(The following post is rather personal. This blog occasionally strays from politics on the weekends.)
The ascent of the Obama cult caused a lot of friendships to rupture, and those wounds will never heal. The wounds bled afresh
over on Bradblog, where I ventured to discuss the Sibel Edmonds deposition.
Annoyingly, one of the voices praising Sibel to the hilt belonged to RAW Story editor Larisa Alexandrovna. (See also the lead piece on Larisa's blog, here
.) I say "annoyingly," because -- as I shall document below -- Larisa once sang a rather different tune.
Am I telling stories out of school? Perhaps, but the matter goes to the credibility of a reporter who commands some respect on the left. Every time you see that woman's byline, remember that Larisa is a lying hypocrite with a memory that goes into rewrite when doing so conveniences her.
For example, she now claims that she was never an Obama cultist during the primaries, even though she makes the claim against the evidence of her own blog's archives. Granted, the worst Hillary-hate stuff was written by a co-author -- but Larisa would not deign to publish the other side of the story, or even to hint that there might be another side.
Larisa has posted some crap about me which demands refutation, point-by-point.
1). You and I don't talk. The two times that we did, it was because you needed work and I was trying to help you - silly me (lesson learned).
Actually, she and I spoke quite a few times, and she called me fairly often. I never asked her for help. I never would have accepted any help from her. I'm insulted by the suggestion that I would ever ask someone outside the family for aid. I have never sought to write for recompense -- a decision made out of pride or quirkiness, take your pick.
(Okay, there have been a few exceptions. I used to write ad copy. I've written scripts, as has everyone else in southern California, including convenience store clerks and guys from the gas company. But professional journalism always struck me as a depressing occupation. Hell -- these days, it's a racket
. Maybe not always, but far too often.)
Larisa is the one who came to me
for help. She was being stalked by a character she considered dangerous, and she wanted me to have copies of the emails, "just in case." I offered to confront the fellow directly. I'm a sucker for a damsel in distress, and Larisa plays that card expertly.
2). We did discuss Ms. Edmonds, but not in the manner you claim. I never said she was unreliable. Everything I said to you, I have said to Siebel herself during a period when we were having some issues, which we resolved.
An absolute fucking lie. I've rarely encountered a fib so brazen.
I remember that phone conversation well. It occurred shortly after I published this piece
on January 7, 2008-- the very next day, if I recall correctly.
I was the one saying that I thought Edmonds was believable, an attitude which made Larisa volcanically angry. For a long, long time --- at least half an hour --- she argued that Sibel Edmonds had no credibility and was, in all likelihood, a fantasist.
Larisa also went off on Luke Ryland. According to Larisa, Sibel Edmonds had Ryland in some sort of thrall. Frankly, I was astonished at how vituperative Larisa was.
Her words had an impact on me, and the evidence is right there on my blog. Ever since that conversation, I've been reluctant to discuss Edmonds. I ignored or answered perfunctorily any communication from Luke Ryland. Also, I seem to recall mentioning to Brad Friedman that Larisa Alexandrovna had assessed Sibel Edmonds to be a fabulist.
Perhaps that assessment was projection...?
Don't invoke my name or claims about me for your own issues.
The invocation of names is what a priest does. Not my bag. I'm simply reporting what I was told.
Don't address me again. You know what I think of you. I really don't care what you think of me. So let's not engage each other at all. If you still feel you need to obsess over me as you have done with your insane rants, feel free to do so. But don't address me again. Hope I have made myself clear.
I'll address anyone I care to, at least rhetorically, and for any reason that seems good to me. And of course you will do likewise, Larisa, if and when you please. That is as it should be.
Larisa, you seem to be under the impression that you can make rules for other people. To be frank, that domineering aspect of your personality always rankled me. At one time, you would regularly write to me and "order" me to run a piece on this or that subject, with nary a "please" or a "thank you" in sight.
Well, fuck that
shit. I don't take commands unless there's a check involved, and sometimes not even then
As for obsession -- until yesterday, when have I mentioned you since breaking off all communication with you? When have I talked about you privately?
You were the one who pathetically kept writing to me, trying to be friends, even after I decided to cast all the Kool-Aid addicts out of my life. And don't claim otherwise: As you know, email has a way of sticking around.
(It'll be very cute to hear Larisa say "No such email exists -- and how dare he threaten to reveal a private communication?")
By the way, the afore-linked BradBlog thread has a note from Brad's associate "Agent 99," who is still pissed off at me because I won't let her lecture me on "the laws of physics." Oh ho.
You know what that
means. The CDers never give up, no matter how thoroughly they have been discredited.
(If ever I want a lecture on the laws of physics, I happen to know people who have studied, you know, physics.)
Brad, Larisa -- if you are comfortable romping through the playgrounds of Alex Jonesian wackiness, then by all means, go scamper off with your tranny pals. Have fun.
As for me: I'm where I want to be, and I'm happy with my audience these days. (Well, more or less; a few die-hard Lovers of the Lightbringer still send me hate mail.) In the old days, I grimaced and fumed nearly every time I looked at the reader commentary. Things have definitely improved: The CD nuts have been chased off, most of the Obots have gone elsewhere. I'm proud to have predicted that an Obama presidency would turn out to be just the sort of disappointment that it now so manifestly has become. Indeed, the last year's worth of Cannonfire fills me with a pride that rarely accompanied my previous writings.
Although I still haven't been able to top my April 1, 2006 entry...