For those of you already sick of the Annette Bosworth hype (guilty by Friday noon), feel free to skip this article.
For those of you interested in a brief study of why certain people still defend Bosworth, read on.
Occasionally I get outbursts from a John Norton, a California-based Sarah Palin fanatic who has frequently posted tweets and memes boosting Annette Bosworth. Every now and then I make the mistake of attempting to engage Norton in fact-based conversation. Invariably, Norton shouts troll and drone:
…engages in outright slander:
…and dissolves into an almost autoerotic frenzy of nonsense:
But then Norton offers a response that truly illustrates his limbic motivations:
Look closely at those illustrations. John Norton has posted them more than once while Tweeting about Annette Bosworth. Clearly he associates those images with Annette Bosworth. In classic sexist objectification, Norton choose images that but off the idealized woman’s face and focus on her body and, notably in the second illustration, the woman’s breasts. A sword crosses the woman’s breast in each illustration, an unsubtle phallic insertion.
When Norton tweets about Annette Bosworth, he isn’t really tweeting about Annette Bosworth. He’s tweeting about the juvenile, sexualized images on which he superimposes her face. He’s playing Xander to her Buffy, Gabrielle to her Xena. He and other Yay-Boz tweeters are living out their fantasies online… and it’s really rather icky.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Meninist&defid=7962331
Norton is part of the sexually oppressed tea party that has not been laid in…forever. They are like the rest of those kinds of folks in the Mid East. Keep him away from anything that goes boom and a CDL license so he cannot visit the virgins he seeks.
I really think you’re giving the man too much credit. He could just as well be seeing his images as glorifying the female warrior whom he feels is a worthy representation of Bosworth, Palin, et al.
In either case, based upon his tweets he is cleary nothing but a troll who probably takes pride in lashing out at others in which he disagrees with politically. I’m not about to look, but I’m guessing if you check his twitter history you’ll find he does this to many others as well.
You should block him immediately. That type of troll has zero chance of contributing anything worthwhile to the discussion and is merely a distraction. He clutters up your twitter feed and has no redeeming qualities that make him worthy of your time. Period.
I’m not quite sure what you are saying here, Mr. H. I’m starting to think that you agree with me that he should be tweeting actual pictures of young Dr. Bos herself and not these cartoon warrior women. Where does one find tweeted pictures?
What a lame story. If anyone is sick of this story, it should be you guys. Left wing slander is all hear. Blah blah.
For a “lame story”, it sure is getting a lot of statewide attention.
When republicans break the laws that they have written why does become slander?
I think slander is when news or media sources publish stories over and over again about people who are going through hard times, Sometimes it ruins those people’s lives. I just think it’s pretty low.
Annette texted me today that KELO was streaming the trial. I am on the road so I couldn’t check it out. There may be some video at KELO’s site.
Annette texted you, Bob? Jeepers, how do you rate?
Mr. Newland, you are undoubtedly the only male individual blogging here that Dr. Bos is texting at.
Make sure you are double checking the restroom cleanliness and the hand sinks behind the lunch counter, Bob!
Miles, please identify the portion you consider slander. I’m making an evidence-based statement about how some conservative blather online is realize limbic salivating. Do you disagree? Do see any real cerebral content in John Norton’s online statements about Annette Bosworth, any attempt at rational discourse?
miles, I have never heard that definition of slander before.
Bob, I’m envious that Bosworth texted you and not me. Rats!
I would like to call young Dr. Bos tomorrow to offer her my wishes on her day.
Grudznick, when I find out who you are, I shall spit on you. And I shall find out who you are, you POS.
I consider the repetitiveness of your coverage of Dr. Bosworth both slanderous and pathetic. While based on facts, the blogs I see on this site are littered with satire and mockery. That amounts to biased coverage in my book. The shear volume of coverage that this website (and madvilletimes) has devoted to smearing one person is despicable. Haven’t you ever heard of real crime? I know it all too well. This is politically driven, hence the political blog coverage. There has been countless crimes committed since the campaign but you don’t have running headlines for any of those cases.
Maybe you have a secret crush on dr. b
Miles,
Could you use your same standards with Bernie Madoff with all the repetitiveness of national media coverage? Perhaps he was simply misunderstood. He donated to charities too.
Well that’s a poor comparison. Bernie Madoff was charged and convicted of the largest financial fraud in U.S. history.
Miles, I tend to agree with you that DFP’s coverage of Bosworth has been over the top. I think there is something going on here that has not been disclosed to DFP’s readers.
What? He didn’t kill anyone. Seriously the law is the law and what is at stake is the integrity of our elections which is one of the most precious rights we have. There are a number of countries and citizens in the world who don’t have that right.
If she never took the process of getting petitions signed seriously which really isn’t that complicated than how they heck could she of run for any public office?
Bosworth’s election fraud is only a small part of the republican party’s ongoing corruption of our state’s political system.
For Bosworth defenders I ask this question, why do we have election laws a criminal punishment? Should those laws be ignored or should republicans just get rid of them all.
I salute and thank Cory for his persistence on the Bosworth election fraud, the raffle scams, the questionable political fund raising and his willingness to stand up for the people of this state.
With the republicans domination of state politics and their inability to elect qualified people to office, Bosworth may well be in the senate today.
Nobody has slandered Bosworth, she has been doing an excellent job of that herself, she doesn’t need Cory’s help.
In a few days we will know Bosworth’s fate and Cory will have the time to expose more of the republican corruption that keeps us ranked in the top ten in the nation.
The legislature was of no help, when called up to fix our election laws they came up with a way (SB69) to make it harder for Independents and Libertarians to seek office. That must be South Dakota progress.
Bob, I’m not calling for a conspiracy theory. I just think it’s poor journalism. The bias on this website is rank and I’m not even that far right! Bottom line for me is that media is a powerful and wonderful tool- although it can be misused. Like I said before, real lives are at stake and for the individuals involved, these charges are more than just a topic of conversation. Facts are facts but this site does much more than publish facts. It inserts satirical humor as a way to persuade readers.
That’s garbage.
Miles: This is a political blog. Expect to read political opinion in a variety of forms, including satire, from both Cory and his commenters as you’re getting informed with accurate facts that Cory also strives to supply his readers.
By the way, not to be too nitpicky, but it is impossible to slander someone with written words. Slander is the “action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.” Libel is when the same happens with the written word … the statements abount Bosworth that have appeared in this blog no doubt seem damaging to her reputation to some people, but what’s really sad is all of those written statements about her that some people object to are all true.
how do u feel about madville’s expose’ of EB5, MILES?? CORY EXPOSED TWO ELECTION CRIMES concerning republicans boz and joop. not too shoddy
Whoa, whoa, whoa: He is not playing Xander to her Buffy. Without descending into TV geekdom, suffice it to say Xander is a helluva lot better and more complex than that.
[Miles, check your inbox.]
Calling my coverage repetitive does not refute it. Noting that I use satire does not refute the facts. Neither repetitiveness nor satire establishes grounds for slander (or libel, as Dave reminds us!). Satire or parody can actually be a defense against slander charges. Slander against a public figure like Bosworth requires meeting an even higher burden of proof.
Miles supports my theory that nine out of ten people who shout “slander” in an attempt to shut down public discourse really don’t know what they are talking about.
Now, does Miles understand the definition of journalism? He certainly doesn’t understand the history of journalism. The newspapers of our Founding Fathers’ era were nakedly and vigorously biased. Ben Franklin wrote and published humor and satire in his newspaper. The biased Federalist Papers first appeared in the papers. American journalism was advocative long before it adopted the relatively recent convention of feigning objectivity.
Miles, you can gripe about my bias specifically because I am entirely open and honest about my bias. You know exactly where I stand, and you can come here and offer your opposing opinion, even if you is wrong (and juvenile: “have secret crush on dr. b”? Really? The age-appropriate response would be, “I know you do, but what am I?”). Can you think of journalism more fair and honest than that?
And Miles, let’s get back to the original point. Do you think Norton offers any intelligent, unbiased commentary? Do you think he says anything rational in response to my evidence-baed argument that Annette Bosworth broke the law? Do you think I am mistaken in thinking that Norton’s twittering for Bosworth is really rooted in sexual fantasy? I mean, if you want evidence of a crush, you need to look at Norton’s content….
Alright! Let’s get those questions answered in their respective order. Dave: if you honestly believe in that concrete definition of slander, then that’s on you. However, I disagree. Slander can apply to the defamation of character through malicious reporting. A person can formulate facts in a way that are intended to defame or smear someone else – for whatever reason. We have to use some common sense here. Nobody has reported on Annette Bosworth (in a negative way) more than you all. That alone speaks volumes. It’s like an obsession with destroying this woman. I really don’t care if she said she was present for signatures when she actually wasn’t. That is petty and hardly even newsworthy – let alone worthy of tax dollars to prosecute. What I understand about journalism is that all attempts to remove bias should be made in order to accurately portray a story. That is the last thing that is going on on this website. I must say, the last thing I want to do is to shut down public discourse. Truly, liberal intolerance is becoming all too common these days. But to your point, I don’t really count a smear campaign against another human to be public discourse – at least not in any respectable way. To your question about Norton.. I’ve never heard the guy’s name until yesterday and I couldn’t care less about his supposed sexual fantasy. Last I heard you were a blogger, not a psychologist.
hey, miles: you’re a loser of biblical proportions.
If you say so Larry.
Have we been reduced to name calling now? I think that’s that liberal intolerance I was talking about a moment ago. You don’t like my opinion so I’m a loser? You’re gonna have to do a lot better than that to refute my points.
You came in here with your tongue blazing and now you whine when someone calls you out: what a loser.
Refusing the ridiculous only makes us look as foolish as you are. Go over SDWC: they love your brand of whine over there.
Come get some then! Name calling is pathetically immature. If you want to go there then like I said, come get some!
Meninists like you, “miles” are immature bullies with small dicks and even smaller intellects.
If you say so. How about I give you my address so you can come speak like that to my face instead of sitting behind your keyboard like a sissy, calling people who you don’t even know defamatory names. I should know by now that that is what this site does.
your address at Mike Durfee State Prison is unimpressive, miles: try harder.
5105 West 45th street. sioux falls, sd 57106. I’m here right now. Put your money where your mouth is.
160 Red Rock Road, Cerrillos, New Mexico: see you when you get here.
You’re in low income housing, miles? i should have known.
Just a telephone tough guy then, huh? You haven’t said anything worth hearing yet. I hope you shut up so someone can actually try to refute my points.
It’s not low income housing man. Your info is bad once again. There is low income housing down the street though. I see the cops there all of the time for domestic disputes. In my apt. complex, however, I’m yet to see anything like that. – That’s another matter though.
Joel Arends recruited Annette Bosworth to siphon resources from Stace Nelson in the GOP senate primary and Sarah Palin was recruited to draw attention from John McCain’s mental illnesses.
miles, you say name calling is “liberal intolerance.” Wouldn’t you agree that both liberals and conservatives resort to derogatory name calling from time to time? To assume that someone who you see as a “liberal” calls you a derogatory name only because he is a “liberal” seems a bit of a stretch, doesn’t it?
And when you use of the term “liberal” in such a manner, isn’t that just another form of the name calling you object to? Why not focus on the language or behavior of an individual that you criticize rather than his or her political views?
Bringing clicks to Cory’s blog is pretty cool: hit his tip jar, miles.
Ok, that’s your claim. What data do you have to back that up? And more importantly, who cares? Are you seriously in New Mexico typing on a computer about petty South Dakota political beefs? I hadn’t commented on this site before yesterday, but it’s only because I’m in-between chemistry lecture and lab. Otherwise, I work full time and am a full time student. I haven’t the luxury of sitting on my butt all day talking trash on political blogs.
poor little dood: high school sucks, init?
Now I see a post worth replying to. Liberal intolerance refers to the notion that liberal Americans claim to be sooo tolerant of others, except for those who they disagree with. Then, sometimes I see them spiral downwards into demagoguery, accusations and even name calling. I view liberals on the political spectrum in between socialists and moderate domocrats. That is to say, liberals are adverse to conservatives, who I view as sitting between moderate republicans and fascists on the American political spectrum. Not to say they are opposites, but that they exist in equal intervals from and to the median. To your point about conservatives, absolutely. They play dirty all too often as well. Definitely worth mentioning.
Bad info again Larry. Do us all a favor and validate your claims before you just spout off.
Putting yourself above the fray is a tell: aloofness is clear indication of a weak world view and a poor poker hand. Get back to us after you put on a few “miles.”
Larry, I’d rather be twice as stupid as I am today when I am your age than twice as smart as you are today. I mean that with all possible respect Larry. Your insignificance in my life cannot be downplayed.
Don’t let the door hit you in the head on your way out, little buddy.
I actually wasn’t going where Larry. I’m just starting to get comfortable on this website. I seem to have struck a nerve with some folks on here though. I haven’t yet heard any refutations to my points but again, I have heard name calling and attempts to stop me from voicing my opinion.
How constructive.
Miles if you are going to take offense to others calling you names, you probably should refrain from doing so yourself. If you want a serious discussion, engage with those willing to keep things serious. If you wish to dumb things down to the point of trying to provoke others to visit you on your doorstep, you will only attract discussion from those willing to do so. Either way you will only end up with a discussion on the level you choose to participate in.
For starters you might consider that not everyone on this blog fits the stereotype you describe, and you might find some willing to have a discussion based upon facts rather than rhetoric. You are entitled to your own opinion and you should’t be afraid to express it, but you aren’t entitled to your own facts. If you disagree with statements that have been made in the posts surrounding Bosworth then by all means call them out. if you disagree with comments, by all means call those out as well, but if you are just going to make blanket statements about bias then it rings rather hollow.
Does Cory cover the Bosworth story more than other media outlets? Depends how you measure it. First, Cory has a limited number of posts each day – and Bosworth’s name is mentioned in a very small percentage of those. Meanwhile, KELO may do a story about her which is discussed in the morning, mid-day, early news, 6PM and 10PM shows as well as on their website, as well as being mentioned in their tweets. Yesterday KELO had her trial on streaming and had a reporting live tweeting from the courtroom during the entire trial while Cory had what… a couple of short paragraphs about the debacle?
All a matter of perspective I suppose.
It is constructive because it is an attempt to progress an exhausted story to a more relevant topic for South Dakota residents.
Which measure can we use to conclude that any other media source has covered not just the bosworth trial, but the ups and downs of the lady’s life over the past year more frequently than this one?
#BosworthTrial Arends asks to have his memory refreshed with transcript of previous interview w/DCI. @KDLTNews— Anndrea Anderson (@A_AndersonKDLT) May 21, 2015
#BosworthTrial Arends says he worked for three other campaigns as sole legal representation. Bosworth was not his first client @KDLTNews— Anndrea Anderson (@A_AndersonKDLT) May 21, 2015
#BosworthTrial Defense: it’s fair to say politics is your profession? Arends: yes.
Joel Arends is a crook who not only has his fingers in Bendagate but in warping South Dakota’s US Senate race: that’s why the Boz trial is intriguing.
Good to see “miles” engaging. The first time I saw him here, he just made a drive-by swipe with no follow-up. This is much better. The position he takes with regard to SD politics seems to be one of detachment, which I think is wise, especially if you are a thoughtful young person, perhaps looking for a camp you might feel comfortable in, or perhaps wondering if politics is even worth the bother. There is a pretty good argument that it’s not, actually.
I think Larry feels that way too sometimes, but is loathe to admit it. So instead, he just lashes out at everyone else in an effort to exorcise his own demons (possibly between bong hits? ;-) Tough times in politics in SD these days, even if you’re on the “winning” side.
Hang in there, miles. There’s good conversation to be had here if you can first get used to dodging the initial “new guy” insults.
p.s. nothing wrong with trying to be “above the fray” although I think a more valid position might be “beside” it. That’s where we artsy-fartsy types usually try to hang out. :-)
Bill, i generally let people have free rein when Cory’s at work but when somebody comes in with an attitude it sets my braydar off. My own agenda is big enough without having to be the bouncer here, too.
#BosworthTrial A: I was never asked to review document for accuracy. D: you were paid $20k to be her atty… & u never reviewed any of them? Anndrea Anderson @A_AndersonKDLT 3m
miles, the suggestion that “liberal Americans claim to be sooo tolerant of others, except for those who they disagree with” seems more like hypocrisy than intolerance. And I suspect that you would agree that conservatives as well as liberals can be hypocrites.
I am curious, however, as to how you conclude that liberals (in general) are intolerant of those people they disagree with, rather than simply advocating for contrary or contradictory public policies. For example, in the abortion debate liberals typically argue that women should have the right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy, while conservatives typically argue there should be laws restricting a woman’s right to decide. Can you describe how liberals (in general) might be acting intolerant toward conservatives on this issue?
Or perhaps you provide some other example or two that might help me understand your thinking on this “intolerance” theme?
Awesome. Good to see that Larry “lets” certain things happen on this site, lol. I appreciate the kind words Bill. I consider myself a scientist in training and therefore, I am used to sniffing out biases of all kinds. I think that we should try our best to eliminate bias, rather than celebrate it – like caheidelberger seems to be fine with. Bias dilutes the truth and if ya’ll were all about justice, wouldn’t the wise thing be to wait until the jury delivers a verdict before accusations of guilt and innocence are tossed out there. That goes back to one of my initial points which suggests that sarcasm and satire is often used as a persuasive technique rather than an informative technique. If the purpose is to inform the public of facts, why the sarcasm? That bias deserves criticism. With regard to the abortion debate, I think both sides have behaved in vile ways – which is ultimately destructive to public discourse. I see liberal intolerance most often on the college campus. The individuals who are “exploding” with rude remarks and attempts to silence others are the liberals. Some seem to dislike alternative perspectives to the point of contempt. I think mockery and sarcasm are tools used at times to portray that contempt.
Cory’s political blog-Cory’s rules. You want both sides of the coin-which you can and do get here-go start your own blog and make your own rules. See how easy this is?
Sometimes Master Cory is so fair and balanced it makes me wanna go barf!
No, I don’t see how easy that is. So I can and do get both sides of the coin on this site but if that’s what I want I should go start my own blog? That’s a logical incoherence.
I do disagree with the premise of your statement regarding abortion. I don’t think that “conservatives typically argue there should be laws restricting a woman’s right to decide.” The thrust of the arguments I’ve heard from conservatives (and Christians for that matter) about abortion is that the fetus deserves rights of its own. That “liberals typically argue that women should have the right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy” is also only part of the liberal argument. The rights of the fetus are in question and that appears to be a scientific and moral determination rather than a political controversy.
http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2015/05/21/past-bosworth-lawyer-denies-gave-advice-violated-law/27734061/
If you get both sides here,wtf is your problem?
How can a fetus have rights of its own? It cannot live outside its mother’s womb,on its own until at least viability-24 weeks of age. Until then it is totally a parasite getting all its nutrition and all life sustaining functions from its mother.
“Liberal intolerance” is a cheap phrase Miles learned from talk radio. It has no relevance to this discussion. Nor does name-calling. I’m a liberal, and I don’t tolerate lies, crime, or bullying… all of which Bosworth and Haber have committed.
Miles, you still don’t understand defamation. To prove defamation, you must prove (1) publication, (2) intent to harm, and (3) falsehood.
Show me one statement I’ve made about Bosworth that is false.
As I noted above, the bar for proving defamation rises when we’re talking public figures. I took action to prevent the Bosworth campaign from succeeding. Such action is legal and not prosecutable as defamation. I have taken action to highlight evidence of crimes and urged law enforcement to investigate, arrest, and prosecute this public figure for crimes against that public. My research and advocacy are not defamation. They are protected by the First Amendment.
There appears to be no defamation on the flow, Miles… unless you want to argue that your false statements made in an attempt to undermine my credibility and hurt my journalistic business constitute defamation.
miles, I think you are correct that conservatives argue a fetus should have the right to use a living person’s body against her will. Other than the right to force a woman to give up her bodily freedom, however, I have not really seen conservative arguments that a fetus has any other rights whatsoever.
I do not understand the factual basis for your comment that “I see liberal intolerance most often on the college campus. The individuals who are “exploding” with rude remarks and attempts to silence others are the liberals.” Perhaps if you provided some sort of factual context for your statement I could offer a reasonable response.
Ultimately, the definition of “intolerance” is the “unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own.” That seems to mean – “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts.” Thus, “rude remarks” don’t seem to have anything to do with “intolerance.” I can be just as “intolerant” by keeping quiet, but refusing to consider evidence that is not consistent with my viewpoint.
Perhaps a reasonable example is the differing viewpoints of some Christian fundamentalists (whether conservative or liberal) and some atheists on evolution. Since the Christian is relying on holy scripture and solid dogma, he has no ability to change his mind or “tolerate” contrary beliefs, regardless of whatever factual evidence is presented to him. The atheist, however, is basing his position of whatever factual evidence is available and will change his views upon learning new relevant facts undermining his earlier position. Climate change also is a great example – scientists are continually modifying their viewpoint as new evidence appears; conservatives who deny climate change refuse to consider this evidence or any other evidence that is inconsistent with their viewpoint.
Bottom line miles, is that if you reflect you might conclude that labeling liberals as “intolerant” may not be an accurate use of the term.
By the snails pace of the trial today it appears that Cory isn’t going to get that Friday noon guilty verdict. In fact, if I heard correctly, the trial will recess early on Friday. That will take us into Tuesday since Monday is a holiday.
Unfortunately I missed much of today’s testimony, only heard Arends and the final witness of the day. Anything dramatic happen?
As for bias, Miles, I still haven’t seen the impact. I spoke in Huron today, and one audience member observed that he has found me to be correct on the facts 99.9% of the time. If you show me a fact I’ve gotten wrong, I’ll apologize and correct it. You haven’t shown a fact I’ve gotten wrong; you’re making a subjective style argument which really runs counter to centuries (I’m thinking back to Aristotle) of rhetorical theory and practice.
Persuasion involves logos, pathos, and ethos. Facts, data, evidence—that’s logos. Logos is essential to good public discourse. My April 1, 2014, affidavit accompanying the Bosworth petition challenge and the original April 3, 2014, brief I wrote explaining Bosworth’s perjury are pretty good examples of arguments grounded almost entirely on logos.
But nine times out of ten, if I hand folks a copy of South Dakota Codified Law and say, “See? I’m right,” folks aren’t going to pay attention. They aren’t going to get the argument or why it matters. That’s why I use pathos (emotion) and ethos (reputation) to help make the point… just as we are seeing the lawyers on both sides in the Bosworth trial doing.
Satire and mockery touch on pathos, rousing outrage amidst laughter. Were Jonathan Swift’s arguments invalid because he couched them in literary satire? I think not. Were Tina Fey and Amy Poehler to be ridiculed and ignored for making points about Sarah Palin’s unfitness for office by satirizing her through a deadpan presentation of Palin’s own incoherent words? Does Bosworth’s painfully absurd April 16, 2014, “daily devotional” shed its absurdity and deceitfulness simply because I choose to mock that absurdity and deceitfulness? Are Andy Borowitz and The Onion completely irrelevant to understanding current events?
No. Satire and mockery, while subject to abuse like any other tool, are useful and permissible persuasive tools.
I argue on ethos by establishing my own character. Yes, I am biased, but as I said perviously, I am honest about that bias. I call my blog “South Dakota’s True Liberal Media,” even at peril of causing casual viewers to immediately slam the door on a seven-letter L-word used as a curse in South Dakota politics, because I feel obliged to tell you exactly what this blog is about. You get no false advertising from me, no secret agenda. I work hard to get my facts right and establish a reputation for honesty and at least the capacity for evenhandedness… even at peril of making Mike from Iowa nauseous. (Sorry, Mike! I gotta call ’em as I see ’em!) In the Bosworth case, I throw in with an Attorney General whose corruption in other issues I find objectionable. I blasted my own party for wimping out and not challenging Jackley in last year’s election. My agenda is clear. My agenda is truth and liberty. I know that my reputation for seeking truth and liberty are the only currency I have to lend power to my voice (because I’m not rich, and I won’t use Base Connect to trick old folks into giving me money so I can buy ads on TV and in the movie theaters).
Effective argument, effective advocacy… and what the heck, I’ll venture effective journalism depend on using logos, pathos, and ethos in combination.
I would suggest that Bosworth and Haber are masters of using pathos (oh, we poor victims, living in an RV, persecuted by the entrenched powers and that lying SOB Arends!) and arguably false ethos (we’re Christian missionaries, so the things we say must be true) to persuade. With regard to this trial, I haven’t heard Bosworth, Howie, or any other Bosworth booster lodge against the pending charges any argument grounded in logos.
The original subject of this blog post, John Norton, incurs my wrath because his comments are completely logos-free. He appears to be so immersed in pathos (here, sexual desire, manifested in his visual objectification of women, and aggression demonstrated by constant name-calling) that he is incapable of shifting gears to logos when politely asked to do so. It’s all limbic rage and bullying and insults.
Miles, if you want to indict any speaker for making specious arguments, you’d better back up and address your feelings about the rhetorical tactics of Norton, Bosworth, and Haber.
(And Larry, thanks for minding the store. ;-) )
Roger, alas, I was on the road speaking in Huron, so I only heard the beginning of the string of Hutterite witnesses this morning who confirmed the charges. Indeed, Friday noon probably won’t happen, due to the longer-than-expected cross-ex. I probably won’t watch tomorrow—I’ve got other posts to write, petitions to circulate, democracy to defend… :-) Besides, I already know all of Annette’s lines, and I can’t be there in the courtroom to prevent the jury from falling for them. Robert Mayer, Brent Kempema, that’s your job—don’t screw it up!
How anyone can see the Boz drama as anything other than electioneering remains a mystery.
Jes plowin’ da road, Cory, jes plowin’ the road.
Oh, and “Come get some”? Now there’s a phrase worthy of satire and mockery. Time for a sword-measuring contest?
What are we to come and get? I am all for some free sausage gravy on my boughten taters but exactly like Mr. H, I would like to know what I am coming to get before I go.
Bob, stop poking the HoHos and bruising the marshmallow. The people who buy those things instead of infant cereal or food for their kids don’t appreciate your buggery.
Why do I need to “back up and address your feelings about the rhetorical tactics of Norton, Bosworth, and Haber?” My initial claim was with respect to proportionality. Too much coverage of one story in proportion to other, more important stories is indicative of biased news coverage. It is a fact that when one types in “madville times” or dakotafreepress.com,” within two or three clicks of the mouse there is in-depth media coverage of Annette Bosworth. Why? One of my other initial points was that South Dakota residents face more severe problems and concerns than anything going on in that woman’s life. Why then all of the coverage? With respect to proportionality, why devote so much time to one individual? I could see raising that much fuss over the green river killer or the Boston strangler but this is a low level bit. Why then all the fuss? I read all sorts of news media nearly every day. I don’t know of anyone paying this much attention to this particular woman. When you said “if I hand people a copy of sd codified law…” I think you nailed it right on the head. I read the affidavit for Bosworth’s trial months ago and planned on just waiting to hear the verdict from the jury. Motivation and tactics are serious elements to consider when judging the legitimacy of media coverage. One claim that I made, which still hasn’t been refuted, is that this website has given disproportionate media coverage to this particular story. The motivation is unclear but the fact is obvious. Too much coverage is an indication of bias. I’m sorry to hear that biases are celebrated here in blog-land. Aristotle’s appeals do not provide a sound foundation for media news coverage. Print the affidavit and let folks decide for themselves what happened. All the other hype dilutes the facts. Oh ya, but then without the hype there is no blog, lol.
paragraph breaks make for better grokking, but that was nearly lucid, miles: please go on.
“Bearcreekbat” wrote:
>“Perhaps a reasonable example is the differing viewpoints of some Christian fundamentalists (whether conservative or liberal) and some atheists on evolution. Since the Christian is relying on holy scripture and solid dogma, he has no ability to change his mind or ‘tolerate’ contrary beliefs, regardless of whatever factual evidence is presented to him.”
My belief that the Bible is true hasn’t prevented me from changing my mind or tolerating contrary beliefs about evolution.
>“The atheist, however, is basing his position of whatever factual evidence is available and will change his views upon learning new relevant facts undermining his earlier position.”
No one in the history of modern science has ever observed a net increase in genetic information due to any mutation or combination of mutations. Some atheists may abandon their belief in macroevolution upon learning that relevant fact, but most probably won’t.
No one in the history of modern science has ever observed a major change in the rate of radioactive decay. Some Christians may abandon young-earth creationism upon learning that relevant fact, but most probably won’t.
The bottom line is that our interpretation of the scientific evidence—on both sides of the debate—is usually driven far more by our presuppositions than by the evidence itself.
P.S. : persuasion is precisely what I’m looking to avoid when seeking news coverage. I want data and no garbage tied to it. That you use persuasive techniques, and are so familiar with those techniques while reporting news is disturbing.
kurt: meet miles; he’s one of yours.
Lar, I saw a picture of you today with your leather Jesus-sandals hanging out the end of your hammock and your sinewy, vein encrusted calves tanning in the sun.
I about puked. Take the phone away from that woman.
actually, the kiva has a fire blazing and we’re getting rain enough to overfill the barrels but not enough to make the arroyo run. not as green as rapid city and only a tiny fraction of the red, grud.
miles, give Mr. kurtz his due about the housing thing. It is kinda low income housing, init?
caheidelberger: The following statement that you made also troubled me a bit: “such action is legal and not prosecutable as defamation” (when justifying your over-coverage of this person’s life). Imagine if everyone applied that logic to their tactics. In other words, “I’ll do whatever I can get away with.” The ethical concern that I have over the proportionality of the bosworth coverage on this site has nothing to do with legality. One of the very first statements I made on this site was regarding that relentless taunting of an individual who is going through a difficult time. I said it before and I’ll say it again, it’s low.
Mr. “grudznick”: my apt. is not income based. I’m surprised there is so much concern over my housing situation. I pay my rent every month and I’d like someone to prove otherwise. – Until then, validate your claims before just spouting garbage. I’ve never lived in income-based housing in my entire life. What about ya’ll, lol, how much is your rent or mortgage per month? Never mind. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
What is due is an apology for bogus allegations, directed this time at me.
That sounds great, Mr. “miles.” I, for one, appreciate your self-sufficiency. I applaude you.
What about the apology for making that false accusation?
My good friend Mr. kurtz apologizes. Hat in hand, is Mr. kurtz. No lubber is he.
so, miles: chemistry and the big sioux river scare you much? talk about how people in the middle of the
ditchroad folks like you expect to hold those accountable for its making you and your offspring sterile.I’ll take an apology from him if he wants to give it to me. You didn’t apologize for your own baseless accusation about my housing though. This was your statement: miles, give Mr. kurtz his due about the housing thing. It is kinda low income housing, init? – You’re not denying that you had no factual basis for saying that garbage are you? The question is why then? Why make such a false accusation?
I believe I was spot on, Mr. miles. But don’t give me the credit. It was my pal Lar who really pointed it out. I just sort of brought it down to a level you could understand.
Are you more of a boysenberry or an apricot man?
Ok then. If you are sticking to your premise, then please tell me how my apt. is income-based housing? I think what is being attempted is another smear. You are digging yourselves in deeper, in my opinion.
Excuse me all to hell, but there is no such thing as over coverage of the Bosworth trial. A quick tour of the political blogs, the Rapid City Journal, Keloland, and that Sioux Falls paper, show only brief coverage of the trial and none or limited comments from readers. There is no overkill.
Coverage of this trial is not only newsworthy, it is historical. Imagine, a corrupt republican candidate actually being held accountable by the republican party. Who would have ever thought!!! Take a good look at the trial proceedings in the next few days, it maybe the last time you see a republican facing corruption charges in this state.
miles has been throwing a lot against the wall in hopes of something sticking, starting with his attempts direct the conversation here with feeble accusations constantly used by the tea party. It is time for him to put his big boy pants on and realize that satire and journalism go hand in hand, Cory made this clear earlier. If miles chooses to whine about it, so be it, it does no good.
About the political intolerance of liberals, admittedly I am probably the biggest intolerant liberal miles will ever meet.
My intolerance extends to men telling women what to do with their bodies and attempting to legislate the manly emotions.
My intolerance extends to the corrupt republican politicians running this state and running away with public money like the EB-5 scandal and untold millions in no-bid contracts for their buddies and supporters.
Does anyone have any idea how much money has gone into the pockets of corrupt politicians in the past 40 years of republican rule?
How many roads could have been built, how many schools could have been built, how much more could we have paid teachers over the years?
I can go on and on, so can others here.
miles doesn’t like us judging Bosworth and says that we should wait for the jury verdict, that is nice and cute to say, but the public has every right and often does, express themselves in the court of public opinion. miles, have you judged Bosworth innocent or not guilty?
Early in one of miles post he complained about the taxpayer expense of this trial. Yes the taxpayer is paying for this trial, but is not your tax money, it is the states and federal government. You cease ownership of tax money when it is received by the government. You no longer have a say about how it is used. For example, when you pay your rent do tell the landlord how to spend his rent money?
All that you can do about taxpayer money is complain and whine about its use, does the government listen to you? No.
And Cory is right, he has not defamed, libeled or anything else Bosworth, he reported the FACTS, if facts hurt you miles, so be it.
Mr. miles, before Lar puts his sandals back on and wades into your fearsome logic, and I doubt Lar wants any part of that, please go re-read my blog at 20:57. Then try and wrap your low income mind around the difference between low-income housing and income-based housing. I never even used the word subsidized, but you really have me thinking you are a libbie of the fattest sort now. Just a sensitive one.
Mr. C, were you able to make it to any of the trials in person or know some people who did? It would be really swell to hear some first hand coverage since the media doesn’t really do it.
Oh what a foolish comment. You fail to see the importance of incentive in the whole scheme.
The government only gets the money that folks pay in to taxes. If I pay taxes, I deserve a say about how the state/fed govt spends those dollars. Otherwise, maybe I’ll quit working so hard so I can pay less taxes that will get wasted on petty stuff like this. It is funny, you know. You all have know idea who I am or what my life has entailed. The fact that I’ve been bombarded with comments from all of you suggests that I have struck a nerve. Ok, why is there “no such thing as over-coverage of the bosworth trial?” It seems like the folks on this site have been licking their chops all year waiting for the fun to begin. btw, who filed the complaint with the ag against bosworth in the first place? I thought I heard the DCI detective say on the stand that it was a civilian. Any idea who it was?
No grudz, I wasn’t able to make it to the trial and don’t know specifically if anyone I know is attending.
I found it odd the number of times over the past two days Cory’s name was mentioned. I’m wonder if the jury is aware of Cory’s blog and if they go home and check out Madville Times and Dakota Free Press.
With Cory’s popularity, it seems that Van Norman would call him as a witness and attempt to make him out a liar, now that would be fun.
Subsidized. It’s OK.
If you say so, joker. But please don’t expect me to take this site seriously then. Your exact verbiage used while accusing me of being on the government dole doesn’t quite matter to me. The point is that it is baseless and such an accusation indicates motive. Why do you care how much money I have or don’t have?
Mr. C, there is no doubt that the jury is tainted with the popularity of our blogger friend Mr H. I hope the jury isn’t insaner than most, that’s all. I still have a breakfast card for you, Roger. Talley’s still OK?
boysenberry or apricot, miles?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7pPTzetJPg
So, now who is calling names? “Foolish comment”?
The only thing foolish about me is that I have wasted valuable time reading your comments. The people on this blog and other places know that I am no fool or foolish in any way, I resent that statement but realize it comes from a low level uneducated republican.
I’ll tell you what to do about your tax dollars miles, go to the county treasurer’s office and tell them exactly how you want you tax dollars spent and when you’re done there go to the IRS and tell them you are there to tell them how to spend your tax dollars. Let me know how the works out.
The only nerve you have struck with me is annoyance in that you attempt to lead the conversations anywhere but the corruption of Annette Bosworth and her shady husband.
I admit I feel a certain amount of moral disgust with Bosworth, similar to what I feel for the banksters tanked the world economy. I want to see, finally, the crooks received justice. Bosworth is getting a fair trial. I hope she is convicted, because it would send a message to others who try to cheat the system.
Those of us who have collected signatures on petitions know the laws and rules, and any candidate should also know the rules. It’s right on the petition as the circulators’ oath. The circulator is the first and most important line of defense against petition fraud. She fraudulently signed that oath.
The facts are very clear. Bosworth signed that oath even though she didn’t circulate many of the petitions she signed as circulator. If Bosworth made a mistake or two, you would just disqualify the signatures or petition, and not charge. This was totally different. It was a calculated effort to cheat the system, the very representative democracy that is the basis of our country. It was criminal.
Wow. Calling your comment foolish is not calling you a fool. Do you understand that? How uneducated am I by the way? Is this the intolerance I mentioned earlier? Trying to shut down voices that differ from your own…. It seems that way to me.
That method wouldn’t work at all. I would simply vote for someone who also feels that issues like this one are a waste of taxpayer’s earned dollars.
miles,
1. You failed to fully read and comprehend my post, I am a unapologetic intolerant liberal.
2. You apparently have a limited concept of how government and tax payer are used. FYI we elect a governor, congress and senators to do that spending, you don’t have a say in spending whether you think you do or not. Like I say, whine about it.
3. For someone being upset about naming calling on this blog, you sure do a lot of it. Grudz and I rarely agree on anything, but I can assure you he is no fool.
I’ll accept that as a matter of opinion.
And I’ll also accept that this site thwarts off opposing views.
Donald,
As Cory would say, “alas” some real discussion about the petition process that Bosworth so flagrantly ignored.
The Bosworth defenders have said that she made a “mistake” and that taxpayer shouldn’t be wasted on this trial. I do wonder why we even have these laws regarding petitions and why there are criminal penalties for abusers.
If candidates are allowed to do whatever these choose with petitions why do we even have these laws?
Bosworth could have ended this charade months ago by pleading no contest, if that is acceptable. She choose to fight the charges because she saw another financial gravy chain, just as she did with her bogus senatorial campaign that took money from vulnerable retirees from around the country.
Regardless of verdict in the Bosworth case, it will serve as notice that there are Cory’s out there that will do the right thing and challenge fraudulent petitions.
The “say” that I as a taxpayer have in government spending comes in the form of voting for the individual who I suspect would spend money wisely. I figured you would know that about democracy.
Miles, this trial is important, not just for the reasons related to elections, but rather to the overall character that Dr. Bosworth and her husband Chad possess. They have manipulated so many people and I think there’s an audience out there watching for some sort of justice just so that they can feel better about their own terrible interactions with them. I think everyone likes to see justice. After reading this line of comments, it saddens me to see you defend her and stand behind her acting as though she’s been dealt a bad hand. If you want to compare stories of wrongdoing about the Haber/Bosworths, I’ll play.
So who was it that filed the complaint about bosworth anyways?
Wow. I haven’t checked in here for awhile, but will offer my two cents thusly. Dr. Bosworth isn’t phased by the coverage of Dr. Bosworth. If she is, it’s because the coverage is less than what she hoped.
I think what you are referring to when you say that “there’s an audience out there watching for some sort of justice just so that they can feel better about their own terrible interactions with them,” you are actually referring to the desire for revenge or retribution. Justice for the crimes she is accused of would most likely amount to probation.
Miles, I haven’t offered my story publicly and I am not seeking revenge. However, whether it be dealing with elections, her involvement with addicted patients, Chad’s disgusting control over Dr. Bosworth and the people associated with her, her misuse of money that people have given her In good faith, etc. you can pick any one of those categories to talk about. I think watching her have a consequence for any one of those actions helps me deal better with the fact that she is a very unwell individual. I would go as far as to call her a predator. I find it very unfortunate to watch people support her because I understand that they are likely caught in her web. If I thought she was being unfairly mistreated, that would be one thing, but I think that she uses all of this attention for another negative focus. She is 100% narcissistic and doesn’t care about using anybody to further her agenda. I have witnessed firsthand. There is not a doubt in my mind.
Bosworth’s ex-attorney says she lied about his advice on petitions
Bosworth to testify at her trial
Dr. Annette Bosworth leaves the Hughes County Courthouse in Pierre Thursday after a full day of trial testimony with her Rapid City attorneys, Robert Van Norman, center, and Dana Hanna, right. Bosworth is expected to testify Friday. (Phu Nguyen, Capital Journal)
Buy this photo
Capital Journal coverage of Bosworth trial:
Posted: Thursday, May 21, 2015 1:04 pm | Updated: 10:49 pm, Thu May 21, 2015.
By Stephen Lee Stephen.lee@capjournal.com
Dr. Annette Bosworth’s former attorney/political adviser testified Thursday that he never told her she could sign as the verified “circulator” of nominating petitions even though she hadn’t witnessed the signatures collected on the forms.
Joel Arends was the star witness so far in Bosworth’ trial in Pierre on 12 felony charges of submitting false petitions and lying about it, under oath, by signing them as the person who collected the signatures from eligible Republican voters.
The day after Bosworth lost in the primary election for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate race last June, she was arrested on the felony charges. Her trial began Monday with jury selection; Thursday was the second day of testimony.
In his opening statement to the jury Wednesday, defense attorney Dana Hanna said evidence would show that Bosworth only mistakenly submitted petitions to state officials because Arends, as her legal counsel and political adviser, had told her it was OK.
But during nearly three hours of often combative responses to questions from Hanna, Arends said he stopped Bosworth from signing one petition during a last-minute petition completion session in Bosworth’s medical clinic in Sioux Falls the night before they were due in Pierre at the secretary of state’s office.
It was March 24, 2014, and the mood in Bosworth’s campaign, meeting in her clinic, “was very anxious,” Arends told lead prosecutor, Deputy Attorney General Robert Mayer.
He had been hired by Bosworth months before, said Arends, an Army veteran and Sioux Falls attorney who said he had worked on political campaigns of President George W. Bush, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, and former Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn.
It wasn’t clear Bosworth would have enough signatures to get on June 2014 primary ballot for the Republican nomination to the Senate, Arends said. She needed about 1,995 plus extra ones in case some turned out to be invalidated. (As it turned out, she collected about 2,800.)
Arends said he is a notary public and that night sat next to Bosworth, as she put her signature on petitions filled with signatures just before he would notarize her signatures with his official state seal. It was “sign and stamp, sign and stamp,” like a production line, for hours, Arends said.
“I called it robo-signing,” Arends said. “It was a very chaotic environment.”
It wasn’t his job as a notary public to review the contents of each petition or each voter signature, but merely to attest that Bosworth’s own signature actually was hers and that he witnessed it, Arends said.
But at one point Bosworth showed him a petition, he said. “Dr. Bosworth asked me, ‘Can I sign this?’ I said ‘No, you can’t, because you didn’t circulate it.’”
Hanna had told the jury that evidence would show Arends told Bosworth she was “good to go,” with dozens of signatures collected by others but signed by Bosworth as the “circulator.”
Bosworth told a radio talk show host last year she thought because the signature collection was done under her direction, she was the circulator even though she didn’t witness every signature. It’s one of the mistakes she made as a rookie candidate, Hanna told the jury. The bigger mistake was relying on Arends’ touted expertise on petitions, Hanna said.
But Arends said he saw Bosworth demonstrate impressive knowledge of petition-gathering rules at a Lincoln Day dinner for Republicans in Pierre in February 2014. As early as January 2014, Bosworth was able to explain the rule that the person collecting signatures has to witness each signature, under South Dakota law, Arends said.
Arends testified that Bosworth paid him a total of $50,000 for his work on her campaign last year.
Often Arends parried Hanna’s aggressive cross-examination: “I don’t’ recall,” or “Can I see the document?” or “I think we need to clarify,” or “That’s not true.”
At one point, Hanna pushed the idea that because Arends said Bosworth had lied about him giving her advice to ignore state elections laws, that he then had a “conflict of interest” in remaining her attorney.
“I disagree,” Arends responded, beginning an explanation.
Hanna interrupted sharply: “Does that mean ‘no,’?”
“Correct,” Arends said.
Arends testified that after Bosworth lied on a radio talk show a year ago about him advising her to submit petitions she had not witnessed being signed, he persuaded her the next day to approve a “retraction,” which he released to the news media. He fired her as a client last summer, Arends said.
It was a big turn around for two people who had been close. Arends traveled to the Philippines with Bosworth in January 2014 for a medical mission to provide free health care to hurricane victims. he said his trip expenses were paid by Bosworth’s supporters.
The trial will continue Friday morning and Bosworth will testify, Hanna has said.
Earlier Thursday, Hutterites dominated the trial as 11 members of three colonies testified. About 15 Hutterites sat in the gallery; Bosworth supporters also numbered about 15, including her parents.
Five Hutterite women wearing the black head scarves and old-fashioned dresses typical of the German Protestant sect which has several colonies in the state, and six men with chin beards and wearing suspenders took the stand as prosecution witnesses.
Bosworth has Hutterites as patients at her medical practice in Sioux Falls, said one man, and she sought their help in her campaign in early 2014. In the court house, she nodded and smiled to several of the Hutterites.
But prosecutors, Deputy Attorney General Robert Mayer and Assistant Attorney General Brent Kempema, called on the Hutterites to show that Bosworth had obtained petition signatures without being present for the signings, as state law requires.
Leonard Waldner, “lead minister” for the Millerdale colony near Miller, S.D., said Bosworth had called him asking for help getting signatures. He said he soon received a packet in the mail from Bosworth with petitions. He left it on his desk for about a week, he said. “I was going to ignore it,” he said. Bosworth called him again, asking if he would get colony members to sign the petitions, he said. Again, the petitions sat on his desk for a few days, he testified. “Then I just started working on them.”
He looked up colony members who were registered Republicans, printed their names and addresses, and in about 11 cases, also signed their names on the petitions, Waldner said. “I did it in good faith of my people,” he said. He also gave the petitions to others to sign their own names and the petition from is colony shown in court Thursday had 20 names on it.
Bosworth was not present at the colony when the petitions were signed, he said.
Under cross-examination by Bosworth’s attorney, Robert Van Norman, Waldner said he had been the minister and corporation president of the colony for 30 years, which is why his people trusted him to sign for them. Waldner also acknowledged to Van Norman he has been granted immunity from prosecution by Attorney General Marty Jackley for forging other people’s names on the Bosworth nominating petitions.
“Dr. Annette Bosworth didn’t ask you to sign someone else’s name, did she?” Van Norman asked.
“No, she didn’t,” Waldner said.
One interesting note on the Hutterites’ testimony: Because of their religious beliefs, Hutterites eschew swearing an oath using God’s name – such as the typical swearing in of a witness in court – based on their reading of Jesus’ admonition to his followers to swear no oaths at all, by heaven or by earth.
So state Judge John Brown rather administered an “affirmation,” according to state law, asking if they would tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth “under penalty of perjury,” rather than “so help you, God.”
And the Hutterites do not raise their right hand when making the affirmation.
Other people, including atheists, also use such alternative affirmations or oaths when testifying, a court officer said.
Supporters for Bosworth in court Thursday include some from Iowa and a Chicago cabdriver.
“She’s a ‘super tremendo’, fantastic leader,” said Fred London, who said he took time off from driving a taxi in Chicago to attend the trial Thursday and Friday. He learned about Bosworth from radio talk shows, London said.
“She’s everything a person could want in a U.S. Senator.”
When asked if anyone from Bosworth’s camp was paying his expenses, London, who said he’s staying at the Super 8 motel, referred questions to Bosworth’s parents.
Bosworth has asked supporters to turn up at her trial, which she has characterized as a persecution with religious and political roots.
© 2015 Capital Journal.
Curious: why is no one writing about Italia Federici’s testimony? Do all the reporters check out after 3 p.m.?
Miles, you’re a lot like John Norton. When I try to focus on one point, you shift to another. You pretend to be debating objcetive fact when you are really just talking about your subjective preferences.
You have tried to argue defamation, and you have lost. I challenge you to show me one false thing I have written (one basic criterion for proving defamation), and you resort to arguing proportionality and over-coverage. Quantity is irrelevant to defamation. One lie or a hundred lies, quantity doesn’t matter. You’re trying to dress up your editorial preference as a legal argument, and you fail. You’re not really upset that Bosworth is being hurt by lies. You’re upset that I spend so much time publishing facts about Bosworth, to which sentiment the only logical response is, “Tough shiskey.”
I thought I had to argue defamation, but Miles, you appear to have conceded that argument. If we now understand that defamation and proportionality are separate issues, then I will argue proportionality by citing Roger’s point: oaths matter. Petitions matter. The integrity of the electoral process matter. You have given us no objective, universal criterion by which do determine how much certain issues matter, so it seems a journalist, editor, or publisher need only establish that an issue matters to justify writing about it. Richard Winger writes exclusively about ballot issues every day, because elections matter. There’s not proportionality in his writing, but his writing is entirely justified.
Some people dedicate entire magazines to dogs, hunting, or interior design. Newspapers dedicate entire separate sections to accounts of people playing games. Some writers and some readers think those things matter. I have chosen to dedicate several blog posts to South Dakota candidates and election law. You have chosen to dedicate your engagement on this page to blowing smoke for Annette Bosworth. I have chosen to dedicate time and energy to responding to you with commentary on Bosworth herself as well as journalism and rhetoric. Even when I’m talking about Bosworth, I’m talking about other, broader issues of great importance to the polis. Again, your point about proportionality avoids the full content of this blog and the comment section and dresses up the fact that you just don’t want people talking about what a scam artist Annette Bosworth is.
You have tried to argue journalism and rhetoric, but you contradict yourself. You say you don’t like persuasion. But here you are engaging in persuasion, piling persuasion onto the comment section of a South Dakota political blog that makes no bones about its mission to persuade as well as inform and entertain.
You resort to saying I seek to “thwart[…] off opposing views.” I include a comment section with my website and give reader comments top billing in the sidebar specifically to invite opposing views. I write about controversial topics that invite opposing views. When an opposing view is based on misunderstanding, specious arguments, and constantly shifting ground, like yours, Miles, I will say so, because I don’t tolerate bad arguments. But hearing opposing views is how we learn.
To review:
Now, time for me to write the day’s news!
Miles the victim.
On to more important stuff-From Tim Johnson’s post Arends stopped Bos from signing one petition that she hadn’t witnessed. Was that the only one filled out while Bos and her lawyer were in the Phillpines? Because if it wasn’t he had to know she signed more that she could not have personally witnessed since he admits he was overseas with her entourage. As her pe3rsonal attorney and notary he could tell by the dates on the petitions if she witnessed them or not. Was he getting paid tom get her to break the law?
Mike, Arends is in an interesting spot. I’ve got no love for him after his participation in Bosworth’s defamation of me (Miles, you want to talk defamation? We could go there…). However, his points about his role as notary appear to be accurate. When I prepared the original petition challenge that got this whole thing rolling, I asked my notary if he needed time to read and study my affidavit and question me about what I was saying were the facts of the case. The notary said no: his stamp at the bottom of my affidavit would attest to nothing more than my identity. The notary bears no responsibility for the truth of the document he or she notarizes. When Joel Arends stamped Bosworth’s circulator’s oath, he was saying, “My notary seal certifies that Annette Bosworth signed this oath in my presence.” He told her once that she could not sign a circulator’s oath for sheets she did not personally circulate. Arends testified that Bosworth previously demonstrated thorough knowledge of the process. At what point is an individual responsible for her own words… not to mention for signing an oath written in brief, clear language?
Again, the circulator’s oath:
Pretty clear to me, no lawyer’s explanation required.
Joel Arends got paid $20,000 dollars to be her Lawyer, not notary. He went to the Philippines with her. He reviewed the petitions as her Lawyer. You can’t tell me he didn’t see the dates. He was her Lawyer and he did not do his job advising her. I think she is going to knock it out of the ball park today.
After wading through this thread I’m struck by one comment. “Miles” tells us we should drop the whole issue and move on to subjects important to SD, yet, since a large plurality of the comments are his, he is the one who won’t drop it and move on, and now the thread is pushed to the top of DFP’s trending list with 130+ comments.
And he did so advise her, Tara, as he testified yesterday. And Bosworth knew the rules well enough to instruct others and accept seeing other uncertain-circulator sheets pulled from filing, as Patrick Davis just testified this morning. Blaming Arends doesn’t avert a guilty verdict.
Yes, Nick, Miles does appear to have issues with proportionality, doesn’t he? I have offered eight posts subsequent on non-Bosworth topics; Miles has so far found none of them comment-worthy. In 32 posts since Saturday, in the lead-up to a trial making headlines across the state, I’ve written 3 posts on Bosworth. All 40 of Miles’s comments this week have been on this one Bosworth-related post (which, interestingly, focused more on one of Bosworth’s illogical, libido-driven tweet-addicts than on Bosworth herself.
Maybe “Miles” feels this post on illogical, libido-driven tweet-addicts hits a little too close to home, and is defending himself.
Now you know people if you watched the whole trial, my gosh folks, she paid an ATTORNEY…to what….to make sure that he made sure she got on the ballot…….remember $20,000 dollars, to make sure the signatures were legit……….just watch her testimony……….it says it all. She is not a phony. She just did what her political handlers told her to do……….it’s all on tape. Now post it Cory.
caheidelberger : Are you the one who filed the complaint to the ag about bosworth? LOL. It all makes so much sense now. So lets get this straight… you have never worked for bosworth and have no beef with her from any encounter you personally had with her. Is that right? I have worked for her and have been a patient of hers. While I certainly have my own concerns with her related to my own personal experience, it never crossed my mind to tattle tale all the way to the ag about it. Likewise, it never crossed my mind to talk trash about her online. I am of the belief that if I have an issue with someone, I will confront them face to face or not at all. It is the coward who sits behind his computer posting news articles and encouraging a forum devoted towards the bashing of another individual – even if it is based on facts. That is pathetic, in my opinion. Relevant news is of interest to me as a resident of SD. Maybe then I should avoid political blogs all together. This seems to be an outlet for washed up old men to voice their opinions under the guise of finding public justice. Like I said earlier, the appropriate punishment for bosworth’s campaign violations would most likely be probation or something like that. The important issue is how the medical board would deal with the situation. If proportionality doesn’t matter in the news, what does matter? If I turned on my television and the news was covering the same story every day for a year straight about one person, I would be equally annoyed. (unless it was about a masked murderer loose in my town). Currently, there are pedophiles, murderers and thieves actively making their way through criminal hearings right here in SD.
The reason I haven’t commented since the other day is because I was and am busy with my own obligations. I haven’t the luxury of sitting around chatting on a political blog day in and day out. I gave the blog thing a try and now I am now pretty much over it. You guys don’t welcome robust debate from counter points of view. You hammered on me for making points that go against the grain of what must be typical viewers of dakotafreepress.com. While on this blog, I have been accused of living in low income housing, called names such as “loser,” of being an “uneducated republican,” and of having an inferiority complex. If those aren’t attempts to shut me up, what is?
With respect to my commenting on such an insignificant topic so many times: I had some time for leisure; Not a week or a month but about one day. Actually, I have no intentions of visiting this site again. I’ll probably tell others to avoid it as well.
lol.
miles,
I’m one of those old men that has Earned the luxury of doing what I choose with my time, including reading the number one political blog in South Dakota, Dakota Free Press.
You seem to be a political newbie that lacks political logic and insight, such as condemning those that have called you names while at the same time you have done the same to others, just review your comments.
Bosworth blipped on Cory’s political radar when she became a public figure as a senate candidate. The public came to Cory with fact based stories of Bosworth’s many misdeeds, including the sham raffles in which she defrauded the public by not holding the raffles. It became readily apparent that Bosworth was not paying her employees and other service providers for their hard work.
Given Chad and Annette propensity for scams Cory rightly challenged Bosworth’s credibility as a public servant.
You are not above anyone in your pattern of reading blogs, Cory posts stories that are read and not necessarily commented on. Some of us may not comment for a day or two or longer, you seem to fit right in with your delays in commenting.
There isn’t a reader here that stays online all day and comments on everything, contrary to your thinking even old men have daily obligations and chores to do. I can hardly wait for you to become an old man or whatever.
Believing that you are above the fray is an illusion by the way you keeping popping up every other day or so.
Grow up miles, if you think political debate should all be pretty nice and political stories should be written only from perspective, you have more to learn.
You have tipped your agenda by admitting you work for and are a patient of Bosworth (If I were you I’d ask for a second medical opinion).
Bosworth wasn’t a 36/24/7 news story, it was written in accordance with political activity, by her own erratic behavior and mindless press conferences, she relished the coverage she got and made some pretty good money with her candidacy, which was probably her and Chad’s intent in the first place.