On her blog, Anne Leary describes herself in part with “Graduate of Harvard, MBA University of Chicago.”

We’ve already learned that, if one practices her comrade Team America’s “logic”, no one is allowed to actually describe themselves by their job or other commonly accepted descriptors. This means that TA is no longer allowed to call himself a “lawyer”. It also clearly implies that the guy he and Ms. Leary support for reelection to Congress is not supposed to call himself “Representative” because of this new rule they’ve made up.

Now we find out that, based on what passes for Ms. Leary’s own version of “logic”, alumni of a given school are supposed to call their alma mater to attack anyone who is associated with that school but has fallen out of favor with some random gaggle of partisans.

In other words: Alumni of Harvard and the University of Chicago… call your alumni office. There’s a partisan whiner using your good name to promote her propaganda…

Sound ridiculous? No more ridiculous than the bizarre catfight GOP partisans are trying to info-pimp over Dan Seals’ position as an adjunct professor at Northwestern University.

For some reason, Ms. Leary and her friend TA think it’s a lie to tell people that you are an adjunct professor when, in fact, you actually are an adjunct professor.

You would think that, by their own descriptions of themselves, these would be smart people. TA is a lawyer. Ms. Leary is an Ivy League grad with experience in the banking industry.

Yet, when it comes to partisanship, they throw all logic out the window in their efforts to be base and petty. Refusing to acknowledge that a professorship is actually a professorship they instead attack the candidate (because he dares to oppose ‘their guy’) and anyone who points out little things like “facts” and “reality”.

Mark Kirk is a nice enough fellow and clearly very bright. Why he tolerates having a bunch of weak-kneed Tanya Harding imitators who rely on fibs and twisted tales as ’supporters’ is unclear.

For the record, Ms. Leary thought she was calling me and others out in one of her posts by declaring that the Repub partisans’ whining about their own manufactured controversy is “damaging” to Prof. Dan Seals and that any efforts to point out those partisans’ own lack of logic are somehow ad hominem attacks.

Since she at times has an affinity for the delete key, I’ll repeat my reply here:

How is pointing out the Republican partisans’ fallacies about Prof. Dan Seals “damaging” to him?

While you’re at it, Ms. Leary, you may wish to look up the definition of “ad hominem” as it fits your own “hysterical ranting” much better than any of the other actual posts discussing this topic (right or left) to date.

Unlike Ms. Leary, TA usually has the decency to acknowledge his errors. (Except, quite obviously, in this ongoing embarrassment to himself.)

Given how regularly Ms. Leary decries theocratic fascism and its harsh punishments (and often rightly so), one would think she would oppose such partisan-based ‘rhetorical stoning’ of her fellow Americans. One would be wrong.

Apparently, in Ms. Leary’s backyard and TA’s version of America, they (and only they) get to declare what is kosher for everyone else to say and they (and only they) can decide what is “true” or not, even if their partisan decrees are clearly false in and of themselves.

Update: Ms. Leary attempts to respond. It’s unclear what she still doesn’t understand but in her response she “sqeals” about that Dan Seals…

Ms. Leary: “Hey, I earned my degrees fair and square.”

That’s nice. Nobody said she didn’t.

Rather, I pointed out (above) that her fellow members of the Crimson and Maroon nations might disagree with her “sqeals” and “hysterical rantings” and want to call their respective alumni offices to complain that she lists Harvard and the University of Chicago in her blog’s bio. That is, after all, what she wants Northwestern alumni to do with regards to Dan Seals.

Ms. Leary: “Nobody’s paying me to teach some part-time class”

I’m sure if Ms. Leary wanted to teach a class and was accepted by whatever institution she applied at (or was recruited by) they would, in fact, pay her.

Or, in her partisan zealotry, is she suggesting professors and teachers are not supposed to be paid?

Ms. Leary: “I’m not using some phony title”

Who is? Dan Seals, whether Ms. Leary and her colleagues like it or not, is a Visiting Lecturer at Northwestern University. Another commonly accepted word for “visiting lecturer” is … “professor.” Nothing phony there — but there sure is a lot of made-up outrage coming from one side of the political aisle.

Ms. Leary: “To try to get a real job”

No one else involved in this discussion, including the candidates, is doing that either.

Ms. Leary: “I don’t mindlessly recite Dem talking points to desperately try to change the subject”

Nor do I.

It is rather obvious though, that Ms. Leary, tends to recite conservative talking points to desperately distort a given subject.

Besides, who’s changing “the subject”? The subject is the conserv-o-partisan Kirk supporters’ manufactured and info-pimped non-story about Dan Seals job as a visiting lecturer at Northwestern University. Is that not the topic of this blogpost?

Or is pointing out that this non-controversy is, in and of itself, a transparent effort to avoid actually discussing issues that matter. (Apparently simply mentioning words like economy, health care, or, gasp, Iraq is now defined as “hysterical ranting” per the most recent Dictionary of Standard English, Anne Leary Hyperpartisan Edition.)

And finally, Ms. Leary concludes her prose with some “hysterical ranting” about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. ;) (Yes, that’s a joke friends.)

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)