First, the predictably strained attempt by a progressive academic to discredit yet another “right wing” intellectual, available here.
Next, Cashill’s original post, here.
For background, go here and follow the links.
Quick summary: Scott Kaufman, in an effort to diminish Jack Cashill’s citation of what Cashill suggests in a post are independent accounts of Ayers’ possible collaboration with Obama on the President’s Dreams memoir, parses Andersen’s account and reaches two conclusions: that Cashill is Andersen’s (active, willing) source; and that Andersen’s wording of the claims (he uses the “conditional”, according to Kaufman) is proof that Anderson cannot substantiate those claims.
The first claim is disputed by Cashill himself. The second implies that Andersen, a biographer of some note, is either a hack who has some sort of anti-Obama agenda, or else that he has been taken in by a wingnut’s ravings and has repeated them uncritically without definite attribution. In an email, I asked Cashill about these claims.
His reply:
Jeff
I was not the source for the story Andersen told. He never talked to me. I was as surprised as everyone else was by his revelation to Hannity that Ayers had largely written Dreams. I even had to run out and buy the book, which I am now finishing.
The critics that I have seen do not appear to have read Andersen’s book. He cites me on the textual stuff, but I was clearly NOT the source for the personal details.
His retelling of the story was based on what he had been told by someone very close to the action. He had access to people who would never have talked to me, quite possibly Michelle herself or even Bill Ayers.
This person was close enough to tell Andersen that “oral histories [of Obama relatives], along with a partial manuscript and a truckload of notes, were given to Ayers.” A detail this specific is telling. He also told of the events leading up to the decision by Michelle to contact Ayers.
Andersen would have had to be a total liar and fraud to contrive the story line he did. His highly successful career as a celebrity journalist argues strongly against such an interpretation
That is why Andersen is a problem for the left. He had no agenda. His book is dispassionate, softly liberal and largely sympathetic to the Obamas, particularly to Michelle and her family.
Andersen interviewed some two hundred people for the book, many close to the first family. The Obamas had likely given at least their tacit blessing to the project.
They had probably forgotten just how much they had to hide.
[my emphases]
Bottom line: you can either believe, with SEK and other progressives on record as calling Cashill’s narrative “absurd”, that Andersen’s book is at least partially plagiaristic; is some sort of right wing hit job (or, alternately, that Andersen has some stake, political or otherwise, in trying to embarrass the Obamas); or else you can believe Cashill when he says that Andersen never spoke to him, and that Andersen’s apparent corroboration — tentative and “conditonal” though it is — was arrived at independent of Cashill’s own reportage.
The choice is yours. Just know that SEK is a dedicated progressive “activist” and an eager sophist for his cause. And that he has essentially just accused Chris Andersen of inventing evidence in support of Jack Cashill’s separately published discoveries.
For his sake, I hope hid did so, you know — “conditionally“…
Have a good day, and you’re welcome.
When Obama became President, Bill Ayers warned that Afghanistan would be his downfall (if the war continued). Was that a threat? Does Ayers have enough on Barack Obama that he can essentially direct the President of the United States?
Scary stuff.
i saw cashill on c-span/ likeable fellow
[hope this ain’t the kiss of death)
oh yeah-smart/charming/ debonair/ witty/kinda…pretty..
well spoken..engaging/witty and just a generally nice guy
Yeah, this Bill Ayers.
Was this a signal to Da One?
How delightfully old fashioned of you, Jeff. To actually ask someone a direct question rather than ponder and spin fanciful webs o’ theory that back your political outlook…
That puts me totally wrong last night as to my assumption that Cashill had been interviewed by Anderson, which is a conclusion I jumped to based on Kaufman’s quote of Anderson. That is my error, my mistake altogether.
Anderson, on Cashill’s accounting, is merely quoting Cashill’s written material, available to anyone. Which wouldn’t have been known to Cashill prior to his discovery of Anderson’s work. So apologies to you Mr Cashill and to anyone I lead astray in my error.
Thanks for the follow-up Jeff G.!
I had the feeling that SEK was spinning when he questioned Andersen’s choice of words, and chose to read the intent he desired into them; using his experience in academia to bigfoot any criticism of his interpretation.
And also since Cashill didn’t have any contact with Andersen, one can look at his choice to include a reference to himself from the book as an act of modesty perhaps, instead of a connivance.
Thanks for investigating this on our behalf, your knowledge of the literary arts infimed your questions, and your experience with SEK helps inform all of us.
Oh and Jeff,
Will you be sending this to SEK? I mean, just to set the record straight-he does owe you, Cashill, and Andersen anapology…
But my guess is that those are just 3 more entries on a loooong list…
I wish I knew something more about Michael Anderson. It is true that Anderson could have read Cashill’s work and then invented a source.
For this to get major traction somebody will have to come forward and put a name to it. Of course, that person would be destroyed personally. I predict a stalemate.
Cashill has some interesting stuff on it if you check his website. I have been checking every month or so since he came out with this conspiracy theory last year. I tend to believe that Ayers had more involvement than was let on.
I posted the link in his comments.
I won’t be responding to him. He is aggressively dishonest.
But I have no doubt that the “pragmatic” conservatives will be eager to adopt his take on this — you know, to show how “open-minded” they are.
Makes me sick.
Nice follow up. I hope things a well with you and yours.
Shakes —
That’s fine. But that’s something SEK should take up with Anderson, not Cashill.
Of course, word has already gone out that Anderson is now persona non grata among progressives.
Personally, I’d like some clarification from Anderson. Is he a plagiarist? Or did he arrive at his narrative independent of his reading of Cashil, as Cashill suggest (correctly) based on what Anderson wrote.
Anderson is about to get Joe-the-Plumbered, I’m afraid.
My first instinct, in anything written by someone who is identifiably on the left, is that there is a lie inside somewhere. Their ideology has to paper over it’s monstrosity with a veil of words on a constant basis. The habit is ingrained through this daily use/abuse. The better the writer the better hidden is the nugget but it will be there.
Thanks Jeff!
I’m confused. Is this passage in Anderson’s book or not:
“There was a good deal of literary back-scratching going on in Hyde Park,” said writer Jack Cashill, who noted that a mutual friend of Barack and Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, thanked Ayers for helping him with his book Resurrecting Empire. Ayers, explained Cashill, “provided an informal editing service for like-minded friends in the neighborhood.”
‘Tis a Pity He’s a Whore
Could be, snowcone. But that’s from published work by Cashill. Which is available online. For all to see. And cite.
Read Cashill’s email reply.
Link to Jeff’s comment at 18. Which was obtained by a search on the words “provided an informal editing service for like-minded friends in the neighborhood” I should have done yesterday. Again, my mistake.
This is probably just a small preview of the symbyotic incestuous relationships between Obama, Ayers and the other Chicago players. If we knew them all it would likely make even the MacKenzie family blush.
Snowcone,
Yes, that quote occurs in the book. Page 166. You can search within the book in Amazon.
Perhaps someone with an actual copy of the book can determine how that section is sourced in the references.
Also, if you click back a page to 165, you can see that Anderson quotes somebody about Obama and Ayers being friends, and how it was common knowledge in their circle that they worked on projects together (sorry, can’t paste text out of the amazon preview).
The big question is, who was Anderson quoting there? That seems to be the independent-of-Cashill source for some of this.
Stirner —
Cashill points out as much in his email to me. I’ve bolded those bits above.
“Ayer’s possible collaboration”
Who is “Ayer”?
(Try moving the apostrophe after the s.)
Snowcone alphie will continue his pattern of stick poking at facts already determined. It’s what he has done for years. No amount or depth of logical thinking will deter Alphie/Scowcone from his self appointed stick poking.
Hey, Alphie! Did you ever work out how all of those thousands of Chinese troops in shipping containers were going to be fed?
If anyone can find me Christopher Andersen’s email address, I’ll be happy to try to get him on record here.
His publisher is Harper Collins.
I am surprised that Snowcone didn’t use the mention of Hannity to bring up his favourite whipping boy, Fox News. You know the right wing comedy channel.
Gee, Grammatiknazi, thanks! I had no idea how those things worked ’til you came along!
Jeff,
Yes you did. However, it seems that the person that Anderson directly quoted on p. 165 could have been a different source. One source gave the details about the trunk of notes and interviews (i.e. the stuff you bolded), but another source could have given the quote on P.165 about their general collaborations being well known to their circles.
For Anderson to go out on a limb like this, I have to guess he would need at least two sources.
But SEK was just joking. Can’t you all see that?
True, Stirner.
I think it’s important to stress here that SEK is accusing Cashill of having spoken to Andersen (and not revealing such); and accusing Andersen of inventing sources, though they are unnamed.
Those are two bold claims. Cashill has already denied the first. The next step is to get Andersen to comment.
Shorter John: “Look! Bunnies!”
Stay on topic or STFU, “John”.
Actually “John” is engaged in a standard left-wing tactic: when a Big Lie is in danger of being exposed (in this case, the idea that Obama “wrote” his “autobiography”), trot out another Big Lie to deflect (in this case, the preposterous notion that ACORN isn’t corrupt from top (the Rathke brother’s embezzlement) to bottom (the field workers who didn’t turn a hair at facilitating child sex slavery)).
It’s all falling apart, “John”. Sorry.
Could be, snowcone. But that’s from published work by Cashill. Which is available online. For all to see. And cite.
The only place this line, or anything resembling it, shows up online is on the blogs that have referenced it in the past few days: “There was a good deal of literary back-scratching going on in Hyde Park,”
It’s not clear from the e-mail posted that Cashill is denying talking to Anderson.
Is he?
My view of Comment 35:
(Trollhammered).
Thanks again, SBP.
John is William/TehAss/Ellllen/Andre/etal
There’s something I want to sat about that claim, if I can just find the words…
Hey! Thanks, Scott!
he only place this line, or anything resembling it, shows up online is on the blogs that have referenced it in the past few days
Liar.
It’s not clear from the e-mail posted that Cashill is denying talking to Anderson.
So what does this mean in NippleNut world?
I was not the source for the story Andersen told. He never talked to me.
Tell us, NippleNut: how does “He never talked to me” not constitute a denial that Cashill talked to Anderson?
I’m fascinated.
Jeff, it’s nice to see you’re still kicking. I hope you and your family is well.
To the topic at hand: none of this is surprising. The left loves them some hot memory hole action, and useful idiots everywhere are anxious to provide cover for their
felow travelersmasters.“are well” even…
He never talked to me
Might be a use of weasel words to cover up an e-mail exchange between Anderson and Cashill.
What part of “I was not the source for the story Andersen told.” do you not understand, snowhole?
Imma gonna repost this from the other thread:
In the end, Ayers’s contribution to Barack’s Dreams From My Father would be significant
Sorry, that’s not conditional, that’s past imperfect. If I translate it into Spanish, I have to use the imperfect past conjugation:
A fin de cuentas, la contribución a Dreams from My Father de Barack sería significante.
The trouble with English is that we use “would” for both imperfect and conditional. Here’s how it would look in the conditional:
In the end, Ayers’s contribution to Barack’s Dreams From My Father would be significant if it were not for yadda yadda yadda…
Quoth feets: “I’m not sold that it expresses conditionality.”
On account of it doesn’t. Conditional requires that you complete the condition.
SEK’s latest seems to be composed almost completely of grammar and usage flames. Or did I miss something relevant, buried in the mountain of scathe?
dicentra, stop it.
Stop making sense.
I was not the source for the story Andersen told.
Parsing the weasel words is important.
I hope Jeff asked Anderson whether he communicated with Cashill in any way.
Where, at SEK’s site? You are droll indeed.
dicentra, can we just replace “is” for “would be”?
Ah, so snowhole is tripping over “the”. Are you still fuzzy on “is”?
“A”, “an”, “the”, and “is” are weasel words.
Might be a use of weasel words
Or you might simply be an incompetent liar.
Hmm… where do you suppose the smart money is on that one?
BTW, NippleNut: your attempt to spin it in terms of email, smoke signals, or Babylonian cuneiform tablets is even more idiotic, given your OWN WORDS:
You: “Cashill is denying talking to Anderson.”
Cashill: “He never talked to me”.
Game, set, match.
You lose.
Lost some context on the NippleNut quote:
“It’s not clear from the e-mail posted that Cashill is denying talking to Anderson. “
Weasel words.
Code words.
Why don’t you all just shut up?
You’re harshing the chill of Teh Won.
thinking about thinking
leads to drinking.
–
Not surprised by the obfuscation from the usual channels, and really have nothing of substance to add.
But I gotta say, this is chock full of juicy goodness:
“They had probably forgotten just how much they had to hide.”
What does it mean that the manic traffic whores at Hot Air are completely ignoring this whole story you think? In favor of Newspaper apologizes for calling Palin a “broad”,/i> no less.
That would be the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.
I don’t get how they think over there.
oh. that consists of no small amount of fail
what’s in a name?
that which we call a rose
I’d personally be more excited about this story if it also had Hannah Giles in a hooker outfit.
Okay, it is not exactly the most polite term to refer to Sarah Palin as, but isn’t Sarah Palin in fact a broad?
A hell of a broad! (with all due respect Todd, all due respect)
But I agree, I do not get some of the editorial decisions over at Hot Air sometimes.
she not narrow
I don’t get it at all but Cap’n Ed apparently felt the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner deserved a wider audience for their use of the word broad to refer to Sarah Palin.
Steve Diamond’s take on the Obama/Ayers relationship, jumping off from Anderson’s book.
Happyfeet,
I learned something today, the acronym IYKWIMAITTYD means: ifyouknowwhatImeanandIthinkthatyoudo.
I tought I would be different and tell you something 8^)
Carin posted it over at Ric Lockes place so I found it by accident but I feel a little more “in” knowing what it means.
thank you! Ric’s is one of the easier places to learn things. I didn’t go there yesterday and the whole day I didn’t learn anything I don’t think. There was something about Lasik surgery but it was confusing cause it’s like there’s not just one kind of Lasik surgery and it depends on your eyes and now I’m all confused.
the manic traffic whores at Hot Air
Can you call the people who run a site that gets almost 1,000,000 hits a day “whores?”
Aren’t they traffic gods?
With much EPIC FAIL, unless a lot has changed since I lived in Fairbanks.
That the News-Minus let that headline get published surprises me not a whit, nor that the editor had to apologize.
What would surprise me is if the responsible party were ever disciplined in any substantive way.
Yes they are. But not all of us are believers.
One million is many.
I agree about not believing. They too often make me feel the blogosphere is trivial and insipid when before I visited the Hot Air that day I didn’t feel that way at all. I wish they would stop doing that.
It is trivial and insipid. Look at who thrives.
Gotta get away from this.
Thanks for the reminder.
Well there are reasons to not dismiss Hot Air completely:
Doc Zero discusses “a broad oversees”
Well yes kind of I think but consistency and perseverance is still the numero uno key to success. After that… hey did you know Perez Hilton is sponsoring a concert series I just learned that this week.
Frankmusik is on it and he’s not a douchebag like I thought at first he’s very neat person and you will be hearing many Frankmusiks very soon. I won’t link cause it’s now your own responsibility to learn about the Frankmusiks.
But seriously, the Hot Air traffic gods decided not to touch this story for a reason. Maybe I will check the Allah person’s tweeterings.
You are rested and ready Mr. Goldstein I know you are. There’s a big hole in the internet where you was.
Jeff,
I think it all depends on your definition of thriving.
I walk through the Hot Air neighborhood but I spend time at PW park.
Time for the Gym.
Cause I am drinking milk and one of these days I’ll be just like Jeff 8^)
OT: Danger:
The other day you were asking about the writings of Barrett Brown. This will lead you to many of them.
The greatest understatement in the history of the internet?
Mr. Allah didn’t touch it on twitter either. He did link this dealio but he linked it ironically. He could ironically link about the sex and the drugs and also the sex amongst the Hollywood Yoot but he chose not to ironically link about speculation that Ayers might have collaborated to some extent on the little president man’s book about his daddy what didn’t love him.
He’s damnably inscrutable.
Hot Air – it links to interesting stories, and Ed and AP do some decent analysis, but the comment section is for the birds.
Cap’n Ed had massive Cap’n Ed Fail today. Or maybe yesterday. brb.
FAIL.
It happens.
Mr. Allah didn’t touch it on twitter either.
There are other things going on in the world besides this literary dust up.
Thanks geoffb,
I skimmed the site but didn’t see evidence of his claims to demonstrating a classic liberal/libertarian outlook.
Which reminds me of something.
Jeff,
Barrett Brown has been using you as a reference for his classic liberal street cred. He seems to suggest you two are soul brothers.
Did I miss something?
Not for you, evidently, snowcone. You’re all kinda here.
BB is a libertarian — close to an intellectual anarchist, really. He’s not a bad guy, though he can be infuriating to deal with.
He’s like a far less statist SEK, only without the dick factor built in.
All right now stop it, I mean it this time and dont try to stop me,
I AM GOING TO THE GYM! Cause afterall Mojo doesn’t make it self 8^)
#83 haps – to some people the question whether Ayers helped a little, a lot, or none at all with pres. Obama’s book is unimportant.
I think it would further reinforce the notion of a close tie between the two. That’s as far as I’ve taken the implications (if the other ties didn’t do it, this won’t either). Well, that and expecting someone to have helped with the writing of the book.
Jeff
Good to know, doh! what am I still doing here?
Mikey NTH —
It’s important for the reasons I wrote about in my first post on this. Think Manchurian Candidate, only instead of hypnosis, the left used literary artifice and networking.
I like the question Mikey just cause however you resolve the question it underscores how truly unexamined the little president man was before we handed him the keys to our once-proud little country.
There are at least a couple of other implications Mikey. First, both Obama and Ayres are inculpated in an active lie continuing down to this day. Second, as Cashill points out, much of Obama’s vaunted brilliance is built upon the foundation laid by Dreams, and built, that is, without any scepticism having been directed Obama’s way at all.
Those creepy singing children are still in my head. That’s the most terrifying distillation of now that I’ve seen.
You would think Allah would be on this one. You would think a Bill Ayers and Barack Obama post on a blog god site like Hot Air would gin up an additional 100,000 hits at least. That is enough blog adds to probably get Allah dinner tonight at Applebees. Because we know all the cool New Yorkers go to Applebees on Friday nights!
Or is it Red Robin?
Comment by Jeff G. on 9/25 @ 2:04 pm #
I got the part about making the candidate – trying to build the perfect one. I could see the linkages through the Obama’s and their ‘neighbors’ such as the Annenberg Challenge, the university connections, the political launch in Ayers’ home, Rezko and the land deal and so on. The book was just another confirming link. And it did not surprise me that Obama would turn for literary help to the one guy who was actually a writer. (Legal writing is different, I think, from other writing styles – such as a biography.)
Obama and all of his friends, associates, and hangers on were building the perfect candidate. The candidate got elected. And now…
It seems they forgot to really work on the ‘what if he wins?’ part of the equation.
You know what is a funny joke on all those birth certificate truthers?
I was really born in Bethlehem! In a manger!
R.S. McCain did a post on the Ayers-Obama matter too.
RSM also had this Downfall Frogger bit that is probably suitable for Hot Air.
Maybe I should try again – that Ayers worked on the book wasn’t a revelation – I expected it.
That Obama is pretty much a false front – that was obvious to me during the campaign.
That the media didn’t vet him – heck, we saw that.
That revelation of Ayers’ assistance with the book – I don’t think that would do much to his campaign then (correcting the historical record is always worthy, though).
Perhaps I am not approaching this from the right viewpoint, but now, with Obama performing in office and providing a lot of new evidence as to his competence and intellectual depth (puddletacular) this just confirms what should have been done but wasn’t.
and I do not think it will shame the media into vetting in the future.
Jeff’s reference to “The Manchurian Candidate” is a good one. Obama did his best to sound like the most ethical centrist evah! during the campaign. But, since his inauguration he has done his best to essentially enact the progressive left’s wish list of legislation compiled over the last 30 years.
The latest is the whole arms control-NO NUKES!-schtick, peddled under the guise of attaining the “moral authority” to press Iran and North Korea to eliminate their nuclear programs, the realization of a 30 year old pipe dream that there would somehow be no more war if all nukes were eliminated. And the timing could be no more propitious for those who are nostalgic for Russian ascendancy as well; since they are in a tough economic position and could not have hoped to maintain their operational nuclear arsenal without suffering domestically.
So at a time when he could have forced them to come to his terms, owing to their domestic economic stresses, he instead is willing to give them cover for the savings in addition to eliminating our planned ISBM interceptor battery; sacrificing elements of our military power and national defense to facilitate face savings on the part of the Russians…
His apparent scheme to take us down a few notches internationally lends another twist to the Manchurian candidate label.
The failure of Obama’s policies and the incompetence of his performance in office could, will likely, easily outstrip the speed and effect that this story will have in damning Obama in public opinion, Mikey, I think you’ve got that right. On the other hand, as and when this story is shown to depict the truth about Obama, as it does involve his very foundation and in that origin with men like Bill Ayres, it will bring to light certain aspects of American political life that the nation would be well rid of — in many regards — intellectually as well as institutionally. Carefully built, this case could play a significant role in exposing that malign edifice and cohort.
+1 sdferr
Nice summing up sdferr. You put it better than I was doing.
This story if it got play would do damage. However, unlike the ACORN stories it does not have the sex angle (thank God!) and doesn’t have the video tape; or like the TANG memos it doesn’t have the obvious fakery. People are making analyses – and good ones – and it is pleasant to be right – to be as sure about something as is possible, but it depends too much on academic inquiry and that does not really grasp the public.
Right in time for a Jeff thread, the ‘Dillo Cam!
This is definitely a suitable topic for a Mitt Romney like video play. Remember them? Mitt saying he was pro choice and then saying he was pro life?
Those images of Ayers stomping the flag still raises my blood pressure a couple of points.
Combine that with Obama’s denial of being friends with Ayers, with clips of Obama’s Dreams of My Father book tour (wasn’t he on Oprah for the book), and then evidence of Ayers ghost writing it might be very effective. It could be a relatively short clip.
As for Hot Air, give them a day or two on this. They may pickup the story once Allah or Ed digests it.
Well, not necessarily. Here’s a sentence that could well be a conditional:
“Removal of a President from office would require a majority vote in the House to impeach, and 2/3 in the Senate to remove.”
I think we can safely say that “would” without “if” is at best ambiguous, because it can indicate either the conditional (which the “if” would make certain) or past imperfect (possibly with the connotation of repeated actions over a period of time). As always, context is important to suss out the intended meaning where the construction admits of multiple meanings.
It’s proper when quoting to use quotation marks at both the beginning and the end of the sentence, Grammatiknazi.
On the other hand, blockquoted excerpts don’t generally require quotation marks. And they should be at least two lines in length.
balance is key
Sheesh.
Would it kill you guys to come with a flowchart or something?
Uh-oh, are we gearing up for “You Got Served: ‘Chicago Manual of Style’ Edition”?
Wait, do I use quotes for a book title, or should I italicize? And what about the question mark, maybe it should go inside the double-quote? Man, I suck at this.
Punctuation is hard. No lie. I look up the question mark quotes thing at least every other month.
Comment by Jeff G. on 9/25 @ 3:42 pm #
In my leagal writing, in Michigan, we use the style that the Michigan Supreme Court and the Department of Attorney General require.
Transcript references are in the body of the text.
Citations to other works (case opinions, statutes, briefs, secondary sources, etc.) are in footnotes.
All is double spaced including quotes of less than four lines.
Quotes of more than four lines are single space and indented.
And other such fun things.
As I said before – legal writing is a bit different than other writing.
Happy am I to wrong not be. :)
legal writing pays
Blog commenting pays for some Leftists, and they do not even have to use puncuation, though the ALL CAPS keys get worn out pretty quickly.
I MEANT BLOG COMMENTING PAYS FOR SOME LEFTISTS AND THEY DO NOT EVEN HAVE TO USE PUNCTUATION THOUGH THE all caps KEYS GET WORN OUT PRETTY QUICKLY
Uh-oh, are we gearing up for “You Got Served: ‘Chicago Manual of Style’ Edition”?
CMS and MLA aren’t too bad. For pure pain, try the APA style guide.
The horror, the horror…
I NEVER LEAVE HOME WITHOUT MY STRUNK & WHITE RACIST STYLE GUIDE CUZ THEY HELPS ME RHYME MY RHYMES AND WORK ON MY FLOW SO I CAN MAKE RECORDS WHERE I PORTRAY MYSELF AS PERSECUTED JESUS PERSON
Yep, I committed a typo. Muphry’s Law is a bitch.
I was vascillating between the blockquote and the double-quote, and decided to use the blockquote for what I was replying to, which is more of a web-standard thing than a manual-of-style thing, so it wouldn’t look like my hypothetical ambiguously conditional example. Then I missed the trailing double-quote.
I also break the rule that says to put punctuation inside the quotes, when the punctuation was not in the original. I use the serial comma with three or more words or phrases joined by “and” or “or”.
Apostrophes are a bit of a peeve of mine. It happens that my one of my sons in law has both his first and names ending in “s”, so I see an awful lot of awful apostrophe abuse when people talk about him, my daughter, and the grandkids.
i tend to like illegal writing. that makes me humana.
SEK’s case appears to hinge on the fact that Cashill said something, and it’s nowhere to be found on the Internet, therefore he said it to Andersen.
The logic here seems funny. I mean, it’s a fair argument that Andersen has sloppy attribution skills, but it doesn’t immediately follow, here, that either Cashill or Andersen (or both!) have lied about a past conversation.
Probably that last sentence contains too many commas. At least I didn’t murder an ellipsis in the process….
“Comment by Snowcone on 9/25 @ 1:50 pm #
Mr. Allah didn’t touch it on twitter either.
There are other things going on in the world besides this literary dust up.”
Like the ACORN corruption story, which is at, what, day 27 today?
It’s 27 one. day. stories.
HA!
I want some music.
BRB.
Lousy song
AMAZING performance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pS5xzOWbwo
http://realserver.earthlink.net/~www.bodeans.com/media/goodthings_sf_2001.rm
N.O’Brain – That is one of my personal favorites …
Slart —
What did Cashill say that was only available to Andersen? Not this: “There was a good deal of literary back-scratching going on in Chicago’s Hyde Park.” Because that’s right here.
Cashill says he never spoke with Andersen. So what SEK’s argument hinges on is his calling Cashill a liar or Andersen a fabulist.
Nothing more, nothing less.
[…] system Sliming Conservatives: A Short History Tut-tutting about “violence” at protests Jack Cashill responds to suggestions by a
http://realserver.earthlink.net/~www.bodeans.com/media/paradise_stl_2002.rm
Like the ACORN corruption story, which is at, what, day 27 today?
Was there an ACORN story in the MSM today?
Musta missed it.
Oh. See, SEK searched on an entire string, which (apparently) Andersen didn’t quote just exactly right.
Which, you know, means that both of them lied, or something.
Yeah, you must have, liebot.
Just to be clear: this was SEK’s point, not mine.
Since this is allegedly due to SEK’s poor Google-fu, it seems to me that he owes Cashill and Andersen apologies.
HAHAHAHAHA! I kill myself sometimes.
Snowcone should stop while he’s only really, really far behind.
My #136 was aimed at NippleNut’s #134, in case it isn’t clear.
Good Allah, snotnose. Don’t you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself?
http://www.bodeans.com/media/ctf.mov
“Was there an ACORN story in the MSM today?”
“Comments 8 | Recommend 0
Print
RSS
Yahoo! Buzz
AddThis
Social Bookmarking
Donations to ACORN-affiliated charities may fuel other purposes, GOP memo says
08:02 AM CDT on Friday, September 25, 2009
The Associated Press ”
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-acorn_25nat.ART.State.Edition1.3c64de1.html
I wonder if the source wasn’t Bernadine Dorhn.
Read throught the old Halloween cashill thread. PW so had Obama’s number.
Typos for old times sake.
Comment by JD on 9/25 @ 5:17 pm #
The answer is no. Which is why the lamprous troll should be ignored.
Shoot, I’m bad enough with making jingles, but there is no light touch with that lamprous one.
“Comment by Snowcone on 9/25 @ 5:12 pm #
Like the ACORN corruption story, which is at, what, day 27 today?
Was there an ACORN story in the MSM today?
Musta missed it.”
Well, gee, if you pulled you head outta your ass………
Oh, nevermind.
Or, upon thinking about it, why not one of Ayers’ kids, or his ward? Young adults can be so indiscreet.
http://realserver.earthlink.net/~www.bodeans.com/media/idaho_sf_2002.rm
“Was there an ACORN story in the MSM today?
Musta missed it.”
Jut had to put that up again.
You retarded mamroset.
Comment by JD on 9/25 @ 5:02 pm #
Yeah, I like it JD, it has a 1950 rock duo sound.
Very nice.
Comment by SBP on 9/25 @ 5:15 pm #
Yeah. We’ll see that when we see the Second Coming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2nQZPC2uTs
10 minute Dire Straights jam.
Love it.
Straits
Sorry.
Looks like SEK is doubling down on the lie that Andersen spoke to Cashill, rather than simply quoting something he’d written for World Net Daily.
See, SEK searched on a whole string and only got 32 results, where if you search this you get over 1000, one of which comes from Cashill’s own blog sometime in 2008.
But, oh, Cashill said. That could never mean wrote.
Oh. Those were WND articles, too.
Well, it IS WND, after all, and they’re unworthy of contemplation.
http://www.vh1.com/video/play.jhtml?artist=3243&vid=58426
http://www.vh1.com/video/play.jhtml?id=58426
N.O’Brain – I must have seen them and Blues Traveler about 30 times each while I was in college.
“poor Google-fu,” Sheesh, took me but a minute to find this at Cashill’s own site.
BTW, Jeff (and anyone else who’s interested) the earliest sources for the Cashill “back-scratching” statement I can find are here, from Cashill’s own site, dated October 23, 2008, and the World Net Daily site, dated October 19, 2008.
But Andersen doesn’t have a computer, I guess. The only way he could’ve gotten that was by direct Vulcan mind-meld with Cashill — at least in SEK-world.
Slart beat me to post I see.
Me too, Geoff.
But the fact that all three of us could turn it up within a couple of minutes of looking says something about SEK’s research skills, I think.
Or it was something too good, too truthy, to bother to check out throughly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHvftcuqx6I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DabXHEGRv9s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Palv0pf8gyk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FgJ_F5S6vM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXTx5lvw27k&feature=related
Okay. Sorry. I forgot that youtube can be really fun sometimes.
DO. NOT. CLICK. ON. THIS. LINK. DO. NOT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNJND3By3Mg
thoroughly
#129
Wow. I wants me one of those machines. I’d do the only good song Ambrosia EVAR did: “Life beyond L.A.” They’ve got the gnarliest 2 against 3 in the bridge you’ll ever hear outside Debussy.
BTW, if you live in America, the punctuation goes inside the quotation marks. In the rest of the Anglosphere, it goes outside.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNJND3By3Mg
I am not kidding. Do not click on that link. Don’t do it. It would not be prudent.
BTW, if you live in America, the punctuation goes inside the quotation marks.
Not if you’re writing code. :-)
If you did not listen to me, it is your fault. I warned you.
#167: Where should I send the therapy bill?
Not if you’re writing code. :-)
Code is magic. Ordinary rule do not apply.
I fucking warned you. I am still simultaneously laughing and throwing up in the back of my mouth.
SEK is really trying to take me task in both his threads. Poor baby. Soon it’ll hit him that he’s wasted an awful lot of words on an argument that is the result of nothing more than poor Google skills.
He also thinks you are a moron, dicentra.
Not just me.
JD: Clicked on it long enough to see the title.
Clicked it RIGHT OFF.
Evidently I came out of retirement JUST TO TAKE AIM AT SEK!
Man, the ego on that dude. It’s like he’s cleansed his house of mirrors or something.
He also thinks you are a moron, dicentra.
Because I called out his confusion between conditional and past perfect?
Hey Scott: Project much?
Evidently I came out of retirement JUST TO TAKE AIM AT SEK!
And he can’t decide whether to be cheesed or honored, right? Hence the cognitive dissonance. That’s gotta be powerful uncomfortable.
Remind me again why SEK is tenure-track and dicentra and Jeff aren’t?
(actually, I know why — neither am I)
It is kind of sad that there was once a time where it was fun to interact with SEK.
Have Rich Puchalsky and Karl “Porn Fluffer” Steel called you racists yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Y6ROZGcuQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbggPXDuwDg&feature=related
Totally safe, and good music. I SWEAR.
Remind me again why SEK is tenure-track and dicentra and Jeff [and SBP] aren’t?
Because we all have this weird urge to not have our brains bound and gagged?
Because we are still in thrall to the idea that reality exists outside our perception of it?
Because we insist on thinking that words mean what they mean?
For the record, I haven’t been retired. Just posting on football and baseball, rather than dealing with dishonest assholes like SEK and his enablers on both the left and right.
Truth is, I don’t much care about this stuff anymore. I’ve concluded that we’re governed by idiots — and that we are, as a country, appropriately represented therefore.
No, really. I give up.
Why O why are we not in the hallowed halls of academe?
I pines for them, I does.
Not.
Speaking of our idiot governance, there’s going to be a day of fasting and prayer for the Republic on the 28th, which is Yom Kippur.
Pray if you’ve got ’em.
If not, well, send good vibes.
And dig up dirt on your favorite congresscritters. That’s pretty fun.
Here’s The Answer:
Obama is a lightweight.
Comment by Jeff G. on 9/25 @ 5:53 pm #
Well then, if you got to go out, make sure you go to the fights you are best for.
Why waste all that talent on TTPs? Go for the big guns.
Jeff G – My father just flew out to Denver this morning for the Cardinals/Rockies series this weekend. He is hoping to see the Cardinals clinch, and a preview of the NLCS.
I haven’t gone to read SEK’s threads (the light print on dark background gives me headaches… and that is BEFORE SEK’s mendacities)
“tenure-track“, another thing that through the tender massaging of the left is/has come to mean the opposite of what it had originally.
Darleen,
After rereading the Tony Snow thread earlier today I don’t think I am interested in providing SEK any more attention.
The world needs a blog named that. “Deservedly Governed by Idiots.”
Not to further state the obvious, but who are encouraged by outright liars.
It is trivial and insipid. Look at who thrives.
IMO, this is no different than TV, magazines, newspapers, and to some extent radio and books. Cheap thrills is a common human trait.
[love of] Cheap thrills is a common human trait.
God help me, but I digs me some blogdrama. Much easier to enjoy when you’re just on the sidelines and not a proprietor.
Blogdrama is silly. Especially in a world where people on the right would hand over heavy cultural ordnance to the left before they’d admit being wrong.
no this is wrong all it takes for evil to triumph god damn it is for good men to post on football. I’m not having it. Posting on football. Pah. Yes. That would be correct. I said pah.
But that’s just me having a “pity party,” as SEK — borrowing from Patterico regulars — would have it.
I digs me some blogdrama. + Blogdrama is silly. = Dicentra is silly.
Well, that one works, anyway.
We don’t have to worry about handing over heavy cultural ordinance to the left, Jeff. Glenn Beck, he’s going to save us all. He boiled a frog, you know.
He also is working deep underground with members of congress to expose all kinds of corruption. The leftist house of cards will collapse just as surely as the Soviet Union did, under its own weight.
And great will be the fall thereof.
Have lots of popcorn on hand.
hf
I’m reading Good Omens on my daily bus commute, and this morning one of the characters in the book said Pah. I take this as proof that the world revolves around me on matters of the trivial and inconsequential.
Who gives a damn what SEK and Patterico think?
I wonder what Charles Johnson thinks about all of this.
Forget Charles Johnson, someone ask Megan McCain.
CJ thinks we’re all a bunch of white supremacists.
See, it’s easy!
And welcome back, Makewi.
Charles Johnson thinks therefore he isn’t
Megan McCain thinks we’re tacky.
C’mon, throw me a curve or summat!
Incidentally, another reason I soured on academia? There’s a theory blog called the Valve at which my views on interpretation theory are routinely caricatured and then dismissed. Nobody there ever deals with intentionalism as I’ve actually described it — and since at least the Patterico incident, SEK has gone out of his way to misrepresent my positions in order to casually dismiss them while seeking consensus on said dismissal from the site’s regulars. And he gets it, too: they all agree that the caricature of Jeff doesn’t understand language, and that their sophistication on the subject makes even having to hear such nonsense burdensome.
If I remember, I was last dismissed as a “body builder guy” who believes that things like context or historical situatedness, etc,. have no bearing on how we interpret. Which of course I don’t. I distinguish between what a text means and what it means to us as interpreters in order to highlight the locus of meaning in what we hope to be an act of communication.
Fact is, I scare the shit out of Scott — particularly now that he’s become an avid sophist in the service of the kind of paternalistic soft totalitarianism that is progressivism. Because I see through him. And I know how to handle the pretend intellectuals that populate the modern left.
that fatty fat glen beck will be stuffing donuts in his piehole all day 9/28
Fact is, I scare the shit out of Scott
It’s cute how they express their terror as condescension, isn’t it? They’d fit right in at the court of Louis XVI.
that fatty fat glen beck will be stuffing donuts in his piehole all day 9/28
No, that’ll be all day 9/27 and then again on 9/29. We Mormons, we know how to fast. The secret is sugar-free Tic-Tacs.
there’s a new species of chuck johnson i hear
This authorship question, unfortunately, has some of the same whiff of futility about it as did the birth certificate question. Because, now, it doesn’t matter; Obama is installed and will do whatever damage he will do irregardless of who actually wrote his stupid book. The ‘ghost writer’ question might as well be picked apart by historians, long after Obama has finished his disassembly of our classical values.
Oh, unrelated, but some heartening football news, a somewhat heartwarming snippet. A story of a troubled athlete reaching out and grasping true bigness, without ever touching the pigskin. Vince Young picked up Steve McNair’s two young sons at their home and took them to a “Dear Our Dads” breakfast hosted by their school last week. Their dad, of course, couldn’t make it.
Just goes to show that scoring 6 out of 50 on the Wonderlic doesn’t always mean that one is bereft of every sought-after human trait.
He tries to condescend, but if you’ve read him for any length of time, you recognize how forced it comes off.
I can’t remember a single instance, in fact, where he’s won the argument.
I do so like how he treats happy as a pet. Very in keeping with the how the left works.
He must think happy is black.
Nice story, serr8d.
Good on Vince.
Jeff,
Those guys are girly men dont sweat it.
serr8d – That was cool. Sorry my Colts did not lose for you. Look for me at the game in October.
you’re wrong the triple chin glenn beck is making people in amerkkka starve on 9/28 so he can take dunkin donuts inventory
In other news, the guys at RiffTrax (Mike, Kevin, and Bill from MST3K) are holding a 1-tweet essay contest on “croutons.”
Hilarity ensues.
If I remember, I was last dismissed as a “body builder guy” who believes that such things as context etc have no bearing on how we interpret.
They better hope they do not become a plaintiff or defendant in court, then. There is a lot of context invovled when someone goes all Smith & Wesson on another.
Thanks dicentra. Sadly the internet and I just don’t have as much time for each others as we used to.
I like this Makewi person. I have never once wanted to call you mendoucheous ;-)
Oh. I emailed SEK, who says he’s emailed both Cashill and Andersen and received no reply, and asked him for Andersen’s email address.
In not so many words, he told me to find it myself through my contacts at Trident media, of which I have none (that I know of, at least).
Too bad. Maybe I would have had better luck getting Andersen to respond than he did.
But then, that may not be what SEK wants to happen…
“I do so like how he treats happy as a pet.”
Feets is a treasure. SEK is a shipwreck riding the tide out to sea.
Wait …. ‘feet’s *isn’t* black?
I was sure I saw him leaving the plantation!
Feets is a treasure. SEK is a shipwreck riding the tide out to sea.
Consider that stolen.
Jeff G,
Funny how you got a reply, but he hasn’t. He lurks this thread, at least according to himself, because he made some wise crack about my phony civility, or whatever. I apologized if his feelings were hurt, but insisted that he was wrong all the same, and siggested that he write those fellows and straighten it out before making assumptions based on semantics.
So do you think the Rockies will catch the Dodgers, or take the wild card? My wife and her Yankee lovin’ family are beside themselves over the best record in baseball; in a fit of peake, I told them to wait until the October performance of A-Rod, the anti-Reggie Jackson, broke their hearts again…
Not a popular prognostication…
The Rockies blew it because they couldn’t handle San Diego — or the rest of their division, for that matter.
The Braves are now in the driver’s seat.
I’m not a pet. It’s a dirty socialist world and I’m just living in it I guess. With some small amount of insouciance even. But for reals, I don’t even know any not dirty socialist people here in the California territory. It’s incumbent on me to make an effort, if you follow. It’s incumbent on me to make an effort even if you don’t follow.
I don’t know how to explain it any more better.
in a fit of
peakepiqueSorry. Pet peeve with “pique.” “Peak” is semantically too close for most peeps to tell the diff.
It’s incumbent on me to make an effort
Me, I aim to do some mischief.
That’s Capt. Malcom Reynolds, btw, who is way hawt.
Thanks for the clarification Dicentra,
I’ve looked it up and seen a few different spellings; and I’ve always wondered which one was correct…
Other Guy at work went on about Castle today. He didn’t sell me. It sounded very a lot like Bones. He said I could easily pick right up starting with season 2. That’s a bad sign. I don’t like non-serial episodic broadcast network programming very much usually. Sometimes. But I don’t seek it out or anything.
Whatever happened with that reciever Marshall? Did the Broncos get rid of him? Being in NY, I am forced to see the Giants, Jets, and oddly enough the Steelers, even though I root for the Redskins (who unfortunately look pathetic) and the Ravens who I kepy my season tickets to (the Redskin ones went for beeeeeg bucks).
Ravens look good this year, they have an offense for a change; but with their old D coach at the Jets it’s suffering a bit…
Castle is OK, but yeah, it’s Bones-y.
Best Netflix Firefly if you want a Fillion fix. Or you can follow him on Twitter @nathanfillion. He’s a hoot.
He was also in at the end of Buffy.
He was very good on Buffy but it was mean what he did to Xander.
Damn you, JD.
JD, I fell for it. Okay, I am sorry. Again. Didn’t anyone teach the British how to use a beer bong?
Also Jeff I was struck by your comment at #207.
Over the last week I’ve had many discussions at different sites about the missile defense policy change that Obama made last week. At one particular site, where many arms control and International studies types gather, the discussion got a bit heated; they insisted that Obama made the pragmatic decision since Iran only fields intermediate range missiles at best. When I reminded them that Iran successfully placed a satellite in orbit last February, it was dismissed as almost rube-ish assertion; even though the physics of that feat are more strenuous and challenging than delivering a warhead!
This group of academics and experts dismissed my opinion as seemingly irrelevant, even though I happen to be a rocket scientist, and none of them had technical degrees. And even though I tried to explain where their assumptions were flawed, they would have none of it; the inertia of their mindset and group dynamic could not be swayed-even by matters of fact…
So, what I’m getting at is forget about those that would seem to dismiss and belittle your opinions and theories. Perhaps the group dynamic is simply impenetrable, for whatever reason. Your outlooks and opinion are valued by many more than would dismiss it. Do not throw pearls to swine, regardless of how highly they are regarded by others. Reserve them for those that appreciate their true value.
All the best to you and yours
Night all,
and Jeff just keep firing it’s what outlaws do.
The flack is evidence you are hitting the target so don’t go soft on us!
As Reggie Jackson once said “they don’t boo nobodies”
Yeah, but Xander ended up on “Criminal Minds” with a girlfriend who is not afraid of bunnies.
I’ve never seen that one.
Various entire civilizations circle the drain from time to time. I wanted to ask Jeff, per 207, if there was a characteristic or phenomenon that consistently reappears in history where factuality simply cannot be tolerated. I think tolerated is the right word because the animosity these individual running group failures express when challenged is impressive. We’re living in one of those eras.
Thanks Bob for overshadowing my Reggie Jackson quote with your Rocket science stuff ;)
I freaking told you guys. You cannot blame me.
dr who
one fell swoop
tom baker/ booby oar number 4
Danger, I really liked that reggie Jackson quote. In fact, I may adopt it as a new aphorism to lay down; at only the right moments of course, like you did in #240…
Take it easy, Bro.
JD,
I watched that video…They were some sick puppies even to dream that up!
JHo @ 243,
This is sort of sideways on your comment. I believe the problem you have stated is accentuated by the “baby boom”. Not in the way people talk about the “boomers” as if they are all alike, BTW I’m one from the leading edge.
There are only so many positions in organizations fit for those in their 50s/60s. The pyramid of an organization is smaller at the top. There is an over abundance of very experienced people all competing for a few slots in any place where firings or layoffs do not happen. Tenured academia, government civil service, union jobs. Add in tough economic times in the outside and the viciousness to keep your place in the pecking order increases. It is reaching a peak right now and in ten years or so will subside.
The computer caused flattening of hierarchy, less middle management needed, has added to it too. Industry has dealt with it already. The protected jobs above haven’t yet.
SEK and ilk, like Bob Reed’s “academics and experts” are herd animals — no — They are star belly sneetches. Their [degree, certificate, gentleman’s club, anointed friends] is the star on their belly that allows them to believe non-star holders have anything of value to offer. Unless it is adoration and supplication.
Jeff G, dicentra – you are apostates. You have been inside the Holy Club and rejected the star on your belly. There is special animosity for you. You could say “the sun rises in the east” and they will laugh with contempt and write volumes of how wrong you are…from how you look, what your declasse hobbies are, your punctuation and spelling, without ever getting near the facts of your assertion.
For the rest of us unstarred, those of us that pursued other “non-intellectual” degrees/education/careers — we are dismissed out of hand, not worthy of more then a haughty snort aimed in our general direction. “Meaning”? “Perception”? “Context”? “Motive”? Who do we think we are to even attempt to weigh in on exclusive star belly territory?
They are especially incensed that most of us are not nearly as impressed with their “intellect” as they are.
Tom Baker?
Yeah, I know, but Tennant is better. I mean, that COAT! Who wouldn’t rather have the coat than the scarf? I ask you!
They are especially incensed that most of us are not nearly as impressed with their “intellect” as they are.
The failure to be impressed is rock-solid evidence of our stupidity. Because if we weren’t stupid, we’d see how smart they are.
Lack of falsifiability is their favorite thing. Just ask the global warmongers.
dicentra
its as if they never got beyond 7th grade — that time in life when kids are most vicious and most viciously grouping themselves and enforcing those group rules.
In other words, business as usual for the Left.
They take your words out of the context in which you uttered them, assign whatever meaning that best furthers their argumentum ad stramentum, and mock the caricature of their own making.
That the topic they chose to caricature was this very phenomenon requires an irony meter that goes to “11” or “12”, I think.
Bob – I could not turn away. Avert your eyes, I kept saying. But I could not.
I can haz Preview?
The Monster – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNJND3By3Mg
Do. Not. Click. On. That. Monster.
JD..they were young, dumb, and full of c–well, that just made it worse, didn’t it?
OH, I won’t be at that Sunday night Titanic-slaying of the Colts. There’s a scheduling mishap where I’ll be flying to the wrong city. There’s no strings I can pull that will change that, unless I change professions. Bummer.
But if Jeff Fisher and crew can’t win Sunday in New York, it’s full-fledged panic time anyways. These last two losses, especially that first loss to Pittsburgh, cut to the bone. Fish asploded this week about some local boneheaded TV coverage (that’s a bad sign), so I can’t say they won’t be distracted against the much weaker Jets.
Chris Johnson, though, you want him on your fantasy team. Really.
Oh, now he’s going the “I was portraying Andersen as just being sloppy all along; I wasn’t saying he’d talked to Cashill”.
The guy’s got more reverse gears than Elvis Castello.
serr8d – I will bet you dinner on that game. Virago sushi for the winner?
Slarti – is “reverse gears” some racist codeword for dishonest mendoucheous hack?
I think the problem with this kind of argument is you wind up wondering if the other guy ever had a point that he cared to stick with.
And now I’ve lost what interest I had. Which is probably the point.
I was portraying Andersen as just being sloppy all along; I wasn’t saying he’d talked to Cashill
Really? WTF? He contradicts himself within his own thread and is still trying to brazen it out?
Lord…I’m so tempted to risk a headache and go over there.
Is he really, Slart? And I bet his readers are letting him get away with it, too.
Amazing.
Oh. He’s emailed me several times now to suggest that he has emailed Andersen, but that he either doesn’t have his email address or is reluctant to give me a contact who can get it for me. I think he’s intimating that he had someone forward the email for him — though he won’t say so directly. I kind of tuned it out when he launched into his predictable wronged-man-of-truth spiel, to be honest.
Never should have asked him. Just thought I’d give it a shot, seeing as how we both want Andersen on record, and how he’s received no response from either Cashill or Andersen (where as Cashill was quite forthcoming with me).
I lurvs my sushi. Ichiban, 2nd Avenue North; loser has to drink the quail’s egg. Which is sorta like that video you linked… )
Deal. Is it better than Virago?
What is this Virago of which you speak? brb..
This is precisely the kind of semantic games trapped academics play, Darleen and Slart.
Lawyers do it to, if a certain pragmatic conservative is any indication.
Sez SEK:
W.T.F?
Oh, yes. Ichiban is their daddy. And, it’s within walking distance of the Stadium. Division Street, not so much.
Ok, really done now.
its as if they never got beyond 7th grade
In more ways than one. There’s the social cattiness, and then there’s the concept of where money comes from and what people do with power and how if you have a degree you’re utterly infallible.
Some of them become disillusioned with their sweet teen dreams, but then they just become bitter and mean. Like Greg House or Michael Moore or Bill Maher.
Instead of growing up and realizing that some things can’t be done and some things can and knowing which is which.
And because academics can’t be fired, they totally lose touch with what it’s like to live in the wild where you have to kill what you eat and how sometimes you don’t eat.
Zoo animals, all of them. Released into the wild they’d either starve to death or get eaten by a predator, who’d they’d gleefully trot over to in order to have them a multicultural experience.
Deal, serr8d. Hopefully, the Titans will have one in the win column before we come to town.
Goodnight, all. Do not click on my links above.
And he’s reading every comment on this thread. I know this because he thought it somehow biting to drop hints that he’s doing so in the email exchange.
So that means this is a good place to note that I didn’t cite his separate post on the Cashill subject because I didn’t know it existed. I only knew the comment I cited existed because happyfeet linked it here and sdferr commented on it.
Ordinarily I don’t pay much attention to what SEK has to say; but I thought somebody should check the facts and set the record straight. Because though he’s in full backpedal mode now, SEK began by suggesting that Cashill was himself the source of corroboration and knew as much before moving on to suggest that Cashill was lying about speaking with Andersen.
I’ve watched this douche misrepresent too many people through the years. So I felt like making sure it didn’t happen in this case.
Mission accomplished.
SEK – You and Rich Puchalsky and Karl “call me doctor bitch” Steel are lying dishonest mendoucheous twatwaffles of the highest order. And racists.
But help me out just a bit here. How exactly does my MS in aerospace engineering mean that my opinion somehow does not measure up to those of PhD’d in philosophy, international studies, Policy studies, Economics, and Political Science when discussing a technical subject?
I’ll never get it…
SEK is following the White House marching orders. Anything he writes is therefore suspect, and I call Bullshit on whatever his analysis might be. It’s obviously tainted, his weak analysis, because of his innate bias. Good thing he’s not a scientist.
Slart —
So now he’s moved on to Andersen is a sloppy writer and researcher. Even though he set out to attack Cashill. And he’s pretending he hasn’t changed positions?
Astounding.
Does he get around to noting how any of that negates the information not gleaned from Cashill that seems to corroborate Cashill’s hypothesis?
Somebody needs to draw a Venn diagram. Because at this point, SEK is trying to confuse people by adding more and more words to the mix.
SEK is not lying. His position is “evolving”.
Meh. Par for the course.
Let him stay up all night trying to rehabilitate his argument, if it makes him feel better.
We all know. And even his regulars must.
Me, I don’t worry about that kinda shit anymore.
Which is why, my mission having been accomplished, I’m off to watch the TIVO of Sons of Anarchy and Psych.
BTW, I just read a Steyn article in the hard-copy NR edition about the tea parties.
Boy does he get it. He REALLY gets it.
Also this:
Give that man a cheroot.
How exactly does my MS in aerospace engineering mean that my opinion somehow does not measure up… ?
Dude. YOU’RE IN THE WRONG GROUP!
You silly wingers are always worried about facts and crap. As if that mattered.
We only care about who’s in power. As it happens, facts are a construct of the white colonial patriarchy to exercise power over brown people and women. Because we say so.
By destroying the concept of “facts,” we’ve torn down your power structure. Get used to it.
Jeff,
As I have told you privately, and (I think) more than once on this site in the comments…you are needed to sweep away the outright dishonesty of the SEK types of this world. I can go fight my country’s enemies on a battlefieled – I can try to hold back the Mark Lanier and Peter Angelos types that would beggar our economy for one more mansion or one more sports team. But when it comes to this type of fight – guarding the integrity of the language, intellectualy safe guarding some very basic precepts of the Western way of thinking…we need you. There are many that can do what I do – there are few that will or are able to do what you do.
I feel like Dr. Watson sometimes – just bright enough to see what you are doing. But I cannot do it myself.
BTW, JD – if you hadn’t been such a kind host, more than once, to me – I would be very upset about that beer enema thingy. You did warn, however.
Here’s a video with Christoper Andersen, on CNN with lovely Kiran Chetry. Seems most of the controversy is re: the rocky marriage. The reference to Ayers and Dreams might be unwitting; therefore the excited, sloppy post by Cashill was just that: excitement that finally he was getting some vindication.
Too bad that in the end “facts” always bite, hard.
Oh, and everyone…I cannot recommend “Flight of the Conchords” enough. Might they act as a paliative for JD’s….uh, links.
geoffb – indeed. With diamond dusted teeth.
Heh. From the video,@ 4:33, Obama admitted that the “YES WE CAN!” slogan wasn’t his; that he couldn’t even understand it at first. So how can anyone not question his superlative all-of-a-sudden excellent writing style?
Maybe there’s a pill for that, that he’s not sharing.
#278 Bob Reed
Without going into the merits of the book itself, have you read Atlas Shrugged? There are a few scenes where Hank Readon’s wife Lillian expresses her contempt of his work … in one, where he has just invented a new metal and presents her with a bracelet made from the first pour of the metal and she sneers “oh I’ll be the sensation of New York wearing jewelry made of the same stuff as bridge girders, truck motors, kitchen stoves, typewriters and soup kettles!”
Bob, you’re just a fancy doer…THEY are thinkers!
Only one uh, link was objectionable, LtC John, and only brave souls/not of sound mind tread where they are warned to not tread. Tell me you didn’t laugh a little …
We see who wound up with that bracelet, Darleen. “Be ye not unevenly yoked”, or something like that. )
Thank you for the tip on “Flight of the Conchords”. I will program the tivo when I get off work. I need more humor.
And because academics can’t be fired, they totally lose touch with what it’s like to live in the wild where you have to kill what you eat and how sometimes you don’t eat.
when I first got back into the working world after 16 years as a SAHM (which, of course, will forever make me less important then some..ahem) I dusted off the exec. secretary skills and worked for an agency. They always gave me their more “difficult” clients.
I never thought it as bad as the four months I worked at an exclusive (and well known) college (one of the Claremont Colleges). The woman I worked for was so whacked I began to look longingly at the wood chipper the gardening crews were using.
Best we could do.
JD – True, one link, I should say. Geoffb – I played ball with a couple of Kiwis and ended up adpoted by a bunch of Kiwi military while I was in Afghanistan, so I am susceptible to NZ humor. However, the Conchords are funny all on their own. Start with season 1 if you can (esp. episodes “Mugged” #3? “Drive By” and the season finale #12).
258 Comment by JD on 9/25 @ 9:20 pm #
Not as bad as goatse.cx, but damn. I need something wholesome to cleanse the palate after that.
I meant, in addition to that button down there that says [ Say It! ], could we see about one for [ Preview ], that lets us see what we’re about to say, before we fscking say it?
Someone can perhaps explain to me why some people have such a difficult time admitting they were wrong about something. It’s really easy, and cathartic. “I was wrong.” Here’s another one that’s good to use: “I don’t know.”
Sure, the first time you say you were wrong, it could be a struggle, depending on how old you are. But the amazing thing is that a person who admits when they are wrong actually gets MORE respect than a person who doesn’t.
Something else that’s good is apologies. You may not always be forgiven, but if you at least acknowledge that you realize you said or did something wrong, you will get more respect rather than less. I mean real apologies, though, not the, “I’m sorry if you were offended” type because in that case you aren’t really sorry so why bother?
Okay, that was on my mind for some reason. Carry on.
#299 – Splitist! Kulak! Wrecker!
You forgot hater. I’m chock-full of hate.
I find that the Conchord’s Albi the Racist Dragon is a good palate-cleanser.
Hey, this one is pretty good, too: The Humans Are Dead.
Wow, so we’ve gone from Cashill allegedly concealing that he was Andersen’s source to Andersen simply not adhering to SEK’s preferred citation style? Quelle horreur!
Celebrity gossip bios aren’t required to use the same style manual as the Transnational Journal of Why America Sucks, or any of SEK’s other publication venues. Style manuals are specific to a discipline. There are dozens of them (hundreds or thousands if you count the minor variations specific to a particular journal). Andersen isn’t writing in SEK’s discipline or for one of SEK’s journals.
The important thing is that Andersen gives a source for the quote (which he did) and that the quote is accurate (which it is). Cite-wanking doesn’t impress us a bit.
Hint #2: in This Modern World, knowing how to use Google is much more important than knowing whether the comma between the journal name and the issue number should be in italic or roman font.
That’s one serious self-beclowning, SEK.
been busy with irl stealing all my bloggy time, and now trying to catch up.
NEways, this whole thing is *barf*. the mendouciousness never ceases to amaze.
and i am also a huge conchords fan. just call me mel. ;-) so i’ll jump on the bandwagon and throw one my my faves in the palate cleanser pile before i go back to reading/skimming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLEK0UZH4cs
SEK, since you are by reports still cruising through the comments here, why did you change tack?
It’s your position now that Andersen does not have an independent, extra-Cashill source?
You deduce this, how? For it doesn’t follow that if the source is alluded to but unnamed, that it does not exist.
How would a flawed citation of Cashill (assuming for argument’s sake) arguments or writings lead to the conclusion that there is no other source?
Is it your position that a flawed citation of Cashill is evidence that Andersen invented the second source?
JeffG, I suppose one could cold-contact Trident press and try to have an inquiry forwarded to Andersen. I wonder if there is a relevant press release with “contact for interview” information. It wouldn’t necessarily bring a response, but it might.
FWIW, Camille Mcduffie is the publicist for the book.
“Comment by happyfeet on 9/25 @ 8:24 pm #
I’ve never seen that one.”
Criminal Minds?
I highly recommend it.
And that’s from someone who hasn’t watched a series in years.
I really like Joe Mantegna in it.
I think SEK has suffered enough.
Of course, his followers will have his back, but somewhere inside they’ll know they’ve just tried to back some serious bullshit.
— Though in a world where the only thing that matters is results, this quaint idea that truth is of consequence is but a vestige of decaying Enlightenment treacle; and some people Scott reads who use french terms have already concluded that we need not cater to such paradigms — given that all views are relative, and truth does not exist outside of our outmoded desire for it.
SEK has internalized that lesson and is just helping humanity evolve. He should really be thanked. For his bravery. Just ask him!
“I really like Joe Mantegna in it.” I was worried about how they would fill the slot when Mandy Patinkin left. Joe Mantegna has done very well. I liked him in the short lived series “Joan of Arcadia” also. Watching the season premiere this weekend.
“Comment by geoffb on 9/25 @ 10:28 pm #
Too bad that in the end “facts” always bite, hard.”
See Union, Soviet.
Interesting case study of the herd behavior of independent scientific minds, via WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/25/wandering-the-climate-desert-in-exile/#more-11153
You can read the entire piece via the link (PDF fromat).
“What has science been reduced to if bear biologists feel they can effectively issue ad hoc recommendations on worldwide energy use? How low have standards sunk if informed opinion is censored, while uninformed opinion is elevated to official policy?
If a leading researcher can’t speak his mind without punishment by exile, what chance would any up-and-coming researcher have? As Mitchell Taylor points out “It’s a good way to maintain consensus”.”
fromat is what PDF does to your PC, by way of explanation…….
[…] in one of his threads that he’d tried contacting both Andersen and Cashill, and since I’d contacted Cashill and gotten a response, I figured maybe I could get Andersen to comment, as […]
Bob Reed, last night:
I dunno.
Are you familiar with Closing Velocity? “McKittrick” is a real, live rocket scientist who works on ABM systems. I cited him the other night over at one of the lefty blogs; the response approximated “…oh, well, another tech dweeb, the politics is so much more important…”
All part of the system, I guess. BTW I still need hits, especially to the tip jar.
Regards,
Ric
Bob Reed, last night:
But help me out just a bit here. How exactly does my MS in aerospace engineering mean that my opinion somehow does not measure up to those of PhD’d in philosophy, international studies, Policy studies, Economics, and Political Science when discussing a technical subject?
It probably means more because you’re not some over educated twat and, like, really know how stuff works, and stuff.
“Are you familiar with Closing Velocity? “McKittrick” is a real, live rocket scientist who works on ABM systems.”
I thought McKittrick was in management. From what I can tell, I’ve been further into the hands-on rocket science than he has, although as usual I could be wrong about that.
Steve Diamond, keeping his nose to the grindstone, unearths yet another witness to the Obama-Ayres connections, though this time to Bill Ayers’ father, Tom.
Thanks for that link, Sdferr. Well now.
I had no idea the Criminal Minds thing had been on for like five seasons. I should at least see one I think.
Barack Obama is I think without question deeply intertwined with that terrorist academic piece of shit Ayers. His whole sketchy dirty socialist America-hating administration is very much reflective of an Ayers-type point of view. He’ll bring our little country to its knees, and soon I think. Way long before the Barack Obama/William Ayers documentary hits Blockbuster anyway.
Mr Cashill adds to the record with a new piece in the American Thinker titled “Literary Lion Obama Will Roar No More“.
No, McKittrick is that guy that runs W.O.P.R. at NORAD. He’s all warmongery and stuff.