LUCKY 13: Kentucky Joins in Lawsuit to Battle Obama Administration Overreach
Lucky 13.Read More »
A friend forwarded a link to Markos Moulitsas HuffPo article today, and asked what I thought. I read the article, and when I stopped laughing, I responded:
He paints all conservatives with the same broad brush. He doesn’t qualify his assertions, and he makes statistical leaps which in any other context, even you would scoff at. He conjures up half truths to make a point, ignoring the rest of the truth he quotes (e.g. the conservative response to the DHS alerting law enforcement about right-wing extremism, or invoking the Park51 Mosque – not that anyone is denying them their right to build it, but exercising their right to speak out about it, much as so may liberals speak out about historical religious symbols in – or near – public places and demand – via ACLU lawsuits which are settled pretrial due to cost – that they be removed).
He invokes “violent acts” from the right, as if that is the mainstream right, likening them and their “violent humor” to the Taliban, or worse. But fails to mention acts of violence from the left – from SEIU thugs beating a conservative at a protest, to lefty Journ-o-list members calling for – and hoping for – the agonizingly painful death of those that disagree with them.
He vilifies those that based on faith would “impose their will on the broader populace.” But fails to mention the millions on the left who had faith (because no one read the bill) that Obamacare would save lives, reduce costs and reduce the deficit, and sought to impose THEIR will (based only on faith) on us all.Their faith was proven misguided, in spite of Ms. Pelosi’s assurances that we should have faith, we’ll like it when they pass it an we can see what’s in it (e.g. “Have faith”). Even now, the political left has advised their members not to “go there” with regards to costs and deficit reduction.
Finally, he fails to distinguish the Conservative leadership from conservatives. Rather, he conflates them. After all, it is not the leadership on the right that he claims “leads the nation in teen pregnancies, divorces, and gay online subscriptions.” No. It is the population of the Bible Belt, which he assumes is nothing but conservatives. I suppose he polled all of the pregnant teens in the bible belt and all of the gay subscribers, and found them to be members of the American Taliban? Or is he just making an assumption about the political bent of people in a certain geographical region? Even if those areas of the country are predominately conservative, it is a logical fallacy to assume that the distribution of pregnancies, homosexuals, and divorces is the same as the distribution of political philosophy. Then again, he had to fire the pollster he was using to collect data for this book because of faulty methodology and outright data manipulation. But to my point, he cannot claim to be describing only the leadership, and using the populace as examples. But there it is.
On another note, he is certain to sell lots of books.