The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Q.E.D.: @MaxBoot Is a Lying Swindler

Posted on | August 24, 2013 | 46 Comments

Daniel J. Flynn is a gentleman and a scholar and a fellow contributor at The American Spectator, which sure as hell has never paid either of us $2 a word — !!!! the rate that Wall Street Journal editor Gary Rosen offered The Lying Swindler Max Boot to, in essence, re-write a column about football by Flynn that WSJ editors rejected.

Flynn has a new book out, The War on Football: Saving America’s Game. Flynn wished to promote his book and, of course, Gary Rosen and the editors of the Wall Street Journal were under no obligation to publish Flynn’s column. But once Flynn had submitted his column and they had rejected it, what the WSJ were certainly wrong in doing was to offer an exorbitant rate to Max Boot (two bucks a word? for an op-ed essay?) to write a piece derived from Flynn’s ideas.

Flynn has a column at The American Spectator telling his side of the story. As for Max Boot and Gary Rosen, their side of the story is the rationalization of thieves who have been caught red-handed.

Gary Rosen plotted this crime, and Max Boot signed his name to it.

To hell with Max Book and to hell with Gary Rosen. Here I paraphrase from Ken White’s memorable denunciation of Charles Carreon: Fuck Max Boot and Gary Rosen. They are vermin. They’re not forgivable. Let any good they have ever done be wiped out. Let their names be synonymous with dishonest swindling thievery. Selah.

I just blocked @MaxBoot on Twitter. Every honest man must.

 

 

UPDATE: Following up:

Every honest man must do this, or no one is safe from these thieves.

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • richard mcenroe

    RT’d & blocked

  • Steve White

    Well, wait a minute. The essential issue is this: did Boot see Flynn’s piece or not? Did the WSJ editors use Flynn’s piece to guide and advise Boot, or not?

    If Boot is correct and he didn’t ever see Flynn’s piece, and he didn’t have the WSJ folks jabbering in his ear as to what his own piece should look like, then as a writer he’s clear.

    Boot apparently provided Politico with several drafts and a spreadsheet full of notes and references. That’s noted at the end of the Politico story. What did Politico do with that? Did they check it out? Did they examine how Mr. Boot’s drafts evolved?

    From what Politico quoted, the compared sections sure do seem similar. What about the rest of the two pieces?

    Sorry, I have to see some more details before I know who to believe.

  • richard mcenroe

    Never trust the State Media

  • SwiperTheFox

    This is the same Max Boot known as a valiant conservative defender of the American military and someone that’s dedicated his life to supporting them in his words and activism?

    Dear sweet god I hope this is not true…

    It’s like finding out that Hank Williams Jr. or some other great patriotic musician ran over a grandmother… or that a younger brother burned down your house or… yeah…

  • robertstacymccain

    The point is, the WSJ is still hiding the truth.

    1. Flynn submits his column, which Rosen was willing to publish, however
    2. Others on the WSJ editorial board — whose motives are unknown — objects to the column;
    3. Normally, this would mean the writer would be asked to revise the column, or to accept editorial revision; however
    4. SOMEBODY AT THE WALL STREET JOURNAL DID NOT WANT TO HAVE DAN FLYNN’S BYLINE IN THEIR PAPER.
    5. So therefore, Flynn’s column is rejected, and Rosen instead asks Max Boot — someone acceptable to whoever it is at the WSJ decided that Flynn is persona non grata — should be commissioned to write a column that was at a minimum inspired by the Flynn column that the WSJ editorial board rejected.

    The question that needs to be answered is, “Why has Dan Flynn been blackballed by the Wall Street Journal, and who made that decision?”

    Now, the Wall Street Journal can publish whoever or whatever they want. But they cannot blackball a writer, then steal his idea and expect us not to call them out, the thieving swine!

  • robertstacymccain

    If Max Boot is an honorable man, he’ll stop trying to cover for his friends at the WSJ — because trust me, $2 a word indicates quite an intimate friendship with someone very important in WSJ World — and start telling the truth about what happened.

    As it stands, everyone at the WSJ is cast under a shadow of suspicion.

  • Steve White

    Was Flynn blackballed? Or did the WSJ (or a few of the editors there) not like his piece?

    I do medical writing. I’ve submitted manuscripts to medical journals that were rejected, so I’m used to it. I never once thought I was being blackballed even if at some later point another researcher published something in the same journal on the same topic.

    I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying I don’t see any proof that Mr. Flynn was blackballed. The WSJ may have liked the idea but not the piece.

  • Dianna Deeley

    Oh, no. I really want there to be a decent explanation. I feel sick about this

  • Dianna Deeley

    It would help if I could get to Flynn’s OpEd in the Post! I can’t do a comparison until I have both essays. I can get Boot’s, I can’t get anything but the Circle of Doom at the Post. Grrrr.

  • ThomasD

    The WSJ needs to offer a credible explanation why they paid an exorbitant figure for a piece substantially the same as one they recently declined to publish.

    What did Boot bring to the table, in facts, analysis, or name, that Flynn did not?

    Lacking such an explanation the act is in direct opposition to both business and common sense.

  • AnonymousDrivel

    Looks like Flynn is being robbed. He gave “the answer” to another interest and that interest back-engineered all the way to the question and then preempted the rightful author’s research and insight.

    Truly nasty piece of work from the WSJ.

  • Dustin

    kinda sounds like they loved his article, given their efforts and expenses to guide a different author to produce a similar one.

  • Dandapani

    Blocked them both.

  • jetty

    I remember reading the Boot article the other day and came away not liking Max Boot.

  • SwiperTheFox

    Which one?

  • Pingback: Matt Damon Proves He’s No ‘Good Will Hunting’… Again | Regular Right Guy

  • Lysander Spooner

    Perhaps Rosen put it best in his note to Boot: “This thing will write itself!”

  • Pingback: The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Who Dares Insult a 'Tator? Total Retaliation Against the Punks Who Dissed Dan Flynn!

  • richard mcenroe

    nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know wot I mean, know wot I mean?

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    Pro football has been ruined for me by all the gang bangers that are on the teams, the bizarre use of union tactics in the sport, and the flood of leftist sports announcers. I remember fondly watching games with my Dad back when it was just football. Now it’s a social experiment.

    I guess it’s still OK to watch in bars where you can’t hear the sound, and don’t really know who’s who so much. I’d rather watch NASCAR. (Although ESPN seems hell-bent on pointing out all the “green” technology and other useless crap.)

    So after that preamble, would you hire me to write about Pro Football? Hell no, you wouldn’t. Not if you were anything more professional than a fanzine. So why on Earth would they ask Boot to do this? It’s almost like a mafia tale, where someone has to do a thing for the guy or else you-know-who is gonna sleep with the fishes.