Here is an analysis of Sara Palin's seven minute video
that I think is spot on.
Hat tip to reader Jim for pointing me here.
Joe H.
Posts
The Years Of Writing Dangerously
11 years ago
Friday, January 14, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Can We Get A Little Consistency
From John Dickenson, on Sarah Palin's response to her critics:
"Palin effectively quoted Ronald Reagan arguing that the criminal alone is responsible for the crime. "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them," she said. Good. Then she went on to say that "journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn." Bad. You can't argue that words don't create criminals and then argue in the next breath that, actually, yes, they might."
This inconsistency demonstrates that Palin will say whatever sounds like it might work - regardless of consistency or the substance of her actual beliefs. You know, things like "those bullseyes were not cross-hairs. They were surveyors' sights." Please! Palin can't believe that words don't inspire crime and yet they do. No one believes Not P and P. Therefore, she couldn't have been saying what she actually believs.
And does she really think we're all so stupid that we'll believe her non-bullseye surveyor's sight claim, particularly after all that "don't retreat, reload" rhetoric?
Let me say for the record that her supporters have a tremendous tolerance for cognitive dissonance.
Let me also say that, as far as I can tell, no one on "the left" is defending themselves against the charge that they engage in over the top political rhetoric that puts people's lives in danger. Beck, Limbaugh, Angle, and now Palin have all done so.
That should suffice to settle the equivalency thesis.
Joe H.
"Palin effectively quoted Ronald Reagan arguing that the criminal alone is responsible for the crime. "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them," she said. Good. Then she went on to say that "journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn." Bad. You can't argue that words don't create criminals and then argue in the next breath that, actually, yes, they might."
This inconsistency demonstrates that Palin will say whatever sounds like it might work - regardless of consistency or the substance of her actual beliefs. You know, things like "those bullseyes were not cross-hairs. They were surveyors' sights." Please! Palin can't believe that words don't inspire crime and yet they do. No one believes Not P and P. Therefore, she couldn't have been saying what she actually believs.
And does she really think we're all so stupid that we'll believe her non-bullseye surveyor's sight claim, particularly after all that "don't retreat, reload" rhetoric?
Let me say for the record that her supporters have a tremendous tolerance for cognitive dissonance.
Let me also say that, as far as I can tell, no one on "the left" is defending themselves against the charge that they engage in over the top political rhetoric that puts people's lives in danger. Beck, Limbaugh, Angle, and now Palin have all done so.
That should suffice to settle the equivalency thesis.
Joe H.
Again With the Not Arguing
During her candidacy for the U.S. Senate, Sharon Angle hinted at urging an armed rebellion against the U.S. government. The people need to look to their "Second Amendment remedies" were her exact words.
Today Ms. Angle released the following statement in response to the shootings in Tuscon, and subsequent criticism of violent political rhetoric:
"The despicable act in Tucson is a horrifying and senseless tragedy, and should be condemned as a single act of violence, by a single unstable individual."
This may turn out to be correct - violent political rhetoric by the likes of Ms. Angle may not have motivated the shooter. The problem is, Ms. Angle will be making this claim even if it turns out that political rhetoric influenced the shooter. She's not saying, "given all the facts, and given what we've learned, the despicable act in Tucson is a horrifying and senseless tragedy, but it should be condemned as a single act of violence, by a single unstable individual." She's saying, that's how the shooting should be viewed, period.
The reason I mention this is that Ms. Angle was quoted as "arguing." That, of course, is untrue. Ms. Angle "asserted" her claim. She did not argue for it. To argue, one has to give reasons. She gave none.
I wonder with amazement why no one ever asks the obvious follow up question "why should we look at it that way?" I'm confident that if Sharon Angle were asked that question by a reporter she would run away, just like she did during her campaign.
Joe H.
Today Ms. Angle released the following statement in response to the shootings in Tuscon, and subsequent criticism of violent political rhetoric:
"The despicable act in Tucson is a horrifying and senseless tragedy, and should be condemned as a single act of violence, by a single unstable individual."
This may turn out to be correct - violent political rhetoric by the likes of Ms. Angle may not have motivated the shooter. The problem is, Ms. Angle will be making this claim even if it turns out that political rhetoric influenced the shooter. She's not saying, "given all the facts, and given what we've learned, the despicable act in Tucson is a horrifying and senseless tragedy, but it should be condemned as a single act of violence, by a single unstable individual." She's saying, that's how the shooting should be viewed, period.
The reason I mention this is that Ms. Angle was quoted as "arguing." That, of course, is untrue. Ms. Angle "asserted" her claim. She did not argue for it. To argue, one has to give reasons. She gave none.
I wonder with amazement why no one ever asks the obvious follow up question "why should we look at it that way?" I'm confident that if Sharon Angle were asked that question by a reporter she would run away, just like she did during her campaign.
Joe H.
Monday, January 10, 2011
They're Nuts!
In this interview conservative economist Bruce Bartlett
explains, in a comendably lucid and understandable manner, what's at stake in the upcoming fight over raising the U.S. debt ceiling. If you want to be informed about this subject - including the history of government borrowing and the issuing of treasuries - you'll get a very good education from Mr. Bartlett.
His money quote regarding the so called "Tea Partyers'" threat to refuse to raise the debt ceiling is absolutely perfect:
"The problem is that the Tea Partyers are nuts. That is my point. They are irrational, they are ignorant, they don't know anything about financial markets and they think that they are standing up for God and the balanced budget."
I swoon! A prominent conservative who has the courage to point out the obvious! I'm in love!
By the way, is it inappropriate to point out that "they are irrational, they are ignorant, they don't know anything about subject X and they think they are standing up for God" is a generally accurate description of a lot of Christians in our country?
I hope not, because I feel that way an awful lot.
Just being honest. And hey, if that statement makes you angry, you should ask, "who hath made Isreal to sin?"
Not me.
Joe H.
explains, in a comendably lucid and understandable manner, what's at stake in the upcoming fight over raising the U.S. debt ceiling. If you want to be informed about this subject - including the history of government borrowing and the issuing of treasuries - you'll get a very good education from Mr. Bartlett.
His money quote regarding the so called "Tea Partyers'" threat to refuse to raise the debt ceiling is absolutely perfect:
"The problem is that the Tea Partyers are nuts. That is my point. They are irrational, they are ignorant, they don't know anything about financial markets and they think that they are standing up for God and the balanced budget."
I swoon! A prominent conservative who has the courage to point out the obvious! I'm in love!
By the way, is it inappropriate to point out that "they are irrational, they are ignorant, they don't know anything about subject X and they think they are standing up for God" is a generally accurate description of a lot of Christians in our country?
I hope not, because I feel that way an awful lot.
Just being honest. And hey, if that statement makes you angry, you should ask, "who hath made Isreal to sin?"
Not me.
Joe H.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Reap the Whirlwind - Update
A democratic congresswoman is shot. "Sow the wind . . .
reap the whirlwind."
Joe H.
UPDATE - Lest anyone be tempted to dismiss Saturday's shooter as a uniquely derranged man in order to conclude that eliminationist rhetoric on the political right is not responsible for inciting violence, this is a good follow up op-ed
Joe H.
reap the whirlwind."
Joe H.
UPDATE - Lest anyone be tempted to dismiss Saturday's shooter as a uniquely derranged man in order to conclude that eliminationist rhetoric on the political right is not responsible for inciting violence, this is a good follow up op-ed
Joe H.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
