Did we say books? Well, certainly two of Healeyâs published works should be considered newsletters(PDF). I mean a 12-page paper hardly cuts it as an undergraduate report, never mind suggesting itâs a book. Granted, Healey is capable of more weightier (PDF)substance, pushing the envelop with a 16-page newsletterâ¦thank God for footnotes, a page for a mailing label and a full page ad for training videos, or that âbookâ would have been only 10 pages.
Sure Iâm being tough on our accidental Lt. Governor. She did weigh in with two thesis-long reviews on current literature pertaining to Witness Intimidation (PDF)and men who batter women(PDF). However she was only the secondary author on the first report and was the principle author (of three) on the second report.
Admittedly, I only gave the COMPLETE WORKS OF KERRY MURPHY HEALEY a cursory review, but one question does come to mindâ¦How much of my tax dollars were spent regurgitating this drool? Perhaps the only silver lining of Republican rule is that the Justice Department has cut spending for these prima donna projects.
OK, we’re up to 139 pages.
<
p>
You get four hits on the LOC page — two are the same as the ones you cited at the NIJ page. Two more follow:
—-
LC Control Number: 94150941
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Brief Description: Boland, Barbara.
Prosecutorial response to heavy drug caseloads : comprehensive problem-reduction strategies / by Barbara Boland and Kerry Murphy Healey ; prepared for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, by Abt Associates Inc., under contract #OJP-89-C-009.
Washington, D.C. : U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, [1993]
v, 106 p. : ill., map ; 28 cm.
CALL NUMBER: HV5825 .B63 1993
—-
LC Control Number: 88601620
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Brief Description: Healey, Kerry Murphy.
State and local experience with drug paraphernalia laws / by Kerry Murphy Healey ; prepared for the National Institute of Justice … by Abt Associates Inc. under contracts # J-LEAA-011-81 and # OJP-86-C-002.
Washington, D.C. : U.S. Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Communication and Research Utilization, 1988.
iv, 139 p. : forms ; 23 cm.
<
p>
I’m sure you wanted to know all that.
…you have less of a life. I will concede the former. OK, she is the author or co-author of 4 books, none of which exceeded 200 pages and all appear to be survey reviews and not original research.
Frank was that a spin on KMH’s authorship? Was it an honest mistake? May I remind you of a recent post from a KIA blogger ” “Karl Rove would be proud. This is a reality-based site, and the smell of BS surrounds this claim and yet people keep spreading it on higher and deeper” …….keep it real Frank.
The “four books” is clearly not true, and from what I can tell, she doesn’t claim that to be so, anyway. At best we have two — if you can call them “books” — and several “white papers”.
<
p>
I wrote more in this post.
100%, but is basically right good enough for Frank? I am thinking when he an others went off when the Murray folks were basically right when they said 400 caucuses, they were basically right but Frank would not accept that. You know and I know we can spin this book thing anway we like it there is no criteria about the number of pages a book must contain to be considered a book, in matter of fact Mr Webster says book n 1. set of written, printed, or blank pages fastened along one side and encased between protective covers.
<
p> Honestly I am not arguing about KMH and her “books”. It appears Frank wants to hold people’e feet to the fire for acuracy, if so he should show by example
As my response to Charlie indicated, my research was not good enough. I didn’t start making excuses or back pedal with “ya buts”. I conceded that Charlie did a better job at getting the facts. (So Charlie, there are things that happened before 1995–pre internet? What was it like back then?)
<
p>
I do find it amusing that you make the connection to my admitted mistake (which I immediately conceded) with my calling into question to “400 caucus” coverage claim. All I asked for was a little evidence to back it up. There was no Murray presence at my Caucus. Someone from Somerville reported no Murray presence (and those were big caucuses), same with Hingham.
<
p>
Instead of offering any evidence, people keep repeating the 400 caucus claim and even upped the number to 400+. The fish story just got bigger.
<
p>
So the difference here is that when I got something wrong, I immediately conceded it. But when asked for proof about this 400 causus claim, people just turned up the volume and repeated the claim over and over again in hope that it would become fact.
and I gave it to you , the fact as of Thursday Feb 9, 2006 Murray had not covered 67 caucuses. So How many did he cover? As amusing as you found it you were out of line, I find it amusing that you woul dtake the time to “research” the authorship claim and not research the 400 call yourself. FYI I believe it was stated she authored 4 books not published. Again I am not arguing that point, personally I don’t care about that, what I care about is relentless attacks on honest mistakes and misquotes. Save that for the GOP
Are you sticking with the 400 caucuses covered as you suggest in the top of the post or are you suggesting that it was an honest mistake and misquotes that you mention in the bottom of your post.
<
p>
Also, the numbers just don’t add up. According to Cos there were about 600 caucuses (I read the same figure in the Globe), so if this claim that Murray’s campaign only missed 67 caucuses is true, if I do the math, as you suggested in that diary, the Murray campaign covered 533 caucuses! So which is it…400 or 533?
<
p>
I only have stated 2 basic points about this 400 caucus thing (or now we’re up to 533 apparently): one is I have no doubt that Murray’s campaign covered a lot more caucuses than Goldberg or Silbert. The second point was I doubted the 400 number and I certianly doubt the 533 number.
<
p>
I asked for some evidence and people from Somerville and Hingham said they saw no sign of Murray. You’ve offered no evidence and berate me for not digging up evidence to prove YOUR claims. Why can’t you support your claims?
<
p>
Your best aruement is I shouldn’t be attacking a fellow Dem, but using our energy to attack the Republicans…well wasn’t that what I was doing with the Healey diary? Apparently that still isn’t good enough for you because you posting attacking me in my own diary that attackes Healey. Maybe you should take your own advise and stop attacking a fellow Dem who is attacking Healey.
<
p>
Stop beating a dead horse will you.
I am not doing either Frank, but nice try, really let it go before you loose even more credibility.
<
p>
You were wrong jumping all over the Murray folks. Let me explain this to you like you were 10. The 400 number was given on when, Saturday or Sunday. In case you didn’t know there were caucuses held on Saturday February 4th, Sunday February 5th, Monday February 6th, Tuesday February 7th, Wednesday February 8th, Thursday February 9th ( there were/are some till scheduled). I reported the number 67 on Thursday evening after the Thursday ( an all the ones held prior to Thursday) caucuses were over. Did you even CONSIDER that a campaign might actually attend some of those held after the weekend ( the 400 incident) ? Maybe in some crazy scheme they actualy know how to run a campaign and went to more caucuses after the weekend? If they did would that make the number go up or down. Go ahead you can use your fingers if you’d like.
<
p>
I believe your post “Where’s the beef” was on Sunday Feb 7th. You asked two people for “evidence” and “they saw no sign of Murray”, hardly evidence in my book and Id be willing to bet it is not considered evidence in KMH’s books(loosely interpreted) either. So with your “evidence” you can only refute two of the alleged 400 that leaves how many Frank?
<
p>
Nice try with changing the number from 400 to 533. Im not the one saying there is like 600 caucuses YOU did. The 533 is from you. In matter of fact I intentionally left out some very important numbers to see if you would ask before leaping to conclusions. I did not say the 67 was from the total of ALL scheduled caucuses, or the caucuses scheduled to date, or the caucuses the TM campaign scheduled to be covered.
<
p>
Let me set this starigh also the 400 number has never been MY claim. Second of all if you want to be the fact police, be the fact police Don’t expect others to do the work for you. Having about 250 volunteers cover 400 caucuses over a weekend is not out or reach, iots not like it cant or hasnt been done. Secondly why dont you just ask the Murray folks? Do you think they are going to lie to you? Third find out what “covered” the caucuses means. If a volunteer showed up late and got the results is that covered?
<
p>
Last you are so kind to point out my “best” argument. For that I will give you some kind advice. When you are presenting “research” you should always try to present it beforehand, to folks you know that will critique you mercilessly; to avoid the embarassment of having others you do not know do it for you.