A Trifecta of Stupid Dishonesty From Ken Ashford
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Hey, to celebrate this day, let’s carve up a liberal turkey and give thanks to him for providing us someone to laugh at. Ken Ashford writes at the little blog known as the Seventh Sense and I have clashed with him before for his dishonesty. But I had ignored the blog for a few months and apparently when the cat was away the mouse played.
First up we have a post attacking me called: Pig (And Stupid Lawyer) of the Day. In the post he alleges that I said here that if Hermain Cain approached an employee with a sexual quid pro quo (i.e. “sleep with me or you’re fired/won’t get that promotion”) that it was not sexual harassment. Then he spends the remainder of the post citing things like the EEOC to prove that in fact saying “sleep with me or your fired” is indeed classic sexual harassment.
There’s only one problem. I never said it wasn’t sexual harassment. In fact, I said the opposite. And for extra hilarity, Mr. Ashford actually quoted the passage where I said that such behavior was sexual harassment but failed to understand that I had said it. Here’s the passage he quoted, just as Kenny-boy quoted it:
Or did [Cain] do the full quid pro quo (“something for something”) and say, “sleep with me or you are fired/won’t get that promotion, etc.?” Now I want to be careful to say that we are not nearly there, yet, but if that is what it was, then it’s not just “sexual harassment.” Seriously what do you call it when you give something of value in exchange for sex? In most states, that’s prostitution.
And then he goes on in self-righteous fashion, thinking that he as Ahab finally has the opportunity to kill his white whale, writing:
No, Aaron. An employer saying to an employee[] “sleep with me or else you are fired/won’t get that promotion” is the textbook definition[*] of sexual harassment. It is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Go back to law school (or alternatively, get a job and read the company employee manual).
And all because apparently he doesn’t know what the word “just” means in this context. Read that passage again. I said it was not just sexual harassment. If you go to Webster’s Dictionary and look it up as the adverb, definition 3 a will inform you that the term “just” can mean “only, simply <just last year> <just be yourself>.” So in context I was saying nothing more than that such conduct is not merely sexual harassment but also solicitation of prostitution as well. I was saying it was both.
Pro-tip, Kenny boy. Before you accuse someone of being stupid, double check and make sure you aren’t the one being stupid. Or else that person might make you look stupid.
(Sidebar: I also wonder how any of that makes me a supposed pig. Was he under the impression that when I raised the possibility that this was solicitation of prostitution, that this made Cain’s behavior okay? Is he under the impression that I approve of prostitution? No, in fact the point of my analysis was to impress on conservatives that if that was the behavior he was ultimately accused of (and he was eventually accused of that sort of thing with at least one woman), that we should not try to excuse the conduct.
(But then again, maybe in Kenny boy’s mind if it is “only” solicitation of prostitution, then it is okay–but only if it is not also sexual harassment.)
The second example comes from another post I wrote on sexual harassment. I wrote out a long piece stating that the law of sexual harassment was in need of reform. And Mr. Ashford decided to sum it up. This is the entirety of his post on it:
Shorter Aaron Worthing
The depraved idiot tries to make a deep point, but just spittles on his face:
The First Amendment doesn’t prevent people from making sexual threats in the workplace, and it shouldn’t.
That is in reference to this post, and first, that isn’t a quote and he’s not representing it to be one. In internet parlance a “shorter” is a (usually sarcastic) summary of what someone else said. But here’s the thing. He is placing words in my mouth that are in fact the opposite of what I did say.
Now the problem here is that the term “sexual threats” is a little vague. Is he referring to threats to harm a person in a sexual manner—i.e. “I am going to rape you”? Or does he mean something more like “sleep with me or you’re fired?” (And you know that is called quid pro quo sexual harassment.) I am honestly unsure, but in either case, his characterization is actually the direct opposite of what I did say. Here’s the key passage:
So I think sexual harassment law is in dire need of reform. Quid pro quo harassment can be left in place because it is conduct that is actually criminal in most states (as I keep saying, it’s solicitation of prostitution if unsuccessful, prostitution if successful). In terms of hostile environment I think the courts should draw a bright line: only conduct, and not mere words, can be harassment. Now I mean that as lawyers understand[s] the term “conduct.” When two people form a contract, that is not considered speech, but conduct. The same is true of threats. So if you touch a person or threaten them, that is harassment that can be prohibited under the law. But not merely expressing an unpopular opinion. That is not to say I am okay with other crude comments, but we cannot ban everything that offends us—especially when that thing is merely words.
So if he meant sexual threats to mean “quid pro quo harassment” you can see right at the beginning of the passage where I say that this doctrine should be left in place. And while I don’t single out threats to commit sexual assault specifically, I point out that threats in general can be banned consistent with the First Amendment and endorse that approach. Indeed, the Supreme Court has affirmed this in the Virginia cross burning case. So his “shorter” is in fact a flat out lie actually contradicted by the text of the post he is pretending to sum up.
The last in our trifecta of turkey posts is where he deliberately takes a line in this post grossly out of context:
And the founders clearly always contemplated corporations and similar business organizations having an outsized say in the political process.
So then he goes on to write an entire post on the theory that I was saying that corporations would control the government or something, when in fact the very next line made it perfectly clear what I meant:
After all, as I just pointed out, exercising freedom of the press costs money, and very often that freedom has been exercised by corporations, such as the publishers of the New York Times and [Scott Turow’s] books.
Put into context the first line is downright pedestrian. First as I explained in the post the exercise of freedom of the press costs money. You have to purchase paper, ink, plates and the press itself, as well as paying for the labor involved. Indeed, many newspapers also employed people to distribute their products as well. And of course from the beginning of this Republic—indeed even when were under colonial rule—the “press” included newspapers run by corporations. So it amounts to nothing more than the fact that the founders protected an expressive right that they knew would have the result of giving newspaper and book publishing corporations more opportunity to express themselves on political matters, in the context of a larger post discussing application of freedom of expression to corporations.
Now the extra funny thing is that Mr. Ashford was apparently borrowing significantly from the text of one of the comments, and well, if you follow the thread you can see where many of that commenter’s statements were proven so clearly false that the commenter ran from the fight. For instance, the commenter and Mr. Ashford writes:
And most importantly, corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making [at the time of the founding]. In fact, it was a criminal offense in most states.
Now, that plainly wasn’t true at all. Newspapers have always endorsed candidates, for instance. Indeed many of the early newspapers were explicitly organs for one party or candidate or another. So in fact corporations were not forbidden from “influencing” law making. Further when challenged about the claim about corporations being prohibited from making political or charitable contributions, the commenter cited a book that only spoke about Wisconsin’s law and stated that “most” states had similar laws.** Since Wisconsin didn’t become a state until considerably after the revolution was done and over (in 1848 in fact), his source emphatically did not state that this was how it was for the founders. Is there any chance that Mr. Ashford knows anything that this commenter doesn’t?
So there you have it: three hatchet jobs from a liberal turkey.
——————————————
* By the way, “sleep with me or you’re fired/won’t get that promotion” is not “the textbook definition of sexual harassment.” (Emphasis added.) It is in fact a textbook example of sexual harassment. With his choice of language Mr. Ashford has incorrectly implied that nothing but quid pro quo sexual harassment can be sexual harassment.
** And that is pretending that the book, Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became “People” and How You Can Fight Back, by Thom Hartmann had any credibility whatsoever. His description of the facts of the case in Citizens United was so one sided, with plain hostility to their claim that McCain-Feingold could not constitutionally apply to their film and its promotion that it undermines any credibility he had. What happened in that immediate case was indefensible. This wasn’t Exxon seeking to have a say in the political process. Citizens United is a media company. It is in the free speech business as much as Paramount Studios, apparently pumping out political documentaries on a constant basis. If you think Michael Moore and Disney should have been allowed to make and promote Fahrenheit 9-11 near the election in 2004, then you have to think Citizens United should have been free to make and promote Hillary: The Movie. That is why in all my years talking about the decision, I have not encountered a liberal who argued that Citizens United should have been prohibited from making and promoting this movie. They would instead argue that Citizens United should have won, but on some grounds more narrow than the one chosen by the Supreme Court and leaving McCain-Feingold in place for companies like Exxon. Or they would ignore the specific facts of that specific case entirely, because it made the law look so bad.
Or I should say I have not encountered a single defender, until now. Here’s what Hartmann writes about Citizens’ United:
In 2009 the right-wing advocacy group Citizens United argued before the Supreme Court that they had the First Amendment right to “free speech” and to influence elections through the production and distribution of a slasher “documentary” designed to destroy Hillary Clinton’s ability to win the Democratic nomination. (Some political observers assert that they did this in part because they believed that a Black man whose first name sounded like “Osama” and whose middle name was Hussein could never, ever, possibly win against a Republican, no matter how poor a candidate they put up.)
The whole thing screams “hatchet job” and a disturbing hostility toward even the anemic understanding of freedom of the expression that Justice Stevens presented in dissent. And as for the last line, I have no doubt that some observer said it, but the author should not be indulging in that kind of unfounded accusation—unless he notes that that it in fact lacks foundation. This assertion is ludicrous because in January, 2008 (when the movie was released), it was far from obvious that if Hillary fell that Barack Obama would be the nominee. For instance, prior to the Reille Hunter scandal, John Edwards was considered a strong contender for the nomination. A more reasonable theory that fits those facts is that the creators of the documentary thought that Hillary Clinton was the strongest candidate of all of the options, not just the one that frankly everyone at that point considered a long shot.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
how embarrassing for this Mr. Ashford person. Besides, by now there’s pretty much a consensus that the sexual harassment sluts what attacked Mr. Cain were not believable I think.
Also they were all so unattractive it was a real stretch to believe anyone would go to such lengths as were alleged.
But I wish all sexual harassment sluts everywhere a HAPPY THANKSGIVING nevertheless.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/24/2011 @ 9:52 amHard to make Kenny look stupid, ’cause he accomplishes that pretty much all by himself.
Bill M (883e2f) — 11/24/2011 @ 9:59 amSHOCKA!!!
Did he accuse you of selling out to Fox?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/24/2011 @ 10:01 amKen is like the Maytag repairman, he is so lonely, that in his comment section, that he has to go all
narciso (ef1619) — 11/24/2011 @ 10:10 am‘Tyler Durden’ and pick a fight. The subsequent effort was really Vizzini like, where he misinterprets the Boston Tea Party as about the
East India Tea Company. and not British tax policy.
But, but Thom Hartmann is a noted lay constitutional scholar and progressive hero. His weekly radio audience numbers in the
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/24/2011 @ 10:11 ammillionsthousands.Yes happyfeet Ken Ashford was sexually harrassed by Herman Cain.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/24/2011 @ 10:12 amFrankly, this is pretty typical of the left wing. Being juvenile, they have a shallow comprehension of matters that they disagree with, and a fawning sense of uncritical acceptance of ideas that they feel confirm their world view.
pat (0833d4) — 11/24/2011 @ 10:14 amhttp://ken_ashford.typepad.com/blog/2011/11/more-lies-at-patterico.html
narciso (ef1619) — 11/24/2011 @ 10:16 amWhat lies?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/24/2011 @ 10:22 am‘Irony it’s what’s for dinner’
http://www.usasurvival.org/ck10.02.11.html
Consider where he’s broadcasting from, ‘they shoot
narciso (ef1619) — 11/24/2011 @ 10:26 amjournalist don’t they’ over there
your “I have clashed with him before for his dishonesty” link no worky
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/24/2011 @ 10:37 amIt’s like Austin Powers with Dr. Evil, pikachu, every single time.
narciso (ef1619) — 11/24/2011 @ 10:41 amThere is little more hilarious than someone convinced that they are smarter than you, but only succeed in showing that they are blithering idiots.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/24/2011 @ 10:59 amhappy
that link was to a patterico site search for the word “ashford.”
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 11/24/2011 @ 11:02 amspqr
some of it is plainly stupidity, but some of it is just plain dishonesty. and some are both–that is not just lies, but stupid lies.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 11/24/2011 @ 11:15 amHe really does bring a degree of that Northern gentility and Southern efficiency
narciso (ef1619) — 11/24/2011 @ 11:17 amoh I get it…sorry I just opened it in a new window and then went back a few minutes later and got confuzzled
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/24/2011 @ 11:23 amI’m still wondering where all the women who said “OK” to Herman Cain are.
Powerful guy runs multiple corporations with thousands of job opportunities for attractive women if only they’d… well…
If this was Cain’s pattern, there has to be some multitudes of women who are not under any confidentiality restrictions who can describe some graphic sexual encounters with Cain.
He’s supposed to be a rock star motivation speaker and I’d guess that like any other of them, some small portion women in the audience would have found any way to meet him.
The alleged incident with woman Dennis Miller calls “Spifler’s mom” seems to show that; if true, that the bar to meeting Cain was set low.
So were is the blow by blow as it were?
SteveG (e27d71) — 11/24/2011 @ 11:35 am😆 🙄
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/24/2011 @ 11:41 amhappy
oh good, it does work for you? glad to hear. i didn’t want to have to fix it by some method…
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 11/24/2011 @ 11:51 amyes yes my bad entirely
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/24/2011 @ 12:05 pmThis is painfully disngenuous or stupid;
http://thehill.com/campaign-archive/195281-dem-strategist-romney-invoking-rev-wright-in-new-ad
narciso (ef1619) — 11/24/2011 @ 12:47 pmno it is about racism. The racism in Obambi’s church that he sat passively through for 20 years.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 11/24/2011 @ 12:51 pmYes, my reaction is “huh?” Assuming for the sake of argument that the frame was indeed intended to bring Obama’s Wright connection to mind, in what way is that unfair?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 11/24/2011 @ 1:07 pmDevine must be buddies with kmart.
JD (305889) — 11/24/2011 @ 1:14 pmStupidity,dishonesty and arrogance
Such a triumvirate.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/24/2011 @ 1:16 pmThose who like to call themselves “progressive” are incapable of comprehending how stupid they are. Their whole mental life is about promoting their own self-regard. Kenny-boy was engaging in a behavior typical of small-minded people: Propping themselves up by putting others down. Whether the put-down is objectively sensible is irrelevant, to them. That is why they can be so obviously stupid.
Yrral Dleifsarb (62bad0) — 11/24/2011 @ 1:29 pmI’m tempted to go Mogatu; ‘Am I the only one not on crazy pills’
narciso (ef1619) — 11/24/2011 @ 1:33 pmLeftys like Ken Ashford are arseholes.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/24/2011 @ 1:37 pmNot sure it’s so much his being dishonest as his being illiterate.
Mitch (a61168) — 11/24/2011 @ 2:11 pmI despise the stupid “Shorter” cliche.
I’ve never seen it used in a way that was fair or accurate.
It functions entirely as a support for straw men.
Pious Agnostic (6048a8) — 11/24/2011 @ 4:43 pmI swear these people lie so much.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/24/2011 @ 7:45 pmhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063954/Asda-tell-chef-You-buy-lime–classed-weapon.html
narciso (ef1619) — 11/24/2011 @ 8:23 pmNarciso, if you read the article to the end, you see that it was a lame joke on the part of one staff member, who has undoubtedly been disciplined. The real reason the customer couldn’t scan two limes was a software glitch. And if you look down to the comment by “keep it real….!, Cheshire. UK”, from 21/11/2011 18:22, you will see that the problem only affects purchases of exactly two fruit; three or more will go through without a problem.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 11/24/2011 @ 9:09 pmRegarding the first complaint about your post, it is obvious that Ken Ashford was asleep in high school English class.
slp (f743eb) — 11/25/2011 @ 1:31 amHow dare Newt Gingrich tell people to get a job.
I love how Wall Street is blamed for people not getting jobs but not the lefturds who bail them out and enable them to get their sweet bonusess
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/25/2011 @ 4:37 amI love how the left repeat the lie that Cain is a perv.
Especially since they defend Sandusky and Clinton.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/25/2011 @ 4:42 amDoh
i have not seen any libs defending sandusky, but i would love to know if they were. got any links?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/25/2011 @ 6:07 amI apologize my claims are inaccurate.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/25/2011 @ 6:11 amHe’s a regular Lionel Hutz, this guy;
http://ken_ashford.typepad.com/blog/2011/08/fox-news-makes-stuff-up-part-294.html
narciso (ef1619) — 11/25/2011 @ 6:12 amWait didn’t the NYT out sandusky’s victims?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/25/2011 @ 6:12 amdoh
yeah, i did hear something about that. I was going to look into it later and see what is going on there.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/25/2011 @ 6:14 amIs he really that much different, apparently the law doesn’t matter to either of them;
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/11/justice-stevens-writes-of-his-of.html
narciso (ef1619) — 11/25/2011 @ 6:25 amnarc
the funny thing is that anyone who watches the debates on campaign financing will recognize immediately that its just partisan BS and that they can’t be trusted to make neutral rules. Which means this entire experiment of allowing politicians to rewrite the rules by which they are chosen is a bad idea from the start, another reason to support the outcome in citizens united.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/25/2011 @ 6:35 amI’d be willing to bet that sexual harassment is A-OK if a Democrat does it. Does he have an opinion on Clinton’s blatant sexual harassment of his interns** that differs from that of, say, NOW, or any other Leftard?
I believe this IS the “textbook definition” of a hypocrite.
OK, perhaps not “textbook”, but still a common interpretation of the word.
I also recommend they carefully vet their comments for spelling and grammar errors. There are few things that look more retarded than typing “Your stupid!”
😀
===============
Smock Puppet, Victim of Bad Advertising (2fb1c2) — 11/25/2011 @ 3:51 pm** I’ll prevent someone from showing how stupid they are, by pointing out that this does not refer to Monica, but to all those other WH Interns who did NOT seek a set of Presidential Kneepads and did NOT get a cushy Pentagon job, a contract with Weight Watchers, a sweet book deal, and so forth… But if you were going there before you read this… you know who you are, even if we never will.
So this K-person has a blog that no one goes to, and you send him more traffic, Aaron?
He clearly has a fixation on you, and since my understanding is (sorry if I have this incorrect) that he is gay, is his following after you kinda…sorta…like sexual harassment?
Just a nutty stalkerboi trying to forge a bromance with you.
And I will bet he is thrilled, thrilled, thrilled that several people went and looked at his site.
Simon Jester (d9c258) — 11/25/2011 @ 7:53 pmThis isn’t kmart’s blog, is it, it shows the same rough level of incomprehension, although somewhat
narciso (ef1619) — 11/25/2011 @ 8:09 pmmore legal literacy
Where is Kman’s blog? Had thought he was asked to link to it a couple of times but didn’t do it.
no one you know (3e92e3) — 11/25/2011 @ 8:33 pmWhy don’t leftys like this guy call out Fred Phelps’s anti-islam rhetoric?
Angeleno (ef98f0) — 11/25/2011 @ 10:12 pmOh god sockpuppet.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 11/25/2011 @ 10:20 pmNice job, Aaron. The loser should be giving thanks for the additional traffic you sent his way. He must be starved for attention, the poor schmuck.
ColonelHaiku (1dad58) — 11/26/2011 @ 5:22 pmAaron Worthing:
In the post he alleges that I said here that if Hermain Cain approached an employee with a sexual quid pro quo (i.e. “sleep with me or you’re fired/won’t get that promotion”) that it was not sexual harassment.
Here’s the passage he quoted, just as Kenny-boy quoted it:
Or did [Cain] do the full quid pro quo (“something for something”) and say, “sleep with me or you are fired/won’t get that promotion, etc.?” Now I want to be careful to say that we are not nearly there, yet, but if that is what it was, then it’s not just “sexual harassment.” Seriously what do you call it when you give something of value in exchange for sex? In most states, that’s prostitution.
I made the same mistake (but thought the key point was that she was not an employee)
The sentence doesn’t have enough preceding it, and can sound like it is a bit ungrammatical.
Ken Ashford read the sentence as if it read, and as if you meant to say:
but if that is what it was, then it’s just not “sexual harassment.
Quite naturally, Ken Ashford assumed that prostitution is less serious than sexual harassment (which could be a form of attempted rape – because if it suceeded, it would be extorting sex, and that means really involuntary)
If you switch the positions of the words just and not , the sentence has quite a different, and intrinsically more logical, meaning!!
Give him a B- in reading comprehension. Or maybe it could be a plain B. I’m sure as much as 60% of the people would catch your real meaning.
Ashford thought you meant:
Or did [Cain] say…“sleep with me or you are fired/won’t get that promotion, etc.?”…[i]f that is what it was, then it’s just not “sexual harassment.”
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/27/2011 @ 9:17 am* I’m NOT sure as much as 60% would catch your real meaning. I mean at least 1/3 of the people would get your meaning wrong. Now if they read further, they might assume that can’t be what you mean to say – you are not arguing that a quid pro quo (if agreed to) is merely prostitution, (but to be sexual harassment it needs to be repeated, let’s say)
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/27/2011 @ 9:22 amBut if that were Clinton that dumb fark would have defended him.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/27/2011 @ 9:30 amIn the second example, Ken Ashford was probably thinking of the sentence:
In terms of hostile environment I think the courts should draw a bright line: only conduct, and not mere words, can be harassment.
Only conduct not words. He missed the first clause,
In terms of hostile environment
That’s because he probably didn’t realize that there are two different kinds of sexual harassment CLAIMS that can be made: 1) quid pro quo, and 2) hostile environment,
Now it is very natural for most people when they encounter something in a sentence that they don’t understand, to treat it was much as possible as a nullity – as if it weren’t there. He also missed the facts that “threats” while composed of words, are really a form of “conduct”
So he read the whole thing as if it said:
So I think sexual harassment law is in dire need of reform. Quid pro quo harassment can be left in place because it is conduct that is actually criminal in most states (as I keep saying, it’s solicitation of prostitution if unsuccessful, prostitution if successful).
We interrupt this analysis to say here you actually seem to be saying he is right in the other matter. Because you say it is merely solicitation of prostitution. Actually it’s worse: it’s attempted extortion of sex. That’s probably criminal, too. The difference between extortion and let’s say bribery is whether or not the person from whom something is asked for would normally expect to get, or not get, the money or job and if it is uncertain we should assume get and it’s extortion.
In terms of whether or not the quid pro quo offer can be considered hostile and a threat, I think the courts should draw a bright line: only conduct, and not mere words, can be harassment. If you touch a person or threaten them, that is harassment that can be prohibited under the law. But not merely making unpopular, crude comments, We cannot ban everything that offends us — especially when that thing is merely words.
Now that may not be what you wrote, but that’s what he read.
Maybe I should make that a B- after all.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/27/2011 @ 9:42 amNewspapers have always endorsed candidates, for instance. Indeed many of the early newspapers were explicitly organs for one party or candidate or another. So in fact corporations were not forbidden from “influencing” law making.
But they weren’t corporations!
Corporations, which were very few, had very strict rules on what they could do. Corporations have the feature of limited liability and, usually, immortality.
Ashford is right, but he’s wrong. It’;s also wrong that anone had dispropristionate inluence.
Look, George Will said it best: there is an artificial shortage of money for political speech.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/27/2011 @ 10:30 am