Look, I’ll give just one example. At the end of cashill’s article, he thinks he’s delivered the definitive deathblow by pointing out that Obama uses the word “ballast”.

Cashill’s reasoning? “Ballast is a nautical term, Ayers once worked on a boat, AND….” (wait for it, this is the best part) “I didn’t know what ballast meant until I looked it up”

So Cashill’s best, most irrefutable evidence that Ayers wrote Dreams is that Cashill is too stupid to have encountered the word ballast before, and he’s too illiterate to realise that it’s often used in metaphorical contexts.

Thanks, but no thanks. I prefer my ‘experts’ to argue from a position of, well, knowing something, rather than arguing that “I never heard of this before, therefore i can draw conclusions about it.”

/rant off (sorry, but Cashill setting himself up as some kind of faux-academic burns my ass)