The Dictionary Police

Today Sarah Palin put out what I can only call a very timely, well-reasoned video dissertation on last weekend's shooting and the politicization of it.

Starting, I'm guessing, with Andrea Mitchell -- here is the response:

Palin is ignorant because she misused "blood libel".

That's what you got out of this?


Nothing else she said in there is of any consequence to you people?

Come to think of it, this is just more Shut Uppery.  Time to weild The Clue Bat™.

"Blood Libel" has apparently famously used in reference to the false accusation that Jews use the blood of Christian children at Passover.

Now, "libel", which is, after all, a word, subject to rules of English Grammar --- means a false and malicious accusation for the purpose of defaming a living person.

"Blood", used here as an adjective to describe what the nature of the noun "libel" is, in this context.  The term, "blood libel" then here would clearly mean a false and malicious accusation for the purpose of defaming a living person involving blood.   In this case, the shedding of blood, or being guilty of at the very least being an accessory to murder.

This is the reason that these two words were put together to describe what has been done to Jews when they are falsely accused of using the blood of Christians.   But it is ludicrous to suggest that one cannot use the two words together, one modifying the other, to refer to similar acts purputrated on others.

My wife wears a perfume called "Red Door™".  It's a brand name, from Elizabeth Arden.   It was named for their day spas which were called "Red Door Day Spa". 

Those spas, unsurprisingly, typically have a door that is red.  Hence the name "Red Door™".

To suggest that if I paint my door red, and refer to it as a "red door" that would somehow expose ignorance on my part would be insane.

I would lay money that political figures, and just regular Joes -- have correctly used terms that were famously used for other thing to describe similar things.  Besides, it is a "living language", is it not?

The good news is that -- this means that's all they've got.   They attempt to discredit the message, which again was spot on as far as how America is supposed to work, by picking a red herring and telling everyone to focus on that (if they are "stupid" enough to watch it at all, because, after all it was just "another" "ignorant" message from Sarah Palin.  So don't watch it.  Please.  No!  Look HERE!  Look HERE!)

The most glaringly ironic observation Sarah makes her is that Gabrielle Gifford was the one who read the first amendment on the house floor last week.   This week, congressmen and others are talking about imposing  infringements on our freedom of speech in reaction to her shooting.   A pretty subjective infringement at that.

Not only does it fly in the face of the first amendment, it is implicit validation of the -- excuse me, blood libel coming from the Left.

Arizona and ole what's his face

I was out making merry with friends this weekend, only to come home to the news of this horrible shooting in Arizona.   There's nothing much to say outside of the fact that it's a terrible tragedy for anyone who lost anybody (especially that little girl), and anyone who was injured, especially the Congresswoman.   This was obviously a very disturbed individual who, from what I've read of his stuff over the last 15 hours ... had trouble even being coherent about his thoughts.

Outside of the personal tragedies which do not compare to the friends and families involved, though, I find the un-surprising rush to blame the shooting on "divisive politics", Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh ... both disturbing and pathetically laughable.  It'd be funnier if it didn't actually work as well as it does.  People read headlines that fit the narrative they hear over and over and just incorporate that into their reality.  "Tea Partiers are violent".

One would think today's article from the New York Times' Mr. Nobel Lauriate Paul Krugman, "Climate of Hate" would finish stripping him of any credibility he had left with anyone.  But it won't.  In it, he quite unsubtly blames the shooting on the "climate"  "created" by the "hate" supposedly marketed by Glenn Beck, Bill O'Rielly, and Rush Limbaugh -- the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin.

He ends it thus:

So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic? It’s really up to G.O.P. leaders. Will they accept the reality of what’s happening to America, and take a stand against eliminationist rhetoric? Or will they try to dismiss the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual, and go on as before?


If Arizona promotes some real soul-searching, it could prove a turning point. If it doesn’t, Saturday’s atrocity will be just the beginning.

Eliminationalist rhetoric.   The bulk of the eliminationalism in the world has come from the Left, from the Socialist side of the aisle.   The Bolshevics.  Pol Pot.  Che.  Mao.  Hitler (yes, Hitler, of the National Socialist German Worker's Party).   Statist theory basically says you'll have to kill a certain portion of the population that won't go along with totalitarianism, and the statists have repeatedly put that into practice.

Please, point out the "eliminationalist rhetoric" coming from Limbaugh, O'Rielly, Beck, or Palin.  And if you bring up "Don't Retreat, Reload" and Palin's target map, we're not playing that game.  I won't even give you a "maybe" on that.  You know and I know and everybody knows that these kinds of metaphors are used all the time in politics, and nobody but nobody but ab-so-freakin'-lutely nobody takes it seriously.   The Democrats and their contignent in the media pretend to take it seriously in the hopes that they can make it appear that it is something to be taken seriously, but it is not -- and they know it, and we know it.

For further reading material on the subject, see here, here, and here.  Just for starters.

They're Not Czars!!!

When Glenn Beck started exposing many of Obama's advisors as radicals connected to communism, black nationalism, and revolution ... Color of Change, Weather Underground, STORM, self-avowed Communists ... the White House complained that these are not "Czars". They're Special White House Adviczars. I mean Advisors.

That's it. Not trying to refute any of the actual charges Glenn has leveled. Just the name Glenn's using. Along with CNN. And Rachel Maddow (at 6:12-6:15 - "What's your response to that both politically and as a budget Czar?"). And the Christian Science Monitor. And Business Week, when the Bush Administration was in (referring to the same position).

Of course, this is all meant to keep us from further inspecting the important part of what Beck is saying. That the patients have taken over the assylum. That however paranoid McCarthy may or may not have been in the 50's, he'd certainly spontaneously combust if he were around today, because they're not even denying it.

Of course, this focus on a technicality, perhaps even a preference (depending on who is speaking) -- is meant to keep us from further inspecting the important part of what Beck is saying. That the patients have taken over the assylum.

Telling, eh?

The Back Story on the "Unruly Mob" in St. Louis

Yup. I'm convinced. It isn't the right-wingers stirring up this crap. It's Community Organizers up to their Modus Operandi.

Here's raw video and more back story about what was going on. This is the same day Kenneth Gladney was beaten up by SEIU thugs ... who were also arrested.

24th State, huh? My state. Gonna have to sidebar it, I think.

I Have Some Questions About Real Astroturfing

This morning on the news I saw footage from a couple of Town Hall meetings, this time with signs mostly calling for a "Public Option" surrounding the speaker and the cameras.

What? Suddenly the crowds all want the Public "Option"?

And then ... I remembered that in at least 3 town hall meetings, there were charges that ACORN and SEIU activists were being let in early to take the front of the room. In one case, a man who said he got in with the SEIU people because they assumed he was one of them and actually heard coaching to this effect. Surround the stage, & shout down anyone who speaks against the plan. Dana Loesch of St. Louis said she found a way in to the Hillsborough, MO town hall early, and again it was assumed that she was one of "them" because she WAS in early ... and she was candidly told by one of the early birds that they bussed in from ... Kentucky. To a Missouri "Town Hall" meeting.

Which leads one to wonder ... it appears to me that the Community Organizer Professionals were asleep at the wheel on this in the beginning, and the response by actual grass-roots Americans took them by surprise. But now they have scrambled the troops and have taken the Town Halls back from the people.

Am I crazy?

Well ... watch this and see if you still think I am. Or if you're more convinced I'm not.

A Texas Obama Delegate and "Community Organizer" shows up to a Texas Democrat's Town Hall and poses as a doctor (which she's not) ... to make a plea for the President's plan on behalf of family practitioners (which again,she's not). That ... is Astro Turf, from the professionals.

Then, of course, you have Dr. Brian Hill accused by his Congressman of not being from his district. He is.


Congressman Scott gets all self-righteous, strongly insinuating that he's a plant from outside his district, and that Dr. Hill should've called his office (which Dr. Hill says he did, several times, and was told no, Rep Scott would not have a meeting on Health Care) to set up a meeting on health care (which this wasn't, but it was opened up to general questions at the end when Dr. Hill asked his question) ... instead of "hijacking" this town hall meeting set up by people who had called his office to set it up.

I smell something fishy. Where do I report it?

Facebook Shut Uppery

And sometimes they just come out and say it.

Sadly, but not surprisingly ... a very leftist college friend of mine "joined" which is what brought it to my attention.

It has such nuggets of activism as:

"Telling Dick Cheney to shut the hell up 100,000 fans of telling Dick Cheney to shut the hell up? Looks like we'll hit it tonight. The people have spoken! Why won't Dick listen? Discuss."

Leftist Activism. A lot of yelling and screaming to make themselves feel good about themselves, and as part of a group. And telling anybody they don't agree with to shut the hell up.

Glenn Beck and the View

So Glenn did The View today, that bastion of Journalistic Integrity ... wait, no, they're just a bunch of women talking about the issues. Well except maybe Barbara. So they obviously don't do any fact-checking. Well that was basically the gist of Barbara's attack on Glenn, and turnabout's fair play, right?

(Fire can't melt steel? Radical Christians are just as dangerous as radical Muslims? Anyone? Bueller?)

I watched the first segment on Glenn's site, uncut. Glenn correctly said they ambushed him.

On the one hand, it was partially his fault. A week or so ago he recounted a recent meeting on a train between himself and Barbara Walters and Whoopie Goldberg. And he made it sound as if the meeting was uncomfortable for him due to judgementalism he perceived on their part.

Now if you don't believe that the judgementalism he perceived was there and real (which Woopie boldly admitted upfront), I've got some property in the Everglades to sell you -- BUT ... that's not the point. He gave them ammo BEFORE his guest appearance -- and they used it.

When Whoopie saw his characterization of their meeting, she was offended. I'm sure Barbara was, too. This is because in their heads, they were trying very hard to be civil. I'm sure they were. The dual point being a) they had to try very hard, and b) their voices and body language I'm pretty sure (opinion here, I know, but I also know their political views and I know human nature. I don't think I'm stretching credulity here) gave away their feelings. Glenn's mistake was doing the bit in the first place. He may even know that now, especially if he already knows what I'm about to point out.

These women are Progressives. They disagree with him 180 degrees and at high velocity. They think he is a dangerous force in our society. And they know they have a big audience of people who, if they watched Glenn and some of them might, might actually listen to him. Glenn had to be discredited. But he's pretty hard to discredit, because he is, in fact, a pretty reasonable man, he does care about checking his facts, and he's waaaaaay more open minded than the left makes him out to be.

He's a kinder, gentler Rush Limbaugh. And I mean that in a good way.

So what did they do? First, they used his version of the story, his perception of what happened to call him a Liar™. Hitting him from both sides and making sure he didn't really have time to answer their insinuating questions, Barbara came in with prong two -- Glenn doesn't check his facts. She started with "you're an investigative reporter" ... Glenn said "no", and then ... some other kind of journalist. "No", said Glenn. I'm a commentator. "So you don't check your facts." "Liar™", and "you don't check your facts" were repeated over and over again without any time for a coherent response for the first 7 minute segment, over something frankly out of the blue (who walked up to whom when they introduced themselves on the train) so that Mr. Beck would be spending many more mental cycles on "what the heck are they talking about?" rather than have an answer to a substantive but perhaps tough question.

Glenn, that was the game plan from the beginning. Those who aren't familiar with you and weren't paying attention to what was going on ... after that first 7 minute segment had two take-aways. 1) Glenn Beck is a Liar™ . 2) Glenn Beck doesn't check his facts.

Glenn Beck is untrustworthy. Don't listen to this man. (a sublter form of shut uppery. It's don't listen-ery).

Mission accomplished. It doesn't matter that they were full of shit about a bogus "issue". That's what the majority of their audience probably came away with and that was their intent.

The second segment went a little better. After Joy Behar said that she never heard him criticizing Bush and the Republicans (which Glenn quickly pointed out that she never watched his show, and she had to agree -- I know he's right because I have watched and listened to his shows and I've heard him make just such statements and arguments) ... after that, he got to talk about the fact that the parties stand for getting people in their parties elected. And there was much applause.

At one point Barbara said "you cry, it's one of your trademarks", and then asked what his real convictions are. Glenn complained that he was being made fun of "on the quintessential chick show" for crying. Barbara objected, but the show opened with Joy asking him if he was really crying or if he had to pull some eyelashes to cry. I don't blame him for being defensive.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

---

Does Sarah Palin think Africa is a continent or a country?

I don't know, does Barack Obama think there are 50 states or 57? Does Barack Obama think there is an Austrian language? Does he think a tornado in Kansas really killed more than three times, almost four times -- as many people (10,000) than were killed in the WTC on 9/11? Does he think Iraqis and Afghans speak the same language?

And let's not get started on Biden. Ms. Behar.

The "S" Word

I've noticed that the Socialists have an interesting way of counter-attacking us when we use the word "Socialist". They treat it like it's just name calling, like calling someone a "jerk", or an "ass".

Thus they completely duck the issue that the word "Socialist" actually means something, and it's not just mindless name calling. Thus they try to duck the argument.

Once again, by getting you to ... "Shut Up".

More Shut Uppery

It occured to me in the eleventy-jillionth story I read about how Cheney ought not criticize "the new administration" because, hey, nobody else ever did .... when I read these words at the Rott referring to this WaPo article

Rarely has an official from one administration moved so quickly and aggressively to criticize a new president.

I had to respond.

Rarely has a new administration and it’s lackeys in congress spent so much of their "Progressive”, “MoveOn”, Hopey, Changey time sniping at the previous administration while making rumblings about proscecution.

Well not here anyway. Happens a lot in third world countries. Which is where we seem to be headed.

Besides, I thought Dissent is Patriotic™.

Isn't Cheney just being a Patriot?

Oh, that's right. We went through a Change™.

Shut Uppery in action.

Stop an Echo

So I'm sitting around with family, and one conservative member mentions something he saw on Fox News.

A progressive member starts in with the passive-aggressive giggle of dismissal, and then the condescending "you mean you watch Fox News?"

And the conservative member says "Yup. Fair and balanced."

More giggles. "Oh, gosh! Do you know how many lies they tell?"

Now normally when this progressive member disparages Fox News (this is certainly not the first time) I keep my mouth shut in the name of family harmony. Which I think, unfortunately, only re-enforces the idea in such people's minds that their assertion is correct.

But I decided I needed to chime in this time. The giggles are one thing. The condescension I usually gloss over. But the "lies" thing. I wasn't going to let that drop.

"No. I don't know. Tell me a lie Fox News has told."

Giggles. "Well I don't watch it."

"So you don't watch it, but you know they tell lies? How do you know they tell lies?"

"Well I read somewhere..."

"You read somewhere? How do you know that wasn't a lie?"

"Well I don't. They all do it, that's what I'm saying."

"Then why single out Fox?"

"Well I read somewhere that they were the worst."

"And you believe what you read?"

"Well let's not get into anything political. Why can't people just talk about things anymore?"

Why not indeed. Who brought it up? Who got nasty about it?

Fortunately, I suppose, the phone rang. It was for the progressive.

So I'm sitting here thinking ... "Fox News lies, but you don't have any examples and you don't watch it. They all lie, but you know Fox is 'the worst' because you read something one of the other liars wrote?"

The problem is, they're used to people either politely keeping quiet, backing down, or patting them on the head for echoing what they've been instructed to believe and many others have accepted ... typically the people they hang out with.

Don't let it happen anymore. When anyone tries to espouse how "hateful" conservative-friendly networks and show hosts are, make them back it up. Watch them back down. Stop an echo.

Nope, No Bias Here, Either

And apparently, I'm an Extremist™.

I went to a Tea Party several weeks ago here in my home city. People were well behaved. A little angry, definitely frustrated, but in control of themselves. There were no calls for killing, hanging, nobody calling anybody Hitler.... all over the rampant and out-of-control growth of government that has been going on for years.

The media has decided to marginalize this movement. No shock there, really. But Tea Parties in 2000 cities across the country are dismissed as "Fox News" and "Talk Radio" or even "Republican" Propaganda. Those who believe especially that last one have no clue what these are about. They obviously payed no attention to what was being said about Republicans and Democrats alike. They say it's about "Obama Bashing". They are stuck in a partisan mindset and went to the rallies knowing what they were going to say before they got there.

I flipped on CNN last night to see how these were being covered. The two guests I saw were dismissive, but cautiously so. One found them "disturbing" because they were "anti-government". (When the government is doing something you don't like, and you go protest that, wouldn't that by definition be "anti-government", in a way? And what, exactly is he saying is wrong with that? Weren't the anti-war protests also "anti-government"?) Well really he's implying that it's a bunch of Right-Wing™, anarchist nutjobs. And that we should all be very scared. Only I'm one of those "nutjobs", and I know a lot of those "nutjobs"... and they're perfectly decent normal folks.

I saw this video on YouTube (titled "CNN Reporter Harassed at Chicago 'Tea-Party'"). Watch the video and tell me who you think is being harrassed. The reporter has decided that this is about taxes, asks a question, cuts the man off in a hostile tone, and goes on to say something about "Right-Wing" (Shut Up!) "Fox News" (Shut Up!) and says something about it not being "family viewing".



What about it isn't "Family Viewing"? Was there any swearing? Was anybody threatening her? She went in and provoked a response and started an argument ... and then the anchor calls it a "Prime Example" of what's going on across the country and what "she's dealing with".

I'm pretty steamed. These people have no clue, and they're doing what they do. Not reporting the news, but telling people what to think.

---

Update: I should've known this'd be broadcast far and wide. You have to love Shep Smith's response, though. No wonder Fox kicks their butt in the ratings.

Tea Parties Are Not About Obama

I ran across this article this morning. Titled "Anti-Obama Taxypayer Tea Parties Steeped in Insanity". LA Times. Not shocking to see it there.

This is not about Obama. These aren't "Anti-Obama" tea parties. Certainly most of the people there are Anti-Obama, but that's because they strongly disagree with him over the size and role of government, and he's the current guy implementing it as policy. But it's not a "We Hate Obama so we're just here to bitch"-fest.

One thing the Left does not get is that the people at these rallies are just as upset with big-government Republicans as they are with big-government Democrats. It's just that Democrats have officially aligned and bound themselves to Big Government, and the Republican Platform at least gives lip service to the original principles of the country -- and in general they do a better job of acting on them.

The press is doing it's best to dismiss them by slapping the usual labels on them, like "Right Wing", "Conservative", "Fox News", "Talk Radio", etc.... All different ways of saying, "Shut Up!" (<--- if you haven't seen this video, you need to. It's brilliant). The public has been conditioned to take all of these terms to mean "illigitimate. I don't even need to address your issue. you can stop talking right now."

Other People Not Shutting Up

Today I read

"I would think the American people are tired of Karl Rove, and as we saw last fall, they overwhelmingly rejected his divisive brand of politics," Democratic National Committee Chairman Timothy M. Kaine said through a spokesman. "That's why it's so surprising that the Republican Party continues to allow him to be their top spokesman. It's too bad the GOP is looking backward for leadership rather than forward."

Well this American People isn't tired of Karl Rove. This American People has a new appreciation for Karl Rove.

The whole theory of Progressivism rests on the idea that the new guy has better ideas because he's new. New = Better. (even if the new guy is recycling ideas from the 1930's. Shut Up!)

Me? Leadership is leadership. The guy who can say "let's go this way" and articulate why he thinks we should -- present an actual persuasive argument that rises above "because that other guy didn't" ... that's leadership. And Karl Rove is a leader in that sense. He tells you why he thinks he's right and why he thinks the other guy is wrong.

It's not nebulous "Hope" and "Change".

I like Rove. I like Cheney. I like them more than I liked Bush. G.W. Bush is a fundamentally decent man, don't get me wrong. But he's only half a conservative. Still, that's better than a full-blown socialist defeatist apologist.

Yeah, I know, he got the three Somali pirate dudes shot in a quiet, dignified show of masterful intellectual gamesmanship heretofore unseen by mankind.

Really. What do Rove and Cheney have to gain by saying publicly why they think Obama and Biden are idiots? Neither are running for office, or likely ever will.

Oh, I get it. The problem is ... they're not shutting up.

This is Me. Not shutting up.

My blog is me, not shutting up. I don't have a loud voice. But I'm not gonna shut up. I sincerely hope my voice gets out like ripples from a rock thrown into a pond, via bloggers and readers like Mr. Freeberg et. al. Passing on my little thought contributions via little things that stick in their heads. Ideas ... seeds ... growing, spreading.

This one, Morgan posted -- and I found it encouraging, in the motivational sense.

Incidentally, "Right Wing" also means "Shut Up".

(ht: Morgan)