Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 3/1/2002 5:41:52 PM EST
Michael Bellesiles has received a Coogler award for his journalism. This is not a bad thing, because a Coogler is given to literary LOSERS. Here's the excerpt: " And so it is that this year in recognition of this promising trend in our intellectual life the J. Gordon Coogler Award for 2001 goes to the most gifted of the New Charlatans, Professor Michael Bellesiles, author of "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture." The book won the Bancroft Award last April, the most prestigious award in American history, despite its fabricated sources, misstated historical events, implausible thesis and its author's inability to defend its integrity. For more than a year ever more of the book's deceptions have been exposed, yet the Bancroft still glitters on Mr. Bellesiles' chest. He stands by his story as adamantly as Alger Hiss once stood by his. And Mr. Bellesiles' thesis really is implausible. Mr. Bellesiles claims that up through the mid-19th century guns were relatively rare in America. Apparently the early American held off angry Indians and secured dinner for his frontier family by resorting to wholesome fisticuffs, perhaps heaving a few stones at the passing fauna and coaxing a nearby war party to calm down. And Mr. Bellesiles defends his position by citing documents that no other scholars can find. The book is a nonsense and a fraud. It wins the Coogler for the year 2001. Let the carpers complain that the book was actually published in the year 2000. To us modernists on the Coogler Committee it all depends on the meaning of the word year. Besides, "Arming America" came out in paperback in 2001. " The link to the whole article: [url] http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20020301-37473356.htm [/url] Ain't it sweet! CJ
Link Posted: 3/1/2002 5:48:02 PM EST
I remember watching him on the "News Hour" and thinking to myself "You lying sack of Scheisse!"
Link Posted: 3/1/2002 6:01:50 PM EST
Link Posted: 3/1/2002 6:11:57 PM EST
raf, Are you kidding? This guy's academic career is far from over. In fact, today's academy values "feeling" over objective and rational thought - so he'll be tenured yesterday. He's on the right side... the ends justify the means. All academics KNOW/FEEL that guns are bad, so any scholar who helps them to remove firearms from society - no matter what lies are envoked - is their hero.
Link Posted: 3/1/2002 6:48:55 PM EST
It's not whether you're right or wrong, but how you feel about yourself at the end of the day that's important.
Link Posted: 3/1/2002 6:56:28 PM EST
Link Posted: 3/1/2002 9:27:16 PM EST
How about this? Michael A. Bellesiles: Anti-Gun-Nut Of The Century -- Part 27 by Larry Pratt Adding insult to injury, Emory History Professor Michael A. Bellesiles, author of the totally discredited book Arming America: The Origins of A National Gun Culture (Knopf, 2000), has been given a $30,000 National Endowment For The Humanities (N.E.H.) grant by the Newberry Library in Chicago. That's right. His scholarship demolished, his reputation shot full of holes, Bellesiles now has his snout thrust deeply into the public trough. And guess what he's doing with this $30,000 worth of your hard-earned Federal tax dollars and mine? He's working on another book about guns! This one is titled American Gun Laws: The Regulation Of Firearm Use, 1607-2000. But, you may be thinking, as I have been: "How in the world could such an award be given to this individual? Who could possibly justify this expenditure of Federal tax dollars to this person?" Well, it's none of our business, really. Or so we were told when we investigated the awarding of this N.E.H. grant. In an interview, Jim Grossman, Vice President for Research and Education at the Newberry Library, explains that Bellesiles was given his $30,000 grant by a Review Committee and an Awards Committee. Might we, please, have the names of those on these committees to ask them why they decided to give this person such a grant? No, says Grossman. Might we then, please, see a copy of Bellesiles application for this grant? No, says Grossman, all this information is "confidential." But, how can this information be kept "confidential" since Bellesiles is being given $30,000 worth of what is called public money? Well, says Grossman, when the Federal Government (that's us) gives them money, "it becomes Newberry funds." Still, why keep all this requested information secret? Grossman says: "Well, if I'm Joe Smith, and I didn't get a fellowship, and I'm upset about it, I might call a member of the Review Committee to complain." He assures us, however, that the N.E.H., by giving the Newberry Library this money (our money), has trusted them (the Library) to award it in a way "that is fair, honest and rigorous." But, of course, if the names of those who awarded Bellesiles his Federal grant are kept secret, we can't contact and question them, can we? And, if we can't contact and question those who are giving out our Federal tax dollars, we don't know if they, in fact, did award this grant in a way that was "fair, honest and rigorous," do we? No, we do not.
Link Posted: 3/1/2002 9:27:50 PM EST
(continued) But, seriously, Grossman is asked: "Why give one of your grants to Bellesiles, whose scholarship and reputation is under a huge black cloud when, presumably, there were many applicants whose work is not in question?" Grossman: "Our Review Committee, which consists of scholars who are able to assess the work of other scholars, felt comfortable with the quality of his existing work. And most of the judgment is also made on the quality of the proposal itself for the next project." Is Grossman kidding? This Committee was "comfortable" with the "quality" of Bellesiles' existing work?! How can this possibly be true when Bellesiles' existing work -- specifically on Arming America -- is, to put it mildly, of an extremely poor quality! All of which raises an interesting question. Before Bellesiles was given his $30,000 grant, did he, in any way, have to respond to any of the devastating criticisms of his book Arming America? Incredibly, Grossman says: "That's not part of our process.... There's no interview in the fellowship process." Well, excuse me, but any group who has given Michael A. Bellesiles any kind of monetary grant without, first, demanding that he prove that what he wrote in Arming America is true, has not awarded this grant in a way that is "fair, honest and rigorous." No way! The Newberry Library should immediately cancel Bellesiles' little excursion on the Federal Gravy Train. And if this isn't done by the Library, the N.E.H. should do it -- now!
Link Posted: 3/1/2002 11:01:51 PM EST
Link Posted: 3/2/2002 11:51:02 AM EST
I don't care if his anti friends are embarrassed and don't want to eat lunch with him. What I care about is public acknowledgement of his fraud. There are a lot of copies of his book with Bancroft Prize stickers on people's desks. Even if he repudiates the "research" the anti's will cheerfully quote him and follow it up with a reference to his Bancroft Prize. If anyone doesn't believe me, ask yourself this: How many times have you heard the statistic that a gun in the house is "43" times as likely to kill someone in the house as an intruder. Even though the NEJM study's author later revised his figures to something like 2.5 times (an order of magnitude less), we still get the 43 times number thrown in our faces. Anyone else remember Janet Malcolm's Pulitzer Prize? At least the Pulitzer committee had the grace to strip her prize when they learned she had fabricated a lot of her article. She at least stiched together actual events from several people to make a composite. Bellesiles fabricated his whole story. This guy should be thrown out of his university, stripped of his Bancroft Prize, cut off from public grants (including the return of the Newbury grant) and forced to recant. Isn't there an Office of Scientific Integrety that will take after people who falsify studies using Federal money? May be its only for the hard sciences. Maybe they could nail his hide to the wall.
Link Posted: 3/2/2002 12:26:47 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/2/2002 12:32:18 PM EST by 5subslr5]
Originally Posted By raf: Looks like I flat-assed wrong on this one. Lesson: never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
View Quote
raf, stay with your original thought - quietly, subtly and overtime his 'fellows' will nail his ass. Not that they give a rats about us (gun owners)nor the Second Amendment but because he cheated. And was caught. Edited to add: I watched this dirt-bag on Hardball a couple of months ago. He was damn near pro-gun !! I would not be at all surprised to see his new book reflect the FAILURE of gun laws. (No, I'm not Polly Phuckin Anna dreaming an impossible dream.)
Link Posted: 3/2/2002 12:37:59 PM EST
There's plenty of precedent for this award crap. Ezra Pound broadcast propaganda for the Italians during WWII, was put in a cage in Italy where he wrote the "Pisan Cantons" and received the Bolingen Prize AWARDED BY THE US CONGRESS for literature even though he was a war criminal. Even the congressional idiots had enough. They got out of the literary awards business. (Only two people who read the "Cantos" are known to have survived the experience - Audie Murphy and Arnold Schwartz !)
Top Top