Thu 24 Jul 2008
Was it just 9 months ago that I pointed out that Jay McInerney’s ‘76 former girlfriend Rielle Hunter was in the news? Was it just 7 months ago that I passed on the story of Hunter’s love child with with former Democratic Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards? Indeed it was! My reward was comments like:
No need to do Drudge’s dirty work for him, David. That story has already been pulled from the site after the woman apparently denied that the baby was Edwards’.
This is trash. The story never had a leg to stand on. Why do you keep trying to keep it alive?
Ephs everywhere thank you for making EphBlog part of a shameless home-stretch smear attempt against the Edwards campaign.
But, alas, I was right. Always trust content from EphBlog.
70 Responses to “ Trash ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from NEWSFLASH: MUST CREDIT EPHBLOG » EphBlog
August 8th, 2008 at 5:08 pm[...] yeah, David Kane was right all along. For previous discussion, see here and here. In other news, Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) still stalks Senate bathrooms, Senator David [...]
-
Pingback from Nothing to See Here, Folks, Move Along Now, Thanks, ‘Preciate It, Etc. » EphBlog
August 8th, 2008 at 5:11 pm[...] Always trust content from the National Enquirer. [...]
July 24th, 2008 at 9:48 am
You just cited the National Enquirer and Mickey Kaus agreeing with you as evidence of your journalistic integrity/accuracy. That’s like citing Cheney and Gonzales on a question of human rights. Have you no shame, David?
July 24th, 2008 at 10:05 am
If the National Enquirer reported that the sky was blue, would you assume that it is purple? They get their facts right, which is why they are rarely successfully sued for libel. They were the first to report on Monica’s blue dress.
But, via Kaus, there are plenty of others who take this story seriously: LA Times, Washington Post and others. More background here.
If you don’t think that there is a 95% chance that this story is true, then I worry about your grasp on reality.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Here’s what one of the other sources you just linked to has to say:
Washington Post:
It seems like that’s the attitude of every serious journalist or blogger - yes, there is a possibility this could be true, but we have no reason to believe it is. The National Enquirer has broken a couple of legitimate scandals, but they also print all sorts of nonsense - whatever sells papers.
To cite the National Enquirer and Mickey Kaus as evidence that you were “right” makes you look ridiculous, David.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:34 am
And the reason they are rarely sued successfully for libel is that they are a US paper. Successful libel lawsuits are rare in the US, period.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Where is the evidence they have a child together?
July 24th, 2008 at 11:14 am
The others you quote don’t take the story seriously - they are talking about the surrounding buzz.
It’s similar to the blog buzz about how Barack Obama had a fake birth certificate, and thus is ineligible for the Presidency.
12% of registered voters think Obama is Muslim (and 1% say Jewish), and the Enquirer says it caught Edwards. That doesn’t make ether true.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:21 am
I would say this is more than “buzz.” Time will tell. You think that Edwards was running around a Beverly Hills hotel late at night because he was fighting poverty?
July 24th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Ahem… Where is the evidence they have a child together?
July 24th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Well, if the standard of proof is a paternity test, then that isn’t available. But the following facts do not seem to be in dispute.
1) Rielle Hunter has a baby. She former worked on some movies for the Edwards campaign.
2) While pregant, Rielle Hunter lived in North Carolina in housing provided by Edwards’ backers. An long-time Edwards backer claimed to be the father of her child, although there are mixed reports on that.
If that was all there was, I wouldn’t have brought it up again. The Enquirer now claims that Rielle was staying with her baby in an LA Hotel and that Edwards visited her there. Assume for the moment that that is true. What odds would you give on Rielle and Edwards being (either currently or at one time) romantically involved? (Whether the child is his is another question.)
What other reason would he have for skulking around an LA Hotel at 2:00 AM?
(Again, there is some possibility that the Enquirer is just making this up, that Edwards was not at that hotel at 2:00 AM. I will take the other side of that bet.)
July 24th, 2008 at 11:49 am
The problem is that I won’t make that assumption until I have more than the word of the National Enquirer. It’s possible that they are telling truth, but I don’t think its worth all the speculation until a real journalist (of any political ideology) reports some facts.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Thanks David. I can see why there are questions, questions the Enquirer is good at asking:
Does John Edwards have a love child with Rielle Hunter? Enquiring minds want to know.
…We do love our tawdry scandalous gossip.
Whatever happened to McCain’s black love child and mental infirmity from his torturous stay at the Hanoi Hilton?
I bet McCain would not have invaded Iraq if he were president then and I bet he would not redeploy if he were president now.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
this may be the worst piece of garbage you’ve posted in a long while, david.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
David,
[Barf]
Let’s try to get back to things that really have something to do with Williams College. The tangential connection through Jay was never really enough to make this truly an Eph story. Or do you think that this is very centrally an Eph story because you see it as all about you and whether you were correct in your original posting on the subject? If the latter, I suppose it is, sort of, a Williams story now because you are a Williams graduate — but only “sort of” a Williams story (and, still, nothing makes your original story have much of an Eph connection other than its very weak connection through Jay, which always looked to me as merely an excuse for you to post a “story” about Edwards that has scant, if anything, to do with Jay).
If you posted today’s thead to try to create chatter, it was not necessary. There have been plenty of genuinely Eph-connected stories in the last week or so, covering quite a variety of subjects. [And, as an aside and on a more personal note, I put a lot of work in on that, trying to help make it "EphBlog" -- which is what you keep saying you, too, want it to be -- rather than "KaneBlog." I think that your posting today seriously undermined my efforts. I am rethinking whether this can be "EphBlog." I don't have any interest in participating in "KaneBlog." I continue to appreciate you for setting up the blog and for for putting a lot of work into it, but I'm close to saying I've had enough and deeply regret that you chose to use our alma mater as the purported central subject for what seems to be your -- not "our" -- blog.]
July 24th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Well, a real mainstream journalist I know says that the Enquirer claims to have photos, so we need to wait for their next print edition.
Thus, the general press is waiting and watching, to avoid getting snookered, but paying close attention if the story is true.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I second LGeorge, by the way. The Eph connection isn’t really there.
The October ‘07 post had merit. This one didn’t, especially since we don’t have the hard facts yet.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Geez…I go to the trouble of logging on at the airport for this?
Pure junk, David. Renew your subscription to the Enquirer so EB doesn’t have to fulfill those ‘interests’ for you.
Is it so important to be right that you lose so much else in the process?
July 24th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Why would anyone believe that the attitudes expressed here are politically predicated?
July 24th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Soph Mom, maybe dk posted his “trash” just to make sure you won’t miss “Eph”Blog/KaneBlog too much.
Have a good trip. I will miss you.
-mlg
July 24th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
(My turn, Larry)
Awww…
(Obviously, if I can’t get this far without checking EB, I will miss you guys as well.)
signing off and boarding,
SM
July 24th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
1) Well, whether or not Rielle Hunter’s Eph connection is strong enough to merit an EphBlog post is a matter of dispute. Will Slack thinks the Oct post “had merit.” I agree. And, once you accept that, I think that follow up posts, when new news arrives, have merit as well. Others disagree. And that’s fine too! As always, all are invited to join EphBlog as authors.
2) Close readers may have noted that I have posted much less in the last few weeks than normal. The main reason, obviously, is that others have posted much more. Huge thanks to Larry George for posting so many great links recently. We need more authors like Larry. But big thanks also to folks like Jeff, JG, Dick, Wick and others who have put up great posts. The more that others post, the less that I will need to.
3) To me, the Eph connection is more than close enough. Wives of Ephs are Ephs as well. And, although Hunter and McInerney were never married, they were romantically involved, close enough that McInerney wrote an entire book with a main character inspired by Hunter. The muses of Ephs are Ephs as well.
It would be one thing if I regularly made posts about president politics. I don’t. If there isn’t an Eph connection, I don’t write about it (almost ever).
4) The title of the post has a variety of references. Readers are invited to select the one that they like best.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Are you arguing the ex-girlfriend of an Eph alleged affair and love child with a married ex-candidate for President makes this story a shoe-in for Ephblog? Really??
Is it because you assume the Eph had sex with? What if they were platonic friends, good enough then? Bumped into each other at the grocery store once, in fresh produce? Never met but both knew Kevin Bacon?
July 24th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
dkane wrote:
“If the National Enquirer reported that the sky was blue, would you assume that it is purple? They get their facts right, which is why they are rarely successfully sued for libel. They were the first to report on Monica’s blue dress.”
The Enquirer has also published recent stories indicating that President Bush has resumed drinking heavily, and that Condi Rice is a lesbian. But in the absence of firm supporting evidence — which the Enquirer, to date, has failed to provide — these stories represent gossip and innuendo, and not news.
Admittedly, gossip and innuendo sometimes turn out to be true. But mainstream news outlets typically won’t pass it on, unless some sort of supporting evidence is there. Many (most?) Ephblog readers would like to see the same standard here.
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/63426
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2983771.ece
July 24th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I think you’re all out of your minds. The story speaks for itself. She booked into the hotel under a friend’s name. He was observed sneaking up the back steps and into her room. The Enquirer caught him coming out of the room at 2 a.m. and he hid in the bathroom for 15 minutes before security helped escort him out. I swear, if anyone writes, “Well, people have all sorts of reasons for ducking into bathrooms and staying there for 15 minutes” I’m going to go nuts. You can obviously dispute whether or not a love child is a legitimate journalistic pursuit, but by any standard, they’ve got this dead to rights.
And to Ronit’s point, the National Enquirer publishes material that is much more inflammatory, prurient or otherwise controversial than pretty much any other U.S. publication. They should be sued far more often than, say, the New York Times, and yet they’re not. That’s because they’ve got high standards for publication, and with something like this — where there’s a first-person eyewitness account — I honestly can’t think of any reason why I wouldn’t peg their credibility above the 95 percent mark.
And does anyone here not think Bush is drinking or that Condi is a lesbian? Do we need to have a show of hands on this one?
July 24th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Ben Fleming wrote:
“And does anyone here not think Bush is drinking or that Condi is a lesbian? Do we need to have a show of hands on this one?”
It wouldn’t surprise me in either case — but I’m not going to assume that the stories are true, based on undocumented allegations in a supermarket tabloid.
If Bush or Condi were Ephs, I wouldn’t run the stories on Ephblog, unless there was more substance to them.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
[quote]I think you’re all out of your minds. The story speaks for itself. [/quote]Which story? It’s true that Edwards’ recent behavior, as reported in the National Enquirer, seems documented and quite irregular. Granted, there may be a story here.
But Kane is using this fact to defend Ephblog’s discussion of an earlier Enquirer story, from 2007. The original Enquirer story had little or no supporting basis, other than the unsupported statements of an unnamed “close confidante”. In other words, gossip.
What kind of grade would you get at Williams if you turned in a research paper with supporting documentation like that?
July 24th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
ben,
i believe your post is a parody. i certainly hope so.
there actually are completely understandable explanations for what the enquirer reported:
1. The report is based solely on the word of the enquirer reporter. for some reason, to me, that’s unreliable (I wonder why…)
2. Edwards was in LA–maybe he stayed in the beverly hilton (sounds like where a politician would stay).
3. do i have to explain the logic of going through a side exit? that seems obvious to me.
4. the NE has been following edwards. at 2:40 am to see paparrazi/bs “reporters” in the stairwell of your hotel probably taking photos and asking unbelievably rude questions from a tabloid that has claimed you have a love child–what do you do? stand and chat? walk calmly away? hell no.
5. every claim is either an unnamed source (i.e. likely complete bs) or from a NE reporter (again, likely bs).
6. the argument “but they got lewinsky right!” is the exception that proves the rule as the drinking and lesbian stories show. also, the lesbian story is quite disturbing in terms of gender and race, but i don’t want to get into that now.
this is circumstantial bullshit. to claim it has merit in the press is absurd. to claim the link to williams is enough for an “ephblog” also seems absurd. we really care that an ex-girlfriend is linked by a tabloid to an ex-candidate? really? that’s ephness? no it isn’t.
a new low.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
trak,
what evidence does this new article have the old article didn’t? right now, it quotes NE reporters (not so reliable) and unnamed sources…sounds like a repeat of the older one.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
The NE story, of irregular goings-on at the hotel, appears to be based on plausible eyewitness testimony from two named (not anonymous) reporters. It’s not pretty, but the Miami Herald did basically the same thing to Gary Hart in 1988. If a mainstream daily can “stake out” politicians for evidence of sexual misconduct, why can’t a supermarket tabloid?
Granted, the results don’t prove all of the NE’s claims, but I’ll (reluctantly) concede that they provide substantive evidence that the man in question had a relationship with the woman in question that he wished to conceal. So it’s more than just gossip now.
But I don’t think that such evidence existed last year. Last year, it was just gossip. Ephblog shouldn’t gossip.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Rory,
1) As mentioned above, due to potential legal exposure, National Enquirer reporters tend to be extremely reliable when they’re reporting news. Otherwise, they’d be sued. On the spot. If they say they have a source who says “X”, they have that source. Now, the reliability of that source is always in question, as the Enquirer pays for scoops, and people have axes to grind, and so forth. But if National Enquirer reporters say they personally witnessed John Edwards doing such-and-such at such-and-such a time, the odds of them having saw it are close to 100 percent. You can climb up as high on your horse as you want. These are businesspeople, and they’re not in the business of being litigated out of existence.
Here’s Jack Shafer in Slate making a similar argument — http://www.slate.com/id/2102303/
2) The Beverly Hilton “sounds like a place a politician would stay?” What does that even mean? The Enquirer caught Edwards meeting with Hunter there. Are you claiming that them running into each other was a coincidence?
3) You actually will have to explain the logic of going through a side exit. Unless one is trying to hide something, or one is attempting to avoid a campaign crowd or a rope line or something like that, why would Edwards use a side exit late at night? Do you use side exits to enter hotels? Have you ever used a side exit?
4,5) Again, because someone covers something you don’t think merits covering doesn’t make them a “bs reporter.” And indeed, 99 percent of celebrities confronted by paparazzi in fact calmly walk away.
6) The Lewinsky thing is, in fact, representative of thousands of stories that the National Enquirer and other tabloids have gotten correct over the years. Rush and OxyContin. Jesse Jackson’s love child. O.J., and then the O.J. book deal. When they’re wrong, as they often are, as with Cameron Diaz or the Elizabeth Smart thing, they get taken to the cleaners. The point is, there’s a dozen major stories in each edition of the paper, and they get sued very, very rarely.
You can feel free to believe this is “circumstantial bullshit” all you want. I think otherwise. Yes, it’s “circumstantial” that one of Edwards’ best married best friends is claiming to be the father of the baby but apparently still happily married, but it’s also extremely suspicious. It’s “circumstantial” that Edwards showed up as the same hotel as Hunter in L.A. late at night … but what other possible reason would there be for him to be visiting her late at night? In other words, just how naive are you?
July 24th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Also, I could why the Condi story might be potentially problematic in terms of gender and sex, but not on race …
July 24th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
well, aside from the absurd idea that an ex-girlfriend of an eph = ephblog worthy, i’ll continue with you ben:
1. Yet, the NE has repeatedly been sued and lost for libel. Kate Hudson, for example, has won a suit against them. They also pay for sources which has gotten them in trouble (like with Elizabeth Smart as you note). So no, I don’t trust them to expose things. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
2. Why is it infeasible to believe that he was in there for some non-nefarious reason? Looking back, i was not clear. But he couldn’t have had a closed door meeting with a donor in the beverly hilton? he couldn’t have been trying to meet with this woman for a reason other than to see her without the child alone? There are jumps of logic that are staggering to the skeptic in me.
3. I’m John Edwards. I’ve been working all day as a public figure. I don’t want to deal with anyone else at 9 pm at night. I go through a side entrance to avoid dealing with others. Why isn’t that an equally feasible rationale?
4/5. I’ve mentioned that they pay sources. I’ll also add that it is rare for a reporter for a respectable paper to be quoted by that paper for the story. to quote two different ones? weird. further, the only evidence that he was meeting rielle and/or that it is his baby continues to be “unnamed sources”. that’s bs journalism in my book. or call it shoddy. or lazy. or “gotcha”. i don’t care.
4/5 part 2. 99% of celebrities are looking for publicity at one form or another. Politicians aren’t the same.
6. That John Edwards hasn’t sued is proof of nothing. Public figures generally try to keep such stupid asinine accusations as quiet as possible whether or not they are really. If the accusation actually hits the mainstream press, he’ll fight back. Until then, he’ll hope it dies. If he sues, it’s PROMISED that it will hit the mainstream media.
Your final point is the one that got me going. How naive am I? I don’t believe everything I read, especially when it comes from the National Enquirer AND ITS ONLY NAMED SOURCES ARE TWO NATIONAL ENQUIRER REPORTERS. I can’t stress enough how little faith i have in that type of reporting.
Again, the reporters have no evidence he met with her specifically except for an “unnamed source”. he was in the hilton. she, apparently, was staying in the hilton. did they meet? likely. was it for the reasons the article insinuates? who the hell knows?
Finally, the idea that Andrew Young’s marriage continuing makes it suspicious is laughable. Many married couples continue to stay together for at least a while after accusations and/or admissions of infidelity. Kobe’s wife stayed with him, Jim McGreevey’s wife stayed with him for almost a year before it turned ugly. I don’t think Spitzer’s wife has left yet, etc. another piece of circumstantial evidence.
BUT, more than any of this back and forth about another person’s sex life I return to the idea that there is no good reason for this to be on ephblog, true or not. Nor, really, did the oct. 7th one but at least it was about the eph himself, not about edwards and the ex-girlfriend.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
ben,
the powerful black lesbian is a common motif, unfortunately. that a black woman could be without a sexual partner is particularly incredulous to many because black women are stereotypically oversexual and oversexualized.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
DK:
I guess you can label things however you like, but I don’t think anyone else uses “Eph” that way. Ephdom isn’t transitive, and none of us care what the ex-girlfriends of random alums do in their spare time. If Rielle Hunter were actually an alum herself then this story might be notable, since there’d be a chance that some ephblog readers would know her personally and also a (very small) chance that the Williams name might come up in the media. But she’s not an Eph, no one will associate this story with Williams, and posting about it just makes you look petty.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
a simple test: name the street that runs through downtown Williamstown, the Williams mascot, and at least one current or former president of Williams. If you can’t get at least two out of three, you’re probably not an Eph. think Rielle would pass?
July 24th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
1) Again, believing what you read is a judgment call, and I can’t say you have to trust them. But all the same, the numbers clearly don’t agree with your broken clock metaphor. If the Enquirer were wrong as much as you seem to believe they are, again, they wouldn’t be in business.
2) No. This is silly. A 9:45 p.m. business meeting with a donor? Please.
You can be as skeptical as you want. If you’re John Edwards, and you’ve been falsely accused of fathering a love child with a former campaign worker, you have no reason, and indeed, literally zero incentive, to see this woman ever again. Why on Earth would you? To talk strategy for your campaign that’s no longer going on? To see how the baby that isn’t yours is doing? How massive are these leaps, again?
3) It’s not an equally feasible rationale because some of us weren’t born yesterday. There are 100 senators and 435 members of the House of Representatives. When they walk into a hotel at night, how many of them do you think use a side entrance? How about former U.S. senators and representatives? How about former Governors? The answer is none.
He wasn’t walking into a karaoke bar. He was walking (or not) into the lobby of the Beverly Hilton. It’s literally hard to imagine a more welcoming environment. This — http://www.beverlyhilton.com/default.asp — is too stressful for you?
4/5) Again, judgment calls.
6) John Edwards isn’t some guy off the street. John Edwards is one of the most successful plaintiff’s attorneys in recent memory. This is a guy who knows a tort when he sees one. This is a guy who, if you know anything about him, is the living incarnation of the litigious type. Especially were he falsely accused, and especially when the accusation — that you cheated on your cancer-riddled wife, who happened to be America’s new sweetheart — would be unbelievably personally damaging and extremely hurtful.
Now, strategically, if you were a Presidential candidate and you thought it were in your interest to keep the story off the radar, that’s one thing. But Edwards isn’t a candidate any more. Keeping it out of the big press doesn’t really matter any more. Or, at least, it matters far, far less than it did when he was in the primaries.
It’s not a question of keeping the story silent any more — everyone the Edwardses know and work with and care about has already heard and seen the thing. If it were false, there would be a lawsuit at this point, or soon thereafter. And, of course, there won’t be.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
John Cole nails the reason why only famed goat-blower Mickey Kaus, assorted nutjobs, and David Kane (redundant, I know) seem to care about this story right now:
July 24th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
‘10: Two of three? Or two of three “while drunk. “ROFL,” ‘as it is put online.’ That’s funny. Funny enough to make me ignore other questions of merit and post in this thread.
“Alleged” ex-girlfriend, I might add, simply as a point of evidence, given that the only and most evident relationship of this post to Williams is via specific formulations of questions of logic taught to David by Prof. L——, or via some other such cir-cum-loc-ution. Not to concede that we’ve defined “girlfriend” or “ex-” in this context. Did Jay and Reille use the term girlfriend or boyfriend in relation to each other? Do they currently and demonstrably consider the relationship, whatever sort of relationship it was or is, ended, definitively, or merely in a “different stage,” or somesuch? What if one does consider it “X,” but the other considers it “Y…”
Scant “evidence” indeed. And writers… artists… coke dealers… politicians… they’re such sensitive and complicated people.
For that matter: is David’s left sock blue or purple today, and does it match the right– and how do we tell? (I am firmly sure we care, of course). If someone who went to Professor L——’s Philosophy class in the St. John’s classroom twenty years ago, said they saw David take off a purple sock one morning and put it in the trash– took it ‘off from ‘is ‘eft ‘oot, as it were– would and could we believe them? Would an [Inuit] [E|e]skimo, who uses twenty-five words for different shades of ‘white’, report the same purple as you or I?
I thus sense the strong, if not quite direct and salubrious, influence of members of the Philosophy and Political Science Departments here. Er, former members. (I will not but mention the circumstances without the details, and that they establish the clear relevance of this post to Williams. Or: to D—-’s Williams). And of course mothers have been complaining about what philosophers and politicians do to, er, I mean, “the negative influence” {…}s “have on” young boys for millenia at least– so I don’t know what this topic has to do with Williams particularly, either.
“It seems to me,” ahem, that if Rielle’s child was fathered by Edwards, it would be a rather trivial thing to prove. And while it does not disprove the proposition, it is equally difficult to prove that there is not a chocolate cake currently orbiting one of the outer moons of Saturn– to use one of Prof. L——’s quips from that classroom– and maintain the clearly strong connection this thread of discussion has to Williams.
Or: more or less as Le Monde published in regards to a certain Mr. Hart: ‘I can’t figure out why anyone over there gives a damn,’ and if any of you are reading me at this point, I mock you for my waste of your time.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Ken, your reference to the Eskimo words for white borders on urban legend territory. I’ll refer you to Geoffrey Pullum:
http://users.utu.fi/freder/Pullum-Eskimo-VocabHoax.pdf
July 24th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
If the National Enquirer reported that the sky was blue, would you assume that it is purple?
I just might. Either way, this is an obvious logical fallacy, so I assume you offer this comment tongue in cheek.
They get their facts right, which is why they are rarely successfully sued for libel.
Ha! I like your sense of humor. All they need is to demonstrate the barest thread of good faith effort to not intentionally act in malice. Which they are smart enough to do, of course.
In any case, and in the same spirit, I invite you to review the notorious “Mickey Kaus has oral sex with goats scandal” from last year.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
ronit:
Is that a fact?
July 24th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Personally, I haven’t heard of many papers either losing in court or settling out of court as often as the National Enquirer…4 times since 1991 in the US and one apology in the UK. not the type of track record of a paper I would trust.
The idea that John Edwards as a semi-public figure wouldn’t want to become enmeshed in a lawsuit seems completely reasonable. Just because he was a successful lawyer doesn’t mean he loves litigation about his own love life. who wants to go to court and have to give a deposition about that if they can avoid it?
And, considering the National Enquirer is clearly tailing him with the desire to “expose” his “scandal”, I’m not remotely surprised he tried using a side exit. cmon.
basically, what you’re doing is giving the NE the benefit of the doubt. I’m giving John Edwards that benefit. I’m pretty confident I picked the right side in general.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
The fact remains that proving a defamation case in the US is extraordinarily difficult - it requires evidence of malice, dishonesty, and damages. The NE and any other paper can usually print nonsense and get away with it.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Dave Kane earlier this week argued that reading “a score” of books made him an “expert” (his words) on college admissions policy.
Perspective: In my fourth field for my PhD I easily read 150 books or my comprehensive exams, took several PhD level classes, and wrote 200 pages worth of papers, and no one on earth would consider me an expert on modern European history. When I travel to a new country for anything vaguely related to work I read a score or more of books, because I treat it like a comps field. Reading 20 books (or more! he’d respond) makes you a well-read dilletente, not an expert.
My point is that Dave has no idea what he does not know. His suppositions of authority here represent manifest douchebaggery. Nothing more. And, sadly for him, nothing less.
dcat
July 24th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
To be fair, college admissions policy is a much simpler subject than European history.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Derek,
1) Instead of arguing with me, why don’t you argue with Ben Fleming? (For those who don;t know, Ben is a journaluist.) He has clearly explained why he would put “their [the National Enquirer's] credibility above the 95 percent mark.” It is one thing if I am the only EphBlog author who believes X. I might just be nuts! But if another one does, then you have a problem.
2) I guess it depends on what you mean by “expert.” Most people I know would agree that, if you have past the subfield exam in field X, you are an expert in field X. But definitions differ so I am happy to be more precise.
Assume that there are 300 million people in America. Just about every reader of EphBlog knows more about elite college admissions than at least 1/2 of them. Most of our readers probably know more about this topic than 99% of US citizens. Does being in the top 1% make you an “expert?” Maybe. But I am not in the top 1% (3 million) or even the top 0.01% (30,000). I know more about elite college admissions than 99.9999% of the rest of the population (top 300).
Now, if your definition of “expert” is the top 2 or top 10 or top 50, then I am not an expert. Yet I expect that most people use the term more liberally than that.
To Ronit and Rory and others: What, in your estimate, is the probability that John Edwards was romantically involved (at least in the past) with Rielle Hunter? I, like Ben Fleming, put this at 95%+. You don’t need to spend the time to defend your estimate (unless you want to). I am just honestly curious about your belief.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:23 am
David,
that’s a terrible definition of expert. expertise is defined not by relative knowledge compared to the common man, but rather by relative knowledge of the field one claims to be an “expert in”. How are you in the top 300? There are far more people who have spent years doing admissions work in selective schools than 300 alone. Try again.
as for the story, I judge it based on the reliability of the evidence. That evidence is unnamed sources (unreliable, especially in the NE) and the claims of two enquirer reporters that Edwards was seen at 2:40 am in the hotel and that he was shocked to see the reporters at 2:40 am in a stairwell.
in short, the evidence is practically non-existent in regards to the bigger claims: he was having an affair AND he has a love child. see how that works?
Honestly, I don’t care about John Edwards’ personal life. I CERTAINLY DON’T CARE ABOUT IT ON EPHBLOG.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:24 am
What I mean by expert is, well, expert. before I went to China, where i was part of a program on China’s security issues, I read about 20 books. I would guess that not 100,00 Americans of 300,000,000 million have read 20 books on China. I am not a China expert.
I have probbaly read many of the same books on college admissions that you have. But I have also actually helped to develop admissions policy at an American university. The idea that you think that you might be one of the top 300 experts on admissions policy in the United States — I sure as hell am not, nor am I in the top 3000, or 30,000 — is laughable.
I’m glad that Ben Fleming is a journalist. Journalists tend to have no actual area of expertise. But in the last few months my op-ed pieces on Zimbabwe have appeared in major South African newspapers and in the past three years my op eds on both American politics and African politics have appeared in a score of newspapers. I’m talking with the Cape Argus about another op-ed on South African affairs. I am writing another op-ed on American politics that I expect will be published soon. So Ben Fleming might be a superstar (or in your words an “expert,”) but I’m not bowing down before you or even him on issues of journalism. And I sure as hell am not bowing down before a ournalist on issues of “expertise” given that most journalists have a content background so narrow that one could not balance an apple on it.
Oh — today I was asked to submit a piece on Zimbabwe by the main expat newspaper on Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwean, which is based in England. My point, Dave, is that I could care fuckall about your parsing of (or what “most people” you know would think about) expertise.
Expertise might be vaguely defined. Claiming to have read twenty books ain’t it under even the most generous definition.
I actually do not care about the alleged Edwards affair. If it happened, it just shows to me that a blind squirrel gets an acorn every so often.
dcat
July 25th, 2008 at 12:33 am
I agree that my definition of expert is not ideal. Feel free to propose another. My problem is that I don’t always understand what definitions Derek is using.
What percentage of the people doing admissions at elite schools know much of anything about the history of elite admissions, say from having read something like The Chosen? My guess would be less than 10%. (Corrections welcome.) Even if someone works in an admissions office, I would not call them an expert unless they knew this history.
Perhaps a better definition of expert is: If there were a graduate general exam in topic X and you could pass it, then you are an expert in X. This might not be a great definition. Suggest a different one if you like.
If there were such an exam, I could pass it. Don’t believe me? Come up with a question that you think belongs on such an exam and I will answer it.
July 25th, 2008 at 1:02 am
LMAO–david, in one fell swoop, you completely contradicted yourself. You are an expert because you’ve read certain books and that entitles you to claiming to be an expert more than a practitioner (so you claim), yet Ben is worth debating more than you because he is “a journalist” (in sports, btw) and not because of his scholarly pursuits of journalism (which, btw, he is pursuing. but that doesn’t stop me from questioning him or you). do you see the contradiction right there?
sometimes you’re too much for me.
July 25th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Oh Dave. Your shallow intellect reveals itself every time you get a little angry. I have no idea why my definitions matter since you are the one making the assertions about your expertise. There is no absolute definition of what “expertise means” and so your definitional red herring is yet another example of just how unserious a person you are.
Once again: In my own areas I am loathe to use the word “expert” about myself. I’ve read hundreds of boosk in my areas, have written literally hundreds of thousands of words, get published in both scholarly and nonschlarly publications (newspapers, eg. for the latter). And yet you’ve read a score (!) of books and claim to be an expert. I have used concrete examples of where I have read a score or more of books to show where I have developed knowledge (China, eg.) but would never be so audacious as to claim to be an expert (on shit that matters a lot more than elite college admissions, by the way) for the purpose of revealing your fatuous little claims to be what they are.
Oh — and just to be clear, no graduate general exam that I know of would involve 20 or 30 books. (My main PhD fields had well more than 1000 books. My second field had 200 or so. Etc. Etc. People who have real PhDs in real disciplines are not so blithe about purporting expertise where they do not have it.) And I know of no academic discipline that is “elite college admissions.” So you’ve tried to narrow your way into expertise while at the same time trying to diminish those who actually do the work in a nonscholarly field in which the work is everything, the reading of books very little. Well played.
And again, it may not be elite admissions, but I have actually worked on college admissions in my capacity as a faculty member and a member of my faculty senate. I have actual experience. You’ve read books, many of which I’ve read — and on issues you claim to hold dear, such as affirmative action, I have read more and better stuff. Much more.
So, in sum, lord your expertise over your little interns. Here, among people smarter than you, your almost two dozen whole books read which somehow equals expertise (again: !) is, as Bill Belichick might say, what it is. What it is ain’t much. That you think it is would be a source of amusement were it not so worthy of scorn.
dcat
July 25th, 2008 at 4:05 am
Either (1) Edwards is always an absolute scumbag or (2) Edwards is never a scumbag in the least or (3) Edwards is a scumbag at times to some extent. Why should anyone care? If somehow someone does, then he should note that I believe that #3 is most probable. That information should settle the matter once and for all.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Wait, did David Kane really just claim to be one of “the 300″ foremost authorities on elite college admissions in the country? Awesome. Just when I think it is not possible, the man tops himself.
This is madness … THIS … IS … EPHBLOG!!!! (cue to visual of Kane kicking a high schooler with suspect essay writing skills off of Mt. Greylock).
July 25th, 2008 at 8:11 am
By the way, since I have read most of Kane’s musings on higher education admissions, plus was head tour guide at Williams, plus took a class in law school on Higher Education and the law during which I imagine I read many of the same books as David, I guess that makes ME one of, if not the 300 foremost experts, at least one of the 305 or so. Sweet. Prior to today, I thought the only topics I was among the 300 most educated about were The Big Lebowski (actually, I probably can’t even claim that) and the Williams basketball team (now there, I feel more confident).
July 25th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Bow down before me, son of Jor-El!
July 25th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Look, time will tell what the Enquirer has here. They claim to have had seven reporters and multiple photographers at the hotel on a stakeout. It’s possible they have photos or video from the evening in question and are saving it for the print edition. Their follow-up today adds that the guy who drove Hunter to the hotel and rented two rooms in his name also dropped Edwards off at the side entrance. Same guy. If that doesn’t suggest a meeting, I’m not sure what would.
And forget the quotes if you’d like. It boils down to this — if the Enquirer reporters saw what they’re claming to have, then there’s a story there. And other than willfully myopic prejudice, there’s no reasonable case to be made that they didn’t see it. The potential exposure is simply too great.
Everyone is free to care about Edwards’ private life or not. Generally, I’m uninterested in what a public figure does outside of his or her official capacity. The conduct Edwards is accused of more than crosses the threshold of interest for me, but again, that’s a judgment call, and people could reasonably conclude that his actions, if true, wouldn’t reflect poorly upon his fitness for AG or some other high-level administration position.
(And no, I’m still not sure what any of this has to do with EphBlog …)
July 25th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Ben –
The ironic thing is that on the specific issue at hand, you are right — the Enquirer tends to have far more credibiity than most people realize and than almost any periodical of its ilk, which is to say the celebrity chasing, sensationalist pott stirring tabloids. The story may well be true. But to dredge up a barely applicable to Ephblog story from nine months ago merely to say “I told you so, neener neener neener” is just so perfectly Kanesque, and it was just the topper of a series of posts of late (The expert issue, of course, and the smug little “indeed” he ended a post on politics with the other day, and the assertion that human rights does not crack his list of issues that he cares about, an especially galling assertion given the demonstrable puffery of what usually causes him to blurt all over Ephblog, etc.)
Plus he has this tendency to hide behind others once he is getting his ass handed to him in an argument. In fact, A Kane invocation of another Ephblog writer or commenter is an almost sure sign that things are going badly for him in a debate. And as always he does it so smugly, whether hiding behind you or hiding behind Rory (to slam me) or whatever that in order to get to Dave, that poor person he has tried to invoke has to take collateral damage.
dcat
July 25th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
& his behavior has a cost.
I have largely stopped posting because of it. I’m only one, but I did notice someone else of my vintage explaining recently that he had virtually stopped posting some time ago after he realized it was more “KaneBlog” than “EphBlog.” We are only two, but maybe not the only ones: Larry seems on the verge of feeling driven away as well.
I think about what may happen to potential applicants and their parents, potential faculty members, and guidance counselors when they stumble upon this blog, and I worry. I’m glad to see Derek, Rory, Soph Mom, Ronit, Jeff, and others step in, helped by Frank’s and Dick’s humor.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Shut up, Ephblog.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Filed under “Shut up, Ephblog”
July 25th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
One needs either to be foolishly naive or to have a very thick skin or to be both in order to be a blogger for long. Me? I’m clearly the naive type.
July 25th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
On a meta-philosophical note, this is a conversation that applies to every blog, on how a limited scope of purpose applies to interesting/gravitating stories that are on the far edge of being in that scope.
Also, to respond way up; David, the Oct ‘07 post referenced a HuffPost story that mentioned the Eph - that’s the connection.
This post was no “news update,” because the Eph had nothing to do with the story. Instead, it was you claiming validation for your prior post.
If my best friend was Zac Efron, or my ex was Vanessa Hudgens, I would still not want to see posts on him/her on this blog, because they don’t have anything to do with Ephs or me. (For those who don’t know any pre-teens - the stars of Disney’s newest $$$ factory, High School Musical)
The HuffPost article did have a clear Eph connection. This blog doesn’t need stories on the Yankees either.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I’ll say.
July 25th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
The Yankees have a lesson for us all - more clutter to Trash than worth it, but dkane might learn from the Senators rather than those Damn Yankees and try for some belief in heart rather than bile.
You’ve gotta have heart
All you really need is heart
When the odds are sayin’ you’ll never win
That’s when the grin should start
You’ve gotta have hope
Mustn’t sit around and mope
Nothin’s half as bad as it may appear
Wait’ll next year and hope
When your luck is battin’ zero
Get your chin up off the floor
Mister you can be a hero
You can open any door, there’s nothin’ to it but to do it
You’ve gotta have heart
Miles ‘n miles n’ miles of heart
Oh, it’s fine to be a genius of course
But keep that old horse
Before the cart
First you’ve gotta have heart
FYI, this was also the song for the year 1955 in Provincetown, MA with ‘what ever Lola wants…’ a very close second.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I must say that I’m a little shocked at Ronit’s credulousness. I suppose you’ve never heard of Gary Hart.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Let us trash the trash. Garbage in, garbage out.
Trailer trash has always had a high regard for gossip, rumor, innuendo and downright in your face blatant truth. The common man enjoys the consumption of one’s fellow man’s indiscretions. Gentlemen like a good argument on a set of ideas. Only the rake revels in the crude circumstances one finds in other’;s misfortunes.
We are imperfect, but to dwell on the physical features of our neighbors in order to sustain our insecurities and neuroses does not help us transcend the errors of our ways. It only inures us in avoiding our path to positive and meaningful change.
This trial lawyers indiscretions are his own business and not worth our time, save the manner in which he deals with them.. They can only comment on his character.
Even if it were manifestly graven, the only supportive testimony this can usher is to the man’s accountability for his actions to that person.
It is not for us to judge him nor scorn him nor run him in the ground. We should respect him for his privacy and assume the accounting of his actions would betray his future responsibility in any office he would hold with distinction.
Trash should be discarded and not poured over in order to feel better about oneself.
I do not find the company of trash worth the investiture of time and energy.
July 27th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
(In)credulous as you may find it, I find myself the bearer of such important news that I feel compelled to (b)log on from afar in order to share it.
I have it on very good authority, that John Edwards, and Gary Hart, are in fact, one and the same…as are Rielle Hunter and Donna Rice. And that indeed, this is no small, and common affair, but a deep and abiding love match that has withstood the test of time and major ‘ups and downs’ (and by that I mean…ahem…the stresses of numerous plastic surgeries).
The real question at this point, is whether or not the love child (in question) was fathered by Gary/John because if, in fact, there is any possibility that the child was fathered by Jay, then the (much more) important question will have been answered, once and for all…which is, whether or not, this particular discussion, (also in question), is (now, and forever) worthy subject matter for EphBlog.
I suggest, however, that this thread alone indicates that it could, and should, be deemed worthy…if purely for the marvelous opportunity it provides for each and every Eph, to exercise, and demonstrate, their abilities to prove, or disprove, otherwise.
☺
July 28th, 2008 at 1:30 am
SM:
pushTrashQueue (&$thisNode, “… by that analogy, it would be very interesting to check passenger manifests, looking for a match between NE personnel and Reille…”);
July 28th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Ken,
Interesting idea…but wouldn’t that be taking it out of the realm of EB?…and be considered superfluous per the criteria?
Unless of course we could establish a link between Williams and NE…and then, me oh my. Now that would be hitting the motherlode! EB would have subject matter for an eon…an ongoing, nasty, contentious thread that would stretch into infinity!
Now I see where you’re going with this. I will work on my sources and get back to you.