Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Clearly…

Rep Bachmann should have been more careful. She had to have known that, if pared down on both ends, the intent of her statement could be purposely taken out of context and used against her.

True, she may not have intended her use of “armed and dangerous” to mean, literally, that she desired her constituency to take up arms against the government. But had she been more careful with her choice of phrasing, there in the middle of her sentence, she wouldn’t be coming under attack.

We must stop giving the left ammunition. Which we can do by keeping our mouths shut entirely.

Textualism. Pragmatism.

40 Replies to “Clearly…”

  1. McGehee says:

    True, she may not have intended her use of “armed and dangerous” to mean, literally, that she desired her constituency to take up arms against the government.

    ‘Tis a pity. If she had meant that I’d know exactly whom to support for president in 2012.

  2. B. Moe says:

    The wisdom of using martial metaphors in political rhetoric has of course been a subject of hot debate over the past week.

    How long before one of the Dems declares a war on political hate speech?

  3. Jim in KC says:

    Yeah, we need a war on high-caliber metaphors. Someone needs to shoot down all those martial-sounding phrases.

  4. newrouter says:

    “If Cohen so casually threw around the term “blood libel” in the heat of a presidential election, who is Cohen now to attack Sarah Palin for using the term as to false accusations that she caused the murder of several people in Tucson?”

    Read the skewering in its entirety and marvel with me at how this gorgeous backwoods gal is felling a whole forest of hypocritical and under- educated men and women who have been posing as professional writers worthy of our respectful attention to their views.

    link

  5. Joe says:

    I am going to guess a correction will not be coming from Krugman.

    The wisdom of using martial metaphors in political rhetoric has of course been a subject of hot debate over the past week. But one need not take up either side of that debate to see that Mr. Krugman misrepresented Ms. Bachmann’s actual statement. Whether or not politicians should use such metaphors is irrelevant. Mr. Krugman clearly implied that Ms. Bachmann wanted her constituents to literally bear arms in a political context. The full quote belies that implication.

    Either Mr. Krugman did not make even the slightest effort to seek out the full quote and therefore was unaware that he was distorting Ms. Bachmann’s statement, or he deliberately distorted it in an attempt to bolster his case that violent rhetoric is “coming, overwhelmingly, from the right.” In either case, Mr. Krugman got it wrong and should correct the record.

    Paul Krugman? Lying? Time to break out the award again…

  6. Jim in KC says:

    Of course, there’s nothing wrong with being literally armed and dangerous. That’s the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

    “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

    “When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.”

  7. Hrothgar says:

    But if do we give the left ammunition, how can they use it when violence is not the answer?

  8. Hrothgar says:

    I do believe that this country has been driven into a madhouse where real discussion and dialog has been made off-limits, because you never know what words will turn out to be (dare I say?) “trigger” events that are used to derail the actual underlying principles that were the point of the discussion.

  9. newrouter says:

    The right, if it seeks continued survival, needs to break out of its brainwashed, subservient state. Mark Durie said the following about the wars against Islamic jihadists, but I think his words apply to the left’s war against the right as well (HT: Diana West):

    . . . This is an excellent illustration of World View Subversion. When your adversary has conditioned you to think his thoughts, and articulate his wishes, your battle is already half lost. . .

    Indeed, conservatives think their adversaries’ thoughts and accept their premises. The right reflexively defends its own existence instead of going on the offensive and attacking the left—even when leftists are so clearly in the wrong.

    The failure to admit that the left is irrational and beyond debate has been a disaster and it will become even worse if the right doesn’t wake up now. So perhaps the right should follow the president’s advice and come together following Loughner’s horrible crime. And if conservatives do come together, let them do so with the goal of eliminating leftism (legally and non-violently, of course)—a vile ideology that has plagued this nation for far too long. Now is no time for the right to “dial down the rhetoric.” No, instead it is time to dial it up. The left must be confronted and its war to destroy its enemies defeated. It’s the only way to stop the Party of Hate.

    link

  10. newrouter says:

    Is it within the imagination of a Nobel Prize winner in economics that there might be a better way to secure people in their old age than taxing them, investing the money in low-yield government bonds, and having Congress hand out election-year goodies that make the system unsustainable? Can he even conceive of a better way to insure people for medical care than to tax them and turn the funds over to a bureaucracy that has a 45-year track record of spectacular management incompetence that no for-profit company could possibly have survived and whose books are such a mess as to be unauditable? Can the power of self-interest (the engine behind capitalism’s success) never be utilized to help provide the social safety net that most people, left and right, think necessary and proper, at lower cost and with better results?

    Apparently not. For the Paul Krugmans of the body politic, made blind by a religious adherence to a creed outworn, no idea that postdates FDR can be tolerated. No fresh thinking allowed, please, we’re liberals.

    link

  11. Squid says:

    One of the other things that’s been driving me up the wall this week is the repeated claim that we’re using “tit-for-tat” or “you did it first” arguments. Such is not the case.

    When we note that people on both sides of the aisle routinely use martial metaphors, and routinely put targets on maps, it’s not meant as a “he did it first!” cry to mommy. It’s meant as an illustration that these metaphors and images are a part of everyday political language, and that it’s truly stupid, to the point of being delusional, to claim that one specific instance of such language is “uncivil,” while ignoring a long and well documented history of such language in regular use.

    It’s not that “you did it first.” It’s that everybody does it, all the time, and have been for years and years. So I’m not asking that Krugman & Co. apologize for “doing it first,” I’m demanding that they acknowledge that there’s nothing for anyone, on either side, to apologize for. Simultaneously, I lose patience with the “surveyor’s marks” crowd, because they’re tacitly admitting that using actual targets would be wrong. And it’s just not.

    If we’ve learned just one lesson from this site and this community over the years, it’s that we need to keep our eyes open, and to push back against this sort of bad-faith argumentation whenever it occurs.

  12. Darleen says:

    Want to see some new gratitous hating in this new Age of Civility on Palin?

    She has the AUDACITY to be addressing a GUN!!!11!!1!! on Jan 29.

  13. happyfeet says:

    she has infallible political instincts and it’s about time she paid attention to nailing down the NRA vote before Romney scooped it up

  14. cranky-d says:

    So, Wonkette is still in business and cranking out lefty talking points. I did not know that.

  15. happyfeet says:

    wow looks like our failshit president bumblefuck pushed BP into the arms of the Russians

    he’s truly a brilliant brilliant man – I heard that motherfucker went to Harvard

  16. Darleen says:

    hf

    let me understand you …

    so Palin needs to give up hunting/fishing or addressing a group of hunters and fishers …

    CUZ OF THE OPTICS!!!1!!!

  17. happyfeet says:

    no she for sure needs to reach out to them this is a great time for her to shore up her base since everyone else thinks she’s stupid with possible violent tendencies

  18. newrouter says:

    sarah is an honorary member of violent femmes don’tcha know

  19. Big Bang Hunter says:

    “[since] everyone else thinks she’s stupid with possible violent tendencies”

    – ‘Everyone else’ defined as whom feets….your fellow lefties?

  20. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – Ah yes, the infamouse, anal-sex loving Wonkette. I haven’t seen her write anything in years. She seems to have an endless supply of cabana boys to do her dirty work now.

  21. happyfeet says:

    love the femmes just not the part about old mother reagan and her crew took away from me and you wish she’d go far away

  22. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – I’m probably going to hate myself for asking this feets, but just WTF did Pa;in ever take away from you personally that evokes your endless bitter agitation against her?

  23. Pablo says:

    no she for sure needs to reach out to them this is a great time for her to shore up her base since everyone else thinks she’s stupid with possible violent tendencies

    That group includes you, yes?

  24. happyfeet says:

    mostly it’s this ludicrous notion she has in her head that she should be president. I believe there’s no more sure route to four more years of bumblefuck’s vile molestations of our despoiled little country than for the most blinkered and nastily tribal factions of Team R to anoint this overwhelmingly lightweight souffle of a woman as the nominee of Team R in 2012.

  25. Pablo says:

    Oh, did she announce? I did not know that.

  26. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – So then. After countless tirades against her, you simply don’t like her for some reason you’re unable to articulate?

  27. happyfeet says:

    to be clear Mr. Hunter I think she’s a sure loser because independent voters find her repulsive

  28. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    Remember, BBH, image is everything to happyfeet. You’d almost say he’s being very pragmatic :) He is correct, to a degree, that she is repulsive to many independents, because these people are not serious people. Afterall she said that she could see Alaska from her front porch, though she never actually said that. But these same people get their news from Jon Stewart, thus they think that SNL is a 60 minutes type show.

  29. LBascom says:

    “to be clear Mr. Hunter I think she’s a sure loser because independent voters find her repulsive”

    You know who independents love? That McCain fella. Also Meg Whitman and Mike Castle.

    Sarah should just sit down, shut up, and let someone more pragmatic have a shot.

  30. happyfeet says:

    not more pragmatic just someone not repulsive to the voters

  31. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – Sarah Palin is the very epitome of independence, and you’re saying she’s repulsive to independents in general. That idea makes no logical sense.

    – What I hear you saying in reality, is that a city metrosexual has a snobbish bigotry against country folk.

    – But maybe it’s just me.

  32. newrouter says:

    “just someone not repulsive to the voters”

    alot folks out there throwing mud. but are these sources “credible” anymore?

  33. Stephanie says:

    “just someone not repulsive to the voters”

    That’s not very specific seeing as we’ve had murderers and thieves the public has found acceptable.

  34. happyfeet says:

    I have a cold

  35. dicentra says:

    If nothing else, we’re going to get some nifty terms added to the Blogosphere’s Common Lexicon because of the Tucson Massacre (though Tuscon Massacre isn’t nifty at all):

    anosognosia— (an-o?so-no´zhah) n. Lack of insight into one’s disability or illness.

    Deftly put to purpose by Tom Smith at the link above, to wit:

    ]Anosognosia is] just an exaggerated version of what say, Professor Krugman has. Krugman is evidently blissfully unaware that the concept of a conscience is almost the exact opposite of the disposition, on flagrant display today, one may have to always think that one is right and good and those one disagrees with are wrong and evil. If someone were to say, oh, my conscience, that’s the little voice inside me that tells me I am smarter, and morally better than others. No, Paul, that’s not your conscience; your ego maybe, but not your conscience. But I suspect your efforts to convince Krugman of this would be as successful as efforts to convince the Arizona shooter that the government is not trying to control his mind with grammar.

    Oh, the applications “anosognosia” will have in our future, the places it will go…

  36. Slartibartfast says:

    you’re unable to articulate

    FTFY.

    All the rest of it was unnecessary.

  37. SDN says:

    newrouter, the last paragraph of your cite at #9 is what I’ve been saying for years. My only quibble is that search through history as I might, I can’t find a single example of a tyranny being rolled back without at least a credible threat of violence. The meek may inherit the earth, but it tends to be in small chunks, about 6 ft by 3 ft by 6 ft deep.

    And there’s this: If you’re going to have the reputation of being a bunch of violent killers (or an imperialistic warmongering country) regardless of the actual facts, then why not indulge? At least you get rid of some of the more egregious examples (acquire all the oil needed for $1 a gallon gas). You haven’t lost anything from your enemies POV, and they just might get the idea that there’s a limit to the shit you’ll put up with.

  38. alppuccino says:

    Help me out guys. Sheriff Dupnik claims that bigotry is rampant, Holder says we’re a nation of cowards in regards to racism, etc. etc. ad nausea.

    How much did this rhetoric contribute to the white New Jersey cop being shot execution style yesterday by the black 20 year old who is now on the run?

    I ask, because no one is speculating about that on the news. What am I missing?

  39. Swen says:

    What we need is a ban on high-capacity magazines! Time only has 72 pages, that ought to be enough for anyone!!

Comments are closed.