Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Credibility Gap Explained

In six easy panels. See if you can't follow the logic. I'm no fan of Pelosi, but even she appears to be a good guy when compared to Hannity, Rush, Beck et al.

.

17 comments:

DADvocate said...

Gimme a break. Plenty of liberal protesters carried Nazi symbols when Bush was president and Pelosi and the Dems thought it was just fine. You seem to be losing, or have lost, the ability to be reasonable.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

Wait, did I not call those protesters out for shenanigans as well? I remember doing so for years. Hell, I still think Dick Durbin should resign for this same type of behavior.

Just because one group of people act like a bunch of tools does not excuse another group of people for acting like a bunch of tools.

I can't stand Pelosi, this is a well documented fact. But that does not give Hannity, Rush, Beck & co license to get a free pass for being disingenuous with words. This is an exact example of how narrative wins over actuality if left unchecked, and it kills our national discourse.

I fail to see what is unreasonable about that.

patsbrother said...

I let this next thing slide at the time because you so frequently hide behind the mantra: "I was only kidding, how could you be so stupid as to think I really meant what I put up on this blog!"

In your September 18 post, "Change I Can Believe In," you asserted that the right wing was "the same knuckleheads who said...that ACORN blew up New Orleans' levees to cover up government corruption..."

After some searching, the only thing I could come across that could possibly be the basis for your crazy claim is a statement Glenn Beck made on his radio show. I went to liberal watchdog groups Media Matters for the offending material.

Glenn Beck said no such thing. He suggested that people like Van Jones started the "Bush hates Blacks" schtick after Katrina to cover up for governmental corruption in New Orleans, which included ACORN.

What is even more upsetting than your small-time blog's end of the game of telephone was that Media Matters itself misrepresented what was contained in its own audio link.

If you would like to find the link, Media Matters's title for it was "Beck's latest conspiracy theory: N.O. levees were allowed to fail to hide ACORN corruption?!?"

Beck never in the four and a half minute segment suggested the levees were allowed to fail. He asserted that he was on record on the radio a year before Katrina as saying New Orleans was the most dangerous city to live in because of the disrepair of the levees and the inefficacy of a corrupt local government to bring about needed change.

Besides the part about Van Jones, ACORN, and the "Bush hates Blacks" schtick, he sounds kind of like you.

Yet you blithely assert that those crazy right-wingers claim that ACORN blew up the levees, then you turn around and lambast people for having the out-of-left-field ability to hear "you're a nazi" when a high public official says the totally unloaded statement, these "Astroturf [people]...are carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a townhall meeting on healthcare."

I call shenanigans, and I calls it on you, precious.

Dante said...

Something only alluded to in passing in pb's post that I find interesting: quotation marks are for quotes. pb correctly uses quotation marks to show us what someone actually said. The political cartoonist in question is apparently unaware of that convention and uses quotation marks in a summary of what someone else said. I only noticed this because apparently I missed this unstory entirely and was looking for Pelosi's context (which is ironically absent from the cartoon lambasting right wing radio hosts taking her quote [misquoted here] out of context).

DADvocate said...

Justifying Pelosi's remarks is unjustifiable. Pelosi's only interest is in silencing any opposition. She has no moral compass other than seeking power. She's a real threat to freedom of speech.

DADvocate said...

I'd say this sign is much more inappropriate than what unknown protesters are carrying.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

@ Sprout - Glenn Beck said in his radio show the following things right after another:

A: Everyone in New Orleans knew the levees would fail in a hurricane

B: Everyone also knows the government is completely corrupt down there

C: What are the odds that ACORN SEIU are involved in corruption locally (or do they just get involved in corruption nationally?)

D: If you were an organization or a city that was just riddled with corruption and everybody knew it, and a hurricane blew through, wouldn't it be conveinient if all your records were destroyed?

E: Wouldn't it be convenient for (Van Jones) to say it was about Bush hating black people to be able to provide cover for the corruption that was happening in NOLA connected to ACORN & SEIU and the levees that should have been rebuilt and they knew the whole time.

Add in a lot of sarcastic conspiracy talk about "Truthers" who think Bush blew up the WTC, add this to the "levees got blowed up in NOLA" narrative - which goes hand-in-hand with the "Bush hates black people" narrative.

It is the exact same "Bush & the white people blew up the levees to force black people out of New Orleans" narrative with a twist. Beck simply implies that "ACORN & SEIU blew up the levees to cover up their corruption."

He does this mainly to poke fun at the prior ridiculous narrative and replace it with his own. Even if he doesn't mean it literally, which he couldn't possibly mean, he still draws the line between ACORN and the flood. I'll put it in equations for you to save space:

"levees + corruption = bad levees"
"ACORN + SEIU = corruption"
"Flood = covering corruption"
"bad levees + hurricane = flood"

If ACORN wants to cover up corruption, then "levees + ACORN + hurricane = flood"

This also fits very nicely into the "blame only the locals" and "New Orleans brought the flood on itself" narratives common on the right wing.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

@ DADvocate: Pelosi couldn't silence a brick so long as that brick lies outside the US House chamber. I saw the clip when it first aired, and she seemed more confused than anything, which was not a shock.

Her confusion came from her ignorance that anyone would compare Obama's policies to Nazism because in her brand of liberalism, "Nazism" is only applied to right-wing things. I'm sure this symbolism was shocking as well to most of the protesters who used Nazi ideology to depict Bush.

Most reasonable people though "here we go again."

But to hear Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh et al make such a big deal out of that for so many weeks only reinforced my belief that these guys are in it only for political theatre and hyperbole. They no longer care for actual information.

I do not trust a single thing they say anymore (hence the "Credibility Gap"), and am often encouraged to oppose positions they obviously hold just because they hold them.

As far as the new signage from the left? Of course that's bullshit. It doesn't reflect any notion of reality. But it is exactly what all the hyperbole has been about, getting to this point.

Dante said...

"As far as the new signage from the left? Of course that's bullshit. It doesn't reflect any notion of reality. But it is exactly what all the hyperbole has been about, getting to this point."

But does are you "encouraged to oppose positions they obviously hold just because they hold them" over it? Doesn't seem that way. What I gather pb is calling you out on here and what I am certainly calling you out on here and in the last thread is that you have a LARGE double standard when it comes to asshatery on the left vs. asshatery on the right. For some reason the fringe is not indicative of your side of the fence but is on ours near as I can follow your logic.

patsbrother said...

I am actually shocked at the stupidity contained in your last comment that was addressed to me. You have lost your f'ing mind.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

Yes, this "logic" thing always looks stupid when you read it.

patsbrother said...

Sound logic rarely looks crazy to me.

Your "logic," however, looks inexcuseably batty.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

But does are you "encouraged to oppose positions they obviously hold just because they hold them"

Absolutely. (It helps when they can't adequately explain most of their own positions in the first place, as most of the bullshit signage wings of both sides are wont to do.)

I have written this blog since early 2005, and the majority of megabytes I have proffered about the Democrats is in ire about the way they tend let their lunatic fringe and the far right define our party.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

Your "logic," however, looks inexcuseably batty.

Then what does that say about Glenn Beck, since 75% (approx) of that comment came directly from his radio show?

patsbrother said...

If I take your words and draw cracked-out conclusions from them and butcher them into warped syllogisms which they did not originally represent, and then inferred from that hot mess something you did not say, that is not a reflection on you but on me.

Without getting into whether Glenn Beck has flights of crazy, this is what you did to Beck's words. That reflects poorly on you, not him.

Going with your current motif of calling out people for doing things they otherwise rail against, this crap reflects very poorly on you due to your hifalutin pontifications on "the message" and how heinous it is to take things out of context or out of all measure.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

Maybe I should slow this down for you:

Beck said:

A: Everyone in New Orleans knew the levees would fail in a hurricane

B: Everyone also knows the government is completely corrupt down there

C: What are the odds that ACORN SEIU are involved in corruption locally (or do they just get involved in corruption nationally?)

D: If you were an organization or a city that was just riddled with corruption and everybody knew it, and a hurricane blew through, wouldn't it be conveinient if all your records were destroyed?

Are you with me so far?

patsbrother said...

At best, your deal indicates Beck insinuated ACORN allowed its records to remain in danger.

If ACORN knew the levees were going to fail, why would they go to the trouble of blowing them up? (As you, but not Media Matters, suggests.)

And you still ingnore Beck's focus on Van Jones and the "Bush hates Black" schtick as a way to cover up for the corruption of government agencies and ACORN.

If blowing things out of proportion is a bad thing, you are guilty, senor.

If you prize decency, perhaps you should have something to go on before you accuse someone of going all Truther-style on you.