Comments: Eric Alterman's Alternate Universe

"insufficiently documented"


Ah the blessings of a secondary education...

Posted by Joel Mackey at December 13, 2007 08:21 AM

Eric Alterman is a pedophile who raped and murdered a 3 year old boy in 1997 and then bribed the local proscecuter to keep from being indicted...according to an insufficiently documented story I read somewhere. I'm sure Alterman will have no objections to that story being circulated while the exact details get nailed down, even if they never get nailed down.

Posted by Pall Mall at December 13, 2007 08:29 AM

You're a sicko, Pall Mall.

Posted by novanom at December 13, 2007 08:38 AM

Pall Mall's a sicko novanom? Altman's the one that is supposed to have done those horrible things -- and the evidence that Altman has done them is every bit as solid as that presented by Dan Rather in his accusations against President Bush. I'd say save your outrage for Altman.

Posted by Mark L at December 13, 2007 08:49 AM

I was in the Army circa early seventies when those documents were alleged to have produced. My MOS was 72F, a communications specialty. I worked with those kinds of documents and the whole range of equipment available in that time.

I got my first PC in 1980. I got my computer science degree in 1986. I have worked with every version of Microsoft Word from 1.0 on.

I am an expert on both ends of the issues related to the Rather documents; How military documents were produced and how the Rather documents were presented.

Those Rather documents could not have been worse forgeries if they had been done with pink crayon on a paper bag.

Posted by Fred at December 13, 2007 08:59 AM

I believe Pall Mall's point was that if you give the benefit of the doubt to "insufficiently documented" claims, then you're opening the doors to slander and libel without limit.

Posted by Rob Crawford at December 13, 2007 09:01 AM

I haven't seen any evidence indicating that Alterman is not a murderous pedophile. I don't suppose we'll ever know the truth...

Posted by Pablo at December 13, 2007 09:09 AM

Guys, I know your trying to prove the absurdity of Alterman's position on the Beauchamp and Rathergate stories, but please, let's not go there with the equally absurd "insufficiently documented" story again him, okay?

Thanks.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at December 13, 2007 09:20 AM

Eric Alterman is a pedophile who raped and murdered a 3 year old boy in 1997 and then bribed the local proscecuter to keep from being indicted...according to an insufficiently documented story I read somewhere.

Hmmm. I read the same thing recently.

I'm sure Alterman will have no objections to that story being circulated while the exact details get nailed down, even if they never get nailed down.

Agreed. I'm passing the story on to my cable news channels right now.

Good. Goose. Gander.

Posted by Fen at December 13, 2007 09:44 AM

Ah, sorry CY - I didn't see your 9:20 post.

Please delete my response to Pall.

Posted by Fen at December 13, 2007 09:46 AM

So, what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

Posted by Techie at December 13, 2007 09:58 AM

CY, stop trying to cover for a homicidal pedophile! I read the same account of Alterman as did Fen. While "fake, but accurate" may put too fine a spin on the outing of this reprobate, the public has a right to know nonetheless.

Posted by Al Fin at December 13, 2007 10:00 AM

"Those Rather documents could not have been worse forgeries if they had been done with pink crayon on a paper bag."

But pink crayons and paper bags existed in the '70s!!!

Posted by Jim Treacher at December 13, 2007 10:11 AM

I heard unsubstantiated allegations that Eric Alterman was a journalist. I also heard, based on undocumented sources who refused to be identified, that someone somewhere takes him seriously.

In the absence of proof, we'll never know.

Posted by DaveP. at December 13, 2007 10:15 AM

Hmmmm.

"I also heard, based on undocumented sources who refused to be identified, that someone somewhere takes him seriously."

I used to take him seriously but then the doctors finally diagnosed my problem and now I can safely say that I'm much better.

:)

Posted by memomachine at December 13, 2007 10:22 AM

" "Those Rather documents could not have been worse forgeries if they had been done with pink crayon on a paper bag."

But pink crayons and paper bags existed in the '70s!!!"

They couldn't have been more definitely a forgery if they had been written using a Glitter Pink Hannah Montana crayon on a SpongeBob SquarePants Lunch bag!

Forensics Forever!

otpu

Posted by Otpu at December 13, 2007 10:23 AM

Got to laugh at Alterman who is more than a little annoyed in finding Elspeth Reeve "pissing all over" Foer as she "no doubt helped cause the entire mess". Right-o Alterman, in your own universe of How Stuff Works, it is the twenty-something intern who is responsible for the editorial controls that protect the magazine and its now MIA credibility.

Only in the altered reality that is the world of lefty media, could an org chart be turned upside down with the critical responsibilities abdicated to those with the least time served and invested in the organization.

Alterman's last words to Reeve: "How nice for you. Now go away..."

Sorry about that inconvenient truth Alterman. It sure must hurt when the facts refuse to bend and fit your meme.

Posted by Justacanuck at December 13, 2007 10:58 AM

This guy is a perfect example of why the leftist media in this country will never understand the reasons behind the outrage over this affair.

It goes beyond the fact that the stories were fabulism.

It's the fact that they outrageously slandered the men and women in uniform that are putting their lives on the line everyday, so sleazy bastards like Foer, Beauchamp and others, can continue to do so.
It's the fact that these pack of lies inflamed the enemies we are fighting in the region.

There is no instrument in existence to measure my outrage at these people.

James Dodd
USMC 1st MEF 83-87

Posted by Conservative CBU at December 13, 2007 11:29 AM

"But pink crayons and paper bags existed in the '70s!!!"

Access to military grade pink crayons was strictly controlled.

Posted by Fred at December 13, 2007 11:46 AM

Reminds me of the phrase "undocumented workers" as if it were simply a matter of misplaced paperwork or a typo or two on their birth certificate. They are undocumented because they are not citizens! There is "insufficient documentation" because there is nothing to document.

Posted by Zach at December 13, 2007 12:12 PM

Someone actually believes (other than Rather) that those documents were authentic? Good Lord what a moron!

Posted by Capitalist Infidel at December 13, 2007 12:33 PM

Apparently, Alterman does not think that editors should be responsible for the stories put out on their watch. What responsibility? I am merely the editor.

Posted by Penfold at December 13, 2007 12:37 PM

As someone who had clearance in the mid 70's (actually) I had access to military grade pink crayons and paper bags.

I believe I have a document where Bush's commander reprimaded him for being a "dooty head". Surprisingly it is in pink crayon on a paper bag.

On a more serious note, I had access to the best machines at LANL and none could do what the TANG document has. Alterman is a complete moron (something Rather aspires to).

Posted by David at December 13, 2007 01:03 PM

These clowns can be caught with their hands in the cookie jar all the way up to the elbow--editorially speaking that is--and the editorial crime will always be "insufficiently documented".

Kinda tough to be in the "reality based world" as these 'gentlemen' claim to be, and yet unable to recognize and acknowledge reality when it's chomping them in the backside big time.

Posted by Michael J. Myers at December 13, 2007 01:16 PM

Since Elspeth's in a chatty mood someone really should ask her how she came to be one of her hubby's own fact checkers. Was she assigned the position? By whom? And wasn't she concerned at least about an appearance of impropriety in such a relationship?

Oh, and just how did STB come to the attention of the deciders at TNR in the first place?

Just more items that remain insufficiently documented; but not ones that Alterman would give a damn about knowing.

Posted by ThomasD at December 13, 2007 02:50 PM
Kinda tough to be in the "reality based world" as these 'gentlemen' claim to be

Wasn't it a Righty who came up with that title?

Posted by novanom at December 13, 2007 03:53 PM

novanom - No, I believe the term "reality-based community" came about as a lefty reaction to Bush's talking about the "faith-based community" several years back.

Posted by Robin Munn at December 13, 2007 04:13 PM
I believe the term "reality-based community" came about as a lefty reaction to Bush's talking about the "faith-based community" several years back.

No, it was a Bush advisor who came up with it. He was scoffing at the idea of solutions to problems coming "from your judicious study of discernible reality." His point being that going through life basing one's actions on judiciously-studied reality is for fools.

Posted by novanom at December 13, 2007 05:54 PM

Ahh, I see novanom a/k/a nunaim is still arguing just for the sake of arguing. If a conservative was to say that ice is cold he'd be quite happy arguing the opposite.

Posted by C-C-G at December 13, 2007 08:46 PM
I see novanom a/k/a nunaim is still arguing just for the sake of arguing

So I disagree with someone and bring a link to back it up, and I'm "arguing just for the sake of arguing." That's worthy of your scorn, but the pedophile accusation is not. Holy toledo, your values are out of whack.

Posted by novanom at December 13, 2007 09:05 PM

Nice try Novanon--but no banana. If you go over to the Daily Kossacks or to the Huffington poseurs, you'll see frequent self reverential references to the alleged fact that they are, in fact, the "reality based community".

Now as a sample of the "reality based community's" rhetoric, Ms. Pelosi said today that the United States did not have a President.

Now she may mean that in her view the United States does not have a legitimately elected President (some old wounds die hard when your grip on reality is not too firmly based) but last time I checked, someone was sleeping in the White House, riding on Air Force One, and generally kicking the crap out of the Dhimmicrats led by Ms. Pelosi. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck---it must be a duck. Pelosi doesn't get it.

But in the "reality based world" every single thing that goes wrong is the responsibility of Dubya. Man, I don't know how one single person can get all that stuff done!

Posted by Michael J. Myers at December 13, 2007 09:14 PM

Here's "How to be CCG for Dummies":

If a lefty responds to a misstatement or a foolish opinion by a righty, make fun of the lefty for responding.

If a lefty doesn't respond to a misstatement or a foolish opinion by a righty, tell the lefty that "your silence speaks volumes" and assert that said lack of response is a de facto admission that the righty has been correct all along.

Posted by novanom at December 13, 2007 09:15 PM
Now she may mean that in her view the United States does not have a legitimately elected President (some old wounds die hard when your grip on reality is not too firmly based) but last time I checked, someone was sleeping in the White House, riding on Air Force One, and generally kicking the crap out of the Dhimmicrats led by Ms. Pelosi. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck---it must be a duck. Pelosi doesn't get it.

Shorter Michael J. Myers:

Huh? "Figurative language"? What th' hell's that? Must be some kinda HollyWEIRD talk. Go get me mah Moon Pie and an RC Cola, Brandine!

Posted by novanom at December 14, 2007 08:36 AM

Thank you, novanom, or nunaim, or numnuts..

We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view.If I throw a stick, will you leave?

Posted by Huntress at December 14, 2007 01:55 PM
If I throw a stick, will you leave?

Probably not.

Posted by novanom at December 14, 2007 03:36 PM

That's probably the most honest thing nunaim/novanom has ever said here at CY.

Huntress, the troll known as nunaim, novanom, and possibly other monikers doesn't seem to comprehend the concept of "not being welcome." He's been banned at least twice that I know of, and yet here he is, still trolling.

He was last banned for arguing about--get this--the size of a door in a garage... and not a door for cars, he was arguing about the size of a door meant for people. I kid you not, here's the thread in question.

Let his record speak for itself.

Posted by C-C-G at December 14, 2007 07:49 PM

Yet, on the other hand, I calmly and politely correct a misconception about the origin of the phrase "reality-based community"--and provide a link to back it up--and I'm still told that I'm full of sh!t and that I'm arguing to no purpose. CCG, you have Nunaim Derangement Syndrome.

Posted by novanom at December 15, 2007 09:11 AM

As usual, nunaim, your link proves nothing, as has already been pointed out. An nameless person who is supposed to be a Bush advisor is hardly any proof. And it's been shown that the left itself proudly uses the phrase, and you did not even bother to post a substantive refutation of that claim, instead posting just more spin and personal attacks--you didn't even quote the portion of the post that dealt with how the left has adopted the phrase.

And then you take umbrage at me pointing out how you act? Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Posted by C-C-G at December 15, 2007 10:42 AM
Methinks thou dost protest too much.

You do this all the time, CCG. Your fingers apparently move independently of your brain, because you're always sticking in stuff like "I said good day, sir!" and "Methinks thou dost protest too much" despite the facts that they are a) lame, and b) not applicable to the situation at hand.

Once again, you've tried lamely to score points by asserting that I've avoided an issue that was not actually an issue, and so not worth avoiding.

Why on Earth would I deny the fact that Lefties have embraced the term "reality-based community?" Of course the Left has accepted it. Seeing as how it originated as a term of contempt by a White House aide who scoffed at the idea of basing policy and actions on reality, accepting the mantle of "reality-based" does nothing more than highlight the "hallucination-based" reality of much of the Right.

Remember: in Susskind's article the aide was not condemning the left for deluding themselves into thinking that they are reality-based, when, in fact, they're not; he was actually condemning them for thinking things through too much--contemplating before acting.

Some people think that judicious contemplation of reality is good, rather than bad.

And now you're going to say that the story's a lie because the official wasn't named? Note that you're now moving the goalposts. People have ripped on me for occasionally not providing links; now that I do, the link isn't good enough. What's the standard of proof for the discussion now?

Are you going to question EVERY SINGLE story from EVERY SINGLE media outlet if a name isn't listed? Or are you questioning this link simply because I posted it? What actual reason do you have for questioning this link?

Stop complaining about my link and post one of your own.

While you're at it, get over your NDS.


Posted by novanom at December 15, 2007 01:59 PM

I question anything that comes from an anonymous source, O One With Multiple Banned Names.

I also question any assertion, mind you, any assertion made by someone who thinks that the size of a door in a garage designed for the entry of people--not doors designed to let cars in--is a subject for argument or debate.

In short, O Person Who Tries New Names Often, if you told me stone was hard, I'd try a rock as a pillow.

And I am done letting you drag this thread off topic.

Oh, and just to annoy you...

Good day, sir. I said, Good Day!

Posted by C-C-G at December 15, 2007 02:13 PM

I'm willing to accept that that NYTimes article is where the "reality-based" term first got published, and that it spread from there. Anonymous sources are always troubling, of course -- one can't prove one way or the other that the source really said that, or whether the reporter made up the quote, because one can't contact the source and ask. But I'm willing to assume the quote is genuinely from a Bush aide until shown evidence to the contrary.

But I can't help but wonder... what difference does it make? Why are we arguing about this? Whether the term was invented by a Bush aide or by the NYTimes reporter, it was quickly and proudly picked up by the Left, as a badge of honor. Two examples here and here, found by a ten-second Google search.

So, novanom -- when you said "Wasn't it a Righty that came up with that title?", it appears you were correct. But I'm entirely failing to grasp the point you were trying to make with that off-hand comment. Did you mean that because a Righty came up with it, it's no longer ironic in the least if those who now proudly call themselves "reality-based" ignore reality? Because that conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Or, to put it in more colloquial language, "That dog won't hunt".

So if you had a point to make by pointing out who invented the term, please explain.

Posted by Robin Munn at December 17, 2007 02:10 PM

So Ron Suskind wrote an article in which he says an unnamed Bush adviser waxed fantastic about how the American empire is creating new realities and leaving those in the "reality-based community," who merely study reality for solutions, in the dust. Of course it is not an official pronouncement from the Bush administration.

In fact no one on the right supports this language, but the left embraced it anyway because it says exactly what the left wants to believe about itself and, conversely, about those who support President Bush. To my mind, this is just more substanceless "framing" from the left and a further demonstration that the left is not concerned with reality.

If you want to use someone's words against them, better get a hard quote from a named person on a specific occasion--i.e. something based on reality--and not just some hearsay that make you feel superior.

Posted by huxley at December 17, 2007 06:49 PM

And they call Bush stubborn and living in a bubble/bunker?

Posted by Mark at December 18, 2007 10:10 AM