web analytics
Currently viewing the tag: "Lies"

I really am starting to seriously worry that we are just about doomed as a country:

White House officials seemed to be caught flat-footed by the response to what they say was a simple back to school address by President Obama to students across the nation — and has turned into a firestorm…

Some parents are talking about keeping their kids from school on tuesday to avoid the president’s remarks. The White House says it will release a copy of the text of the president’s address on monday so parents and educators can see that the message is entirely about learning, staying in school and taking personal responsibility…

There is some historical precedent for presidents speaking to students in nationally televised addresses. President George H. W. Bush did so in 1991 and President Ronald Reagan even talked politics with students in 1988.

Nonetheless charges from Republican officials that President Obama is seeking to indoctrinate students—unsupported by any real evidence—have been flying.

I weep for the lumpenproles who have been swept up in this insanity.

Update: Gherald points us to a good Economist post:

This speaks not just to Republican opposition to a Democratic president; it also indicates a profound level of generalised paranoia. The man is attempting to insulate his children from any outside influence. He’s not just scared of Barack Obama; he’s scared of his neighbors. The statement puts one in mind of those 1930s Scot Tissue advertisements that piggybacked on anti-Communist hysteria: “Is your washroom breeding Bolsheviks? The outside, the alien, socialism, the unclean, infection, pollution. They’re coming for the children!

The opposition to Mr Obama’s speech is fundamentally an attempt to deny the legitimacy of the president. It should be resisted. No liberal parents pulled their kindergardeners out of class to avoid having George W. Bush indoctrinate them with the esoteric neoconservative messages embedded in the text of “The Pet Goat”. (No wonder he was so insistent on finishing the reading!) But it’s also part of a broader atmosphere of paranoia that has taken root in American child-rearing in recent decades. In 1969, 50% of American children walked to school; that is down to less than 15%, in part due to fears that their children will be kidnapped, even though violent crime against children hasn’t grown at all. Those parents are increasingly reluctant to vaccinate their kids, for fear that vaccines are secretly harmful—i.e., that the entire edifice of modern scientific medicine is an elaborate conspiracy to harm their children. Teachers have their licenses revoked for letting kids climb up hills. And so forth.

Metavirus filed this under: , , ,  

I really am starting to seriously worry that we are just about doomed as a country:

White House officials seemed to be caught flat-footed by the response to what they say was a simple back to school address by President Obama to students across the nation — and has turned into a firestorm…

Some parents are talking about keeping their kids from school on tuesday to avoid the president’s remarks. The White House says it will release a copy of the text of the president’s address on monday so parents and educators can see that the message is entirely about learning, staying in school and taking personal responsibility…

There is some historical precedent for presidents speaking to students in nationally televised addresses. President George H. W. Bush did so in 1991 and President Ronald Reagan even talked politics with students in 1988.

Nonetheless charges from Republican officials that President Obama is seeking to indoctrinate students—unsupported by any real evidence—have been flying.

I weep for the lumpenproles who have been swept up in this insanity.

Update: Gherald points us to a good Economist post:

This speaks not just to Republican opposition to a Democratic president; it also indicates a profound level of generalised paranoia. The man is attempting to insulate his children from any outside influence. He’s not just scared of Barack Obama; he’s scared of his neighbors. The statement puts one in mind of those 1930s Scot Tissue advertisements that piggybacked on anti-Communist hysteria: “Is your washroom breeding Bolsheviks? The outside, the alien, socialism, the unclean, infection, pollution. They’re coming for the children!

The opposition to Mr Obama’s speech is fundamentally an attempt to deny the legitimacy of the president. It should be resisted. No liberal parents pulled their kindergardeners out of class to avoid having George W. Bush indoctrinate them with the esoteric neoconservative messages embedded in the text of “The Pet Goat”. (No wonder he was so insistent on finishing the reading!) But it’s also part of a broader atmosphere of paranoia that has taken root in American child-rearing in recent decades. In 1969, 50% of American children walked to school; that is down to less than 15%, in part due to fears that their children will be kidnapped, even though violent crime against children hasn’t grown at all. Those parents are increasingly reluctant to vaccinate their kids, for fear that vaccines are secretly harmful—i.e., that the entire edifice of modern scientific medicine is an elaborate conspiracy to harm their children. Teachers have their licenses revoked for letting kids climb up hills. And so forth.

Metavirus filed this under: , , ,  
I really am starting to seriously worry that we are just about doomed as a country:

White House officials seemed to be caught flat-footed by the response to what they say was a simple back to school address by President Obama to students across the nation — and has turned into a firestorm…

Some parents are talking about keeping their kids from school on tuesday to avoid the president’s remarks. The White House says it will release a copy of the text of the president’s address on monday so parents and educators can see that the message is entirely about learning, staying in school and taking personal responsibility…

There is some historical precedent for presidents speaking to students in nationally televised addresses. President George H. W. Bush did so in 1991 and President Ronald Reagan even talked politics with students in 1988.

Nonetheless charges from Republican officials that President Obama is seeking to indoctrinate students—unsupported by any real evidence—have been flying.

I weep for the lumpenproles who have been swept up in this insanity.

Update: Gherald points us to a good Economist post:

This speaks not just to Republican opposition to a Democratic president; it also indicates a profound level of generalised paranoia. The man is attempting to insulate his children from any outside influence. He’s not just scared of Barack Obama; he’s scared of his neighbors. The statement puts one in mind of those 1930s Scot Tissue advertisements that piggybacked on anti-Communist hysteria: “Is your washroom breeding Bolsheviks? The outside, the alien, socialism, the unclean, infection, pollution. They’re coming for the children!

The opposition to Mr Obama’s speech is fundamentally an attempt to deny the legitimacy of the president. It should be resisted. No liberal parents pulled their kindergardeners out of class to avoid having George W. Bush indoctrinate them with the esoteric neoconservative messages embedded in the text of “The Pet Goat”. (No wonder he was so insistent on finishing the reading!) But it’s also part of a broader atmosphere of paranoia that has taken root in American child-rearing in recent decades. In 1969, 50% of American children walked to school; that is down to less than 15%, in part due to fears that their children will be kidnapped, even though violent crime against children hasn’t grown at all. Those parents are increasingly reluctant to vaccinate their kids, for fear that vaccines are secretly harmful—i.e., that the entire edifice of modern scientific medicine is an elaborate conspiracy to harm their children. Teachers have their licenses revoked for letting kids climb up hills. And so forth.

Metavirus filed this under: , , ,  
I’ve noticed a very unsettling trend lately. Former water carriers for all the Republican-led excesses of the last eight years are suddenly calling themselves “libertarian” (e.g. Tucker Carlson). It seems that the Republican brand is so toxic right now that people would rather not associate themselves with it. DarkSyde came up with an insightful (and funny) top 10 list of signs that someone claiming to be a libertarian really isn’t one (don’t worry Gherald, you’re legit):
    1. If you think Ron Paul isn’t conservative enough and Fox News is fair and balanced, you might not be a Libertarian.
    1. If you believe you have an inalienable right to attend Presidential townhalls brandishing a loaded assault rifle, but that arresting participants inside for wearing a pink shirt is an important public safety precaution, there’s a chance you’re dangerously unbalanced, but no chance you’re a Libertarian.
    1. If you think the government should stay the hell out of Medicare, well, you have way, way bigger problems than figuring out if you’re really a Libertarian.
    1. If you rank Anthonin Scalia and Roy Moore among the greatest Justices of all time, you may be bug fuck crazy, but you’re probably not a Libertarian.
    1. You might not be a Libertarian if you think recreational drug use, prostitution, and gambling should be illegal because that’s what Jesus wants.
    1. If you think the separation between church and state applies equally to all faiths except socially conservative Christian fundamentalism, you’re probably not a Libertarian.
    1. You’re probably not a Libertarian if you believe the federal government should remove safety standards and clinical barriers for prescription and OTC medications while banning all embryonic stem cell research, somatic nuclear transfer, RU 486, HPV and cervical cancer vaccination, work on human/non human DNA combos, or Plan B emergency contraception.
    1. If you think state execution of mentally retarded convicts is good policy but prosecuting Scott Roeder or disconnecting Terri Schiavo was an unforgivable sin, odds are you’re not really a Libertarian.
    1. If you argue that cash for clunkers or any form of government healthcare is unconstitutional, but forced prayer or teaching old testament creationism in public schools is fine, you’re not even consistent, much less a Libertarian, and you may be Michele Bachmann.

    And the number one sign: if you think government should stay the hell out of people’s private business — except when kidnapping citizens and rendering them to secret overseas torture prisons, snooping around the bedrooms of consenting adults, policing a woman’s uterus, or conducting warrantless wire taps, you are no Libertarian.

    Metavirus filed this under: , ,  

    Ouch:

    After reading [RNC Chairman Michael Steele's absurd op-ed this week in the Washington Post], one is left wondering exactly what health reform plan Steele thought he was attacking. At one point, Steele claims that Democrats would prevent Americans from keeping their doctors or an insurance plan they like. Later, he warns that government will soon be setting caps on how many heart surgeries could be performed in the United States each year. Where is he getting this stuff? Has the chairman of the Republican Party somehow gotten hold of a top-secret plan for a government takeover of the health-care system that GOP operatives snatched during a break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters?

    If all that sounds spurious and unsubstantiated, it is. And like many of the overstated claims in this column, its purpose is to highlight the lies, distortions and political scare tactics that Steele and other Republicans have used to poison the national debate over health reform.

    Have you no shame, sir? Have you no shame?

    John McCain on Sarah Palin’s death-panel lies:

    MCCAIN:  Well, I think that what we are talking about here is do — are we going to have groups that actually advise people as these decisions are made later in life and …

    STEPHANOPOULOS:  That’s not in the bill.

    MCCAIN:  But — it’s been taken out, but the way that it was written made it a little bit ambiguous.

    Conor Clarke tires of this crud:
    “Ambiguous.” Thus do we witness McCain joining the prestigious Michael Steele school of literary criticism. You see, a health-care bill is really a lot like Hamlet or The Wasteland. Interpretations may vary. Where some scholars find an utterly innocuous and optional expansion of Medicare coverage, others might see a program akin to mandatory government euthanasia.

    I have expressed my frustration with this tactic many times before, and I know it is getting tedious. But, to recap, the tactic is this: (1) Make a preposterous and false claim about a bill. (2) Have the claim disproved. (3) Avoid defending the original claim, but instead observe that the controversy reflects “a legitimate difference of interpretation” about what might happen in the future. Effective opposition in three easy steps!

    And so we have a conundrum: Ignore the tactic, and let the falsehood persist, or engage with the tactic, and play into the false appearance of legitimate debate. I do not have a good solution. The best I can do is repeat, with endless tedium, that the bill is not ambiguous and the original claim is still false. I can further add that people who hide falsehoods behind the smokescreen of an equally false ambiguity are doing a fabulous job of destroying legitimate public discourse.

    Well put.

    I’m left thinking of David Frum’s response: “The president can be met and bested on the field of reason—but only by people who are themselves reasonable.”

    Gherald filed this under: ,  
    A rare moment of no-nonsense fact-checking from the MSM: