UPDATED Below
By now you’ve probably seen the ad featuring Michael J. Fox (if not, click here). As you probably know, Fox is a Parkinson’s sufferer, so it likely comes as little surprise that he supports a candidate who favors stem cell research over one who does not. In fact, this is so clear a case of enlightened self-interest that I really don’t quite grasp Hugh Hewitt’s dark insinuations of a hidden agenda:
And what’s all this crap about “The ad’s aim is to make us feel so bad about Fox’s condition that logical debate is therefore precluded”? I apologize if I’ve missed a great Fundamentalist Spockfest at some point, but so far the “logical” arguments against stem cell research seem to begin and end with the premise that frozen blastocytes, floating in the nurturing, womb-like confines of a Petrie dish, have an immortal soul to go along with their freezer burn. This assertion may be many things — poetic, profound, intensely creepy — yet “logical” wouldn’t seem to top the list. If that’s the sum total of their rational argument, then I would hazard to say Hugh and the other faithful are venerating the wrong trinity. They’d probably get more bang for their tithe by worshipping The Father (Clarence Birdseye), the Son (Julius Richard Petrie), and the Holy Ghost Rider (Nicholas Cage).
Speaking of disingenuous, Hugh, do you really want to pretend that using an emotional response to drum up support for your policies is illegitimate? Because that shoves the last five or six years of Republican politicking out onto some rather thin ethical ice.
UPDATE: As TS of Tristram-Shandy points out, Hugh’s Townhall column, was actually written by his acolyte, Dean Barnett. Which I should have known, since Dean (who suffers from cystic fibrosis) is the go-to guy whenever Hugh and his posse need to dash a little cold water on the embers of condolence. So Hugh picked a spokesperson who, in Ann Coulter’s words, we’re “not allowed to respond to,” in order to complain that Claire McCaskill picked a spokesperson Hugh isn’t allowed to respond to.
Anyway, I was angry and leaped into the fray without doublechecking the byline. And I should have known better, since Dan has previously floated several of the more reprehensible points above. On August 25, in a piece titled “The Stem Cell Hustle,” Dan wrote in Hugh’s column:
By now you’ve probably seen the ad featuring Michael J. Fox (if not, click here). As you probably know, Fox is a Parkinson’s sufferer, so it likely comes as little surprise that he supports a candidate who favors stem cell research over one who does not. In fact, this is so clear a case of enlightened self-interest that I really don’t quite grasp Hugh Hewitt’s dark insinuations of a hidden agenda:
There’s a new Michael J. Fox ad on stem cell research that supports Claire McCaskill’s campaign. Click over and watch it. It will take you only 30 seconds, and I promise I’ll still be here when you get back.Will you, Hugh? What about that time I wanted to pop into Williams Sonoma for five minutes just to grab a new egg whisk and you promised you’d be waiting at the bench across from the One Potato Two? You broke my heart, Hugh.
By way of response, let me first say that I think almost any kind of ad in support of a political campaign is fair game.Less fair, but safer game are political ads showcasing short men with severe neurological disorders, because it’s much less likely that they’ll later buttonhole you in the Pump Room and punch you in the solar plexus until you vomit breast of pheasant and a split of Pouilly-Fuisse all over your wingtips.
If a candidate goes too far, the public will punish him or her.“…I recommend forcing the candidate to wear the ballet boots and a three-strap penis cage. Mistress well proved their curative powers the last time I stepped out of line. In fact, add an uncomfortably tight latex scrotum snood and a couple of alligator clips on the man-boobs, and you’d see a renaissance of civility and bi-partisanship that would shock you like a cattleprod to the colon. But I digress.”
So while I find the Michael J. Fox ad crass, tasteless, exploitative and absurd, I fully support Claire McCaskill’s right to shoot herself in the foot.Right. While Rush’s assertion that Fox was faking his symptons in order to garner sympathy can only be regarded as a high five-worthy coup of informed commentary.
The most distasteful aspect of the ad is the way it exploits Michael J. Fox’s physical difficulties. Fox is an actor, and clearly knew what he was doing when he signed up for the spot - no victim points for him for having been manipulated by the McCaskill campaign. The ad’s aim is to make us feel so bad about Fox’s condition that logical debate is therefore precluded. You either agree with Fox, or you sadistically endorse his further suffering as Fox accuses Jim Talent of doing.Hugh has apparently peeked over at Ann Coulter’s Composition Blue Book, since this reeks of her belief that anyone who confronts Republicans with the results of their ideological extremism represents a violation of the rules of war, since right wing pundits “aren’t allowed to respond.” How dare Michael J. Fox have Parkinson’s in public? How dare he support politicians who believe in funding research that may one day relieve his symptons. How are you supposed to argue with that? It’s not like those clumps of eight frozen cells in a petrie dish are gonna get off their lazy nuclei and shoot a counter-ad. In Hugh’s day, palsied cripples stayed in their rooms and wasted away with dignity, or at least kept their heads down and their mouths shut in public in the hopes that — at best — people wouldn’t notice their shameful condition, and — at worst — would mistake them for Joe Cocker.
And what’s all this crap about “The ad’s aim is to make us feel so bad about Fox’s condition that logical debate is therefore precluded”? I apologize if I’ve missed a great Fundamentalist Spockfest at some point, but so far the “logical” arguments against stem cell research seem to begin and end with the premise that frozen blastocytes, floating in the nurturing, womb-like confines of a Petrie dish, have an immortal soul to go along with their freezer burn. This assertion may be many things — poetic, profound, intensely creepy — yet “logical” wouldn’t seem to top the list. If that’s the sum total of their rational argument, then I would hazard to say Hugh and the other faithful are venerating the wrong trinity. They’d probably get more bang for their tithe by worshipping The Father (Clarence Birdseye), the Son (Julius Richard Petrie), and the Holy Ghost Rider (Nicholas Cage).
This is demagoguery analogous to the pernicious and pathetic chickenhawk argument. The whole “chickenhawk” logic is that only people who have served in the military are entitled to have an opinion on military matters. Thus, the ideas of non-veterans don’t warrant a hearing and thus don’t need rebutting.Actually, Hugh, I think that’s the plot of Starship Troopers. The chickenhawk argument, as I understand it, is that men like Bush and Cheney, who avoided harzardous service in their youth, should have the minimal decency to hesitate before sending today’s young people into a similar quagmire. Additionally, it holds that people who are currently of military age (Jonah, put down that HoHo, I’m looking at you) and who agitate in support of a war of choice have a moral obligation to support that war with more than a pro forma shake of the pom poms.
While Michael J. Fox (like me) has some skin in the stem cell gameLet’s all pause, bow our heads, and observe a moment of silence in honor of Hugh’s stillborn witticism.
…that most people don’t, that doesn’t give him any special appreciation of the moral issues involved with embryonic stem cell research. Sick people may want cures and treatments more than the healthy population, but that doesn’t make them/us experts on morality.Yeah, sick people have no skin in the morality game. Which is why Jesus was so often seen hitching up the hem of his robes and scurrying to cross the street whenever he had the misfortune to stumble over the lame or the leperous.
The ad’s disingenuousness also merits consideration. While Fox mentions “stem cell research,” the word “embryonic” is strangely lacking. Given that the entire debate centers on the ethics and morality of embryonic stem cell research, this omission is noteworthy.Would it be disingenuous to point out that not all stem cell research involves embryonic stem cells? Probably. But that still doesn’t relieve Democrats of their obligation to use the terms of debate as defined by Hugh. If this sort of thing isn’t nipped in the bud, the next thing you know, people will be using the medical term “intact dilation and extraction,” just because it was coined by a physician, instead of “partial birth abortion,” which as everyone knows is the correct term, because it was coined by a congressman from Florida.
AS FAR AS FOX IS CONCERNED, I feel bad for him. The ad is shot to carefully record the sounds of the spasticity brought on by his condition. It’s gut-wrenching to see the star in such a condition.Hear that, Mr. Spastic? Hugh doesn’t forgive you, but he does pity you.
But it’s strange that Fox has so eagerly bought the promises of the stem cell research community. If Fox thinks that stem cell research offers him (or me) hope, he’s mistaken. Stem cell research, both embryonic and otherwise, right now represents nothing more than a promising theory.“I still can’t get over how people repeatedly fall for that whole “electricity” sham. Sure, incandescent lighting is a promising theory, but I really think we should pull the funding, because if burning olive oil was good enough for our Lord and Savior, it ought to be good enough to run our computers.”
If it bears fruit, and that’s a huge “if”, it will likely do so too late to benefit Fox, me, and our contemporaries. In spite of the silky rhetoric of John Edwards-type politicians, dramatic medical innovations come slowly and take decades to pan out, not months.“So there’s no point in getting the research started now, because even if it does pan out, it’ll be too late to help me. Whereas if I continue to demagogue the issue, I’ll get real world political benefits in the here and now. So screw you, Future Spazzes!”
One last note on Michael J. Fox. Unlike Fox, I’ve been a sick person all my life.Must….resist…cheap…shot…!
Like most sick people who try to define their lives by something other than their illness, I’ve always recoiled at pity and even sympathy.“Of course, I’m not above abusing someone for using a personal tragedy to illuminate a larger social issue and then turning around and milking my own misfortune in an effort to immunize myself against any criticism my callousness might arouse.”
Personally, I find there to be something extremely disquieting about the way Fox has chosen to use his condition to bully voters into feeling bad for him and thus support his political positions.It’s almost as if President Bush invited the widows of first responders to backdrop one of his political speeches, or used the badge of a dead police officer as a prop during a State of the Union speech, then took it back to the White House and used it to try to decode the secret messages from Ovaltine.
Speaking of disingenuous, Hugh, do you really want to pretend that using an emotional response to drum up support for your policies is illegitimate? Because that shoves the last five or six years of Republican politicking out onto some rather thin ethical ice.
People know when they’re being manipulated.”And I wish they’d stop, because this is the only playbook I’ve got, and it’s just…not…WORKING!”
This ad with its heavy-handed emphasis on Fox’s suffering will succeed in making Fox an object of sympathy and pity, but because of its naked crassness, it will not be a political success.“…at least not if Clarence Birdseye answers my prayers.”
As for Claire McCaskill, who has chosen to conclude her campaign in this manner, she will get no sympathy or pity from these quarters. Only contempt.The fact that your quarters are bare of compassion and empathy don’t exactly come as a news flash, Hugh. But I gotta admire the way you cleaned Wal*Mart out of their 5 gallon tubs of contempt.
UPDATE: As TS of Tristram-Shandy points out, Hugh’s Townhall column, was actually written by his acolyte, Dean Barnett. Which I should have known, since Dean (who suffers from cystic fibrosis) is the go-to guy whenever Hugh and his posse need to dash a little cold water on the embers of condolence. So Hugh picked a spokesperson who, in Ann Coulter’s words, we’re “not allowed to respond to,” in order to complain that Claire McCaskill picked a spokesperson Hugh isn’t allowed to respond to.
Anyway, I was angry and leaped into the fray without doublechecking the byline. And I should have known better, since Dan has previously floated several of the more reprehensible points above. On August 25, in a piece titled “The Stem Cell Hustle,” Dan wrote in Hugh’s column:
AND THAT’S WHERE THE EXAGGERATED promise of the stem cell debate comes in. Virtually every doctor or researcher you talk to, and I’ve talked to a bunch, agrees that stem cell research holds out great promise for the future. It’s an avenue they’d love to see explored. It’s also a new science, and one that if it bears fruits, won’t likely do so for quite some time.And apparently he had a gripe against Michael J. Fox long before the McCaskill ad, since he wrote in the same piece:
Pushed along by political interests who relish the chance to devalue the fetus, stem cell therapy has come to represent a panacea for the hopeless and the ignorant who understandably choose false hope over no hope. But, you have to wonder, what level of awareness do Michael J. Fox and Ronald Reagan Jr. have about the cause they so relentlessly tout?Anyway, since this is at least the second time Hugh has allowed Dan to use his column to tell tomorrow’s victims of catastrophic disease to Suck It, I’ve decided not to rewrite this post, on the logical assumption that Bartlett’s words reflect the opinions of the management.
26 Responses to “Hugh Hewitt Can Beat Up Any Parkinson’s Victim in the House!”
There is no depth to which they cannot sink.
I have previously viewed Hugh as a sort of low level dolt, someone who says stupid things in public and is more to be pitied than actively loathed, much like James Lileks, people who, because they’re just not that smart, were easy prey for the cynical manipulations (and, yes, based entirely on illogical emotional appeals) of the current administration. People who otherwise would be slightly limp, men who, admittedly, you would not want to be trapped in an elevator with, but whose presence would be more of an annoyance than a threat between floors six and ten.
I’ve never actually hated him before. He’s an asshole, and a jerk, and a dolt. But I’ve never seen him as quite so vicious before, which admittedly may just have been me not paying attention. But this bit is so completely loathesome, so beneath contempt, so morally revolting, that I’ll probably never be able to see a picture of him again without experiencing a jolt of visceral hate. So, hey, kudos for bringing logic into the game, Hugh. Congratulations for pointing me, among others, in the direction of reason rather than emotion.
And by the way, when anyone goes “too far” in anything, the public will make them pay. This is because “too far” is by Hugh’s definition the point where the public makes them pay. In addition to Scott’s well-founded dissection of the stem cell debate positions, this statement of his–which seems to declare anything that is not reacted to with revolution and show trials A-OK–seems to demonstrate why he should probably not be chastizing others for logical failings.
I’ve never actually hated him before. He’s an asshole, and a jerk, and a dolt. But I’ve never seen him as quite so vicious before, which admittedly may just have been me not paying attention. But this bit is so completely loathesome, so beneath contempt, so morally revolting, that I’ll probably never be able to see a picture of him again without experiencing a jolt of visceral hate. So, hey, kudos for bringing logic into the game, Hugh. Congratulations for pointing me, among others, in the direction of reason rather than emotion.
And by the way, when anyone goes “too far” in anything, the public will make them pay. This is because “too far” is by Hugh’s definition the point where the public makes them pay. In addition to Scott’s well-founded dissection of the stem cell debate positions, this statement of his–which seems to declare anything that is not reacted to with revolution and show trials A-OK–seems to demonstrate why he should probably not be chastizing others for logical failings.
Scott- Thank you, thank you, thank you- that was one of the most brilliantly executed vivisections of a wingnut specimen i have read in years of cruising the snark-encrusted shores of left blogistan-succinct, understated, powerful and hilarious.
“So screw you, future spazzes!” perfectly captures one defining characteristic of genus wingnut- “range-of-the-moment” thinking, one of the few useful concepts to be brought away from a pre-pubescant infatuation with the work of that proto-wingnut Ayn Rand.
“So screw you, future spazzes!” perfectly captures one defining characteristic of genus wingnut- “range-of-the-moment” thinking, one of the few useful concepts to be brought away from a pre-pubescant infatuation with the work of that proto-wingnut Ayn Rand.
Michael J. Fox or not, this year will not be any different. The Wingnuts already stole 2 presidential elections (wide scale fraud). You really think they cannot steal House elections (small scale fraud). This is the same group that managed to legalize warrantless wiretaps, suspend habeas corpus, ban books like “America Deceived” from Amazon, detain demonstrators and start 2 illegal wars based on lies. The Republicans will probably lose a few seats to make it look good but maintain a majority. Then they’ll invade Iran on behalf of Israel.
Support indy media.
Final link (before Google Books bends to gov’t will and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
Support indy media.
Final link (before Google Books bends to gov’t will and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
When asshats like Hugh actually show compassion for the truly living, breathing human beings currently on the earth [instead of a clump of frozen cells], then I may attempt to listen to their side of the “story” and take them a bit more seriously. At this point, however, the idiocy and ignorance of their arguments and their goofy belief systems get in the way of any “logical” discussion of the issues.
This is as despicable as anything I have seen these people do. Right up there with the attacks on Max Cleland’s patriotism. All I can think is that the Republicans have decided to absolutely alienate almost every single voter in the country, and then rig the machines so they can say to each other “wow. look what we can do.this is fun.” Rove’s pet project. Sort of like the line from “Folsom Prison Blues.” “I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.” Except it is the whole country.
These fuckers are human filth.
These fuckers are human filth.
The saddest part is people like Hugh are not alone. There’s a legion of faithful voters who would read that tripe and nod approvingly, based only on their “faith” that a clump of cells is worth more than actual human life and suffering. And they vote accordingly.
Fox showed great courage and spirit for doing such an ad, and decent freaking people recognize that. The rest, f*ck ‘em.
Fox showed great courage and spirit for doing such an ad, and decent freaking people recognize that. The rest, f*ck ‘em.
> These fuckers are human filth.
I have my doubts about the “human” part.
And would someone please explain to Hugh that being cursed with manboobs does NOT mean he’s just as sick as Michael J. Fox? Thank you.
I have my doubts about the “human” part.
And would someone please explain to Hugh that being cursed with manboobs does NOT mean he’s just as sick as Michael J. Fox? Thank you.
I have a question for Hewitt in re: his lifelong illness…
I don’t think emotional retardation counts. Do you?
I don’t think emotional retardation counts. Do you?
D. Sidhe skrev:
I have previously viewed Hugh as a sort of low level dolt, someone who says stupid things in public and is more to be pitied than actively loathed, much like James Lileks, people who, because they’re just not that smart, were easy prey for the cynical manipulations (and, yes, based entirely on illogical emotional appeals) of the current administration.
The first time I heard of him was when I saw a copy of (to give it an honest title) If It’s Close Enough, We Can’t Cheat: Projecting Our Own Habitual Election Thefts onto the Democrats and Why Keeping Our Sorry Excuses for Asses Out of Prison Depends on It at my local Barnes & Chernobyl. I knew immediately that he was “completely loathesome [sic]… beneath contempt [and] morally revolting”.
I have previously viewed Hugh as a sort of low level dolt, someone who says stupid things in public and is more to be pitied than actively loathed, much like James Lileks, people who, because they’re just not that smart, were easy prey for the cynical manipulations (and, yes, based entirely on illogical emotional appeals) of the current administration.
The first time I heard of him was when I saw a copy of (to give it an honest title) If It’s Close Enough, We Can’t Cheat: Projecting Our Own Habitual Election Thefts onto the Democrats and Why Keeping Our Sorry Excuses for Asses Out of Prison Depends on It at my local Barnes & Chernobyl. I knew immediately that he was “completely loathesome [sic]… beneath contempt [and] morally revolting”.
What lifelong illness does Hugh have, anyway?
Rush Limbaugh’s reaction to MJF’s ad was depressing and revolting enough. The fact that someone *else*, some other slavering right-wing bastard, saw fit to once again (as always) shoot the messenger–the suffering messenger appealing for an election victory for the candidate who *might help* people with his disease–is even more sickening. I would have thought that everyone in the Slavering Right-Wing-American Community would be embarrassed for Rush and by his comments, but no, they see it as a great idea, and pile on the old “I’m not callous, and just because I say heinous, callous things doesn’t make me so” bandwagon.
Rush Limbaugh’s reaction to MJF’s ad was depressing and revolting enough. The fact that someone *else*, some other slavering right-wing bastard, saw fit to once again (as always) shoot the messenger–the suffering messenger appealing for an election victory for the candidate who *might help* people with his disease–is even more sickening. I would have thought that everyone in the Slavering Right-Wing-American Community would be embarrassed for Rush and by his comments, but no, they see it as a great idea, and pile on the old “I’m not callous, and just because I say heinous, callous things doesn’t make me so” bandwagon.
For what it’s worth, the post was the work of Dean Barnett, Hugh Hewitt’s man-servant. But, as the wingers say, the point stands!
So the “moral” position here is to let sick people suffer and die, as long as they do it where we don’t have to look at them and feel bad. Because seeing their suffering might make people want to help them, and might convince people that living human beings deserve priority over clumps of cells in a petrie dish, and that would be immoral.
Whatever. I’ve given up trying to understand where these people’s ideas on “morality” come from. I don’t see how even the most distorted reading of the Bible could possibly produce this kind of thinking.
Whatever. I’ve given up trying to understand where these people’s ideas on “morality” come from. I don’t see how even the most distorted reading of the Bible could possibly produce this kind of thinking.
I like the way Dean manages to victim-shame MJF (“I find there to be something extremely disquieting about the way Fox has chosen to use his condition to bully voters into feeling bad for him and thus support his political positions”) while at the same time out-victiming him (“Unlike Fox, I’ve been a sick person all my life”).
As one who suffers from two chronic illnesses (and for which stem-cell research of any kind is futile), I’ll be happy to respond to these two ass-holes: please, drop dead.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Just to mention the guys who bailed me out (patnox.com) incase you need them.
“skrev”? I guess I’ll hold off on loathing Hugh for a while, but I still think he’s an asshole and a jerk.
For what it’s worth, Orcinus today has a fascinating overview of, well, Dr Mike, PhD and Doug Giles. It doesn’t actually mention either, but it goes a long way to explaining what, exactly, their problem is.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/
For what it’s worth, Orcinus today has a fascinating overview of, well, Dr Mike, PhD and Doug Giles. It doesn’t actually mention either, but it goes a long way to explaining what, exactly, their problem is.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/
Virtually every doctor or researcher you talk to, and I’ve talked to a bunch, agrees that stem cell research holds out great promise for the future. It’s an avenue they’d love to see explored. It’s also a new science, and one that if it bears fruits, won’t likely do so for quite some time.
Oh, well, then there is no point in studying it, because it hasn’t cured anything yet. Seriously, that is one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever read. Just say you love womb babies and shut the fuck up.
Oh, well, then there is no point in studying it, because it hasn’t cured anything yet. Seriously, that is one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever read. Just say you love womb babies and shut the fuck up.
Hm…did Hugh and Rush go this ballistic when Fox appeared in campaign ads for Republican Arlen J. Spector? Sadly, no!
(Oops! Wrong blog. Sorry!)
(Oops! Wrong blog. Sorry!)
So, if stem cell research won’t pay off until “the future,” we shouldn’t support it until “the future” — right? Isn’t this the old joke about not mending the roof cause it ain’t raining now? Oh hahahaha, very funny, Hugh. Dean. Whatever your name is. And remember, no MS research until after it pays off, too.
Well, it is true that no amount of stem cell research will ever cure Hewitt’s manboobs.
Well, I think it’s just super that Dean doesn’t think we should bother with embryonic stem cell research because it hasn’t cured anything yet.
It’s especially super because, if my understanding is correct, the hereditary disease from which he suffers, cystic fibrosis, is unlikely to be a focus of any stem cell research anyway. My understanding of current cystic fibrosis research (disclosure: I lost a sister, a cousin and an uncle to CF, I am a carrier of the gene myself, this is why I am childless by choice) is that the most promising areas for a cure are in the area of gene therapy, which, fortunately for Dean and other sufferers of CF (which is a horrible, awful disease), is not illegal yet!
Also, Michael J. Fox is not stupid. He knows that even if Bush’s stupid veto of embryonic stem cell research were reversed tomorrow, he will probably not see a cure in his lifetime; nor will I see one for my MS. That just makes it all the more generous and brave of him to put himself out there and tell the truth. Well done, Michael.
It’s especially super because, if my understanding is correct, the hereditary disease from which he suffers, cystic fibrosis, is unlikely to be a focus of any stem cell research anyway. My understanding of current cystic fibrosis research (disclosure: I lost a sister, a cousin and an uncle to CF, I am a carrier of the gene myself, this is why I am childless by choice) is that the most promising areas for a cure are in the area of gene therapy, which, fortunately for Dean and other sufferers of CF (which is a horrible, awful disease), is not illegal yet!
Also, Michael J. Fox is not stupid. He knows that even if Bush’s stupid veto of embryonic stem cell research were reversed tomorrow, he will probably not see a cure in his lifetime; nor will I see one for my MS. That just makes it all the more generous and brave of him to put himself out there and tell the truth. Well done, Michael.
Thank goodness Rush Limbaugh was brave enough to start this battle against the wheelchair lobby. Voters will have an important choice to make in November. Do they want to vote for the Democrats who will create even more handicapped parking spaces (not to mention more handicapped people because of the increase in terrorist attacks) or the Republicans who say enough is enough.
Regarding “America Deceived” It was NEVER available via Amazon or B&N. It was published via “Fast Track” at iUniverse.com (a subsidiary of B&N, btw) IT WAS NEVER BANNED FROM ANYWHERE
The author choose not to have it released via B&N or Amazon per iUniverse. Political motivation or just a cheapskate? You decide.
If you would like, you can call them yourself and ask. The phone number for iUniverse is 1-800-AUTHORS. No, really, call them and ask if it was ever distributed by Amazon or B&N and they will tell you it wasn’t as it was a “fast Track” publication.
It is the speculation of this commenter that the author of the previous comment is actually the author of the book looking for some easy publicity via blogs. A google search on “America Decieved” will bring up hundreds of very similary comments, but all have the link to iUniverse in them and the tag line “Final link (before Google Books bends to gov’t will and drops the title)”.
Coincidence?
The author choose not to have it released via B&N or Amazon per iUniverse. Political motivation or just a cheapskate? You decide.
If you would like, you can call them yourself and ask. The phone number for iUniverse is 1-800-AUTHORS. No, really, call them and ask if it was ever distributed by Amazon or B&N and they will tell you it wasn’t as it was a “fast Track” publication.
It is the speculation of this commenter that the author of the previous comment is actually the author of the book looking for some easy publicity via blogs. A google search on “America Decieved” will bring up hundreds of very similary comments, but all have the link to iUniverse in them and the tag line “Final link (before Google Books bends to gov’t will and drops the title)”.
Coincidence?
Your piece is really well written. Found your blog by googling Hugh Hewitt Asshole.
I’ll be back soon to troll through the rest of the blog. It’s oddly reassuring to find somebody whose Hughwitt revulsion appears to mirror mine!
I’ll be back soon to troll through the rest of the blog. It’s oddly reassuring to find somebody whose Hughwitt revulsion appears to mirror mine!
No comments:
Post a Comment