You really have to marvel at the Worldnutdaily’s faux-journalism business model. They have one of their own reporters write a book accusing Obama of trying to destroy the economy on purpose, then they write up a “story” with the headline:
Obama now accused of destroying U.S. economy … on purpose!
And the whole “story” is really just an advertisement for the book they’re making a profit on.
A new book released today documents how President Obama and progressive Democrats are deliberately overloading the U.S. financial system, using socialist designs to remake the economy.
“Red Army: The Radical Network that must be defeated to save America” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott unearths the radical origins of Obama’s major economic legislation and policies, including the 2009 “stimulus” and health-care law.
The book, with nearly 1,500 endnotes, documents how these radicals aim to remake the American financial system with massive government control.
Wow, it’s got endnotes? Then it must be true! Every president tries to ruin the economy, you know, because it’s so good for their chances of being reelected.
15 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Deen
October 28, 2011 at 10:08 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I thought that was what the Tea Party was doing? Make sure that the economy doesn’t recover, just to make sure Obama won’t accidentally get credit for it and gets re-elected?
Ben P
October 28, 2011 at 10:08 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Does anyone actually read “endnotes?”
In my opinion they are singularly the worst citation device one can possibly use. Their only possible purpose is to make checking the citation as difficult as humanly possible. If you’re going to tout your “evidence” you at least need to use footnotes.
But then again, “1500 endnotes” sounds impressive so long as people don’t actually check what they cite to.
anandine
October 28, 2011 at 10:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Makes you believe in projection, doesn’t it.
Erik
October 28, 2011 at 10:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ben P: I read the endnotes in a lot of science books I read, but they are irritating since you have to keep one finger bookmarked at the endnotes while reading.
I can’t imagine the typical audience member for this book being able to read past the title, much less locate an endnote.
Jeremy Shaffer
October 28, 2011 at 10:17 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And I’m sure WND knows their readers won’t. Actually, WND is probably pretty sure that their readers aren’t even readers and will likely just buy the book and repeat the dust jacket description.
Who Knows?
October 28, 2011 at 10:28 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
How much you want to bet the endnotes link to WND articles?
MikeMa
October 28, 2011 at 10:40 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I check out the ‘Nut’ almost every day for a laugh. Just another Obama is evil message. At least 2 or 3 are up all the time. My most favorite thing on there currently is Herman Cain as a banner contributor on a weekly basis. GOP frontrunner (in some polls anyway) shares a banner honors with the likes of Chuck Norris, Pam Gellar, Pat Buchanan, Pat Boone, Larry Klayman and Victoria Jackson. And he wants to be president? Of what exactly? His local idiot’s club?
dochopper
October 28, 2011 at 10:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I like the guy in an shabby suit broadcasting from his living room front of a bed sheet back drop giving his version of the days events.
tfkreference
October 28, 2011 at 11:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Endnotes are fine when they’re only citations. They’re annoying when some are citations and others are additional information about the topic. In contrast, the best use I’ve seen is in the 30th anniversary edition of The Selfish Gene, where Dawkins updates the science supporting his arguments (even admitting when he was wrong).
As for the topic of this post, thanks for the latest WND liberal conspiracy story. They’re entertaining, and I’d rather read them here than at the WND where the commenters not only believe it, but add supporting details (and I use that word loosely). Too frustrating–I’d rather read a discussion of citation conventions in academic genres.
jamessweet
October 28, 2011 at 11:23 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yes, I was going to make this point: This idea seems prima facie absurd to us, but to Tea Partiers, the idea of deliberately wrecking the economy for short term political gain may not seem so implausible to them. After all, they were making noise about doing exactly that back in August…
jamessweet
October 28, 2011 at 11:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re: Endnotes. Footnotes are obviously preferable, but endnotes are better than nothing. And while the average reader is not going to check citations in footnotes, let alone endnotes, there will always be some readers who will, and that makes it easier for them to detect any bullshit. It’s better than nothing.
raven
October 28, 2011 at 11:38 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The idea of the Tea Party/GOP wrecking the economy isn’t hard to accept at all. They are.
1. Bush managed to do a huge amount of damage to the US economy in 8 years. The Federal Reserve is projecting recovery in 2018. That isn’t a lost decade, it is a lost generation.
2. The Tea Party has blocked anything Obama wants to do to fix the economy, solely on the basis that Obama wants to fix the economy.
3. The next Tea Party president will wreck the US economy again. It’s obvious they simply don’t care about anyone or anything except themselves and the wealth of their corporate backers.
Add another decade to the recovery. Recovery in 2028. Might as well be “never”.
Michael Heath
October 28, 2011 at 12:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Rush Limbaugh started claiming that Barack Obama was purposefully and successfully destroying the economy several months prior to his being elected president. Consider the idiocy and hatred of his fan base to slavishly reward such a person, directed merely towards Barack Obama but their own country.
Aquaria
October 28, 2011 at 1:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Red Army: The Radical Network that must be defeated to save America” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott unearths the radical origins of Obama’s major economic legislation and policies, including the 2009 “stimulus” and health-care law.
The radical origins? The “radical” origins are Republicans ca 1987.
Aquaria
October 28, 2011 at 2:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Rush Limbaugh started claiming that Barack Obama was purposefully and successfully destroying the economy several months prior to his being elected president. Consider the idiocy and hatred of his fan base to slavishly reward such a person, directed merely towards Barack Obama but their own country.
Just like conservatards blamed Clinton for the fire fight at Ruby Ridge, which happened before he was even President. I guess the his election victory vibes went back in time to get the FBI to start the shooting.