Taking on the Skeptics’ Objections to the Pittsburgh Attack
Don Surber, Michelle Malkin, and The Anchoress are among those urging caution on the story of the young woman attacked in Pennsylvania over her McCain bumper sticker.
I’m going to provide the counterbalance here. They’re skeptical. I’m not.
Quite frankly, I’m tired of giving the left the benefit of the doubt when it comes to political violence. Since the 1960s, the political violence in this country has largely come from the left. Whether it was highly-educated radicals (who later became influential “community organizers”) in Vietnam discussing how to kill 25 million Americans in re-educations camps, the Ku Klux Klan burning crosses throughout the south (and having one of its very highest-ranking members elected to the Senate), or the copious violence of the 2004 Presidential campaign, we’ve seen Democrats squarely in the middle of all of it. I’m well past cutting them even an inch of slack.
So let’s look at some of the skeptics’ objections and see if there are other, simpler, explanations.
Don Surber brings up the first objection.
The B is backwards.
It is a red flag. A large one. A red flag that reminds me of the young women like Tawana Brawley who have reported similar thinks — backwards KKK — backwards N-words.
Okay, I see two obvious reasons that would be so. First, the attacker was standing above the victim, so the B would be backwards, but not from his point of view. That’s the easy explanation.
The second one is the very easy explanation. A guy who’s robbing someone with a knife at an ATM is not likely to be the most literate person in the world. Brawley’s incident was ridiculous because the backwards letters were supposed to have been made by educated police officers who hae to write reports all the time. While police officers aren’t as a group a bunch of F. Scott Fizgeralds, they know how to make their ABCs. I’d say it’s pretty darned likely that a petty thief who has no problem graduating to felony assault is also functionally illiterate.
Furthermore, I find it difficult to imagine that she would stand in front of a mirror, with a knife, and make a letter “B” in her own cheek. It’s not that easy.
Try it. Well, don’t actually do it, but put yourself in the position. Find a mirror and get in front of it. Take your average kitchen knife, hold it by the handle and trace the letter “B” on your face. See how far your hand is from your face? See how far you’d have to stand from the mirror?
Now, witnesses said that she had just left a campaign meeting not long before the attack. That doesn’t leave her time to go home and scarify herself, then go back to the ATM near the event. So she had to carve herself in her car, using either the rear-view mirror or, if her car had one, the vanity mirror on her sunshade to do that.
Assuming she carried a knife in her car. If she used something else, like a nail file, then the likelihood that the “B” would be more rounded is even higher than if she used a knife. And the lines wouldn’t be so neatly connected, considering that the light she’d have in her car would be behind her (from the overhead cabin light).
But if she did use a knife, how much room do you think she had to do this? Could you do it in your car with only a small mirror and not a ton of room?
The Anchoress has a different question about the “B”.
I did however wonder at how very neatly the “B” was carved. That suggests to me that the blade was very sharp and the carver rather controlled – not in an emotional fury. Believe me, emotional furies combined with sharp blades are very messy.
Of course, after smashing her head forward, and kicking her while she was on the ground, the mugger’s fury may have been sufficiently assuaged to allow that light bladework. Possibly.
But let’s look at the “B” again. See how it’s not curved, but jagged? If you were going to write the letter “B’”, even on your face, would you do it like that or would you do it the way you’ve written it hundreds of thousands of times before, with rounded edges, as rounded as you could given the circumstances.
On the other hand, if you’re out to teach someone a lesson (which is not necessarily a position of wild rage), you don’t care much for the niceties of penmanship. And, like I said, a petty criminal probably doesn’t have the neatest handwriting, especially if he’s using a knife and not a pencil. If he’s holding the knife by the handle, a jagged “B” is pretty much what he’s going to get.
The third objection comes from Michelle Malkin.
She refused medical treatment after reporting the incident to police. Why on earth would she do that?
Again, I think there’s an easy explanation for this. If you had just been attacked, but came through without serious injuries (that is, no concussion, no blood, no broken bones) would you rather spend the night in an emergency room or would you rather go home, let the adrenaline bleed off in a place that’s comforting to you, take a nice hot shower, and spend some time alone? It’s not like you have to go to the hospital. You can, like she did, go the next day, after your nerves are less jangled and you’re rested and calm.
If I were in a similar circumstance, I wouldn’t go to the ER that night if I didn’t absolutely have to.
One of Michelle’s readers, a police officer, also saw something strange.
The “B” is far to shallow and clean to be taken seriously. Reminds me of the stab wounds that a “hero” would get when fighting off a phantom attacker – far to superficial to have been done in what is a fairly violent encounter.
Oh really? Try a little experiment. Take a really sharp kitchen knife and put it against the meaty part of your arm. Turn it so that when you move it, you’re not pushing it toward the blade side of the knife but the flat side. Now, give it just a little bit of pressure – don’t hurt yourself! – and make a nice, straight line. See how your skin reddens up and gets a similar abraded look? Now imagine doing that with a bit more pressure – not enough to break the skin, but enough that you can really feel it.
Now imagine the scene. He’s just kicked and punched her, pretty much out of the blue. She’s on the ground and has a black eye already. He’s over her with a knife pressed against her cheek. How hard do you think she’s going to struggle? Would you struggle in that situation? She’s likely to be terrified that he’s going to stab her face, stab her in the heart or stomach, or use the point of that knife to take out one of her eyes. he has complete mastery of the situation and I don’t see where she would be struggling at all. She’s be in shock and scared out of her wits.
So he presses the knife against her cheek and makes the sign of the “B”, but not hard enough to draw blood. As a result, her skin swells up and reddens, like skin does when it’s injured, and she ends up with a brand.
Most knives that muggers use aren’t cutting knives but stabbing knives. They have a sharp point, but not a particularly good edge. They can scrape up the skin pretty well with just a little bit of pressure. It would be incredibly difficult for the crook to actually carve anything into her skin so long as she was conscious. The pain alone would cause her to move and the result would be very messy. It would be surprisingly easy, though, to drag the tip across her cheek enough to cause that mark. Your basic “stabbing” knife could do that without a bit of problem.
I understand the skepticism, but I’m not buying into it this time. I see plenty of simple reasons to explain all these objections and, as I said before, I’m not inclined to give the left the benefit of the doubt this time. Nine different crimes in a month against McCain supporters after Barack Obama told his supporters to “get in their face” is a pattern. It is not difficult for me at all to believe that this attack is legitimate. I find the account very plausible and well in keeping with the left’s long history of political violence.
UPDATE: I want to make something clear. I do not believe with absolute certainty that this attack happened. As with most crimes (and I’ve seen plenty in my career) there is an element of doubt. Frequently, events occur differently than as described by the complainant/victim or by witnesses, even in cases where the crime really did occur. I can not put absolute trust in the news reports. If things turn out otherwise, it won’t be the first time I’ve been wrong.
I am saying is that the report is credible because it is by far the simplest explanation for the story. I believe that she was attacked. I believe that her attacker marred her face. I believe he did it because of her McCain bumper sticker. The police are treading lightly around this because it is a politically-sensitive story and they stand to take a lot of heat if they treat it as a routine mugging (which, by the way, is how they initially handled it). I find her description of events to be a simpler explanation than what I’ve seen from the skeptics. I think they are cutting a very wide path around this because they’re afraid that if it turns out to be a hoax, it’ll blow up John McCain’s campaign and they’ll take a hit to the integrity.
Well guess what? It’s going to do that anyhow, no matter if bloggers peer at it with a jaundiced eye or not. On the other hand, this incident could blow up Barack Obama’s campaign if enough people see the picture of the victim and hear about the attack. By the time the full story comes out, the election will be over. If the story is a victim-perpetrated hoax, it won’t matter politically.
The MSM has already set the standard for this, thanks to Dan Rather and Mary Mapes and the doctrine of “fake but accurate”. Could the victim have made the story up? Yes, it’s possible. Does it matter? Not in the least. The left has a discernible history of political violence going back a long time. Barack Obama has whipped his supporters into action with his call to “get in their face”. The spirit of the story is truthful even if nothing else is.
I’d like to thank everyone at CBS News and every media outlet and progressive blogger who covered for them for handing me a humongous bludgeon that I will now use on the Obamessiah for the next couple of weeks.
Other Posts of Interest:
- Young Woman Attacked by a
McCainObama Supporter with a Knife (UPDATE: “Get in their face”? Yeah, This Qualifies) - Obama, the War in Chicago, and More Gun Stupidity
- Obama: Police Officers are Terrorists
Category: Featured, The 2008 Horse Race, The Obamessiah
No. No, you're definitely not skeptical. You're an ideologue.
I've bookmarked this page so that tomorrow, when its proven that the doubters were correct (including Malkin), I can come and laugh at you and your eager, ideological desire to believe that this anything but a hoax.
Sleep tight, and don't let the big, bad, black man nightmares bite!
Oh I don't worry about any particular color of person. I do have some concern if they call themselves progressive. They're the ones who are likely to be violent.
You can laugh all you like, if the story doesn't pan out. I will, of course, hide behind the wonderful "fake but accurate" shield the MSM provided be in their frenzy to smear President Bush in 2004 and Sarah Palin more recently. And you won't have a thing to say, unless you're a rank hypocrite.
"See how far your hand is from your face? See how far you’d have to stand from the mirror?"
Okay, I'll bite. I took a paring knife from my drawer. My hand is holding it with my thumb on the blade. My thumb is two inches from my face. And my face is eight inches from the mirror. That's pretty easy. And there is plenty of room in a car to accomplish this. Let's put this into perspective. A paring knife is shorter than the brushes artists use to paint artwork. Apparently, you believe that painting a picture must be impossible. Let's face it, anyone who has applied lipstick could do this. You think she's ever used lipstick?
"Would you struggle in that situation?"
I sure would. I've been mugged five times in my life. And I struggled in four of them. The fifth? I had a gun pressed against my right temple. When there's a gun involved, yes you freeze. But if not, you fight back. You don't just lay there while someone carves you up. And your natural reflexes will cause you to move unless you are consciously trying to stay still.
"It would be incredibly difficult for the crook to actually carve anything into her skin so long as she was conscious."
"without serious injuries (that is, no concussion, no blood, no broken bones)"
Notice an inconsistency here? She was knocked unconscious, but didn't get a concussion? How's that work? I've had ten concussions in my life. And some of them didn't knock me unconscious. If you get knocked unconscious, you surely have a concussion.
Of course, you do have an out here. There's really no point in going to the hospital for a concussion. There's not much they can do. Unless you have blood coming out of your ears, stay at home and stay awake. And even if you do have blood coming out of your ears, there's still not much they can do. I know, I've had that happen. It cost me two thousand dollars for them to tell me I had a fractured cranium and there was no treatment. The only possible treatment is if you have fluid buildup. And you'll know it because it is extremely painful. And they'll drill a hole in your head to let the fluid out. It's kind of an odd take on the phrase "I need that like I need a hole in my head." Well, sometimes you really do need a hole in your head.
"considering that the light she’d have in her car would be behind her (from the overhead cabin light)"
Umm, ever seen those lighted mirrors they have on the passenger side sun visor? They are specifically designed to make the application of makeup easier. And they are pretty much standard these days.
[...] Jimmie Bise is angry and disinclined to skepticism just now. In an updated post he explains why. [...]
1) A paring knife is a good deal longer and more unwieldy than a lipstick. With a lipstick you can adjust so that your fingers are less than an inch from your lips. The smallest paring knives are 2-3". Big difference.
2) If this woman did this in her car, what did she do with the knife afterward? Leave it in her car? Give it to her friend?
3) Jimmie didn't claim that the woman was unconscious; his point was that this was a scrape, rather than a deep serial-killer-style carving.
4) Women don't carve up their faces if they have any other option. If it were a hoax, she would have chosen an arm or a leg or a shoulder, or just about any other part of her body. No matter how light the scraping, she's at risk of having a scar on her face for the rest of her life.
5) If I'm wrong, and this was a hoax, I assume she'll become a celebrity spokesperson and community leader for having peddled it, a la Al Sharpton. As long as she doesn't apologize.
I agree with you on all of this. Calling it a hoax and it ends up being true will destroy her credibility. Simply saying that we trust but are verifying on the otherhand leaves credibility, and if it ends up hoax, then who cares about credibility. Screwing up the credibility before there is any reason to is simply a liberal thing to do. Think of all the people the left has crushed the credibility of before getting to the truth, and then when the trust is that they were right, no one cared, their credibility was already destroyed and never recovered.
I WILL NOT MAKE A JUDGEMENT UNTIL THE POLICE HAS COMPLETED THEIR INVESTIGATION; HOWEVER, I DO FEEL THIS MAYBE MCCAIN'S OCTOBER SURPRISE. IF YOU LOOKED AT THE LOCATION, IT IS IN A BUSY AREA, NOT AN ISOLATED PLACE. THE "B' IS TOO PERFECT AND WOULD NOT LOOK LIKE THAT AFTER A STABBING. IF YOU ARE PUNCH IN THE EYE, THERE IS NO WAY YOUR EYE WILL NOT BE SWOLLEN AND JUST LOOK ONE COLOR (BLACK). IT TAKES SOMETIME BEFORE IT COMPLETELY LOOKS THAT WAY!!
"Women don’t carve up their faces if they have any other option. If it were a hoax, she would have chosen an arm or a leg or a shoulder, or just about any other part of her body. No matter how light the scraping, she’s at risk of having a scar on her face for the rest of her life."
A point no one else has mentioned, but one of the first things I thought of as well.
We shall see.
I think we can wait a few days and see what the investigation turns up. That said, I also am through giving the Lefties the benefit of the doubt. In this case our proper doubt need not benefit the scrum. We already know what the Obots plan for us. We also know that hoaxes are endemic to this crowd; the Graemes, Jennifer Bush (no relation), several academic types have manufactured attacks lately as has Randi Rhodes and Al Sharpton is of course notorious on this front. That skunk should be in jail. I'm sick of it. The Left is the enemy of all decent people and I won't sit still for their stupid lies ever again. Don't you either.
You certainly are angry. I akso think you are giving away your integrity for a liar.
If you want to say, "I want to emulate people I find hateful liars" as you seem to illustrate with your attack on Mapes, you are arguing that YOU are a theoretical liar, who uses lies as your weapon. Marxists and Stalinists and Leninists do that.
There were so many people who lost their bearings by adopting a standard that they do not believe in. I am not a conservative, but I trust conservatives to tell the truth, and I deplore when people on my side tell lies.
I mentioned my liberal college with its "Time for Healing" and Candle light vigils over two separate "attacks" by so-called "right wing hate-spouting bigots". NO ATTACK HAPPENED> Each girl injured herself.
Susan Smith murdered her children; the Duke stripper was not attacked.
Truth is not something any of us can give away because "you did it first".
Who is the one making an assumption now?
I've pointed out just why her story is an easier one to believe. You're already calling her a liar. What does that say of your integrity?
Let me say here that I have never said that her story much be true, no matter what. I leave room for the possibility that it's not true. On the other hand, I simply do not understand why so many conservatives take the skeptical side or, worse, immediately start tearing into the victim's story.
I prefer to take the stories as they come. The victim's story is plausible. The complaints of the skeptics are easily explained away. The incident fits perfectly into the history of the left using violence to achieve its political goals that goes back at least to Woodrow Wilson.
I have no qualms, though, using the "fake but accurate" defense here. The MSM put it into my hands and no one, but no one, on the left can criticize me for using it without becoming a terrible hypocrite. Am I lying if I have to use it? Nope.
Ok, you like many others obviously didn't read much into this story, and this was updated yesterday? Come on, there's a lot of info out there, read it…
I'll go through each of your points. First the B is backwards, you say the man could have been above her which is logical but, unfortunately for you it completely contradicts Ashley Todds own statement to police "She told police the man then sat on her chest, pinning both her hands down with his knees" OOPS! *waves goodbye to that theory*
Now, THAT ALONE should show you that the B is a hoax, but I'll go on because unlike Sarah Palin I love to toot my own horn. *Toot toot*
"If you had just been attacked, but came through without serious injuries (that is, no concussion, no blood, no broken bones) would you rather spend the night in an emergency room or would you rather go home"
Personally if I had no serious injuries, I wouldn't go home or to hospital, I'd report it to the police immediately so the guy could possibly be stopped from mugging someone else. Unlike Ashley Todd who decided to go to a friends house one mile from the scene of the alleged mugging, which makes no sense.
Also, now she's saying at one point she was knocked unconscious (that means a concussion is possible), if you don't seek medical attention after that you should have a B carved in your face for "bonehead".
"I find her description of events to be a simpler explanation than what I’ve seen from the skeptics."
Which one of her descriptions? She's given about five different scenarios so far, none of them make sense. Plus she didn't even mention the McCain bumper sticker the first time police interviewed her.
Also, stop calling people skeptics, you are a skeptic too, just in the opposite direction… You are skeptical of the truth behind this story.
"Would you struggle in that situation? She’s likely to be terrified that he’s going to stab her face, stab her in the heart or stomach, or use the point of that knife to take out one of her eyes."
Uhh, that's exactly why you WOULD struggle or at least scream, your gonna LET someone stab your eye out, stab your face or slit your throat without a struggle? Yeah right. Unless he said "Now I'm going to teach you a lesson and lightly carve a B on your face… backwards…" then I don't see how she would be confident enough to not struggle with someone who for all she knows could have just been about to kill her.
This is why the PERFECT B, especially the rounded parts make no sense, there would be other cuts from a struggle or at least from her freaking out the first time he pressed the knife to her face without saying what he was going to do.
Plus, why would the mugger stick around and risk getting caught just to make a political point (literally). Also if he's so patient to stick around and try to sway her vote by carving a perfect B on her face, why didn't he have her take more money out of the ATM?
"I’m not inclined to give the left the benefit of the doubt this time." But, you're willing to give the right, Ashley Todd, the benefit of the doubt based on her wishy-washy report of this crime? Hypocritical much?
"considering that the light she’d have in her car would be behind her (from the overhead cabin light)"
She went to a friends house who lives one mile away immediately after the attack before reporting it to police, I'm pretty sure her friend has electricity and lights in their house. Also as someone mentioned above vanity mirrors in cars have lights on both sides of them. Lastly, if you need light to draw a B you might want to go back to grade school.
Also, read up on what locals in the area had to say, that is a BUSY area at the time of her attack and isn't a bad part of town at all. The area has many window shop type stores and coffee shops, someone would have noticed this happening if it happened according to her "in front of the ATM" which security cam footage contradicts.
"I am saying is that the report is credible because it is by far the simplest explanation for the story. I believe that she was attacked. I believe that her attacker marred her face. I believe he did it because of her McCain bumper sticker."
That is not by far the most simplistic explanation, at all, it's the most illogical on many fronts. The most simplistic explanation, is four simple words. "She did it herself." See how easy that was.
You're trying to justify an event from your obvious fear of Obama supporters, who are simply Americans that disagree with your view of how to get things done, not crazy psychos trying to ruin the country. The Republican party had 8 years to do something with a surplus and it failed miserably, get over it.
"The spirit of the story is truthful even if nothing else is."
LOL, So it's true, even if it's completely false, do you hear yourself? Way to let your fears and emotion get in the way of thinking. This is truly sad… In a funny way.
—
Also from the other comments "Women don’t carve up their faces if they have any other option." She doesn't have any other option, do you see how far behind McCain is in the polls
"If I’m wrong, and this was a hoax, I assume she’ll become a celebrity spokesperson and community leader for having peddled it, a la Al Sharpton. As long as she doesn’t apologize."
That's real cute, last time I checked Al Sharpton never claimed HE was a victim of a frivolous event, he only advocated for others, kinda like YOU are doing right now, oops, another hypocrite.
P.S. I win, as i I was typing this I see on MSNBC that it IS a hoax, bye.
Okay, she's confessed now. It was a hoax. So, Jimmie, do you still think this hoax is impossible to pull off?
I'll add another point here. Don't ever try to lie to the police. They will figure it out. I've been through a few interrogations myself. Trust me, those guys are good. You won't fool them.
Jimmie – quick observation: maybe if you would spend less time stuffing your corpulent mouth and more time thinking logically, this whole thing would have seen as cut-and-dry as it was to the rest of us at the start. You are clearly a provocateur on par with Michael Moore (sharing his belt size as well as his lack of wit or tact to boot). Maybe you go after other bloggers like Michelle Maulkin for their skepticism because you personally just haven't learned how to distinguish between fact and fiction. Whatever the case, stick to inane comments, and stop the bashing of others with obvious superior intellect.
Your name makes me said, Rational Thinking, because I know it had to take you a while to look those words up in the dictionary.
Are you now a little embarrassed, I wonder?
I'm from Boston, anyone remember the Carol Stuart murder? White guy murdered his wife in Mission hill, faked that he was attacked and his wife was murdered by a black man?
Hi there!
As per my word, I am back here to laugh at you and your stupidity.
Ha Ha.
Oh, one more thing.
Someone asked why even the conservatives were doubtful of her story… Well, as a poster detailed above, the reason for the skepticism was because this whole thing stunk from the very beginning. You'd have to be stupid to not have seen it.
Like I said, you're an ideologue and you're willing to believe whatever fits your worldview, no matter how fantastical the story may be.
Ha. Ha. Ha.
mammon, allow me to direct you to the featured post on this blog. There are useful instructions there for you.
Okay, I said this in another thread and I'll say it here, too. If you're going to argue, at least argue against what I said.
fostert, that means no making up stuff like I said this would be "impossible" to hoax. I never said that and you're lying to put that word in my mouth.
You may have had your super psychic sense on, and if that's true, then good for you. You get a cookie. However, we're talking about the plausibility of the story here. If you can't argue with that, then this is the wrong post for you.
So, don't put words in my mouth.
Also, remember that this one hoax does not erase nine other crimes against McCain supporters. I've said that only about a bazillion times in the past 24 hours. It is still true. If you come around just do take a victory lap, remember that you only got one "right". You Obama supporters still have nine other crimes for which to answer.
If you're going to hang this hoax around my neck, I'll hang your fascist buddies around yours.
Now, stick with the rules or I close the thread.
Psychic sense?
Once again, people were doubtful because the whole thing sounded dubious from the get-go.
Plausibility?
As a Scary Black Man pointed out, the most plausible explanation, in light of what was reported AT THE TIME, was that she faked the whole thing. Occams razor made short work of Todds story and the existing facts at the time, hence the reason even M. Malkin and other conservative pundits were treating it with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Nine other crimes?
Last time I checked, this post concerned Ashley Todd. You were wrong about her. I can only assume that the rules are "when I'm proven wrong on one issue I'll remind you that you haven't proven me wrong on some other unrelated things."
Nobody is trying to hang this around your neck. Nobody is saying that it 'erases' anything. You seem very emotionally attached to this whole story. Ashley Todd is an idiot, not the GOP. You seem to think that one bad apple will somehow tarnish the whole party. Personally, I think this is quite telling…
You're treating this all like some kind of competition. I'll say it again – neitehr side is perfect.
Jimmie said: "Your name makes me said, Rational Thinking, because I know it had to take you a while to look those words up in the dictionary.
Yeah…the word is "sad", not "said". I guess YOU'RE the one in dire need of a dictionary. You just keep digging yourself in deeper here. As was said (yes, correct use of the word here) here earlier by another poster, we are not bashing the Republican party by pointing out that this was clearly and evidently a hoax from the begining. We are rightfully highlighting the fact that your brain is on "stand-by" mode if you couldn't do the simple mental arithmatic to see the facts didn't add up from the begining. The fact that you imply being skeptical is somehow "giving the left the benefit of the doubt" is a lame, pedantic and simply unreasonable premise. Here's a fact; all Republicsns DO have a brain. And unlike you, some of us choose to use them on a daily basis in order NOT to create hysteria by follow yellow journalism which will in the end only backfire and harm our cause.
I think this particular thread on this blog did more for the Obama campaign than the promise of free government cheese with every welfare check. You give "the left" (see: the REAL left…and not just people you've given the monicker simply because they disagree with YOU) a reason and cause to say, "look! These are the kind of people Republicans are: irrational ideologues who are quick to jump on any wild accusation!"
Bravo.
Actually, I posted a pretty long post, in which you're commenting, with the simpler explanation.
If you read the Skeptics' posts, you'll see that one of the big reasons they were skeptical is because they wanted to be extra cautious since folks on the left would take any concession that the story was plausible as a "gotcha" moment if it proved untrue.
And I'd say that two whole comment sections here bear that out in spades.
Like I said earlier, criticize me for what I said.
And I specifically said that the other nine crimes had a direct influence on how I thought about this one. In fact, I said that I was not leaning toward skepticism because the other nine crimes happened.
I'm not changing the subject. The other nine crimes are very relevant, as I've said repeatedly. You are the one who is narrowing the focus to a position more comfortable for you.
Have you read the comments in this thread and the earlier one I wrote yesterday? You must have missed the ones that blamed Republicans and/or the right for being a bunch of violent liars.
Well, it is a competition, for public opinion. For at least the past two weeks the MSM has been telling people how the right is growing more violent, how we are close to exploding with rage and hate. In fact, it is the left where the vast majority of the political violence has been happening, not just in the last month since Barack Obama told his followers to "get in their faces" but for decades upon decades. It's important to me that the prevailing MSM narrative, which is unadorned poppycock, be refuted for the lie it really is.
No. Neither side is perfect. But one side is definitely closer to it on this matter than the other.
No, yours was not the simpler explanation. The initial facts did not add up. It was highly dubious from the beginning. Her statements contradicted the evidence. The story practically screamed HOAX.
Your suggestion that conservative bloggers were taking the skeptic route for fear of a backlash is quite ridiculous. The simpler explanation in this case would be that they were genuinely skeptical. If they were worried about gotchas then why bother saying anything about it at all? Just ignore it and if it turns out to be a hoax then no harm done. After all, if a couple of bad McCain apples aren't newsworthy ("kill him" etc), then why would a bad Obama apple be newsworthy? Considering that the right has complained about the non-newsworthiness of the occasional idiot at McCain rallies, I have to say it's a little hypocritical that people like Drudge etc jump at the chance to do the same thing when the boot is on the other foot.
You should ALWAYS lean toward skepticism. Your statement doesn't show you're rational, but it does show that you're rather biased.
Oh, god.
I keep forgetting you're an ideologue.
Look, the extreme left and the extreme right BOTH have a history of violence. Extremism tends to also make people extremely angry. Just as not all Muslims are jihadists, not all liberals are violent revolutionaries.
Your belief that the left are somehow more violent than the right only makes sense to you because you completely disregard the various shades and degrees of progressivism and simply lump the whole lot in one pile of negatives, while at the same time you gloss over the violence that has been perpetrated by the right. If I looked at the world the way you do, I'd have been calling you a Nazi this whole time and wondered when you were going to blow up some abortion clinics!
ALL CONSERVATIVES WANT TO BLOW UP ABORTION CLINICS!
Silly, innit?
mammon – I knew that someone would bring out that silly bit of equivalence. The history of the left and right when it comes to political violence is in no way comparable. It's not even close. There is a reason for that, though. The left has emplyed strategies where violence was a necessary component for success. From Gramsci to Alinsky and points in between, the notion of violence as a means of manufacturing a crisis or as intimidation has been an integral part of how the American left have operated going back a long time.
As for abortion bombings, well, you're going to love one of my posts this weekend. I'll give you a hint. Guess how many people have been killed related to abortion clinics in the last ten years?
I noticed how you mentioned the "kill em" thing in your last comment to bolster your point. That one statement has been the thing on which the MSM and folks like you have used to build the entire premise that the McCain crowds are one command away from a rampage.
It didn't happen. The Secret Service actually investigted it. No one said "kill em". The agents at the rally never heard it. No one the agents interviewed heard it. The only one who did was one reporter from one Pennsylvania newspaper. His report was picked up and repeated by bigger outlets.
And no one seemed even a litle bit skeptical about that, even when the Secret Service completed its investigation and made the results public. Not even you.
So, please, don't tell me how I shuold always be skeptical. Like I said, you don't get to lecture me from the left side of the room on propriety or prudence. You don't have the standing to do so.
I didn't mention "kill him" to bolster anything, I used it as an example. My point, which you seem to be missing, is still valid. That is, overall, the occasional extremely partisan idiot on either side does not, and should not, be a reflection of the entire party as a whole. Conservatives have been screaming this, and rightly so, whenever the press has released something about the behaviour of one or two idiots at a rally consisting of thousands of decent folk. Whether some moron yelled kill him or not misses the point. With this in mind, I find it a little hypocritical that the same people who were rightly crying foul because the loony right-wing sentiments occasionally expressed at these rallies is not indicative of conservatives as a whole, now have the gall to jump on the Ashley Todd story – before any of the facts were even out – and use the same brush that they have been criticising the democrats of using.
According to you, there were at least nine instances during the last month or so in which Obama supporters did something stupid or violent. That's nine. Not 9000 or 900 or even 90, but only nine out of about 70 million registered democrats. That kind of number does not support your theory that the democrats are violent thugs. That kind of ratio, scientifically speaking, would actually prove that there is NO correlation between progressivism in the US and violence towards conservatives. Considering there are about 20 million less registered conservatives than democrats, I'd only have to find about five or six instances of violence or thuggery commited against the democrats to accuse the republicans of the same thing you have accused the democrats!
You're looking for a correlation where there are only anamolies, and anomalies are non-partisan.
Very well put..
Actually, Drudge – and to a lesser degree – FOX and FOX's John Moody were the ones who kicked the whole thing off, while other outlets were still establishing things known as 'facts,' or reporting on more newsworthy material. Drudge and FOX gave it the most exposure. As far as I know, very few of the main stream news sources really touched it, and if they did it was only given a quick mention. As far as I can tell, The NY Times, for example, has yet say anything at all – at least online, anyway.
It definitely started with FOX kicking it off.