Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")
Dr. Con vs. Dr. Cashill
Published on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 18:45 | Written by
Administrator |
|
| Hits: 584
Dr. Jack Cashill has written extensively on his theory that "obama" is a literary fraud.
Kevin Davidson is the obamaphile who runs the obamaconspiracy.org web site, on which he prominently makes this claim:
Obama Conspiracy Theories since 2008 has been your destination for conspiracy theories and fringe views about Barack Obama.
Several months ago, I sent an email to Davidson, inquiring as to why he avoids directly addressing Dr. Cashill's literary fraud theory, as it would constitute a conspiracy theory right in Davidson's wheelhouse. After all, to perpetrate such a fraud, "obama" would likely have the complicity of Ayers, Michelle, friends and associates, and probably the publisher and agents involved in the project as well. (Contemporary literary scholars of integrity would also have to explain away an awful lot of evidence of the "conspiracy," as "obama's" other literary efforts all pretty much uh... suck, as they say in literary circles.)
Davidson was kind enough to send a feeble repy; he claimed that Cashill's theory hadn't really "caught on."
In other words, fringe-theory expert Davidson ignores Cashill's fringe theory because it is a "fringe" theory. :LMAO
Please forgive my skepticism and hearty laughter; Davidson is fooling no one save his gullible faithful followers. Cashill's "Deconstructing Obama" is on Davidson's site's version of the "Vatican Index."
A self-styled "Doctor" such as Kevin Davidson simply does not have the gumption, intellectual tools, or balls to meaningfully challenge the diligent and skillful scholarship of a legitimate Doctor of Philosophy.
<header style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">[h=2]
Jack Cashill’s confirmation bias[/h]</header>
by Dr. Conspiracy on <abbr class="date time published" title="2011-12-24T16:59:11-0400" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 153, 153); outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent; cursor: help;">December 24, 2011</abbr> in Misc. Conspiracies
<section class="entry" style="color: rgb(85, 85, 85); font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5em; font-family: Georgia, serif;">In a
new article at the
American Thinker (it’s just a name), Jack Cashill gives us insight into how his own confirmation bias colors his reasoning. Cashill writes:
I had not seen the letter [by Barack Obama from 1990] in its entirety before this week. Not surprisingly, it confirms everything I knowabout Barack Obama, the writer and thinker.
Cashill then goes to pick on the grammar (e.g. subject-verb agreement) in the letter and to conclude that it confirms “everything.” I don’t consider myself an expert on grammar, but I do wonder if Cashill is being a little too strict. Consider this one:
Another distinctive Obama flaw is to allow a string of words to float in space. Please note the unanchored phrase in italics [refers to the last phrase in the example paragraph] at the end of this sentence:
"No editors on the Review will ever know whether any given editor was selected on the basis of grades, writing competition, or affirmative action, and no editors who were selected with affirmative action in mind."Huh?
It’s not the best, but if you parse it right, it can make sense. In any case, it is hardly fair to draw conclusions based on one letter.
Cashill goes on to sneer and deride Michelle Obama too, insinuating that she had “given up her law license” because she was in a downward spiral in her legal career. However, there are no facts given that back up the innuendo.
Cashill’s theory that Obama’s critically acclaimed book,
Dreams from My Father,5 years later was written by a ghostwriter has been rejected by all mainstream commentators.
I don’t know where Mr. Cashill studied writing, but in my day we were taught that there was more to writing than the mechanics of grammar. We were taught that objectivity and honesty were key points of expository writing. The techniques of the propagandist: innuendo, ad hominem, poisoning the well, appeal to unqualified or biased authorities and unsupported claims are more than bad writing, they are moral lapses. In my article last March, titled
Deconstructing Jack Cashill, I showed just how his writing exhibits such moral defects. Grammar can be taught in school. Integrity, I’m not so sure about.
</section>