Writes Jonathan Turley in "Rittenhouse trial: Perils of weighing public opinion over evidence" (The Hill).
Is "make this cat walk backward" an idiomatic expression? Google returns only 4 results on this search, one of which is the article I've quoted above. The other 3 — 1, 2, 3 — are all from July 2014, and they are all reports of a quote — on the topic of whether members of Congress can sue the President for violating separation of powers — that came from Jonathan Turley.
"Make this cat walk backward" seems related to the expression that it's hard/impossible to "herd cats." I guess it's hard to make a cat do anything, so make up your own cat expression and try — like Jonathan Turley — to get your idea to go viral.
What can the prosecution do to make the metaphorical cat walk backward? Find a metaphorical Roomba:
ADDED: As many commenters here are saying, you will find non-Turley examples of the phrase "walk the cat back." To walk back isn't the same as to walk backward. When you go out for a walk, in the end, you walk back home. That doesn't mean backward!
Here are the Everly Brothers, and I assure you that they are not imploring the woman to walk backwards, just to walk — in a frontward-facing position — back to them:
Here's a Phrase Finder piece on "Walk the cat back." It begins with a usage by Maureen Dowd (in 2010) that seems to be a misunderstanding of the phrase "walk back the cat." If you think there's no significant difference between those 2 phrases, read that piece. "Walking Back the Cat" was the title of a 1997 spy thriller by Robert Littell who explained it as an expression used by spies to mean "attempting to retrace a process to its origin, when that process had been tentative and indirect in the first place."
Posts
64 comments:
Based on the coverage of the trial, this shouldn’t have even gone to the jury. Now, sadly, we get to see if the threats to the jury succeeded in swinging the outcome.
“Make the cat walk backwards” is a perfectly serviceable idiom. I wish Turley luck in his efforts to get it going.
Yep.
Safire, Dowd, Buchanan have all used the "walk the cat back..or backward." It is derived from the intelligence community. It is a metaphor for retracing steps taken to try and determine motive of a person, country, intelligence agency, etc.
If you want to see a cat jump backwards, put anything that looks like a snake in the floor.
Works with humans, too.
Suppose for supposing' s sake that the jury convicts on only the gun charge. Got to convict on something, right? Then the judge dismisses on account of the vagueness of the statute. Is that technically possible, given WI law?
When a cat walks backwards, the bells on the collar unring.
"Walk back the charges" seems to be a common phrase. Turley's adding a flourish of his own.
I liked the beatnik practice of saying things like "a cat named Bob showed me this." It suggested a magical world in which humans and cats interacted as equals, but alas, that world is only a fantasy. The cats would never come down to our level.
It is quite entertaining to see you post one topic and connect it to a completely unrelated thing based on a small phrase, tone or aspect of the original.
“What has backward walking cats got to do with the Rittenhouse trial?”
“You don’t know Althouse, do you.”
I don’t find it hard to herd one or two cats. The principles of herding are the same as for cattle or sheep. You need to be in position so that they think going the direction you want them to go is their idea. The problem when you have more than one or two cats is that they don’t bunch up the way cattle or sheep do, so it’s harder to have position on all of them at once.
The term “walk back the cat” appears in John le Carre’s 1974 novel “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy,” in reference to protagonist George Smiley’s assignment to investigate the betrayal of a British intelligence officer by a Soviet mole in the UK’s intelligence hierarchy. There, the phrase meant tracing the events of a failed action backwards in order to identify responsibility for acts or miscues among those involved.
Over charging doesn't please the public, it pleases the media.
I don't know about its online usage, but I recall hearing that phrase - "you can't make a cat walk backwards" - in conversation. This was years ago, and I can't recall the context. It was also in Virginia - maybe it's a Southern expression?
I understood it to be a variant of "letting the cat out of the bag." Once the cat is out of the bag, it won't go back in. That is, once certain things are said, you can't return to when they were unknown or unspoken. (A secret that turns into gossip, for example.)
Similarly, perhaps, you can't make a cat walk backwards. The prosecutor can't make the cat go backwards from the serious charges to the less serious ones. The cat is out of the bag - the jury has seen and heard too much for that strategy to be effective. You can't control the cat.
Walking back the cat = conducting a failure analysis, studying where things went wrong
Not one journalist - anywhere - has be honest like the statement above.
They promised the jury that it would see a vigilante rampaging in utter disregard of human life. Instead, the jury saw a much more confusing, chaotic scene in which Rittenhouse was threatened with a gun, hit repeatedly and chased down a street."
Even the witness- Grutstenshaldnazi or whatever his name is -who was shot, who pointed a loaded gun at Rittenhouse, is out there lying to the press. The press(D) who eat up his lies and do not question his lies. Even though his testimony on the stand proves HE IS A LIAR.
I think - - I might be wrong - - that "walk the cat back" is US Navy jargon used on aircraft carriers to describe the process of readying the catapults on the flight deck for launching airplanes. I'm checking with a Navy Air vet now to verify.
What Difference does it make, what the facts were?
Kyle did NOT support the Black Liberation Movement, and thus; should be executed
Long Live The State!! Long Live The BLM!!! Long Live The Party!!!!
I am not sure if I would call these lesser included charges overcharging. The overcharging was the weapons charge, as well as, possibly, the charge of him shooting at the elusive Jump Kick guy. In many jurisdictions, prosecutors don’t have to allege lesser included charges, but, instead, just request the jury instructions for them. Think of it this way - if the primary charge is A+B+C+D, a lesser included charge may only require A+B+C, with the idea being that the jury can fall back on it if they cannot prove D beyond a reasonable doubt. The overcharging is not, really, the lesser included charge, but the primary charge, with the D element (above) being problematic. Most often, when lesser included charge gets included in the jury instructions, the potentially missing element (D) involves intent.
Of course, this is all moot, if the prosecution cannot disprove at least one element of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, because self defense negates both the primary charges, as well as the lesser included charges.
Snakes and cats reminded me of this:
https://www.escape-suspense.com/2007/05/escape_a_shipme.html
Can of Cheese: "They promised the jury that it would see a vigilante rampaging in utter disregard of human life."
Left Bank and gadfly were pushing that very lie at the end of last Friday here at Althouse.
In fact, across much of the Lefty/NeverTrump-lefty Liar-O-Sphere, ALL the original lies re:Rittenhouse have gained new life.
Sorry for the double post. And Ann, after a few more people comment, you should do a poll on the most likely and/or effective meaning of the phrase.
This post and comments also show why dogs are preferable.
I will be surprised if the jury reaches a not guilty verdict on any of the serious charges- the jury was poisoned from the start by all the lies the media told prior to the trial, and it is being poisoned by the explicit and implicit threats being publicly offered in the case of a not guilty verdict. I won't be surprised if they return a guilty verdict. We are now a nation of cowards for the most part.
I first heard the phrase “You can’t walk the cat back” in the early ‘80s.
It was used in a meeting by a DOD civilian (w/ USN background) living in London describing intense labor relations activities in Italy, where I was stationed at the time.
I took it to mean that given the course(s) of action taken thus far there was no turning back.
"Rittenhouse was threatened with a gun, hit repeatedly and chased down a street"
Therefore the DA went after the surviving perpetrator(s) of those crimes, right?
Anyway, how is a political DA bringing wild charges held accountable?
Even the witness- Grutstenshaldnazi or whatever his name is -who was shot, who pointed a loaded gun at Rittenhouse, is out there lying to the press. The press(D) who eat up his lies and do not question his lies. Even though his testimony on the stand proves HE IS A LIAR.
That is not even the most interesting thing about him. He was charged with two crimes, one a felony. Both were dismissed within a month of the trial and his testimony for the state. I think that is witness tampering. I did not see that issue raised as the defense may not have known. I expect to hear something about it tomorrow.
If my neighbors, the FBI, and multiple random strangers recorded the way I made breakfast this morning, and played it back in slow motion, from multiple different angles including from above, and "enhanced" the pictures to make it "easier to see," they could find several felonies in the way I brewed the coffee and poured the cereal into the bowl. (Not to mention that the land that my kitchen rests on was stolen from indigenous peoples, and the coffee beans may not have been entirely conflict-free).
Hoping that this is mentioned as part of the defense closing argument.
"If the first-degree charge is wildly out of reach, they are more likely to doubt the lesser charges, too."
Is he correct? They may doubt the lesser charges, but functionally they provide an escape hatch either to try to avoid retribution by the mob, or to "split the baby" in the case of a potentially hung jury. Either way, the state's obligation to prove it's case is lessened, and Rittenhouse's presumption of innocence is eroded. I hate this maneuver as much as I hate overcharging.
Sebastian said...
"Rittenhouse was threatened with a gun, hit repeatedly and chased down a street"
Therefore the DA went after the surviving perpetrator(s) of those crimes, right?
Anyway, how is a political DA bringing wild charges held accountable?
The DA also dropped criminal charges against Grosskreutz, the surviving attempted murderer, just days before the trial started.
Grosskreutz was violating numerous laws including theft, arson, assault, and attempted murder all on camera.
But the democrats have made him a hero.
Because they are disgusting shitty people.
"If the first-degree charge is wildly out of reach, they are more likely to doubt the lesser charges, too."
This is so obviously wrong and stupid that it should be categorized as a lie.
Prosecutors always throw in overcharges to force a plea or "negotiate" with the jury.
Walk back the cat isn't the same as walk the cat backward!
The image of walking backward isn't there. That's just a silly thing to try to do with a cat that doesn't work.
Walk back the cat means that you know that a cat would have come via a strange route so you can't go back the way it came. It's too hard to figure out.
What was Turley thinking? Was it that it's hard to get a creature to move in such an awkward unfamiliar way, like the cat in the Roomba video. Or did he mean there's a circuitous way that was established in getting where we are and to go back over exactly that route would be very hard?
If God was a chicken, what would his angels look like? Would they be big chickens with arms as well as wings?
Would the Devil be a big chicken too? A bright red chicken with horns and a whip-like tail?
Or would it be Colonel Sanders? If you're a bad chicken do you go to Kentucky Fried when you die? Eleven herbs and spices make bad chickens taste good.
Winner winner chicken sinner for dinner.
Update: My USN aviator friend verified that "walk the cat back" is, indeed, flight deck jargon, although he didn't go into further detail. How it is used is, to me, unclear, but would seem to indicate that once a plane is launched (via the catapult) there is no "walking it back." Or, alternatively, "walking it back" might simply mean to prep the catapult for the next launch.
I guess it would be dangerous to walk the catwalk backwards.
Oh fiddlysticks! I think I posted my chicken comment to the wrong comments thread.
What if your cat is Egyptian?
I can’t cite a source but as a long-time fan of Patrick O’Brian’s sea novels I suspect that “walking back the cat” might be nautical: when sailors were at the capstan hauling in (or letting out) the ship’s anchor cable. Others more knowledgeable, please advise. Or disagree.
The Everly brothers are adorable! Thank you!2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_MaJDK3VNE
The classic "Herding Cats" commercial
as for Navy catapults. The piece of gear that attaches from the actual capapult piston process to the plane is called the Shuttle. It runs in a slot on the deck. It is now retracted by power, but in the past, I suspect that deck hands walked it back after a launch.
It is easy to over-think this.
If you followed the trial, you might well think that the jurors could easily conclude that Rittenhouse has a complete defense based on self-defense. In fact, that is what the evidence shows is most likely.
The "provocation" issue is a laugh. It is intended to queer Rittenhouse's self-defense claim, but the evidence is weak to the point of non-existence. The prosecution had some new drone video dropped on its doorstep a week ago Friday that doesn't show anything new, but they have drummed up the idea that it shows Rittenhouse waving his rifle around and pointing it at someone (not Rosenbaum) with his left hand (he is right-handed). The prosecution asserts that the pointing was a provocation by Rittenhouse that negates his self-defense claim. The video was "enhanced" by an expert in a way that the expert admitted creates false images and in any case is just a blur.
The joker in the deck is whether one or more jurors really wants to convict Rittenhouse of something for just being there. In other words, if he hadn't shown up, none of this would have happened. But that line of thinking equally applies to the rioters that were shot--if they hadn't been out there burning things, chasing people after threatening to kill them, beating Rittenhouse over the head with a skateboard, kicking him in the head, and pointing handguns at him (all of which the evidence shows), none of this would have happened.
So maybe Rittenhouse will get convicted (low probability), there will be a hung jury (high probability), or he will be acquitted (depends on whether there are one or more holdouts for conviction). If there is a hung jury, will he be re-prosecuted? It is always easier to convict someone the second time around. The DA will interview the jurors to find out what worked and what did not. In a second trial Grosskruetz will not say what he said to this jury, although he will be reminded what he said, and asked whether he was lying then or is lying now. ADA Binger will be sent to the showers.
But you never can tell about juries.
Bob Boyd,
Nah, it is ok. On my way to KFC right now.
Bob Boyd said...
If God was a chicken, what would his angels look like? Would they be big chickens with arms as well as wings?
Would the Devil be a big chicken too? A bright red chicken with horns and a whip-like tail?
Or would it be Colonel Sanders?
here goes....
Our teacher asked what my favorite animal was, and I said, "Fried chicken."
She said I wasn't funny, but she couldn't have been right, because everyone else laughed. My parents told me to always tell the truth. I did. Fried chicken is my favorite animal. I told my dad what happened, and he said my teacher was probably a member of PETA. He said they love animals very much. I do, too. Especially chicken, pork and beef.
Anyway, my teacher sent me to the principal's office. I told him what happened, and he laughed, too. Then he told me not to do it again.
The next day in class, my teacher asked me what my favorite live animal was. I told her it was chicken. She asked me why, so I told her it was because you could make them into fried chicken. She sent me back to the principal's office. He laughed, and told me not to do it again.
I don't understand. My parents taught me to be honest, but my teacher doesn't like it when I am. Today, my teacher asked me to tell her what famous person I admired most.
I told her, "Colonel Sanders."
Guess where I am now ...
The prosecution's problem is that there is clear video evidence that Rittenhouse was under attack in each case where he used deadly force. So their only option to get a conviction is to claim that Rittenhouse provoked the attacks. Aside from the lack of evidence, they still have a problem, because there is clear video evidence of Rittenhouse running away from his attackers, which undoes the provocation exception. The only way the prosecution can get around that is if the provocation was intended to provoke the attack for the purpose of allowing Rittenhouse to kill his attacker.
As such, the killing of Rosenbaum must have been premeditated cold-blooded murder. If that can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt then he is not guilty.
Turley's article and this one are pretty thought provoking: https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/when-all-the-media-narratives-collapse
littell used walk the cat back, as the verification of a stream of intelligence, to avoid blowback, propaganda sent over seas, thats gets recycled as news
littell used walk the cat back, as the verification of a stream of intelligence, to avoid blowback, propaganda sent over seas, thats gets recycled as news
IgnoranceisBliss @ 11:43: Good analysis.
You can make the cat walk back.
But only with a cat on nine tails
And in the dark.
After letting it out of the bag.
No idea or opinion about the meaning of walking the cat backward but I find the speculation interesting. On the other hand, has there ever been better harmony singing than the Everly Brothers?
If the jury does find him not guilty, who will protect them from the inevitable onslaught and doxxings?
The government that wants a guilty verdict and is willing to lie for it?
The media that has a narrative and is willing to let people die for it?
Will the police protect the jurors from a riot on their doorstep?
The truth is not the deciding factor here; its back has already been broken on the Catherine Wheel of Social Media.
We are asking the jurors to willfully offer themselves to the Hunger Games.
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold, the cat will not walk backwards.
I am Laslo.
"It's a little known fact that the smartest animal is a pig." - Cliff Clavin
The only way the prosecution can get around that is if the provocation was intended to provoke the attack for the purpose of allowing Rittenhouse to kill his attacker.
The prosecution will take a stupid or politically motivated jury, too...
The Drill SGT: "as for Navy catapults. The piece of gear that attaches from the actual capapult piston process to the plane is called the Shuttle. It runs in a slot on the deck. It is now retracted by power, but in the past, I suspect that deck hands walked it back after a launch."
Correct. A catapult dude walks back as the shuttle retracts to look for FOD (foreign objects/debris, etc) as well as making sure everything looks good to go for the next cat shot.
""Make this cat walk backward" seems related to the expression that it's hard/impossible to "herd cats.""
I have cats. I also have a pureblood, pedigree German shepherd dog. Her father, whose bloodline can be traced without interruption solely through males, back to one of the half dozen or so male GSDs used to officially establish the breed back in mid-19th century Germany, was flown-in from Germany and mated with her mother at a place in Wisconsin, devoted to producing GSDs for American sheepherders. And boy she can herd cats!
Usually the catapult can only be reached by the catwalk.
Turley is technically correct in saying that the Kenosha riots followed a fatal police shooting, in that some people had been fatally shot by cops at some point before those riots occurred. But if he's talking about the non-fatal Jacob Blake shooting, he's undermining his own credibility.
Why must I feel like that
Why must I walk teh cat
Owen said...
IgnoranceisBliss @ 11:43: Good analysis
I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet...
Maybe a better expression would be "A terrible case of overcharging to make the prosecutors eat cat shit until they choke and puke their guts out" would make more sense.
Half the people think the prosecution is doing such a shitty job on purpose and the the half think they just just shitty prosecutors who never should have brought this politicized case to begin with. They should be ashamed of themselves.
re: Ann Althouse at 9:31 AM
Thank God at least someone gets it!
Drago: “Left Bank and gadfly were pushing that very lie at the end of last Friday here at Althouse.”
No, I was advocating the lesser included charges.
Left Bank: "No, I was advocating the lesser included charges."
You are lying again.
You explicitly claimed Rittenhouse was running and waving his rifle around.
That is a lie.
A complete lie.
A complete and total lie, which ALL the video and testimonial evidence thoroughly and conclusively proved.
But then you are still a Clinton dossier enthusiast as well as a Collusion Truther, so no one is surprised.
No one at all.
>>What was Turley thinking?
I mostly only read Turley via his Res Ipsa blog. Substantive discussion is always good. Like almost everything else I see on the Internet, however (our hostess's posts, of course, excepted), the writing tends to be sloppy, like nobody ever bothers to re-read what they're about to post. Including Turley's posts. It's quite possible Turley wasn't "thinking" anything here but just dashed something off and didn't go back and look at the specific language he was using. So maybe he just mangled the walking the cat back off meme (if I may) and never looked back at it with any critical eye.
I usually go over and over what I'm about to post, either as a (rare) comment or in a business email. But the lapses still sneak through.
--gpm
--gpm
--gpm
Left Bank of the Charles said...
Drago: “Left Bank and gadfly were pushing that very lie at the end of last Friday here at Althouse.”
No, I was advocating the lesser included charges.
Leftists cannot be honest about what they want.
Because if they were honest they would be down to the 30-35% of the population that wants a fascist state with Antifa/BLM goon squads running around burning down their political opponents stuff.
Almost everyone has them figured out now though.
For what it's worth, and this may already be known, but the judge revised the jury instructions somewhat on the fly as he was giving them, and told the jury that if they find a valid self-defense claim on one of the primary charges then they *are prohibited* from finding Rittenhouse guilty of a lesser included offense on the same charge.
Post a Comment