"In a democracy (‘rule by mob’), those who refuse to learn from history will be the majority and will dictate that everyone else suffer for their ignorance."
The End Times approach. I’m looking for the Earth to shudder (well, one sure went through the Hivemind collective!), the Sun to go nova and time to end!
Why? Someone at the LA Times (the LA TIMES, folks!) noted that Charlie Gibson twisted Sarah Palin’s request for prayer:
A video [this video, folks—twc.] shows Palin asking a group to pray that the nation’s leaders were sending troops to Iraq “on a task that is from God.”
Gibson, however, mischaracterized her as simply asserting that the nation’s leaders were sending troops to Iraq on a task from God.
Next up? Surely the sea will disappear… (Revelation 21:1), pigs will fly and Satan will open Hell’s Ice Rink on the Left Coast…
It’s the End Times, I tell you folks. Running for the hills won’t help. The LA Times, of all spore collectives… The Hivemind must have the vapors.
Let’s let this post begin with some Begala (rhymes with “Big Caca”):
I was in the middle of a Neil Armstrong Moment when I was on CNN Tuesday morning. Rather than let McCain and Palin get away with their lie, anchor John Roberts played a videotape of Sarah Palin in a 2006 gubernatorial debate in which she endorsed the bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island saying, “I’m not going to stand in the way of progress that our congressional delegation and the position of strength that they have right now.” Perhaps her supporters, noting Palin’s support for banning books, teaching creationism and doubting global warming will argue that for her, calling the bridge “progress” was her way of saying she was against it.)
Full stop. Would that be the “anchor John Roberts” who recently “slipped and said ‘we’ when asking [Begala] how Democrats should respond to Republican attacks”? Well, obvious bias aside, what’s the substance of Begala’s attack? As to the Bridge to Nowhere, see my previous post today, Mr. Begala (he won’t, of course. Its substance–Jim DeMint’s article–is in the Evil Wall Street Journal, the reading of which no doubt gives Begala a rash).
The banning books lie? Read this and weep, Mr. Begala. (note: the link is to a pdf) The first paragraph of the linked document suffices to demonstrate that Begala is a liar or a fool:
We at the City of Wasilla have received many emails and requests for information about “banned or censured” books at the Wasilla Library while former Mayor Palin was in office. We have no records of any books being “banned or censured” ever.
The emphasis is in the original.
And what of Biggaliah’s assertion that Palin supports “teaching creationism”? First, by simply and baldly stating a very genral assertion of contrafactual “trutherism” Begala is simply attempting to bias his readers’ perceptions of Palin as a whole. Second, by doing so, he’s attempting to impeach any arguments refuting his earlier assertion with this disingenuous, subtle ad hominem attack. But for anyone willing to do 30 seconds (or less) of fact checking, OK, maybe 45 seconds for a slow reader following up on footnotes giving actual sources, the “Palin wants radical fundie nutjobs teaching superstition in schools” meme falls flat.
Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska’s schools. She has said that students should be allowed to “debate both sides” of the evolution question, but she also said creationism “doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”
As to doubting global warming *sigh*. From Begala’s other bloviations, one gathers he means anthropogenic global warming as opposed to heliogenic global warming. *heh* That being the fair assumption based on Begala’s consistent stance, one can only respond to his assertion that Palin is a “global warming denier” (or at least dounter) with a big fat, “So? So she’s rational and you’re not. That’s a crime?”
The less than 30 seconds it took me to read the “analysis” at Factcheck.org and click through to a primary source (“Palin has not pushed creation science as governor,” Alaska Daily News–Dan Joling, with references aplenty) would have served Begala well, had he any desire for truth–or even to NOT appear to be an idiot.
“Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation’s budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.
“When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys’ club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.”
Watch the whole thing from which Charlie Gibson drew a partial comment out of context in order to make it say something Palin did NOT say:
In case you missed it, let me reproduce the relevant portions that Gibson either wittingly or stupidly twisted, with significant the words Gibson left out or glossed over with paraphrase:
” Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God… That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
So, either Charlie Gibson did not actually listen to Palin’s comments or read a transcript or understand what he heard or read OR he did and deliberately edited her comments to twist them. Those words are plainly and clearly a conditional statement, anexhortation to pray for our national leaders to chose a path approved by God, to make their plan for Iraq line up with a Godly purpose.
That’s been a perfectly normal Christian thing to do for a couple of millennia–actually longer given Christian acceptance of the Jewish scripture as authoritative and such injunctions as to the Jews in captivity in pagan Babylon demand that the captives,
“Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare.” Jeremiah 29:7
And, among other passages in the New Testament exhorting Christians to be good citizens, Paul wrote to a young pastor concerning his new pastorate,
“1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
“2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.”–I Timothy 2: 1-2
Sarah Palin’s exhortation to pray THAT our leaders plan in agreement with God’s will is no statement of belief that their plans already are.
Any other reading of it is either disingenuous or stupid.
Therefore, Charlie Gibson is either an idiot (for not carefully listening to or reading her actual words or because of his inability to understand plain English) OR he is a liar for taking bits out of context and twisting them to say what she did not.
Either way, unless he recants his slander (that’s “lieing accusation”)–or ABC slaps him upside the head hard–ABC will be on my list of banned networks, just as CBS has been ever since Rathergate.
UPDATE: OK, I’m going with option 3, that is, Gibson is a fool AND a liar. And the Mass Media Podpeople who’ve (that’ve? After all, their actual humanity is lessened the more deeply they’re absorbed into the Collective… ) jumped on this and other Gibson-Palin points, as noted by Bill Dyer (Beldar) guest Blogging at Hugh Hewitt’s place, about her “Bush Doctrine” NON-gaffe:
Anyone who criticizes Sarah Palin, then, for asking Charlie Gibson to be more specific about the “Bush Doctrine” is trying to mislead you in at least two ways:
They’re pretending that the term “Bush Doctrine” has a single clear, unambiguous meaning that anyone who follows national affairs ought to have immediately recognized. It doesn’t, as I think this post and the materials I’ve linked here more than adequately establish.
They’re pretending that because Gov. Palin didn’t immediately try to guess which of several plausible meanings Gibson meant to give that term, but instead asked for clarification, she therefore must have been unprepared to discuss any of them. Gov. Palin herself disproved that premise, because upon receiving the requested clarification, she immediately responded with clarity and self-assurance.
If they had bothered to look, even the Wikipedia could have cured Josh Marshall, Greg Sargent, or Andrew Sullivan of their illusion that there’s a single, simple meaning to the term “Bush Doctrine.”
Yeh, I think I’ll stick with “Charlie Gibson and other Mass Media Podpeople Hivemind Spores of its ilk are fools and liars.”
I dissed the McCain campaign yesterday for a bum ad, so it’s only fair I recognize another one that’s pretty decent. Heck It doesn’t even have the creepy musical accompaniment the other one did.
OK, minor quibble. At Factcheck.org, one bullet point in the summary of Palin rumors it’s so far debunked says,
She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.
Note the “wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States” assertion above. Folks, I’ve read the platform of the Alaskan Independence Party and it does NOT include advocacy of the idea of secession. Anywhere. Unless this is it:
We pledge to exert our best efforts to accomplish the following:
To effect full compliance with the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Alaska….
Damned secessionist bastards! They pledge “best efforts to accomplish” a “full compliance with the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Alaska”! Why! these people are even worse than secessionists! They’re damned anarchists!
/sarcasm off
Granted, over 30 years ago, the guy who founded the AIP went so far as to seriously question (well, as serious as such a question could be) whether Alaska had been legally made a state, but that proved to be too radical for the long haul.
Factcheck.org didn’t quite pooh the scrooch on this, but it’s an instructive lesson on DOING YOUR OWN HOMEWORK!
Does Newsweek actually think anyone in America is going to fault Sarah Palin, or her sister or anyone else in their family, for expressing a less-than-flattering opinion of Trooper Wooten based on this and his other incredibly reckless, dangerous, and/or illegal conduct?
This attack on Palin is so transparently manufactured, it only will only serve to bolster the reality-based reality *heh* as experienced by real people that the Mass Media Podpeople Hivemind has lost its. It’s collective mind, that is.
More of this insanity, please, from the Hivemind. And folks, give them plenty of room and plenty of rope. And remember, that wise old saying I coined last week applies to the Hivemind as well:
“Never interrupt a man [or Hivemind] when it’s committing suicide with the jawbone of an ass.”
I’m all for ’em. Slinging REAL mud between political opponents is a Very Good Thing. It can enlighten the public about those seeking office in ways that just won’t happen if candidates are able to control their own stories in an echo chamber.
But the mud had better be genuine mud dredged up from the candidates’ own personal records, not toxic sewer sludge deliberately dredged up from somewhere else, made to appear as if it were a candidate’s own and then poo-flung by hordes of rabid monkeys. The latter is pretty much what the rumors and downright lies and false reports circulating the past coupla weeks about Governor Palin have amounted to.
Today, I got wind of two things that don’t quite fall into the toxic sludge area but do reflect poorly on Repubgnican’t/conservative voices. One is the assertion that Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” comments were plagiarized. Well, maybe. The “lipstick on a pig” comment itself obviously was not. The rest of the comments do have an eery similarity to a Tom Cole political cartoon. But. The Tom Cole political cartoon has an eery similarity to statements made over the past week made by Obama operatives and the campaign itself. Chicken? Egg? Cole simply another Obama campaign operative spouting its talking points? The Mass Media Podpeople Hivemind and the Dhimmicrappic political machine have so much pillow talk/spore exchange going on it’s really hard to tell.
At any rate, it’s a weak assertion of plagiarism and that dog won’t hunt with the electorate.
The one that bothers me more is a McCain campaign ad answering the “lipstick on a pig” comments. First, the ad, then my observation:
[NOTE: YouTube pulled the ad reportedly because of a copyright complaint by CBS. See comments on this post. I told ya, McCain… ]
Set aside the arguable inference (“The Obamassiah meant to call Sarah Palin a pig”–not entirely clear from the context of Obama’s remarks, arguably he could have been implying that, but it’s not clear) from his remarks stated–not implied–by the ad. That’s an arguable issue. (Weakly arguable, IMO, by those who assert that story, but arguable nonetheless.)
What bothers me is that I was sure Couric was NOT referring to sexism contra Palin. In the age of Google, the McCain folks should not have STRONGLY implied that Couric was addressing sexism in the presidential campaign in general or against Palin in particular. Firstly, it would ring utterly and completely false. Couric defend a conservative woman? Get outa here! Secondly, didn’t happen. Google is your friend if you base your comments on fact, otherwise…
Now, true, Couric was attempting to equate her own “courageous” struggles against a putative glass ceiling with Hillary Clintoon’s similarly perceived “glass ceiling” struggle (perceived by Couric and others–including, apparently, Palin). But it is a long way from that assertion to a direct tie to the attacks on Palin being denounced by Couric of all people. A few clarifying words–either voiced over or in graphic–could have tied the sexism remarks back to the Hillary campaign as perceived by PUMAs and others then noted a similarity to the Palin attacks in general.
Still, tying all that back into the lipstick remark as a personal, “sexist” attack on Palin is weak indeed. Oh, it’ll be strong with folks who don’t think it through because of laziness or lack of ability to do so (admittedly up to 90% of the electorate) and who already have a bias toward accepting any negative remarks whatsoever about The Obamassiah (probably about 50% of that 90%), but that still doesn’t make it an honest ad, and I thought Juan Mexicain ran the “straight talk express”.
That ad is NOT “straight talk” in any way, shape, fashion or form.
Mr. McCain: tear down that ad!
There’s enough of substance to attack The Obamassiah on. This ad is just beneath any worthy candidate.
(OK, now here I get to water down my objections to the ad with nit-picking: the musical underpinnings of the ad? Lame. Even with my really nice subwoofer thumping the last string bass hit, lame. OK, so maybe I’ll just say, “Not to my taste. Borrrrring.” *yawn* :-))
[UPDATE: I was pretty well finished with this whole lipstick on a pig thing until The Obamassiah opened his yap yesterday and put his clown shoe in it. On w/David Letterman, he offered this “analysis” of his own words:
“…in Illinois, the expression connotes the idea that if you have a bad idea, in this case I was talking about John McCain’s economic plans, that just calling them change, calling it something different, doesn’t make it better, hence, lipstick on a pig is still a pig.”
Exactly as the phrase seems in context–if you watch the whole thing and/or read a transcript. But now this exchange…
Dave: “Yeah, they got together and they said, ‘You know what? He called our vice presidential candidate a pig.’” (audience laughs) “Well, that seems pretty unlikely, doesn’t it?”
Obama: “It does. But keep in mind that, technically, had I meant it that way, she would have been the lipstick, you see?” (audience, Dave laugh) “But now we’re…”
Dave: “I don’t know, you’re way ahead of me.” (audience laughs)
Obama: “Yeah, the failed policies of John McCain would be the pig.”
“[H]ad I meant it that way… “? No, O Great Obamassiah who Failed to Learn Logic In Law School, the expression “Palin=lipstick as McCain policies=pig” only works if you were NOT using the expression to call Palin a pig, if you WERE “talking about John McCain’s economic plans”.
Dumbass.
“Nuance” only works under three interdependant conditions, O Great Obamassiah:
1. It’s simple enough for clear communication (I know, I know: “simple” and “nuance” seem contradictory, but only because dumbasses make it so)
2. It’s honest, not playing fast and loose with the facts and
3. It makes at least some sense.
The Obamassiah’s nuance in this case fails all three conditions.
The Obamassiah: smart stupididity. Is this someone we want in the White House?
*heh* Looks like Jerry Pournelle had a reaction to the McCain “response” ad that was in a simliar “family” as my own:
Joe, about your upcoming “debate” with Sarah Palin, the surest way for you to lose is…
to show up.
Call in sick, Joe. Just call in sick.
(Or, if “you” want to “show up” and at least make a good showing, you might just do what you’ve done by proxy in the past: get someone else, say, oh, I dunno, Neal Kinnock, to go in your place. No one will ever know, Joe. I promise. No one will ever know.)
This has been a third world county Helpful Hint Post. Always glad to help…
THIS is an open trackbacks post. Link to THIS post and track back. 🙂
If you have a linkfest/open trackback post to promote OR if you simply want to promote a post via the linkfests/open trackback posts others are offering, GO TO LINKFEST HAVEN DELUXE! Just CLICK the link above or the graphic immediately below.
Out ‘n’ about in the real world, folks I’ve interacted with are getting some confused signals, mixed messages, and a wild array of rumors thrown at them–some from traditional “news” sources. I usually let ’em in on some ways they can do their own homework, and I sometimes also tell them what I’ve discovered–then again tell them to do their own homework, of course.
And here’s a short sample from its bullet points on rumors–and false news reports–it’s already checked for factual content:
*Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.
*She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a “What if?” question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin’s first term.
*She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.
*Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a “courtesy” when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.
*Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska’s schools. She has said that students should be allowed to “debate both sides” of the evolution question, but she also said creationism “doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”
The analysis refuting these rumors and false reports is available at the link, but once again DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK. Don’t just accept an authority; check its research yourself. It’s all out there and available for anyone who can use a search engine, folks. Lies, damned lies and quotidian political *spit* hatchet jobs do NOT have to stand if folks will simply DO THEIR OWN HOMEWORK. A lazy, complacent electorate is all that’s needed for the triumph of evil (with not so sincere apologies to Lord Acton *heh*).
What does the 17-point McCain/Palin post-convention bounce among likely voters (reported by Gallup on Monday) really mean in light of the cell phone gap?
This issue began concerning me in the last election cycle. At the time, while I knew few people who were cell phone only users, the number was growing, and in their own lil social niche, the ones I knew were opinion drivers.
Now, according to a Pew Research article attempting (but not succeeding with me) to explain away the impact of cell-only or cell-mostly users on phone polls,
The number of Americans who have a cell phone but no landline phone has continued to grow, reaching a total of 14.5% of all adults during the last six months of 2007, according to U.S. government estimates. In addition, 22.3% of all adults live in households with both landline and cell phones but say that they receive all or almost all calls on their cell phones.
Call me a Chicken Little, but the number of folks falling off the phone polls’ radar creates just a wee itch between my shoulder blades. And yes, I know pollsters do their best to discover the differences between groups and weight things (“handicap” *heh*) to even out such things. But, frankly, the “only-cell” group (from the growing sample of such users I know–admittedly a smaller sample than Pew has to work with) is just about the least politically astute group I know–young, brain-numbed by public education followed by what passes for higher education nowadays, getting their best political “news” from Jon Stewart (which, admittedly, isn’t much different from the Mass Media Podpeople Hivemind sewage).
No, really. Seriously.
Who knows how they’ll vote? Seriously. Who really knows? Certainly not the telephone pollsters who almost entirely poll on landlines.
