Did Bill Ayers Write Obama's Dreams from My Father?

[Brainster]

I could have posted this in Politics or Literature, but I wanted to convey my thinking about the topic by putting it here in Conspiracy Theories. Jack Cashill has a pretty long article (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/breakthrough_on_the_authorship_1.html) in the American Thinker today about similarities between Obama's writing and Ayers.

Cashill certainly starts off with a very weak issue: Both Obama in Dreams and Ayers in A Kind and Just Parent refer to Carl Sandburg's famous summation of Chicago as "Hog butcher to the world", but they both get it wrong! Sandburg actually called Chi-Town "Hog butcher for the world"!

:rolleyes:

And the next bit is even weaker. Cashill and his correspondent find 180 close matches between Dreams and Ayers' books, but only 6 of those apply to one of Cashill's own books. But that doesn't really tell us anything; it would be far more useful to know how many close matches there are between Cashill's book and Ayers' books.

There are some strong points. For example, Cashill notes this (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/who_wrote_dreams_and_why_it_ma_1.html):

In To Teach, Ayers recounts the story of an ambitious teacher who takes her students out to the streets of New York to learn about its culture and history. These students ask to see the nearby Hudson River. When they get to the river's edge, one student says, " Look, the river is flowing up." A second student says, "No, it has to flow south-down." Upon further research, the teacher discovers "that the Hudson River is a tidal river, that it flows both north and south, and they had visited the exact spot where the tide stops its northward push."

In Dreams, written two years later, Obama takes an unlikely detour to the exact spot on the parallel East River where the north-flowing tide meets the south-flowing river. There, improbably, a young black boy approaches this strange man and asks, "You know why sometimes the river runs that way and then sometimes it goes this way?" Obama tells the boy it "had to do with the tides."

That does seem oddly coincidental; of course a less conspiratorial mind might assume that Obama appropriated the incident in Dreams.

What amuses me about this stuff is that it's exactly like the attempts in 2003 and 2004 to prove that Bush had been AWOL from his Air National Guard unit back in the 1970s. It fundamentally misunderstands the difference between a candidate running for the first time and the President of the United States running for election. Nobody is going to vote for or against President Obama based on his prior associations; it's all on what Obama does in office the next several years and the performance of the US economy.

[NWO Sentryman]

tl;dr

Stundie right there:)

[Foolmewunz]

So let's recap...

You've found weak, weak, and coincidental. Yet you were kind enough to bring it to our attention. Why shucks, Brainster, butter wouldn't melt in your mouth.


Let's see... on the coincidental one. They both are making up a form of allegory and using it in their book. What's the chance that instead of ghost-writing or of BO copying Ayers, it's just evidence of similar source material or that maybe they were of a group (in a class, a meeting, a discussion group) where someone used the same example.

I think mine reads better....

[elbe]

Didn't BAC make that claim last year sometime?

[T.A.M.]

I could have posted this in Politics or Literature, but I wanted to convey my thinking about the topic by putting it here in Conspiracy Theories. Jack Cashill has a pretty long article (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/breakthrough_on_the_authorship_1.html) in the American Thinker today about similarities between Obama's writing and Ayers.

Cashill certainly starts off with a very weak issue: Both Obama in Dreams and Ayers in A Kind and Just Parent refer to Carl Sandburg's famous summation of Chicago as "Hog butcher to the world", but they both get it wrong! Sandburg actually called Chi-Town "Hog butcher for the world"!

:rolleyes:

And the next bit is even weaker. Cashill and his correspondent find 180 close matches between Dreams and Ayers' books, but only 6 of those apply to one of Cashill's own books. But that doesn't really tell us anything; it would be far more useful to know how many close matches there are between Cashill's book and Ayers' books.

There are some strong points. For example, Cashill notes this (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/who_wrote_dreams_and_why_it_ma_1.html):



That does seem oddly coincidental; of course a less conspiratorial mind might assume that Obama appropriated the incident in Dreams.

What amuses me about this stuff is that it's exactly like the attempts in 2003 and 2004 to prove that Bush had been AWOL from his Air National Guard unit back in the 1970s. It fundamentally misunderstands the difference between a candidate running for the first time and the President of the United States running for election. Nobody is going to vote for or against President Obama based on his prior associations; it's all on what Obama does in office the next several years and the performance of the US economy.

your behavior is almost...truther like ;)

I mean you are "Just Asking Questions" right.

TAM:D

[Robster, FCD]

I'm not sure Brainster deserves attack for presenting this, as he clearly places it as a low quality conspiracy theory.

It wouldn't surprise me if Obama had read one of Ayer's books and gotten the Sandburg quote from it, along with the mistake. He might have even acted as a friendly pre-editor reader, offering the in-correction.

Rivers that change direction based on tides are pretty well known to people with some scientific background, so a president knowing this might be a surprise after so many years with scientific illiterates in the White House.

[Foolmewunz]

I'm not sure Brainster deserves attack for presenting this, as he clearly places it as a low quality conspiracy theory.

It wouldn't surprise me if Obama had read one of Ayer's books and gotten the Sandburg quote from it, along with the mistake. He might have even acted as a friendly pre-editor reader, offering the in-correction.

Rivers that change direction based on tides are pretty well known to people with some scientific background, so a president knowing this might be a surprise after so many years with scientific illiterates in the White House.

Of course he does! Brainster does this often. If it wasn't so transparent, it'd be nasty, but as it is, well... it's just Brainster doing his partisan thing... Making sure he helps get as many smears out there while conveniently distancing himself from them by disingenuously stating that he doesn't believe it in the first place. It's a non-election year, but Brainster's dedicated to his Republican cause and knows that the more crap that's thrown against the wall, the more opportunities for some of it to stick.

Like Louis in Casablanca, he's shocked, shocked I tell you.....

[Brainster]

Of course he does! Brainster does this often. If it wasn't so transparent, it'd be nasty, but as it is, well... it's just Brainster doing his partisan thing... Making sure he helps get as many smears out there while conveniently distancing himself from them by disingenuously stating that he doesn't believe it in the first place. It's a non-election year, but Brainster's dedicated to his Republican cause and knows that the more crap that's thrown against the wall, the more opportunities for some of it to stick.

Like Louis in Casablanca, he's shocked, shocked I tell you.....

Well, I can see I certainly brought this up in the right forum; the Brainster Twoofers are out in force. In your spare time, perhaps you could prove that Delphi Ote is really a Loose Change fan for starting the long-running thread on that subject. And it's clear using your logic that Gravy was secretly running the entire 9-11 Truth Movement from these pages up until his resignation in favor of Ryan Mackey.

And Parky secretly loves Israel and supports its every action.

[Brainster]

I'm not sure Brainster deserves attack for presenting this, as he clearly places it as a low quality conspiracy theory.

It wouldn't surprise me if Obama had read one of Ayer's books and gotten the Sandburg quote from it, along with the mistake. He might have even acted as a friendly pre-editor reader, offering the in-correction.

Rivers that change direction based on tides are pretty well known to people with some scientific background, so a president knowing this might be a surprise after so many years with scientific illiterates in the White House.

Erm, you accept that he might have gotten the Sandburg quote from Ayers' book but not the tides story? The Sandburg quote is a common mistake; indeed I'd argue that Sandburg himself phrased it poorly and that "hog butcher to the world" sounds and reads better.

So that there is no doubt, I find the notion that Ayers wrote Obama's book completely nutty. Maybe Obama pilfered the Hudson flows north and south bit from Ayers. Maybe they both got it from a third source; maybe Royko wrote about it one morning. But that's about it; an interesting coincidence with a bunch of BS draped around it to make it seem like there's lots of similar stuff.

[T.A.M.]

Erm, you accept that he might have gotten the Sandburg quote from Ayers' book but not the tides story? The Sandburg quote is a common mistake; indeed I'd argue that Sandburg himself phrased it poorly and that "hog butcher to the world" sounds and reads better.

So that there is no doubt, I find the notion that Ayers wrote Obama's book completely nutty. Maybe Obama pilfered the Hudson flows north and south bit from Ayers. Maybe they both got it from a third source; maybe Royko wrote about it one morning. But that's about it; an interesting coincidence with a bunch of BS draped around it to make it seem like there's lots of similar stuff.

I know, but you know I had to tease...I don't hang in the politics forum any more...lol

TAM;)

[Brainster]

I know, but you know I had to tease...I don't hang in the politics forum any more...lol

TAM;)

Well, it's rather annoying because when I post this stuff on my political blog and say it's a lot of bunk I get accused of being an Alinsky disciple working to undermine the conservative movement. And when I post it here, people with the conservative decoder ring like Foolmewunz see right away that I'm promoting the story by talking about what a bunch of BS it is.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.

[T.A.M.]

Here I am, stuck in the middle of Poo!!

TAM;)

[Foolmewunz]

C'mon Brainster,
You've had this pointed out to you before. You're admittedly partisan and maybe you can't actually see what you're doing, but frankly, I doubt it.
(It's not of a caliber with the absolute frothing at the mouth hate-mongering that goes on in politics, but it's still rather obviously partisan.)
I see nothing wrong with it. Post what you want. I also see nothing wrong with pointing out what I think (that'd be as in "opinion") you're doing.

[Brainster]

C'mon Brainster,
You've had this pointed out to you before. You're admittedly partisan and maybe you can't actually see what you're doing, but frankly, I doubt it.
(It's not of a caliber with the absolute frothing at the mouth hate-mongering that goes on in politics, but it's still rather obviously partisan.)
I see nothing wrong with it. Post what you want. I also see nothing wrong with pointing out what I think (that'd be as in "opinion") you're doing.

No, I can't "see" what I'm doing here. And from now on, I won't see what you're doing here either.

[Brainster]

Here are some more conservatives who clearly are supporting the conspiracy theory about Obama's book being authored by Ayers.

Jonah Goldberg (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGViMTBlY2Y1ZjVkNGFhOTk3NmNlZGIxY2E1Njk3ZTg=):

Really? The hog-butcher line is a plodding cliche, not some obscure reference. There's not a whiff of plagiarism here, the language and context read completely differently. As for them both getting the quote wrong, so what? I would bet that most, or at least a great many, people get that quote wrong in the same way. If you search Google Books, you'll find 605 books or excerpts using the "to" and 655 using "for." If you search Nexis you'll find 536 instances of "to" and only 382 of "for."

Cashill has many other examples like this one and a lot more that are much worse (i.e. less persuasive). Indeed he calls this "hog butcher" instance an "A" level example and cites it first presumably because it packs a wallop. It's not a wallop; it's a whiff.

Using the secret conservative decoder ring, what Goldberg really means is "Ayers must have written it!"

Tom Maguire (http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/06/authorship-of-obamas-dreams-maybe-it-was-the-guy-who-forged-his-birth-certificate.html):

So let me see if I understand. A careful reader identified 180 matches between Ayers' work and Obama's that Mr. Cashill considered to be "B-level or above". Mr. Cashill only matched at most sixteen of those phrases or features in his own writing, thereby proving... what?

Well, shame on Tom, because my conservative decoder ring reveals that what Maguire is subtly doing is encouraging speculation on the matter.

Fortunately his readers are not easily fooled:

Lookit. It's all well and good to be skeptical. But Cashill is not a crackpot, he's done very thorough work, and it has substantive statistical weight behind it. You can dismiss it, but I don't think you do yourself any favors by so doing.

Using the conservative decoder ring, we see that actually Fresh Air is the true skeptic here. Because what he's really saying is that this authorship controversy is a lot of baloney.

[boloboffin]

OK, come on. Brainster clearly put this topic into Conspiracy Theories and trashed the examples that he gave. Due to our collaboration in helping to take down silly Mr. Corsi, I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here, and I don't see a lot of doubt.

Speaking of the Bush Guard issue, I had a minor sidebar (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040816/williams) in that controversy and threw up my hands in disgust when the Killian memos surfaced, the typographic wars raged, and Burkett concocted the ludicrous story of getting slipped the papers at a state fair. The forgeries came from Killian's secretary -- I'll bet my eye teeth on it, and they may or may not have been Killian's actual opinion of Bush. But at that point, I knew the whole thing was over, regardless of what Bush did in 1972.

Still I stewed and mulled over it and came to my own idiosyncratic position. I still think Bush blew off his Guard service in 1972. But it wasn't the terrible thing we were making it out to be, and better yet, I think I know why he did it.

Because he couldn't go to Vietnam.

Before his fifth year in the Guard (1972-73), Bush's service had been exemplary. Above and beyond his duty, even, and no one questions that. But something happened that threw him into a really bad tailspin. It lasted that entire fifth year, at the end of which someone lit a serious fire under his nether regions, he buckled down on the Guard service, and lit out for Harvard Business School after nailing down all the hourly requirements on him (with an extra six months tacked on by the Guard as a "don't let the door hit you" present on his record).

What happened, I believe, was he found out the plane he had been flying was being phased out in Vietnam. When he did find that out, he ran to volunteer to go to Vietnam right then and there, but he had still not acquired enough flight hours to go (something he'd been trying to do with all the overtime hours). I think he would have had enough to volunteer in his sixth year and get over to Vietnam.

But it was too late.

I do believe that strings were pulled to get Bush into the unit he was in (I know that the Champagne Unit got its name in WWII, but its reputation in Texas quickly turned 180 degrees when it became a unit to stash the rich, the connected, and the Dallas Cowboys). And I believe it chafed at him. When his personal plan to override his dad's desire and get to Vietnam anyway were yanked out from under him, I think George W. Bush had no more use for any of it.

The Guard did try to catch up with him a couple of times. He'd applied for one unit and was denied a transfer there. Then he was assigned (I believe) the unit he was eventually at, and ordered to show up on two weekends, one in September and one in October. The week before the September weekend, Prescott died. I don't think even Michael Moore would begrudge Bush going to his grandfather's funeral. And the October weekend was the weekend before the election Bush was ostensibly helping to conduct. (At the time a Republican campaign in Alabama was the poster child of free time.)

But saying that Bush ditched the Guard because his plan to actually go to Vietnam blew up in his face isn't a story that either the Democrats or the Republicans would want to tell during the Presidential race. So the Democrats say he went AWOL without digging too deep, and the Republicans smeared the whole story (they couldn't even bring up Prescott's funeral because it would have validated the story).

And that's what I think happened to Bush in 1972. I'd have to dig up the documentation on all of this, and I guess I would if anyone cared to see it. But that picture fits everything I know about Bush, the good, the bad, and the ugly. At the very least, it's the description of a human being.

[Brainster]

OK, come on. Brainster clearly put this topic into Conspiracy Theories and trashed the examples that he gave. Due to our collaboration in helping to take down silly Mr. Corsi, I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here, and I don't see a lot of doubt.

Danke!

And that's what I think happened to Bush in 1972. I'd have to dig up the documentation on all of this, and I guess I would if anyone cared to see it. But that picture fits everything I know about Bush, the good, the bad, and the ugly. At the very least, it's the description of a human being.


My other point, which nobody's commenting on, still applies. When a presidential candidate is an unknown quantity, like Bush in 2000 or Obama in 2008, people do have to look into the past, because of course we know they're only showing us their good side while running. Hence the Bush DWI incident mattered a great deal in 2000; it almost resulted in a huge upset.

But Republicans are kidding themselves if they think this sort of crap will matter in 2012, which will be a referendum on the Obama first term. It won't be about Bill Ayers or any of that stuff, which I admit troubled me when Obama was running last year. Indeed, I kept trying to tell Republicans who were salivating over facing Hillary (before she got upset) that every mention of Whitewater would cost the GOP 100,000 votes.

[Hokulele]

<snipped the serious, valid points>

Indeed, I kept trying to tell Republicans who were salivating over facing Hillary (before she got upset) that every mention of Whitewater would cost the GOP 100,000 votes.


You say that like it was a bad thing.

:p

[R.Mackey]

And it's clear using your logic that Gravy was secretly running the entire 9-11 Truth Movement from these pages up until his resignation in favor of Ryan Mackey.

HEY! OPSEC! Or else house-frying (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2157983#post2157983) will follow! :mad:

Back in the real world, it was pretty clear to me that you didn't buy into it...

Assuming a large number of such coincidences were found, the rational explanation is that one or the other is a plagiarist, not that anything was actually ghostwritten. Happens all the time.

Or, perhaps, they're really the same person. I'm not sure whether a Dr. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde scenario, or a conjoined-twin construction, sort of like Kuato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_recall), is more parsimonious. Maybe those can be the pillars of the inevitable schism in our new Obama Truth Movement. :D

[Robster, FCD]

Erm, you accept that he might have gotten the Sandburg quote from Ayers' book but not the tides story? The Sandburg quote is a common mistake; indeed I'd argue that Sandburg himself phrased it poorly and that "hog butcher to the world" sounds and reads better.

So that there is no doubt, I find the notion that Ayers wrote Obama's book completely nutty. Maybe Obama pilfered the Hudson flows north and south bit from Ayers. Maybe they both got it from a third source; maybe Royko wrote about it one morning. But that's about it; an interesting coincidence with a bunch of BS draped around it to make it seem like there's lots of similar stuff.

Actually, I suggested two possible routes that the Sandburg misquote could have come from that I feel are fairly reasonable. The tides issue is simple scientific knowledge. If a kid came up to me and made that same comment, I'd have the same reply, despite not having read any Ayers book, and the closest I have gotten to reading any Obama book is having seen a copy at my parent's house. Even if Obama gathered this specific bit of information from reading Ayers, it does not mean that the above event didn't occur, as precocious children with scientific trivia abound the world over. The probability of such an event occurring regularly, where a smart kid shows off to a stranger who is just as smart is a guaranteed occurrence.

I was quite willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on your intentions, but your response suggesting that getting a quote wrong due to a misinformed source means that plagiarism must be an equally valid possibility is not what I would call a neutral disinterest in a conspiracy theory, but a backhanded promotion of the same.

[Ducky]

For the record, Delphi ote is locked in my closet. I will be sure to spank him for you.

(I wish he'd get off his ass and post here more often. I will give him crap about this next time I talk to him I open the closet door to feed him.

[Brainster]

HEY! OPSEC! Or else house-frying (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2157983#post2157983) will follow! :mad:

But I (a conservative) was writing that, and so you have to use the secret decoder ring, which means... jeez, this is getting pretty tangled isn't it?

Back in the real world, it was pretty clear to me that you didn't buy into it...

Assuming a large number of such coincidences were found, the rational explanation is that one or the other is a plagiarist, not that anything was actually ghostwritten. Happens all the time.

Or, perhaps, they're really the same person. I'm not sure whether a Dr. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde scenario, or a conjoined-twin construction, sort of like Kuato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_recall), is more parsimonious. Maybe those can be the pillars of the inevitable schism in our new Obama Truth Movement. :D

It is quite possible that it's just a coincidence, too, or there could be a third source (a Mike Royko or Studs Terkel chestnut).

One thing that does get me though, is that this stuff (and the Birther stuff) make even less sense just as a strategy than Trooferism. I mean, suppose you're approached in 2004 about 9-11 Troof, and they tell you that if it's true it's the end of Bush and Cheney. You know what? They're right; if it had been true it would have killed the Republicans forever.

Now suppose the "Dreamers" (since Obama's book was Dreams from My Father) or the Birthers are right, and that Obama is drubbed from office, his very name a mockery. What happens?

Joe Biden becomes president. It's kind of like a Hail Mary Pass when you're behind 54-7; even if you succeed you lose.

[Brainster]

I was quite willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on your intentions, but your response suggesting that getting a quote wrong due to a misinformed source means that plagiarism must be an equally valid possibility is not what I would call a neutral disinterest in a conspiracy theory, but a backhanded promotion of the same.

Say hi to Foolmewunz when you see him. I won't be seeing either of you in the forum again.

[Brainster]

BTW, since Bolo brought it up, I thought I would point out that Boloboffin and I collaborated on this story (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/anti-obama-author-on-911-conspiracy/), which blasted the #1 Book on the New York Times Bestseller List, an anti-Obama tract by Jerome Corsi called the Obama Nation, out of the water.

I had heard Corsi on Alex Jones talking about 9-11 Truth and pointed it out to Bolo, who took the audio and made a little YouTube video out of it. The New York Times and the Obama campaign ended up linking the video. Major conservative blogs posted it and told their readers not to bother with Corsi's book.

yCfI3VmL88

But you know, I'm just a partisan Republican who mindlessly bashes Obama....

:p

[SezMe]

When a presidential candidate is an unknown quantity, like Bush in 2000 or Obama in 2008, people do have to look into the past, because of course we know they're only showing us their good side while running.
I'd argue, Brainster, that every candidate is only trying to show their good side, whether they are a newcomer or an incumbent. All will be subject to looking into their past, with cherry-picking by the opposition being the order of the day.

[SezMe]

Say hi to Foolmewunz when you see him. I won't be seeing either of you in the forum again.
You're not an unreasonable guy, Brainster. Why the prediliction for putting on ignore those who disagree with you?

[Orphia Nay]

Well, it's rather annoying because when I post this stuff on my political blog and say it's a lot of bunk I get accused of being an Alinsky disciple working to undermine the conservative movement. And when I post it here, people with the conservative decoder ring like Foolmewunz see right away that I'm promoting the story by talking about what a bunch of BS it is.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.

For what it's worth, I'm still a fan of yours, and I'm neither "liberal" nor "conservative". :th:

You're quite the figure in debunking and political circles, and I think I understand why you'd want to silence some of the extraneous chatter.

[Brainster]

You're not an unreasonable guy, Brainster. Why the prediliction for putting on ignore those who disagree with you?

I don't mind disagreement; that's all part of the hurly-burly of discussion on a forum. Let's face it, I'd never learn anything if everybody agreed with me.

What I mind--in fact, what annoys the heck out of me--is when people impugn my integrity. If you look, the two people I have put on ignore as a result of this thread basically said, "You're lying."

As far as I'm concerned, they're a pair of Sylvia Brownes; that is to say, poor mind-readers. It's not worth the effort of reading their replies.

I was tempted to do the same to TAM, but he retracted when I objected. The other two persisted.

[Brainster]

I'd argue, Brainster, that every candidate is only trying to show their good side, whether they are a newcomer or an incumbent. All will be subject to looking into their past, with cherry-picking by the opposition being the order of the day.

Yes, but it doesn't work against incumbent presidents, because they are not judged by their long ago past, but by the last 4 years. That's why the 60 Minutes piece in 2004 was doomed to failure even if they had gotten legitimate memos from the 1970s and not something somebody printed off a computer.

It sounds unfair, but it's reality. Kerry's past all the way back to Vietnam was fair game in 2004; Bush's past only mattered since 2000. And it will be the same in 2012; the Republican candidate's entire history will matter; Obama will solely be judged on 2008 forward.

[T.A.M.]

Danke!



My other point, which nobody's commenting on, still applies. When a presidential candidate is an unknown quantity, like Bush in 2000 or Obama in 2008, people do have to look into the past, because of course we know they're only showing us their good side while running. Hence the Bush DWI incident mattered a great deal in 2000; it almost resulted in a huge upset.

But Republicans are kidding themselves if they think this sort of crap will matter in 2012, which will be a referendum on the Obama first term. It won't be about Bill Ayers or any of that stuff, which I admit troubled me when Obama was running last year. Indeed, I kept trying to tell Republicans who were salivating over facing Hillary (before she got upset) that every mention of Whitewater would cost the GOP 100,000 votes.

Not to derail too heavily into politics, but I think 2012 will be as much a referendum on the abysmal state of the GOP as on Obama's first term.

I personally am routing for Palin as GOP candidate for 2012!!!

TAM;)

[T.A.M.]

I don't mind disagreement; that's all part of the hurly-burly of discussion on a forum. Let's face it, I'd never learn anything if everybody agreed with me.

What I mind--in fact, what annoys the heck out of me--is when people impugn my integrity. If you look, the two people I have put on ignore as a result of this thread basically said, "You're lying."

As far as I'm concerned, they're a pair of Sylvia Brownes; that is to say, poor mind-readers. It's not worth the effort of reading their replies.

I was tempted to do the same to TAM, but he retracted when I objected. The other two persisted.

Pat;

given all the common that we share (against the truthers at least), and the fights we have fought together, I am shocked that a single comment, even if it was one that you found so annoying (my apologies), would make you consider putting me on ignore.

A simple tongue in cheek "Go **** yourself" would have been sufficient.

TAM:)

[Brainster]

Pat;

given all the common that we share (against the truthers at least), and the fights we have fought together, I am shocked that a single comment, even if it was one that you found so annoying (my apologies), would make you consider putting me on ignore.

A simple tongue in cheek "Go **** yourself" would have been sufficient.

TAM:)

No, it wouldn't have been sufficient, because the claim that I was being dishonest would have stood uncorrected. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, maybe I'm thin-skinned, but I know what my hot buttons are, and that's definitely one of them.

[Robster, FCD]

Wow, Brainster, seriously? If disagreeing with you is all it takes to get put on ignore... No mind reading was used, just indignation at your fallacious statement that if I accepted one option as a possible then the other must be accepted on equal footing, even while you were being dismissive of the same.

[Brainster]

For what it's worth, I'm still a fan of yours, and I'm neither "liberal" nor "conservative". :th:

You're quite the figure in debunking and political circles, and I think I understand why you'd want to silence some of the extraneous chatter.

Thanks! Sometimes we only respond to the people arguing with us, and I didn't want to make that mistake with one of my old buds from the original LC thread. I am a bit sorry that this thread has evolved the way it has, but I guess it really does reflect the lameness of this particular conspiracy theory.

Didn't Ryan come up with a formula for that at one point? I think it was something like "credibility of theory" times "importance of theory". In this case I'd say the credibility of the theory is wrong and the importance is almost nil. I just wish I could convince some of my conservative friends of that.

[T.A.M.]

Thanks! Sometimes we only respond to the people arguing with us, and I didn't want to make that mistake with one of my old buds from the original LC thread. I am a bit sorry that this thread has evolved the way it has, but I guess it really does reflect the lameness of this particular conspiracy theory.

Didn't Ryan come up with a formula for that at one point? I think it was something like "credibility of theory" times "importance of theory". In this case I'd say the credibility of the theory is wrong and the importance is almost nil. I just wish I could convince some of my conservative friends of that.

Come over to the dark si....oh wait, you are already on the dark side.

Come over to the light side of the force Luke!!!

TAM:D

[Foolmewunz]

I don't mind disagreement; that's all part of the hurly-burly of discussion on a forum. Let's face it, I'd never learn anything if everybody agreed with me.

What I mind--in fact, what annoys the heck out of me--is when people impugn my integrity. If you look, the two people I have put on ignore as a result of this thread basically said, "You're lying."

As far as I'm concerned, they're a pair of Sylvia Brownes; that is to say, poor mind-readers. It's not worth the effort of reading their replies.

I was tempted to do the same to TAM, but he retracted when I objected. The other two persisted.


Well, since Brainster has resorted to ignoring people who don't agree with him, this will likely be addressed to others.

I'm a big fan of Brainster's work in debunking the obscenity that is the Truth Movement. And I like the guy.

I, also, take massive offense to being called a liar. And if that's what the Brainster thought, then I truly apologize (should any of you run into him at Central Perk).

I thought we were having a discussion, and perhaps it's best that it doesn't continue, anyway.

But placing people on Ignore is just plain childish.

[R.Mackey]

I am a bit sorry that this thread has evolved the way it has, but I guess it really does reflect the lameness of this particular conspiracy theory.

Didn't Ryan come up with a formula for that at one point? I think it was something like "credibility of theory" times "importance of theory". In this case I'd say the credibility of the theory is wrong and the importance is almost nil.

You may be referring to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84621) from days of yore. I didn't factor in the "importance" of the theory, but I did penalize it heavily for being incomplete, which would seem to apply here.

As you say, if it was true, so what? Although the people pushing this aren't out to "win," per se. It's all about teh Ownage. Doesn't matter that they flunked out of kindergarten and think that General Relativity is an old uncle of theirs who was in the Army, all it takes is one slip of the keyboard, and you're Pwned.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, that's all I have to say about that. :cool:

[Dr Adequate]

And the next bit is even weaker. Cashill and his correspondent find 180 close matches between Dreams and Ayers' books, but only 6 of those apply to one of Cashill's own books. But that doesn't really tell us anything; it would be far more useful to know how many close matches there are between Cashill's book and Ayers' books. Yeah, there ought to be a name for this error in statistics, except that I don't think that anyone's ever been dumb enough to make it before. Perhaps we could name it after Cashill.

[Whiplash]

Foolmewunz, from what I saw, you were dismissive of the issue entirely, and took shots at Brainster right from the start.

The way you insulted Brainster, and then say he's childish for ignoring, strikes me as the metaphorical equivalent of slapping someone in the face, said person says "hey, what did you do that for?", and then you say "stop whining!". You brought it on yourself, you were definately insulting and assumed a helluva lot.

You went on to accuse him of having a plan to smear people, intentionally, hoping any of it stuck. The entire post you made was insulting, assuming you know everything that he was thinking and trying to accomplish. This is why I am defending him, because I hate it when those of you on the left do the very same to me. You guys are the masters of the strawman argument. Paint us out the way you feel we are, and then dismiss us out of hand.

You acuse him of not seeing his own biases, but clearly it's a problem you also suffer from. Perhaps we all do on some level. But it couldn't be more clear that you were driven by your own biases here. You leaped to Obama's defense, and attacked Brainster, nearly instantly.

[Hokulele]

<snipped>

I'm a big fan of Brainster's work in debunking the obscenity that is the Truth Movement. And I like the guy.

I, also, take massive offense to being called a liar. And if that's what the Brainster thought, then I truly apologize (should any of you run into him at Central Perk).

<snip>


I wanted to quote at least this part, so Brainster could see it.

I did snip out the parts that could prolong the bickering, so sorry Foolmewunz. All I can say is that I didn't edit out of spite, but rather because I do respect the both of you.


Getting back to the OP:

Brainster, as just a piece of textual criticism, this thread may have gone in the direction you intended if you had mentioned your conclusion first, then shown the data to support it. The way the post was structured, it came across as sounding as if you were looking for reasons to support the accusation against Obama, and many people may not have made it to your real point (the tendency of the electorate to judge an incumbent based on their recent history rather than their past).

[Dr Adequate]

Well, since Brainster has resorted to ignoring people who don't agree with him, this will likely be addressed to others. You accused Brainster of a duplicitious motive in starting this thread. This was unwarranted. Furthermore, you implied that you were justified in doing so because you know what Brainster is like, and he is that kind of person that would do that kind of thing. This is absurd, as anyone who knows Brainster and his history can tell you.

I agree that no-one should put someone else on ignore, but if anyone should put anyone on ignore, then Brainster should have put you on ignore. Your accusation was libelous. If you can say sorry like a man, then I'm sure he will accept your apology like a man and take you off ignore, and then we can get on with this thread.

Shake hands. (I will pass on any message on your behalf.)

[Brainster]

I wanted to quote at least this part, so Brainster could see it.

I did snip out the parts that could prolong the bickering, so sorry Foolmewunz. All I can say is that I didn't edit out of spite, but rather because I do respect the both of you.


Getting back to the OP:

Brainster, as just a piece of textual criticism, this thread may have gone in the direction you intended if you had mentioned your conclusion first, then shown the data to support it. The way the post was structured, it came across as sounding as if you were looking for reasons to support the accusation against Obama, and many people may not have made it to your real point (the tendency of the electorate to judge an incumbent based on their recent history rather than their past).

I'll let you in on a secret. I did peek at FMW's post. But it's the typical weasel apology. "I'm sorry if you were insulted by my calling you a liar, and by the way you're being childish for ignoring me," doesn't strike me as sincere.

As for putting my conclusion first, I started out by mentioning that the thread could have gone in politics or literature (since it was about a politician's book), but that I put it in conspiracy theories. Now, we know that a lot of CT nutbars want us to believe that a conspiracy theory is just a theory about a conspiracy, but in reality a conspiracy theory in common parlance these days is a nutty conspiracy theory. That's what I think of this theory.

But because I made no bones last fall about the fact that I supported McCain over Obama, people on the thread made the assumption that what I was doing was cleverly supporting the theory by putting it out there, even though I led the post with two examples of the extremely weak reasoning used by Cashill. Maybe I shouldn't have put the part in there about the Hudson flowing both ways, but it was the one oddball coincidence that lends any credence to the theory and if I didn't mention it I'd be guilty of the strawman fallacy.

I should mention that this has happened before; at this point I don't recall what the circumstances were but several people made my ignore list for questioning my motives for a post including Upchurch, Dr Adequate (whose writing I admire greatly, but who also loves to pick fights and seems to sense my hot buttons) and FMW. I undid the ignores after the election figuring the passions of the moment had gotten to all of us, but all three have made it back to ignore for similar episodes of mind-reading. I strive to be transparent; that is to say, I really mean what I say (except for when I'm obviously being sarcastic), and so it annoys the heck out of me to have people claiming to understand what I "really" meant.

As I mentioned above, I guess I should not have been surprised that the thread didn't end up in a discussion of this CT, which is very active in conservative circles. It's a pretty dull and dry CT, and would require a significant amount of reading in order to discuss intelligently. I'm appalled that it made it onto the website of the American Thinker, which used to deserve its title.

It's ironic because I take flak from the right on my blog for discounting the Obama "Birthers"; in fact for awhile this spring I had a blog stalker harassing me over my laughing at them. So I can't post about nutty right wing conspiracies over there because of the reaction from the right, and I can't post about them here because of the reaction from the left.

ETA: And having said that I see Dr A stood up for me in this thread which makes me feel pretty small. To clarify, it's his ability to push my hot buttons in the politics subforum and get me to respond with more heat than light that resulted in my ignoring him (although I often can't resist peeking).

[DavidJames]

Are you saying that Obama's father is really Ayers father?

[T.A.M.]

No Darth Vader is really Obama's father.

TAM;)

[Foolmewunz]

I have been in the hospital. I wasn't ignoring this thread - just got around to following up things in the same order as where I last posted Thursday last.

Brainster - I thought I was making a joke... poking fun. Really. Truly. Nothing more.

As I said, I see red if someone calls me a liar, and if you thought I was calling you a liar, I truly apologize for giving that impression. Humor just doesn't work like you intend sometimes, and obviously it was mis-directed and mis-gauged.

Hokulele/Doc A - thanks... comments appreciated and understood.

[CORed]

And if so, who cares?

[Tricky]

I'm just seeing this thread (I normally stay out of CT every chance I get) so ignoring anything said previously, I'm going to say that it seems very unlikely that Ayers has anything to do with Obama's book or books.

In spite of the attempts to tie Obama to Ayers during the election, it appears that they are at best, casual friends and neighbors. It seems unlikely to the point of incredulity that Obama would want a casual friend to write a book for him.

Secondly, while I have no illusions that Obama wrote the whole thing himself, (or that any other politician entirely wrote their own book), they would almost certainly hire an experienced ghostwriter to "flesh it up", not a friend or acquaintance.

Thirdly, Obama is quite eloquent himself. To try try to run his experiences through another person and have them still come out looking like Obama wrote it is both a waste of time and potentially embarrassing if he screws up some details. The whole idea is simply too far-fetched to garner serious consideration.

But then, I assume that is why it was placed in "Conspiracy Theories" in the first place.:D

[Brainster]

Secondly, while I have no illusions that Obama wrote the whole thing himself, (or that any other politician entirely wrote their own book), they would almost certainly hire an experienced ghostwriter to "flesh it up", not a friend or acquaintance.

It's far more likely that Obama wrote "Dreams" himself (with a very solid editor), and that "Audacity" was ghosted. Remember, although Obama's becoming the first black president of Harvard Law Review got him the book contract and an advance, he was by no means a famous person at the time. Audacity was written after the DNC speech of 2004, after Obama was a Senator.

[Tricky]

It's far more likely that Obama wrote "Dreams" himself (with a very solid editor), and that "Audacity" was ghosted. Remember, although Obama's becoming the first black president of Harvard Law Review got him the book contract and an advance, he was by no means a famous person at the time. Audacity was written after the DNC speech of 2004, after Obama was a Senator.
I dunno. He had a lot more time then. I think he had a significant input into every book he's written though. As anyone who has listened to him must admit, he has no problem with language.

I do wonder, though, what his life was like between that 2004 speech, which was far and away the best speech if the convention, and the beginning of his run in 2006 or so. Was he coached extensively? How much planning went into it? Did he carefully plan his positions to be palatable to everyone? I rembember hearing that speech in 2004 and thinking, "He's going to be president some day." I had no idea it would be so soon.

Anyway, Brainster, thanks for the thread, and thanks for putting it in a good place. I'm sorry you took abuse for it, but hey, this is politics.

[Brainster]

The theory seems to be heating up a bit at the moment. A new book (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/andersen_book_blows_ayers_cove.html) on the Obama's marriage, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage, claims that Ayers did write Dreams:

To flesh out his family history, Obama had taped interviews with various family members. Andersen writes, "These oral histories, along with a partial manuscript and a truckload of notes, were given to Ayers." Andersen quotes a Hyde Park neighbor, "Everyone knew they were friends and that they worked on various projects together. It was no secret. Why would it be? People liked them both."

Andersen continues, "In the end, Ayers's contribution to Barack's Dreams From My Father would be significant--so much so that the book's language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers's own writing."

A conservative blogger encountered Ayers (http://backyardconservative.blogspot.com/2009/10/bill-ayers-no-dream.html) in Washington DC at Reagan National Airport, where Ayers apparently blurted out an admission:

Then, unprompted he said--I wrote Dreams From My Father. I said, oh, so you admit it. He said--Michelle asked me to. I looked at him. He seemed eager. He's about my height, short. He went on to say--and if you can prove it, we can split the royalties. So I said, stop pulling my leg. Horrible thought. But he came again--I really wrote it, the wording was similar. I said I believe you probably heavily edited it. He said--I wrote it. I said--why would I believe you, you're a liar.

He had no answer to that. Just looked at me. Then he turned and walked off, and said again his bit about my proving it and splitting the proceeds.

Sounds more like he was being facetious (as even the blogger admits). And of course at this point even a serious (serious in the sense that Ayers is not jerking somebody's chain) claim of authorship from Ayers would have to be discounted substantially.

Loads of coverage of this on the conservative blogs; my guess is that it's running about 50-50 in terms of whether they believe Ayers wrote Dreams.

Allahpundit at Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/06/bill-ayers-to-righty-blogger-of-course-i-wrote-dreams-from-my-father/) is doubtful:

What’s more amusing? The fact that he’d tease a conservative by baiting her about the right’s Cashill/Andersen-fueled authorship suspicions, or the fact that the Examiner seems to think he was making an earnest, honest-to-goodness confession?

The Examiner piece is here (http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-25466-DC-Independent-Examiner~y2009m10d6-Bill-Ayers-admits-writing-Dreams-to-conservative-blogger).

Was he, as she had asked, pulling our collective legs? Other sources report rumors that Ayers is very upset both about not getting any credit for helping Obama on ‘Dreams,’ and may also be put off by being summarily thrown under the bus along with Rev. Wright and everyone else who becomes an inconvenience to this President.

[Jontg]

Yes, yes, it's a pathetic and ridiculous conspiracy theory--but he's being so kind as to bring it to our attention, just asking the little questions that need to be asked because he's only looking for the truth. :rolleyes:

Obama barely knows Ayers. You are infected.

[Brainster]

Another mind-reader! You should try for the million-dollar challenge!

[Jontg]

Enough of the "mind-reading" bull. I've watched you for a year now, and I know what your agenda is, just as you can probably tell most of mine. You don't need to read minds to see what you're up to. "I definitely don't support this ludicrous conspiracy theory that Barack Hussein Obama's book was ghostwritten by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, but here's a list of the reasons why other people do. Oh, and here's a list of all the people who believe it, just to remind you how stupid it is to suggest that Barack Hussein Obama's book was ghostwritten by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Yes, it sure is stupid of them to allege that Barack Hussein Obama's book was ghostwritten by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers."

[dudalb]

Enough of the "mind-reading" bull. I've watched you for a year now, and I know what your agenda is, just as you can probably tell most of mine. You don't need to read minds to see what you're up to. "I definitely don't support this ludicrous conspiracy theory that Barack Hussein Obama's book was ghostwritten by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, but here's a list of the reasons why other people do. Oh, and here's a list of all the people who believe it, just to remind you how stupid it is to suggest that Barack Hussein Obama's book was ghostwritten by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Yes, it sure is stupid of them to allege that Barack Hussein Obama's book was ghostwritten by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers."

I hate to see the bitter and hate fulled tone that has infected the Politics section spilling over into the Conspiracy Sections.

[gtc]

I have raised this thread in the thread about Glass Houses (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155505). We expect skeptics to debunk the extreme views of people on their own side of politics but condemn them when they do.

I think Dr Adequate summed things up nicely in this thread.

[Brainster]

Ayers issues an unfortunately worded "denial" (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-07/bill-ayers-punks-conservative-blogger/):

I emailed Ayers to see if he could shed any light on the story. His response:

“You've all lost your minds,” he wrote. “Best of luck in the twilight zone.”

That sounds simple enough.

For what it's worth, I suspect he did say that he wrote Dreams of My Father to that conservative blogger; after all he said the same thing to the National Journal a day earlier. Again, I am nearly certain that it was intended facetiously, that he was just playing a little game.

But now Ayers is keeping the story alive with that non-denial denial. I don't suspect this is some big conspiracy to make the conservatives look like fools when the real ghostwriter is revealed as Jerry Rubin (kidding!). I think it's Bill Ayers getting himself back in the news again, with some help from that book about Barack and Michelle's marriage. And actually I can't blame him for that; he's apparently got another book out himself and publicity never hurts. And tweaking conspiracy nutbars? I can't imagine how anybody could enjoy that?:D

The notion that Bill Ayers wrote Dreams from My Father is a moronic conspiracy theory. But it has been a big story on Memeorandum (http://www.memeorandum.com/) on two occasions; when I posted the OP and today, when it again hit the top spot.