On Tuesday, I started with a definition of blasphemy. Today's word of the day is "apology". Like blasphemy, apology has 3 main definitions: 1) An acknowledgment expressing regret or asking pardon; 2) a formal justification; and 3) an explanation. (The 4th definition, an inferior substitute, applies only to the man who is the subject of this post, and is not related to saying sorry) Headlines today scream, "Robertson Apologizes!"
Now, being the scientific analysts we are, I'd like to present evidence showing that Robertson really didn't apologize. First, for full disclosure, he did give the mainstream media a written statement saying calling that assassination is not right and that he apologizes. However, since he made the statement on his TV program, let's see how he addressed the situation on his TV show. On his show Wednesday, he said, "I didn't say 'assassination', I said our special force should take him out." He went on to call him a "dictator" multiple times and compared to him to both Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler. Oh, by the way, he compared himself to a martyr murdered by Adolf Hitler. Why the different responses? Well, just look at the headlines. He fools CNN (which the Palestinians proved years ago how easy it is to do) and his core audience only hears his lies.
So the "apology". 1) Did he express regret? Ask for pardon? On the contrary, he defended his stance while pretending he never uttered the worst of the words. 2) Did he justify his call for murder? Well, maybe. If he hadn't lied about not saying "assassination", you might call his words a justification. In fantasyland perhaps, where the Democratically elected President of a sovereign nation who has made his reputation on helping the poor, is compared to Hitler. 3) Did he give an explanation? Again, the lie which destroyed any credibility he may have had also removed any possibility of explanation. Robertson is now shown to be both of low moral quality and a man who can't be trusted.
I also wipe the noses of some of the whiny Right wingers who are crying that I'm not being fair by lumping them in with Robertson. It's funny that their hate of generalizations don't include them lumping everyone who isn't in love with Bush with Michael Moore, Jane Fonda, and Ted Kennedy. If I support environmental regulations, I'm a terrorist. If I don't believe every Muslim should be killed I'm a limp-wristed Frenchman. If I think gay people shouldn't be persecuted, I hate marriage. You can't have it both ways. You may as well embrace Robertson and his ilk, because when you support the people who benefit from Robertson, you accept the consequences. Next time hitch your wagon to people who aren't psychotic powermongers.
9 comments:
So you generalize, and want to keep doing it. The only thing I generalized is that most lefties are Bush-haters. That's what unites them. Other than that, I think you have a wide spectrum on the left, which is part of your problem. You can't win elections if the only thing that really unites you is hating one man. Your generalizations are far worse, and with far less actual truth behind them.
Robertson is a bum, and I'm conservative. That blows up your generalization right there. Anyway, by your logic you've hitched your wagon to Michael Moore, a propagandist whose movies are full of lies, Jane Fonda, who committed treason, Al Sharpton, who is an anti-semetic a-hole, Stalin, who killed 20 million people, and Dan Rather, who made famous the line, "fake but accurate," which also seems to fit your style. Great company. Robertson may be a bum, but he's got more integrity than all those people combined.
Did you know that George Stephanopolous (Clinton's Yes man) once wrote an entire article in Newsweek about how we should assasinate Saddam Hussein? Not so much media outrage then. But I suppose, Scott, that by your logic, you hitched your wagon to Clinton, and thus are culpable for urging the assasination of a world leader. Oh, and he NEVER apologized. Where was your condemnation? Oh wait, it's only ok to condemn someone if they are right wing and you can smear the entire right wing with rhetoric, but if it comes from the left it should be ignored because you and the mainstream media have a left-wing bias.
Ben, first of all, Stephanopolous does not claim to be a man of God, does not have a Christian TV network on the Disney Family Channel. Second, the Right-Wing press trashed Stephanopolous for his words, yet accept Robertson's fake apology meekly. Third, Saddam Hussein was a murderous dictator who not only killed his own people, he promoted terrorism abroad. Chavez, on the other hand, is a Democratically elected official who has done neither. Fourth, Stephanopolous did not manufacture false reasons to kill Saddam, like Robertson did.
And yes, Ben, I hitched my wagon to Clinton who did an excellent job with foreign and domestic policy. Contrary to the Red-State sheltered belief, "Clinton" is not a 4-letter word. (Neither are "Kennedy", "liberal", "mainstream media", or "secular")
However, if you stopped your frothing for a minute, you might realize that the post was not about what a huge jackass Robertson was/is (which everyone agrees, at least out loud), but how the media covered up/was fooled into covering up his duplicity.
The last paragraph was about certain people who feel that their generalizations are much more educated and based in reality than other peoples'. You're doing nothing to contradict that.
Sorry Scott, absolutely no frothing here. And most of the right wing press I read is not meekly accepting Robertson's apology. Also, I've rarely had problems with Bill Clinton, and have said so many times. It's Hillary I don't like. But do remember that his terrorism policies led to 9/11. If he confronted it instead of just letting it happen again and again.... But I digress.
And I did do something to contradict it. You basically said all right wingers are bad because they all agree with Robertson. I don't, nor do my parents, nor do any other right wingers I ahve talked about it with, thus your generalization is based on fantasy. My generalization, that most people who identify themselves as lefties are Bush-haters, is absolutely true, and you have only reinforced it.
Oh, and you and Jimmy Carter are the only people in the world that think the election which Chavez won had anything to do with Democracy. The rest of us realize that elections backed by gun-toting intimidators have little to do with democracy. Jimmy Carter's approval of that election is a joke, just like most everything else he's ever done.
Oh, and I'm all for Kennedy. JFK was a great man, far more similar to a conservative of today than a liberal. It's his brother Ted, the murderer by passivity, that I have a problem with.
Can someone please define for me, or elaborate, on just WHO qualifies as a right winger or left winger? Because to be honest, with the multitude of different political issues, I'd say it'd be nearly impossible to say that every variation of beliefs can somehow be boiled into two polar opposites. Since when did having an opinion on one issue that leans one direction suddenly require that you identify with a political party on every platform?
For example, if someone says they are Christian, they are right wing? There are plenty of Christian democrats, unless of course, they don't count. And if someone is pro-choice, they're a lefty? Forget those conservatives who think the government should stay out of people's pockets and out of their lives as much as possible.
I'm just saying that if you're going to make generalizations, try to be more specific. Neither side gets anywhere, except to just irritate those who DO NOT fit the mold (note that it doesn't really affect those who toe the line, but rather the people who are more likely to agree with you on some issues than none at all).
Just my thoughts.
Howard, you're absolutely right. I was pretty sloppy there. Mother Jones is pretty middle-of-the-road. But that just further refutes Ben's claim that there was no media uproar.
Scott, brilliant post. I agree 100%. I am so sick of (anyone) defending Robertson's words, and in general, I tire of generalizations that are so frequently made concerning the leftwing in general. I can also see how we as a public ought not to make those generalizations about any group or interest party (unless they specifically advertise their stance), as ignorance is bred of assumption.
I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative. I don't know if I'm a democrat or republican. I'm a Naval officer that does not politically support Bush nor his war, but I am still loyal and dedicated to the military branch I serve. I do know that I enjoy social freedoms, and do not like crusty old men using their religion or personal "morals" to control my life. (My favorite example of this, since we're on the subject of religious figures, would have to be the priests that condemn homosexuality and rape young boys, and the many men that have illicit affairs, impregnating the woman, and then buying off her abortion, while publicly pushing to end women's rights to choose.
I'd say I'm pretty respectful of a person's belief, but I have nothing but contempt for those who enjoy privledges they would work to take away from me.
Well said, Scorcho!
Scott, I never said there was no media uproar. I said there wasn't as much outrage, and I'm right, there wasn't near as much, though there was some. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.
Were you being saracastic when you said Mother Jones was pretty middle-of-the-road?
Post a Comment