Jots with dots 2/24

Re O’Reilly v Williams. I ended up listening to a Hugh Hewitt interview of David Corn last night. Ya figure, being sympathetic to O’Reilly would be an untenable position amirite. Hewitt wanted to make an oblique point about O’Reilly claiming Buenos Aries was something of a ‘Falklands war zone’ might be less of an aggrandizement than Williams claiming to be shot down in a helicopter. And also, that Mother Jones’ motivation was purely tit for tat. As I say, you’d think this was a nothing argument, or an unwinnable one. But David Corn had an unbecoming melt down over it when he might have come off better just answering the questions.

Dog Whistling: Walker’s complete quote is in here, and I defy anyone to read it and assert that he’s the one doing the dog whistling. http://theweek.com/articles/540736/republicans-shouldnt-have-answer-questions-about-obamas-faith-patriotism As a guy with brass testicles, this guy has been remarkable for his lack of bombast. I’ll go further to say, if this guy was malevolently antagonistic he would have lost a re-election and his ascendancy as a public official would be over. He’s got a unique temperament.

In this world where everyone peddles unpersuasive irony, I thought this was a compelling observation, and one that I’d not heard before. http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8088989/john-legend-oscars-speech-quote No doubt it’s because of all those Republican big city district attorneys.

Ivory ban – This could use another post. My original one is outdated, and yet it still gets a lot of hits. So where are we? Not much has happened. USFWS did confiscate a 14 year olds antique mandolin at one point, though I think we still lack for an announcement that the new rules are in effect. The pistol grip business, which I have enormous experience in, continues to offer ivory panels cut from pre-1989 tusks. Such that there might be an enforcement action, Collin Peterson has a bill out, along with a Republican sponsor. Ya figure, bi partisan support is the name of the game, but why Collin Peterson for the Democrat? Stands to reason in a way. Gun collectors are among those whose ox is to be gored. I’ve found prosperous farmers to be among the most accomplished gun collectors. Peterson’s district is the Red River Valley, where they have prosperous farmers. The whole thing has not had a high enough news profile to draw local news commentary.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Jots with dots 2/24

  1. pm1956

    O’Reilly is an ass.
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/bill-oreilly-threatens-new-york-times-reporter.html

    And, of course, this is not the first instance of his lying like this–i earlier shared his “story” about the time he pitched with Tom Seaver….His problem is his enormous ego. Oh, and there is the story about him threatening the guy his ex-wife was dating.

    bottom line is that O’Reilly is a bully and a blow-hard with an enormous ego.

    Reply
  2. pm1956

    Scott Walker:

    First, i think that the 21 club dinner was a fundraiser for walker, so it is perfectly appropriate for the media to ask Walker if guiliani was speaking on his behalf, or if he (Walker) agreed with guiliani. Second, these are perfectly appropriate questions to ask GOP candidates, because the GOP and its various constituencies have injected just those questions (about candidates religious backgrounds) into various campaigns (see all the discussion about Obama’s minister, faith, etc.).

    As i pointed out previously, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and even Lindsey Graham have all easily answered that question by stating that the President does indeed love his country and is a Christian. Done. Simple and clear. Over.

    And, of course, apparently Walker also thinks this is true–he just isn’t willing to state it himself, openly, but is relying on staff clarifications. Is that because he wants to have it both ways?

    Reply
  3. pm1956

    On O’Reilly:
    “Being accused of fabulism by liberal news outlets like Mother Jones and Media Matters doesn’t harm O’Reilly’s credibility, because O’Reilly’s credibility is dependent on exploiting a sense of victimization among his audience. Much of the Fox News demographic is composed of people who feel that they’re under attack by unscrupulous liberals. So when it appears that a host comes under attack by unscrupulous liberals, that serves to reinforce their existing worldview. The first thought isn’t Bill O’Reilly is a liar. It’s The world is out to get Bill O’Reilly.

    And if the world is out to get you, then of course you’re going to fight back. Brian Williams apologized to America. O’Reilly took the opposite approach, choosing to malign the Mother Jones reporters who first raised the questions, and casting himself as a victim in a liberal conspiracy. But there’s a difference between insinuating some vague liberal conspiracy, as O’Reilly does, and attempting to unravel the details of that conspiracy, as Beck did. It’s impossible to sustain the latter without eventually starting to seem crazy. Beck’s flirtations with fringe ideas suggest a place most people—and most advertisers—would, in the end, rather not go. They damaged the Fox News brand.”

    from: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/why_fox_isn_t_willing_to_fire_him_like_glenn_beck.html

    There is one aspect of this that I think is exactly right: the role of victimization on the Right. You also do some of this (feel that liberals pretend to be smarter than conservatives, therefore you are a victim of their superciliouness).

    This is the thing about Conservatives that i dislike more than anything else. They are not victims. they are, for the most part, wealthier. They have been dominant socially and culturally. This is basically a very conservative country. Sure, things are changing, but change is inevitable. Much of the change is actually conservative in nature (yes, we have all sorts of brown people coming into our country, but they are coming here because they want the opportunity to work hard and succeed–what could be more conservative and American than that?)

    this victimization thing just shows weakness. same thing far too often on the patriotism card. a truly strong patriotism recognizes faults and tries to correct them. far to often, patriotism on the right is an excuse to ignore and prolong our faults, to cover up our weaknesses, to ignore the things we do wrong (or could do better). this country is not perfect, and never has been. Ignoring our history of slavery and racism (trying to ban AP History courses) does not make this a better or stronger country. you simply can’t sweep problems under the rug. that is not true love of country, that is foolishness. True love of country is when you can love it while acknowledging its warts.

    OK, sorry for the rant…..

    Reply
    1. W.E. Peterson Post author

      I ready the O’Reilly thing this morning and I had no disagreements with it. I was mindful that it was sympathetic to Beck in ways, who I regard as somewhat less absurd than O’Reilly. That was not the general view years ago.

      Superciliousness…. Yes, you’re on to me there, though that word has not been top of mind for me (and I had to look it up). It is a driver in my thinking, and its social presence irritates me, though I’m at pains to articulate why. I don’t have a history of being insulted as a dummy or cetin.

      Reply
      1. pm1956

        FYI, in my opinion, there are plenty of dumb liberals. Especially those anti-vaxxers (mostly liberal) and those who fetishize organic foods, “natural” ingredients, locavores, etc. But those are just some of my pet peeves….
        😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s