So, ultra-conservative radio host Chuck Morse is no longer on WEIM. That's been true for awhile. As such, I figured I'd leave the guy alone. I mean, what's the point?Of course, he still has a blog that nobody reads but me! Mostly because it's really bad and stupid.
I'm no fan of Clinton, but it struck me as even more stupid than Morse's usual ranting. Both because quoting stuff is dangerously close to actual research (Morse is more comfortable just making shit up) and because this isn't the way Morse usually writes his blog entries. (He normally spends a lot of time talking about how Barney Frank is a big homo who loves terrorists or something.)
So I searched for one of the quotes attributed to Clinton in the blog. Guess what I found! Morse ripped the whole thing from a stupid forwarded email! Worse yet, I can't even debunk it for you because it's been around so long that Snopes has already done it!
Here's the Snopes page debunking this bullshit.
Let me state this again. Chuck Morse, "intellectual conservative" and guy who actually got to ask questions at one of the mayoral debates, cut-and-pasted a fucking forwarded email and presented it as his blog entry (without attribution to anyone but himself). He even left in the spelling errors (Mao Zedong/Mao Tse Tung/Mao Tse Dong is not "Mao Tse Dung." And why is Yeltsin in there? He's the guy who wanted to go from socialism to a free market!). What's more, Morse apparently didn't have the common sense to realize that anyone with half a brain could figure this out!
That's what apparently passes for conservative intellectualism these days. Forwarded emails from idiots.
Bravo, Mr. Morse!
[Update: he deleted the post, so here it is for you in screenshot form!]
[Some text got cut off here. According to my RSS reader it was:]4) 'We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground.'
[Also, I enabled Javascript between taking these screenshots, which is why the same image from shot #1 shifted down in shot #2. Just in case you're wondering...]
14 comments:
I wonder if Chuck knows about the five cent email tax? I hear Barney Frank is behind it.
I doubt Chuck would care about such a piddling sum.
After all, he's got hundreds of thousands of dollars coming to him soon from that Nigerian prince.
The charge of plaigarism is entirely overblown. I did re-publish the article but I in no way meant to imply that I wrote it.
Chuck,
Yeah, how could anyone make that mistake? I mean, the lack of attribution plus your name at the bottom totally doesn't make it seem like you presented it as your own writing or anything!
Don't worry though, I'm sure Newsmax and WorldNetDaily couldn't care less. They're not exactly bastions of journalistic integrity.
I didn't attribute the email because it was sent to me anonomously. I posted it simply because I thought it contained information that revealed some of the underlying philosophy of Clinton and the democratic candidates generally.
I had no idea that my name appeared at the bottom. Once you brought it to my attention, I removed the posting to avoid any misunderstanding.
Regarding World Net Daily and Newsmax, these publications have an enormous amount of journalistic integrity. The reason you question them is because you disagree with their conservative politics. Rather than argue with them on their merits, you choose to slander them and, in your mind, no doubt you probably think they are questionable since you probably view anyone who disagrees with your narrow so-called liberal view as questionable.
By the way, anyone from Fitchburg and Leominster who used to listen to my show "Talk Back" on WEIM and would like to continue to listen will be able to tune into my new show at WSMN-Nashua 9-11 AM Mon-Fri starting MOnday, March 3 online by logging onto www.chuckmorse.com
Know how you attribute anonymous bullshit emails? By saying something like:
"This email was sent to me anonymously. I like it, so I'm reprinting it here without checking the facts or adding any new useful information."
Anyway, you seem to have me confused with all the conservatives who question everything the New York Times has ever printed just because the New York Times is supposedly "liberal."
Guess what? It doesn't matter, so long as what they say is true. That's something NM and WND have serious trouble with. (And the Times does as well, on occasion.)
In fact, WND just settled a libel lawsuit by admitting it made stuff up. Yeah, that's integrity!
It's not hard to attack NM and WND on their merits (or lack thereof), maybe I'll do that some other time. It wasn't the point here.
In case you missed it, the point here was that you lack any basic journalistic integrity.
Sorry, you lost me at the "enormous amount of journalistic integrity" that NewsMax supposedly has. Excellent way to push the reset button on your credibility counter. NewsMax is utter cruft.
But surely NewsMax would never stand for plagiarism!
Oh , maybe they would...
"Cruft" is perhaps too kind a word for them...
The things you miss when you're sick for a while.
Chuck Morse is off the Fitchburg airwaves? I THOUGHT I heard a big flush!
Pardon me while "CR the Information Terrorist" has the last laugh.
I feel all better now!
Onward and upward with a more positive swing in Fitchburg.
Shalom y'all
Hey Chuck,
If you're still reading, remember when you told me that you're not running for Congress?
Well, what's up with this? Were you lying to me, or are you just trying to get campaign contributions for a nonexistent campaign so you don't have to get a real job?
Aw gee. I feel sick again.
Just exactly what ARE the regulations again about running for public office while being employed on the public airwaves?
Unicow?
Shalom
Rachel,
That I don't know.
All I know is it seems odd that someone who's not running for office would maintain a campaign website and have it prominently placed on their blog.
On the other hand, the most recent FEC filings are pretty slim, though it seems odd to have collected 5 grand from donation in the previous quarter without a campaign. Just a lot of weirdness.
Seems like there's a lot of room for confusion there. I'd hate to be someone who donated to a campaign that it turns out doesn't even exist.
... Which may be why the most recent contribution appears to have been refunded.
I can't claim to really understand campaign finance, but it all strikes me as weird.
So long as a former federal candidate has an open campaign account with debt, the candidate may keep raising money to pay off the debt while not actually running for office ... in order to pay down the debt.
Post a Comment