public malfeasance, and they in turn preside over a legislative body less competent and more widely and deservedly disrespected than the deputies that Napoleon tossed aside.
History. Like cartoons, except the punch line is more likely to be “…. and we would have gotten away with it, if it hadn’t been for those darned PEASANTS!”.
I can’t believe he’s still trying to defend his dishonesty.
There are many, many, many things I find unsavory about Obama — meaning Bill Ayers could never be “all” of them, nor did my post suggest “all” of them. End of argument.
You don’t get to make that determination.
You didn’t do any such thing. You linked my thoughts on ghostwriting and its implications under a given hypothetical to “all” I “believe” is “unsavory” about Obama.
It is entirely dishonest. Twist, squirm, weasel, write more words — doesn’t matter. To you this is a semantic game. To me, you lied. You’re a liar who misrepresented both the content and tenor of my post and, called on it, are too stubborn — or think yourself either too clever or too tenacious — to admit it, apologize, and move on.
You are a liar, Scott. I’m telling you so directly.
aw, happyfeet, you should feel special.
Hey, Gus, you’re a tool. Own it.
Who’s Gus?
Oh, you mean another drive-by fuck willing to drop shit on people he’d never have the balls to say to their faces?
Sorry, never heard of him.
Support of war? Damn straight. Obama wants to expand it into Pakistan.
Disdain of peace? If it means not reaching our war objectives, and the kind of violent civil war that the fever swampers of Far Nutrootia, you are quite correct.
Rejection of Constitutional Principles? Uh, well, it’s not repeat violations of the Logan Act, but hey, shouldn’t Obama or Palin be able to perform their own foreign policy?
Hatred of McCain? Doesn’t float my boat, either, but he’s not as egregious a serial liar as Obama.
Marxism? Dreams from My Afro-Marxist Megalomaniac Bigamous Alcoholic Narcissistic Metal-Legged Father, bra.
Aggrieved? RACIST!!!!!!!!
Oops. Throw “would welcome” in there, please.
But I don’t, maggie. I think I need a nap.
I don’t get why the controversy over who wrote Baracky’s book is such a big deal other than that he doesn’t have any other real accomplishments.
Haps, you are a genius – you know that?
What?
I am too tired to try to sort through this whole thing. But let me try to boil it down:
1. You did NOT accuse Obama of having some 60s radical ghost-write his book.
2. But some iAsshole says you did.
3. Fuck him where he breathes.
The end.
Oh, lookie! AmCon says I’m “peddling” the idea that Obama’s book was ghostwritten by Ayers (my outright proclamation that I’d need far more than a bit of sea imagery to sell me on that notwithstanding), then quotes Matthew Yglesias approvingly.
The paleocon right and the far left: the circle will remain unbroken.
Wonder where they got the info? No need to read what’s at the link. Just pass it around as if.
You don’t get to make that determination.
Actually, I do. I’ve read what you’ve written on Ayers/Obama, and concluded that what you wrote about Ayers/Obama in that post was consistent with what you’ve written about them in the past. I know what you think of Ayers/Alinksy and their connection to Obama. So when you write—and I acknowledged that you did so conditionally—“[m]eaning that Obama’s ties to Ayers go even deeper than we’ve previously surmised,” it’s not out of bounds for me to say that your hypotheticals led you to a conclusion which accords with the one you’ve “previously surmised.”
It would’ve been dishonest for me to claim that you said this was true; or that you claimed you believed it; or anything other than claiming, as I did, that you took Cashill’s absurd premise and built a hypothetical case against Obama based on it. That’s what I criticized you for. Talk all you want about how I’m parsing words and what-not—but you’re the one who took issue with how I worded the link. To turn these silly tables around on you: if you’d quoted my entire link, you’d notice that I didn’t call you a hack. I wrote, and I quote:
I’ve bolded it for your benefit. It’s all conditional, see. An “IF … THAN,” if you will.
You linked my thoughts on ghostwriting and its implications under a given hypothetical to “all†I “believe†is “unsavory†about Obama.
Don’t be disingenuous here, Jeff. The “given” hypothetical was about Obama’s connection to Ayers. Again, there’s not a damn thing dishonest about linking your posts on Obama/Ayers to a hypothetical about Ayers ghostwriting for Obama.
You’re a liar who misrepresented both the content and tenor of my post and, called on it, are too stubborn  or think yourself either too clever or too tenacious  to admit it, apologize, and move on.
Drop the sad clown act, Jeff. Again, there are a million ways I could’ve represented your post, but I chose to set it up as a hypothetical. If I’d wanted to give people the wrong impression of your post, I would’ve. Instead, I acknowledged it dealt with a hypothetical and criticized you for using a silly, meaningless article to launch another criticism of Ayers and Obama. But fine, if you want to me apologize, let me say this: I should’ve said the criticism’s oblique, because you intended to write a “disinterested” post on the nature of ghostwriting and autobiography—it just so happened that the ghostwriter was Ayers and the subject Obama (about whose relationship you’ve been writing for months). So yes, I’m sorry for making that giant, unfair leap of logic.
There are many, many, many things I find unsavory about Obama  meaning Bill Ayers could never be “all†of them, nor did my post suggest “all†of them.
Holy mother of—and you accuse me of speaking too finely? You’re upset because I linked it to “all” of the things you find unsavory about Obama. Well then, I’ll grant that was an overstatement. Sorry about that.
Actually, I do. I’ve read what you’ve written on Ayers/Obama, and concluded that what you wrote about Ayers/Obama in that post was consistent with what you’ve written about them in the past.
Actually, no, you don’t.
Even if true, you’re engaging in the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, circumstantial type.
What DO they teach in universities these days?
Never mind — I know.
you took Cashill’s absurd premise
Again with the “absurd” crapola.
Didn’t you get beaten up enough on that one already?
Liar.
Liar.
Liar.
Which I didn’t do.
Liar. And douche.
Okay, I won’t name any names, but Scott is not the first person or the only person to throw something out there and then slither back behind the “plausible deniability” wall. That is de rigueur for bloggers nowdays. I had a spell where I was furious at most of the crap that was being peddled on the net, and even more furious at the slithery denials (“What? That is not what I meant when I said that! You are delusional! Stop being so sensitive!”) that were issued by the originators and internet personalities when confronted. The internet is tailor-made for bigots that are too scared to be seen being bigoted, bullies that are too scared to confront those they are bullying, and liars who live and breathe for the attention their lies conjure up.
It sucks, but it is what it is.
SEK is like the dinner guest from hell. Drinks about two glasses too many, and hangs around until you take him by the collar and belt and throw him out the window.
You’ve lost it. Case in point:
So when you writeâ€â€and I acknowledged that you did so conditionallyâ€â€Ã¢â‚¬Â[m]eaning that Obama’s ties to Ayers go even deeper than we’ve previously surmised,†it’s not out of bounds for me to say that your hypotheticals led you to a conclusion which accords with the one you’ve “previously surmised.â€Â
Liar.
You might disagree with me here, but I’m not lying about a damn thing, Jeff, and you know it.
I really want to Trollhammer SEK now that thor is gone, but his demise is rather like seeing a hideous car wreck – can’t take my eyes off it.
Jeff needs to add a few more floors to his house.
You’re a liar, Scott, and it’s beyond pathetic your attempts to rehabilitate a dishonest description of what I wrote in a post.
My post is available for all to see. It is not remotely suggestive of all the “unsavory things” I “already believe about Obama.” At most, it is suggests that the Ayers / Obama connection could be more complicated than I’d previously envisioned it, in that Obama’s public persona — formed almost entirely with those memoirs as its historical ballast — could very well be the creation of another.
And even then, only if it turns out Ayers wrote the book — a proposition which I didn’t hesitate to note had not been proven at all to my satisfaction.
From that, I’m now “peddling” the FACT of such a ghostwriting, and I don’t think blacks have the innate capacity to write a book.
Congrats, SEK. Your audience is every bit as nuanced as I’d “previously imagined them to be.”
Thanks Mikey. I’m freaking exhausted today though and a lot of this is bewildering. Hot water burn baby is all I know where hot water = socialism and baby = a just and strong America I think. And also Ted Koppel is going around telling everybody I’m a racist and I’m not. Jeez. You suck, Ted Koppel. That’s why they yanked your show and you had to go join the propaganda factory at NPR. Ask yourself who spends their days hanging with rich white liberals? Ok that would be both of us but yours are richer and more whiter and a lot more propagandy than mine are. Least mine are kind of cool. Ok not really.
Yes, I know, I’m a liar. Whatever, Jeff, you’ve come unhinged. It’s been grand—by which I mean, a sad spectacle. But what can you do?
Argumentum ad hominem, abusive type.
Next.
Try shutting the door on your way out. And then not going elsewhere and telling people, “he threw me out and slammed the door in my face while cursing the darkies and stealing healthcare from the needy!”
We’ll call it even, then.
Meaning that Obama’s ties to Ayers go even deeper than we’ve previously surmised. Because if true, these revelations over authorship strongly suggest that Ayers is, in a very real sense, “Obama’s†creator.
Could that be where the misunderstanding came from? You were trying to have some kind of conversation that goes deeper than the level that the slobbering masses at LGF or La Malkin yet you got thrown into that same knuckledragging category of mouth-breathing, single-celled wingnuttery with a single stroke of the pen. Am I far off here?
It is not remotely suggestive of all the “unsavory things†I “already believe about Obama.â€Â
I notice you don’t quote this paragraph in all your recounts—but commend you for not having deleted it:
Nevertheless, we already know that one member of the Obama/Biden ticket has a tendency toward plagiarism; so it would be no great leap to find out that the principal  in addition to having his political coming out launched by Bill Ayers, might have had help, also, shaping the narrative and story that has, since its publication in a pair of memoirs, created the public persona of “Barack Obama.â€Â
Why don’t you quote this up there, Jeff? Could it possibly be because it indicates a continuity between what you’ve said about Obama/Ayers before, in that it’d be “no great leap” to think Ayers may’ve helped create the “Barack Obama” persona? Could that be the reason?
And even then, only if it turns out Ayers wrote the book  a proposition which I didn’t hesitate to note had not been proven at all to my satisfaction.
You’re being really, really dense today. I didn’t say you had. In fact, I said, “a hypothetical, which if true …” No doubt you’ll respond to this by calling me a liar, even though that is exactly what I wrote. But say it often enough and, non sequitur or no, it might stick.
From that, I’m now “peddling†the FACT of such a ghostwriting, and I don’t think blacks have the innate capacity to write a book.
I suppose the link to the American Conservative is my fault too, then?
This shit is too deep for me. I do admire people who stick to their guns and remain gracious even after they are piled on. But I am kind of ignorant about the whole thing, I am not quite getting where the dispute is so I will shut up.
Laterz.
I thought you were leaving?
It speaks no more to “all the unsavory things” I “already believe about Obama” as does the rest of my post, nor does it speak to the gist of the argument the post makes. Plus, it was a shot at Biden, as the opening makes clear to those with an ear for such things. Is why I didn’t quote it.
No need to commend me for not deleting it. If I found out Obama had his book ghostwritten by Ayers, it wouldn’t surprise me at all. I haven’t seen compelling evidence as of yet, however.
You put the misinformation out there and were proud to see it getting linked.
Own it!
Lisa: when you come back you might have a look at this thread.
Probably it’s a mental disorder, Darleen, which is why reasoning with it fails. It is the Lie.
Odd that it wasn’t the “slobbering masses” or the “mouth-breathing, single-celled wingnuts” who couldn’t understand Jeff’s point. Rather, it was a lefty with a rather posh university position.
(Countdown to Lisa declaring us all closet bigots and stomping off in a fit…)
96, Lisa, let me tell you
Everybody is wrong.
Barack Obama’s autobiography was actually written by Barack Obama’s faked birth certificate.
Lisa —
The point is, SEK didn’t misunderstand. He knew what I was arguing, but he wanted a rightwinger to attack, and he prefers the more difficult targets.
All his posturing here is about a refusal to admit as much, and to will his semantic contortions into plausible deniability.
Which is why I called him a liar.
Around here this isn’t his first time doing so. The bald-facedness of which frankly baffles me…
Progressive academic is an oxymoron.
Rob you are so catty sometimes. Meeeewwwwrrrrrffffft fffffttt!!! It is kind of sexy, like Ianto Jones from Torchwood.
Approximately.
I was trying to say in the original thread, but couldn’t post the comment for some reason (it was too long, I guess — or too awesome), that it doesn’t matter who wrote Dreams, because no one did. Its author-character is a spitballed mess of other people’s banalities (further banalized). Whoever it is, it’s not anybody.
So it couldn’t have been Ayers. He’s somebody — but not somebody literarily sophisticated enough to play nobody so po-faced.
Obama ghostwrote it himself. And himself. And he did a terrible job.
106. On the other hand, why bother claiming that someone else wrote Obama’s book, when it has not yet been conclusively demonstrated that Obama is not a terrorist? Or a Jesus-hatin’ Moslem, or whatever he’s supposed to be today?
The bald-facedness of which frankly baffles me…
Ever read Atlas Shrugged?
I’m not much of a Randite, myself, but SEK reminds me of several of the “intellectual” characters in that book.
Okay, SEK. You’re making an argument that Jeff doesn’t like Obama, and therefore he’s more inclined to write a (relatively academic, emotionally neutral–aside from the dig at Biden) piece about how a ghost-writer for Obama’s autobiography would mean the “Obama” presented to the public is not, in fact, the man and instead a fictional character. You’re further arguing that Jeff’s reason for doing so is because he doesn’t like Obama, so he’s willing to give a flimsy idea about the authorship of Audacity air time.
Well, no duh. But given your original post does not source your claims about Jeff’s dislike of Obama, you can’t MAKE that argument without getting called on it being unsupported. You’re telling people your conclusion and not citing your primary text, and you’re doing so for purely political reasons. To borrow your argument, the one post in question suggests all the vile things you and your readership already believe about Jeff–but without actually going through and quoting anything else from the man himself. I believe this to be because you know that if, contrary to your mental image of them, one of your “regulars” clicked through and actually READ everything Jeff had to say, you stand the risk of losing one of them. It’s much easier to whip a suggestible crowd into a frenzy by vague accusations and innuendo, besides.
The academic part of me is feeling a little guilty for castigating someone higher up the totem pole about this, but. While I think Jeff needs to take a time out from his blog and do something else until he’s feeling a little more mellow, you are being pretty disingenuous. Better that you own up to playing blog politics and actually leave, and we can all move on.
@sashal, 107: For the purposes of Jeff’s original post, it doesn’t matter WHO or WHAT Obama is. Jeff is making an argument completely independent of whether or not Obama is, in fact, Jesus and/or a communist or anything else–and that argument is that Obama and the literary character of “Obama” are two different people.
Argh!
It’s IF and THEN.
It is so captivatingly Kenyan, Sashal.
Practically Odingan, one might say.
And we all know that Barry loves him some Odinga.
Are the dreams from my father the dreams his father what didn’t love him had or are those the dreams Baracky had about his father what didn’t love him? I’ve never been clear on that. Me and my dad we were a lot self-sufficient on the dreaming. I don’t think it ever came up really.
What is with Democratic candidates and father issues? Clinton had some unresolved daddy stuff too.
I think that W movie a lot explores that same thing.
Could “what is with” be that it is not the candidates, but the primary electorate which chooses them?
Sweet dreams ’til moonbeams find you.
I dont know. I dont have anything against people with father issues. But it is interesting that the bright and shiny motherfuckers are always dragging father shit around with them.
“Comment by cranky-d on 10/13 @ 11:57 am #
I think we should introduce SEK and Barrett Brown. They should get along famously.”
And the entire space-time contimuum would collapse into a black hole of condescending prickdom.
It is interesting, true. But then, I’ll say anything for you Lisa.
We humans are the great apes with by far the most complex hierarchical status systems, what with the overlayering of all our goofy talky-talk, as opposed to simpler nasty looks, the occasional vicious bite or eye-gouge.
For some reason when Scott starts explaining something my eyes glaze over and I wake myself up, snoring. That’s not a good thing for somebody who lectures a lot, is it?
It doesn’t matter if you have tenure, Rusty and, at many institutions, teaching doesn’t even register on the radar screen when it comes to that decision.
Do you think Ayers might have had a hand in Odinga’s “Dreams of My Jihad”?
Has it been proven that Obama did not ghost write the “George” letter?
In Ayers 1997 book, “A Kind and Just Parent”, there’s a recitation of the denizens in that Hyde Park neighborhood. Ayers refers there to Barack Obama as “writer”.
That’s not odd at all.
Ever read Atlas Shrugged?
I’m not much of a Randite, myself, but SEK reminds me of several of the “intellectual†characters in that book.
That is kind of a low blow, SPB. Scott isn’t that much of a cartoon.
I have heard a rumor circulating among my lefty friends that Obama didn’t directly write either book, he apparently went into a trance-like state and recited it orally while Michelle wrote it all down.
It is just a rumor at this point, but it does have a ring of truthiness about it.
#123
It’s UC Irvine, right? That’s ,like, a community college, right? So. it’s not like a real job.
I am quite certain Obamas book Dreams, &ctwas ghostwritten. At minimum he had a “fixer”. That is was ghostwritten by Ayers, is another matter.
I think the case made by Cashill is not as weak as SEK has tried to tweak it into being.
Proving it – next to impossible by comparison of text alone. That can only suggest. IF it could be shown, by some other means, that Ayers helped craft that book, it would be a big deal, because it would mean Ayers himself has crafted the public image of Obama.
And Ayers is a bad person, with an agenda most would not be friendly towards.
Can I stop being serious now? :(
Also, in defense of UC Irvine…
…
Nah, even with a UC as my alma mater, I can’t defend Irvine. (Well, at least it’s not in the most podunk part of California. I’m looking at you, Riverside.)
Pellegri.
“UC Davis.”
Like SEK is intellectually honest enough to even care if Obama’s “autobiography” was ghostwritten by Chaiman Mao… he’d just shift the narrative to: “goldstein and his ilk are racists!”
Oh wait.
Well, he’d say it even louder.
SEK is probably an OK guy once he gets his way… I don’t intend to ever let his worldview become the rule of law, so I guess we are destined to exchange fuck you’s until darwin takes his dumbass home
SEK tried to link back here with yet ANOTHER exegesis on his having be WRONGED by my anger: I really did say what I didn’t say, you see, were you to follow the continuity of thought. It is evidently impossible to do standalone postings on different subjects; the personal is the political; objectivity is a lie; one cannot have courts of law adjudicating based on principles of disinterest.
Apparently, hearing himself drone on at length today wasn’t enough for SEK — nor could he STAND not having the last word on the matter. For whatever reason, he needs to keep it going. So he wrote yet another post, hoping the Jeff haters will pick it up and boost his standing. I haven’t read the post, nor do I wish to. I don’t trust SEK to do anything other than to work tirelessly to make SEK appear correct and honest, when he has shown himself to be everything but.
It’s a sickness. So let him have that last word. As a gesture toward a one-note soul whose life is so empty that he wants the adulation of people like Jane Hamsher.
He just ain’t gonna be having that last word here.
I’ve always been big on keeping things open to debate. But the truth is, arguing with liars isn’t debate. It’s a recipe for indigestion.
Neo-neocon has an essay up on her banning policy today. I’ve posted asking who got the most recent axe there but haven’t heard back yet. I’ve got a guess that PW’s the unlucky recipient of her cast off, but no way to know for sure. We’ll see.
Nor is it possible to reason someone out of a position he didn’t reason himself into. So even if SEK weren’t a liar it would be a recipe for indigestion.
That is kind of a low blow, SPB. Scott isn’t that much of a cartoon.
Did you read that thread, B Moe? If he’d gone any further ’round the Hanna-Barbera bend he’d have turned two-dimensional.
No, that’s not fair. I’ve been to…most of the UC campuses except (surprisingly) Irvine. Riverside really IS pretty podunk; Davis has this nice little progressive community that’s nuclear-free! And other than that not terribly noxious. It’s definitely better than Riverside by a lot.
Also, Jeff, I really tried to reason with SEK. :( But I guess I’m not getting read since I’m only a B.Sc. who just started a Masters’ program.
Damn my lack of a graduate degree!
What is that SEK comparing the present with the past? Wasn’t that supposed to be unfair?
Jeff: Good Christ, but this is a lot of words to expend on a comment of SEK’s that consisted in total of this: “If, however, you only use Cashill’s juvenile musings as a hypothetical which, if true, suggests all the unsavory things you already believe about Obama, then you’ve fully embraced the Cashill Doctrine.”
I read SEK’s original post on Acephalous. I followed the link and read your post too. I’m surprised that you take such strenuous exception to his characterization. I suppose he goes a little far in saying you “only” use Cashill’s musings for blah blah blah. Your characterization of your own post as “in fact a rather academic exhortation on the various beings of agency” seems equally apt. But you *do* have certain preconceptions/opinions of Obama, do you not? And Cashill’s theory, if right, *would* track with your preconceptions, no?
If these are both true, then what remains is the question of whether your original post suggested that. And I — a truly disinterested party, I think — had the same impression SEK did. As well as being duly impressed and intimidated and so forth by the scholarly disquisition on the various beings of agency &c. At the very least, this ought to undermine the accusation that SEK is being dishonest as opposed to merely mistaken.
So now that I’ve offered ironclad inarguable proof that you’re both right, can’t you and SEK kiss and make up? Because I have total blog crushes on the both of you, and I don’t like it when you’re mad.
You know, everyone has preconceptions of Obama. And of McCain. Most people write about what interests them, so (for instance) we’re not going to find SEK writing about Obama’s tax cut that isn’t. We’re also not going to have any of the Obsidian Wings crew write about that, I predict, because all of the posters still active are Obama supporters.
I thought all of this was obvious.
Somewhat on topic, I am near the end of Stephenson’s new book Anathem, which has a culture of academics (mathematicians/metaphysicians) that have deliberately walled themselves away from the rest of the society, so that they can do their science without being distracted by politics and technology and such. They’re a lot like monks, only without the religion.
I think I’d have more regard for SEK if he were intramuros, so to speak. But then we wouldn’t be hearing from him quite so much.
But you *do* have certain preconceptions/opinions of Obama, do you not? And Cashill’s theory, if right, *would* track with your preconceptions, no?
How would this mean that JeffG adopts “the Cashill Doctrine” (which is a stupid phrase I suspect contains a lot of preconceived opinions and preconceptions itself), The most I can see that is necessary is that JeffG allows that in context and array of details ( which SEK has deliberately sawed off of Cashill’s postulations, and refuses any stipulation of Obama’s deceptiveness or Ayers’ connection with O) it COULD be true.
Is it improper to be the case, if you take Cashills case to the END, and hypothesize
what it might mean?
My thoughts are quite obviously my own and I do not mean to imply this is how JeffG views anything.
Is it improper to take Cashill’s case to its logical extention, is what I suppose I meant to say in my first sentence @ 145
SarahW: I’m trying to separate SEK’s characterization of Jeff’s post from SEK’s conclusion about that post. Jeff’s anger about SEK’s alleged dishonesty seems to be directed at the characterization.
Really, then, I’m only focusing on this part of SEK’s comment: “you only use Cashill’s juvenile musings as a hypothetical which, if true, suggests all the unsavory things you already believe about Obama.”
#132
My oldest daughter got her masters in education there. It reminded me of a midwest community college. Being right smack dab in the wasteland of Irvine. Well. The wasteland of Orange County. Which is what hell must look like, without the ocean. If I were to make a film of, “The Crying of lot 49”, Orange County would be the setting. Only except imitating a sixties british band , the band would be a parody of a punk rock band. Or whatever is trendy with the kids today.
Oh, wait: if I parsed that last bit properly, Cahill’s musings had Jeff’s opinionator reverse the cause-effect relationship.
CAHILL REVERSED THE ARROW OF TIME!
[…] own Halloween display, featuring hundreds of singing animatronic Obama cultists stoning a head of cabbage labeled “Trig” while a bling-ed out Obama pins Sarah Palin against her doublewide, […]
Not Rhetorical —
The full description from SEK was this:
The Cashill Doctrine I’m supposed to have fully embraced (and I seem to be alone in this) isn’t really defined — but if it has anything to do with believing Cashill based on his evidence, then it’s obvious from both the post and my subsequent comments that I clearly have embraced no such thing.
If, on the other hand, it has only to do with looking for attention, then I’ll point out that I wrote the post because several commenters asked for my thoughts on the matter, and that SEK is the one who has profited, in terms of attention, from his “response” — to the point where he showed up here making sure he received proper credit for his dishonest attack.
Which would mean it is he who seems to have fully embraced the Cashill Doctrine.
Oh, cosmic irony! How you do so continue to surprise and regale us!
My feeling is that SEK’s laughter at “sea imagery” is a little too hearty and a little too…forced. Especially in light of his chopping off the imagery from context.
Ace mentionsthe topic this evening.
He picks out the one bit of “sea imagery” that i had thought was unusual enough to appear in both books to raise my eyebrows –
… it’s the curious anecdote of the Hudson River flowing both ways, depending on the tides, appearing in both Bill Ayers’ and “Barack Obama’s” book that is the tell.”
As “tells” go, that, SarahW, and what I found to be the entirely new information in the calender correlation between Obama’s books and Ayers’ interruptions to his otherwise quite regular book production. Once more, no conclusive evidence and no conclusive proof. The pile continues to grow though.
ABSURD!
When I say I wasn’t sold by the sea imagery, I meant just that: I need to see more. But as I also noted, it would not surprise me one bit if it were true.
If I had the money and the time, I’d buy the Ayers and Obama books and do my own evaluation — though I don’t discount the one on offer from Cashill. SEK I’m sure has kissed enough ass and played the academic diplomat well enough to grab himself a nice university gig; he should be careful trashing other professors in such language, however — even conservatives. Or else he might find himself suddenly shunned by a certain set who believe in never rocking the boat.
I suspected you hadn’t read Obama’s books. Seems to me had you read them you’d have recognized both the sharpness of Obama’s mind and, indeed, that his books have certain markings in character with first and second attempts.
Proffers that they were ghost written would, in my opinion, only come from incompetent probes.
Obama is a decent fellow, and literate.
Amazon has Dreams for $7.25 used and To Teach for $9.95 used.
Buying used means no royalties for the author, which would be a real shame.
Not Rhetorical –
The full description from SEK was this:
“If, however, you only use Cashill’s juvenile musings as a hypothetical which, if true, suggests all the unsavory things you already believe about Obama, then you’ve fully embraced the Cashill Doctrine.”
The Cashill Doctrine I’m supposed to have fully embraced (and I seem to be alone in this) isn’t really defined  but if it has anything to do with believing Cashill based on his evidence, then it’s obvious from both the post and my subsequent comments that I clearly have embraced no such thing.
If, on the other hand, it has only to do with looking for attention, then I’ll point out that I wrote the post because several commenters asked for my thoughts on the matter, and that SEK is the one who has profited, in terms of attention, from his “response† to the point where he showed up here making sure he received proper credit for his dishonest attack.
Which would mean it is he who seems to have fully embraced the Cashill Doctrine.
Oh, cosmic irony! How you do so continue to surprise and regale us!
Jeff, you seem not to have read what I wrote; if you had, you’d note that I myself quoted the Cashill Doctrine section, so I clearly am not insensible to it.
In fact, you seem not to have read what *you* wrote. Your post above, the one to which all these comments are appended, takes issue with SEK’s *characterization* of your first Ayers-Obama post.
You call him dishonest, then a liar. This doesn’t seem a conservative/liberal issue to me (except that of course everything is these days, distressingly so): SEK’s Cashill Doctrine argument is a clear matter of opinion, not fact; therefore, mustn’t your allegations that he spews LIES, LIES!, LIES!!!!!!, all LIES!!!!!!!!!! pivot on his *characterization* of your post, as indeed you first said?
I, having elected myself judge of your spat, exonerate SEK on the dishonesty charge, acknowledging however that his use of the word “only” was ill-advised and inflammatory. And I sentence you both to kiss and make up so my crushes can resume.
Thanks for your cooperation! See, I knew we could all agree!
Acknowledging it and acknowledging what it suggests are different animals.
It is clear to me it was meant to tether me in some way to a Cashill Doctrine of indeterminate content — though we know it to be bad, whatever “it” is. As my original post was careful to avoid any claim of solidarity with Cashill evidence — as does my marginalia in the comments — it was dishonest for SEK to ascribe to my post any kind of broad statement on Obama and all that I think about him.
Because his characterization was dishonest about the content and tenor of my post.
One can lie and then lie again.
I’ve already noted how SEK’s characterization was a lie. His “opinion” of some Cashill Doctrine is a lie even in the context of the original post, where no where did I bring up any of the evidence offered by Cashill. I did, however, do so in the comments, where I noted that sea imagery appeared in Obama’s poem, which undercut Cashill’s point, at least in that limited instance.
And he lied even after I’d brought that to his attention, continuing to argue that my post was something it was clearly not.
[…] to a merely historical figure). At least, that’s what I argued — much to the dismay (and willful misreading) of a number of my […]
[…] readers upon him. The nerve! That said, remember when I wrote this on 13 October 2008? Goldstein responded: SEK tried to link back here with yet ANOTHER exegesis on his having be WRONGED by my anger . . . […]
[…] Ayers may have had some hand in the writing of Obama’s Dreams remains, on it’s face, “absurd” — and that anyone who argues otherwise is motivated by the kind of odious politics that […]
I am a little confused by all the arguing above. So can I ask a simple question of SEK?
Is Bill Ayers a person with whom the current President of the United States should have had a long term, close and congenial relationship, in which Ayers’ Marxist ideology and proposals would have an influence on Obama’s thoughts and actions, or not?
[…] to the hearts of culture-war conservatives: their brave defiance of the PC lynch mob. Goldstein pops up to say, “I’m as guilty as George for pointing out George’s guilt. WAIT FOR IT!” […]
[…] one, given that it was the former we were being sold as a candidate for higher office — was laughed at as a kind of kooky fringe conspiracy theory I was using to reinforce my own already unsavory […]