Too Good to Check, Too Funny Not to Digg

Michael C. Moynihan | August 20, 2007

A reader points to this quote from the lefty Center for Research on Globalization, currently the number two story on Digg (1600 user recommendations) and quickly making its way through the blogosphere. According to the "think tank," run by University of Ottawa economics professor Michel Chossudovsky, the following entry, dated May 17, 1986, can be found in the newly-released Reagan Diaries:

'A moment I've been dreading.  George brought his ne're-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job.  Not the political one who lives in Florida.  The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless.  This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job.  Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing editor or something.  That looks like easy work.'

Hilarious, if true. Unfortunately, it ain't.

Here is the actual entry, as summarized by Doug Brinkley: "had lunch with members of the Honor Guard; radiocast; Rex returned in good condition."

Fascinating.

From the June 2007 issue, Daniel McCarthy reviews John Patrick Diggins' revisionist take on President Raygun.

Comments

Anonymo the Anonymous|8.20.07 @ 8:29PM|#

I know I've read that before but Googling a few phrases isn't picking it up immediately. Is that from a New Republic parody or maybe a Maureen Dowd column?

|8.20.07 @ 8:34PM|#

Only in America. Only in America could a guy like that find work.

M|8.20.07 @ 8:41PM|#

Si non e verro, e ben trovato.

|8.20.07 @ 8:42PM|#

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/did_reagan_call_gw_bush_a_neer_do_well/
or http://tinyurl.com/3y5qmt
1,600 digs! The InterNUT strikes again.

SIV|8.20.07 @ 8:54PM|#

What do you expect from an economics professor?

|8.20.07 @ 10:06PM|#

I would imagine that having him for an economics professor would be like having Dan Quayle judging your spelling bee.

|8.20.07 @ 10:24PM|#

Anyone notice that leftists reliably have to fabricate stories, quotes, take things out of context, omit incoonenient truths, forge memos (or steal them as the situation demands) and spin wild conspiracy theories in order to make their worldview fit reality? Why do you think that is?

nebby|8.20.07 @ 11:08PM|#

The "only in America could a guy like that find work" quote is about my good friend. The joke was the guy he was talking about worked for W.

And that is the rest of the story.

|8.20.07 @ 11:59PM|#

Anyone notice that leftists reliably have to [do a bunch of unethical shit] in order to make their worldview fit reality?

No. Or rather, I have seen that behavior, but I haven't noticed that it's peculiar to leftists.

Why do you think that is?

It depends on what one means by "that."

If "that" means "doing unethical shit," well, they probably consider it a pious fraud (i.e., "it's okay to lie, because it's for the greater good").

If "that" means "noticing this behavior in leftists, but not rightists," then I believe the applicable term is "confirmation bias."

dr_dog|8.21.07 @ 12:09AM|#

Wasn't Prof. Chossudovsky somehow involved in the 9/11 "truth" movement as well?

Fritz|8.21.07 @ 12:29AM|#

What I wonder is, why would you think you have to spin facts, make up stories and blindly accept unconfirmed information to vindicate your observations about George W. Bush? Is it otherwise too far-fetched to assert that the man's got no skills?

James Quentin Clark|8.21.07 @ 1:07AM|#

"the man's got no skills"

That is the best general critique of George Bush I've read in a while. Until now, I've just been calling him a "wanksta."

:)

|8.21.07 @ 3:13AM|#

Six in one hand, and a half a dozen in the other...
frankly-

Alice|8.21.07 @ 6:09AM|#

Oh, I was literally dying for it to be true. Oh well.

M|8.21.07 @ 6:14AM|#

If "that" means "noticing this behavior in leftists, but not rightists,"

All your bias are belong to us!

|8.21.07 @ 6:57AM|#

As a publication of a "think tank", I'd be careful about putting "think tank" in quotes whenever someone posts a false story, especially publications that employ the likes of this guy.

Just saying.

Literally Dying|8.21.07 @ 8:01AM|#

Oooooooooh! ARRRRhhhhhhhgg! OOHH!

Anybody got a joint?

dhex|8.21.07 @ 9:18AM|#

"That is the best general critique of George Bush I've read in a while. Until now, I've just been calling him a "wanksta.""

wanksta is pretty beautiful though.

|8.21.07 @ 9:23AM|#

Alice,
Well then maybe if you had literally died, it would be true. I figuratively wish people who abuse the word literally would burst into flame.

|8.21.07 @ 10:18AM|#

Anyone who fell for this is really stupid. First, any remarks about Bush this scathing would have been front-page headlines in every newspaper. And even if one could believe the anti-Bush remarks as authentic, the gratuitous insult towards the New Republic seals the deal.

|8.21.07 @ 11:12AM|#

Ha ha ha, "think tank."

Next up: the latest CEI report on Global Warming as a Stalinist plot.

|8.21.07 @ 11:23AM|#

s.m. koppelman

Wins

the

day...

Moo Sharpton|8.21.07 @ 12:12PM|#

Kinsley actually wrote the piece.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/kinsley.asp

|8.21.07 @ 1:17PM|#

Geez. As usual, Joe misunderstands...or pretends to.

Scare quotes were used because "globalresearch.ca" identifies itself as a think tank yet does no original research (at least that I could find). I disagree with almost everything from IPS, for example, yet they are a legit think tank.

|8.21.07 @ 1:27PM|#

I don't get it. Did Chussodovsky update the post? It now says that the quote is untrue and originally written by Kinsley.

|8.21.07 @ 3:56PM|#

Moo: Ah, so it was self-deprecating. That makes sense. I originally (and erroneously) assumed it was a jab at TNR for its pro-war stance in 2003, but in that case it probably would have mentioned Marty Peretz by name rather than Kinsley.