CLAYTON CRAMER HAS JUST ABOUT...
used up his credibility with his increasingly frantic defenses of John Lott.
How many times has he desperately misrepresented Tim Lambert in the last couple of weeks?
As Cramer continues to embarrass himself daily, it's becoming harder and harder to believe that this is the same guy who credibly took down Bellesiles's critics a year ago.
What a difference a year makes, huh?
If you recall, way back in January I argued there was a simple reason for why the Lott case was so important to them:
As I've said many times, these folks only went after Bellesiles tooth and nail because they disagreed with his thesis and now they believe Lott's flimsy alibi because they agree with his thesis. To admit that's what's going on would essentially destroy the"dishonest libruls supported Bellesiles" morality play that is so important for their particular worldview to work.Lott's defenders have now proved themselves to be even more sycophantic than Bellesiles's defenders. I'd argue that's not exactly something to be proud of.
They won't dare admit that they're doing the same thing Bellesiles's supporters did because it threatens more than Lott. It calls into question their entire cartoonish view of academia itself.
And they wouldn't dare do that, would they?
However, I must say that it's all unfolding exactly as I expected it would.
Ah, the irony is quite delicious, isn't it?
comments powered by Disqus
- Voting opens soon for the leaders of the OAH in 2017
- A team of science historians are attempting to re-create recipes from sixteenth-century alchemy texts
- David Kennedy recalls his dinners with President Obama
- When Kellie Jones Wanted To Study Black Art History, The Field Didn’t Exist. So She Created It Herself.
- Michael Honey: The 60’s activist turned historian