I'm not the reader some people are. I do have my moments, though. When it comes to novels, I've been focused for the last couple of decades on "classics", such as anything by Dickens (maybe my favorite), Alexandre Dumas (the Musketeer trilogy and The Count of Monte Cristo), James Fenimore Cooper (I need to get his other Hawkeye stories), Herman Melville (I really have to finish Moby-Dick, and I need to get Billy Budd---loved the movie).
I also like to read books by people I follow who have a solid understanding of the current events and the political scene, like Mark Levin. I'm hoping to get to his latest book "American Marxism" eventually. At my current pace, it might be out of print by the time I'm ready to get it, or the country may be totally given over to leftist stupidity and his books burned and his ass jailed.
And while I have books on any number of subjects, the third favorite category is history/biographies. I've read bios (autobios, actually) of several rich people which pretty much contradicts what lefties say about their motivations and attitudes toward everyone else. But mostly, I favor historical figures, particularly American historical figures. I'm less than two hundred pages away from finishing a sizable biography by a Yale history professor named, David W. Blight. He's also their Director of the Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance and Abolition. The book is "Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom".
As I say, it's a fairly sizable tome, 764 pages of print small enough to compel me to buy readers with greater magnification than what I now use. It's one of three books I have regarding Douglass, the others being a new book by Brian Kilmeade, "The President and the Freedom Fighter: Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, and their Battle to Save America's Soul", and Douglass' first autobiography (I think there's three), "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave". I bought the last and Blight's work together late last summer, and the Kilmeade book I got for Christmas, along with Brett Baier's book on U.S. Grant. (Where will I find the time? I'm way to busy wasting it.)
I was going to wait until I was finished with the book before posting anything on it, though that could be late next summer at the rate I'm going. But as I was knocking out a dozen pages, I came across something which came up several times throughout my reading. That's the political leanings of the author. Blight is clearly a lefty. Now, for the most part, I can't really say that it has tainted the entire book. I'll need to read the other two to get any sense of whether or not that's possible. But the dude does insert his left-leaning opinions now and then. He's taken the liberty to castigate modern Republicans with little asides which do not truly reflect modern Republicans so much as the left's false opinion of them. I wish I had highlighted them in some way, but there aren't so many that with each one I found, I didn't believe I'd come upon another. Here's one I somehow managed to go back over one hundred pages to find:
"The freedmen's needs would require what the orator called 'all the elevating and civilizing institutions of the country.' Modern Republicans, eager to find a black spokesman for personal responsibility, have not bothered to read deeper into Douglass."
What in the wide, wide world of sports is THAT supposed to mean? That Republicans only care about black people who make them feel better? What an asshole!! This isn't reflective of Republicans or conservatives I've ever known! It does resemble the patronizing so typical of the modern Democrat/progressive, that's for sure!
Here's the one which made me stop reading to publish this post: (pardon the length of it)
"This is a prototypical case of a prominent black spokesman whose forthright statements about his people's behavior and self-criticisms were appropriated by racist forces. Douglass was a worried, ambivalent man in the mid-1870s, and feeling his sense of authority dissipating. A year after the Hillsdale speech, he still found himself defending it to the American Missionary Association. In a letter to that organization's journal, Douglass reasserted his desire for 'justice...more than alms,' even as he welcomed their aid. Above all, he did not want the violent white-supremacist Democrats using his words to their ends any more than he could stomach the 'sectarian and selfish purposes' of the 'hungry class' out to life the destitute Negro of their imaginations. We have watched this scene so many times in modern American politics: current Republicans, some of whom love to appropriate Douglass, lifting him out of context to use him in service to causes he would abhor."
Like "what"? He provides absolutely nothing in the way of examples. It's clearly a lefty thing. Dan will love this guy!! He's probably among the historians who gave Dan the tingles in his lady parts by trashing Trump in presidential rankings (what a joke that was!).
But why do that? Is this an attempt to draw a parallel between then and now? Should authors just assume the reader gets whatever he's trying to reference. Surely he has something specific in mind, so why be coy? Isn't the whole point of such books to teach and enlighten? David McCullough is a fine historian and biographer. I've read his books "1776", "John Adams" and "Truman". I can't recall anything like this in any of them. I've read Kilmeade's book "Andrew Jackson and the Miracle of New Orleans". Nothing like that at all in his book, and Jackson was a Democrat! I've read books on Lincoln, even Cap't freakin' Bligh and no injection of partisan hackery has ever been present to my recollection. (One exception is raving atheist Christopher Hitchens' dinky...188 pages...bio of Jefferson, "Thomas Jefferson: Author of America". It seemed the book was an excuse to highlight what Hitchens wanted to believe was Jefferson's own atheism. He simply had issues with organized religion...not religion itself. But one can't get past a few pages without another reference to how Jefferson allegedly had no use for religion. In Hitchen's case it was a blatant lie, given the rich bounty of source materials which prove otherwise.)
Again, perhaps I'll find in reading the other two books that which takes me back to something I read in this one which further taints it. Conceding that possibility exists, I still would recommend the book. It does have tons of details about the guy and his life and work. Aside from Blight's indiscretions, I've enjoyed it immensely. There was a time when I would have lost several hours reading it, so it does tend to hold one's attention while informing. I just wish Blight would either have elaborated on his cheap shots about today's GOP, or provided legit examples that justify them as well as make the connection he pretended was obvious.
17 comments:
I've read quite a few bios of mostly American figures, and can't recall any instance of an author inserting their opinions in that way. Seems kind of bush league to me.
Marshal... "Like "what"? He provides absolutely nothing in the way of examples. It's clearly a lefty thing. Dan will love this guy..."
Probably. Pulitzer-award winning writers tend to be exceptional, as evidenced by the award. And his words sound right on.
Like what? Ask black people and listen to what they say, they'll tell you.
Like this scholar...
"Many conservatives who claim posthumous alliance with Douglass would abandon him if they faced the prospect of being publicly associated with the central features of his ideology. After all, he championed the creation of a strong post–Civil War federal government that would extend civil and political rights to the formerly enslaved; protect those rights judicially and, if necessary, militarily; and undergird the former slaves’ new status with education, employment, land, and other resources, to be supplied by experimental government agencies.
Douglass objected to what he considered an unseemly willingness to reconcile with former Confederates who failed to sincerely repudiate secession and slavery. He expressed disgust, for example, at the “bombastic laudation” accorded to Robert E. Lee upon the general’s death in 1870."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-confounding-truth-about-frederick-douglass/573931/
But good for you for reading this.
Marshal... "Surely he has something specific in mind, so why be coy?"
This is obvious to many people who've seen the right try to "embrace" Douglass or King, but only cite the 1/1,000,000th of their words where they can find agreement, without the greater context of their greater work.
Black people and their allies have seen how white conservatives (and sometimes white liberals) laud the same 20 words or one or two quotes from these two great men, and try to pretend like they're huge fans, but if they'd lived at the same time as either of these leaders, they would certainly be furiously opposed to them. Is it the case that you're not aware of this complaint against conservatives? Really? Or are you familiar but you've never seen anything explain why the complaint exists?
Here ya go...
"if there has ever been a moment when it would be good for the Republican Party to remember Frederick Douglass, this would be it. Perhaps these Douglass Republicans might fight for voting rights and women’s rights to contest recent moves to limit both. Perhaps a contingent of Frederick Douglass Republicans can contest the recent wave of state laws limiting access to the polls. Perhaps the Frederick Douglass Republicans can censure those who are passing new laws attacking women’s reproductive health care. A real Frederick Douglass Republican would seek to change today’s Republican party from one that seeks to limit rights, to one that is expanding them. But the conclusion of the “Trump the Race Card” session leaves me doubting."
https://thegrio.com/2013/03/22/frederick-douglass-a-modern-day-republican-think-again/2/
Or how about Douglass himself, who made it clear that a "color-blind" society would be a great evil, insomuch as it would allow for rule by one race of people. He was clear that we NEEDED to see representation of all classes/types of people if we wanted a true free republic...
""We hold it to be self-evident that no class or color should be the exclusive rulers of the country. If there is such a ruling class there must of course be a subject class, and when this condition is once established this government by the people, of the people, and for the people will have already perished from the earth."
https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/books/ct-prj-archive-frederick-douglass-republican-party-20150129-story.html
The perversion of King's "color blind" words, two of the very few words by Dr King that the GOP knows by heart is well known.
Or what of these words from Douglass, making it clear that the great evil of US racism and slavery must be denounced... does this gibe with your love of the founders?
"At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation’s ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced."
https://www.niskanencenter.org/frederick-douglass-1876-report/
Or will you join with Douglass in denouncing our founders' hypocrisy?
For a few examples.
Wow. Where to begin...Lots of Dan-crap in these two comments.
"Pulitzer-award winning writers tend to be exceptional, as evidenced by the award."
Dan's really turned on by awards for lefties, as if they confirm something noble and good about the recipient. What crap.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/05/pulitzer-prize-and-corruption-history-and-bruce-thornton/
From the above link:
"First, we should remember that the Pulitzer Prize, like the Oscars, the Emmys, and with a few exceptions the Nobel Peace Prize, is a trade-guild marketing tool, not a merit-based objective reward for true excellence and achievement. Political and ideological preferences are branded by such awards and made into megaphones for publicizing biases for those preferences."
Here's more:
https://dailycaller.com/2017/05/05/credibility-of-pulitzer-prize-takes-a-hit-by-rewarding-propublicas-liberal-bias/
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/ideology-and-the-pulitzers/ (gotta subscribe to read this entire article, but what's presented makes the point all by itself)
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/22/pulitzer-prize-administrator-defends-process-after/
There are lots of articles like this which, unlike Pulitzer winners like the New York Times and their "journalists", actually present facts uncovered by actual investigative journalism. These articles likely didn't require lots of leg work, but a defender would be hard pressed to debunk anything within them.
But to Dan, pointing to such things as Pulitzers, Nobels, peer reviews and other such things is a lame attempt to avoid the heavy lifting of proving merit on whatever issue is on the table. In this case, the book this post references. A book, in fact, that I'm enjoying and have recommended.
"And his words sound right on."
I've no doubt they do to moron progressives from Louisville and others like them. But again, he offers no examples and nor have you.
"Like what? Ask black people and listen to what they say, they'll tell you."
Those black people you expect me to worship are not providing the examples by "like what?" demands. You're dodging.
"Like this scholar..."
The scholar's a moron. As I made my way through the book, I found a great deal of it aligns with conservatism quite nicely. Indeed, the very things in your Randall Kennedy quote are absolutely reflective of conservative notions of America. You, like he or Blight, couldn't find an example to present which would contradict that fact. They and you simply assert such crap and thus you expect it to be taken as gospel truth. That's because progressives are leftists and leftists are liars.
By the say, given you constant criticisms of every source I use as too biased to consider, don't ever try running a piece from that leftist comic book The Atlantic here again. Know that doing so will be taken as a joke unworthy of notice.
"This is obvious to many people who've seen the right try to "embrace" Douglass or King, but only cite the 1/1,000,000th of their words where they can find agreement, without the greater context of their greater work."
Ah. In other words, you're saying, "Well if you don't know, I'm not gonna tell ya."
Got it, Sally.
As to taking things in context, you wish it were true what you say, but again, you offer no examples. But I'll say this about your bad math: even if that were true, why would that make our pointing out those few words of agreement as being enough to laud he who spoke them? If you ever said something true, I'd give you props as well. In the case of these two men, the greater context is summed up in those words to which we always reference. You lefty assholes just like to pretend you have deeper insights, which is hilarious. More noteworthy is how those more well known words, such as King's regarding content of character over skin color are totally ignored by you and those for whom you cast your vote...either in the ballot box or in your cringe worthy worship on your blog.
[Before I go any further, there was something said in that Kennedy article that stood out, and that's some reference by Blight to BLM in the book. I've less than 200 pages to go and I don't recall any such references, so I don't know how there could possibly be any connection to the work and philosophy of Douglass and the marxist lies, greed and hatefulness of BLM.]
"Black people and their allies have seen how white conservatives (and sometimes white liberals) laud the same 20 words or one or two quotes from these two great men, and try to pretend like they're huge fans, but if they'd lived at the same time as either of these leaders, they would certainly be furiously opposed to them."
This is something leftist blacks and their sheep of both races like to believe, but have no basis for doing so. It's what they want to believe is true. It's what you need to believe is true so as to stroke your false sense of moral superiority when you have no true argument to defend the failures of your policies. The Republicans of that time were not so different than those of today, but you lying lefties like to think there was some trading of party names since that time so as to pretend yours is not the party that sought to continue enslaving them, deny their ability to vote and all the other discriminatory horrors they suffered. Nothing's changed on that score. Yours is still the party of identity politics, pitting people against each other based on superficial differences you can exploit to gain votes and power. And while the Klan is all yours, you lie about the GOP being some kind of kin to them.
"Is it the case that you're not aware of this complaint against conservatives?"
Despite repeating myself, it bears repeating nonetheless. I'm aware that you lefties make this false complaint for reasons having no relation to truth and reality. That anyone actually believes it is a shame and those who perpetuate this intentional lie are shameful. Which one are you, Dan? Are you a sheep or are you one who leads them to slaughter? One or the other is true of you. Anyone who suggests the GOP seeks to limits rights...voting rights or otherwise...is a liar most vile.
"Or how about Douglass himself, who made it clear that a "color-blind" society would be a great evil, insomuch as it would allow for rule by one race of people."
This was another striving to bring true equality in those days in which he lived. There was not enough of it thanks to people like you for whom skin color is so important. It's not like that today. Those who pretend it's true today are those who are exploiters of racial differences, using it as a pretext to insure power by the leftists who have done so much to bring about all the misery we're suffering right now in this country, particularly in the Dem-run cities. Did you see the stats about Baltimore high school reading ability? 1.9% read at grade level, while the majority read at elementary school level...with an alarming amount at freakin' Kindergarten level!!! That's a city run by leftist blacks!!! Douglass and King would shit themselves to know of how their lives have been made a mockery by members of their own race!
As to the founders, some wanted slavery and others opposed it. King's views of the founders and Constitution were not fixed throughout his life. His early days of abolition work reflected the suffering he personally experienced and thus found no way to resolve the words of the Constitution. In time, particularly with regard to his relationship to Lincoln, he came to realize what was necessary to unite the colonies, and then to keep the nation united because of the importance of doing so was essential to the eventual liberty of the slaves. He didn't have to like it, but he couldn't deny it anymore than anyone today can.
What's more, the 17th and 18th centuries were times with a far different philosophy of life. I'm not going to denounce anyone from that time based on the comforts of the 21st, as if assholes like you would be the same kumbaya morons you are now.
You're a moron, Dan. And my point about Blight stands just as strong, if not stronger, in the face of your cheap, moronic attempts to demonize better people than you. Neither of you have the integrity to defend those attempts with actual evidence.
Marshal... "if they confirm something noble and good about the recipient. What crap."
and Marshal's far right "source"...
"First, we should remember that the Pulitzer Prize, like the Oscars, the Emmys, and with a few exceptions the Nobel Peace Prize, is a trade-guild marketing tool, not a merit-based objective reward for true excellence and achievement."
Yes, yes, yes, I see you and this poor writer (there was a grammar error in his first paragraph!) complaining about how the poor conservatives are oppressed and ignored by not receiving awards (not being "rewarded" with awards, as your source says), but you all provide no proof other than your say so.
Anyone who reads Pulitzer winners can recognize the expertise and art of the writing involved. One can make an argument that "Maybe George Will should have won in 1977 instead of the liberal writer..." oh. wait. Will DID win in 1977! Well, one could make an argument that he should have won another year instead of the person who won, but you can't deny the quality of the writing that won. It sounds like sour grapes from poor writers who want to be recognized for their poor writing.
If you have no data to support such claims (you and your whiny, whitey conservative friend), then just be quiet. It makes you all sound like privileged brats. "We rights good, too, you know? Giv us some rewards also, as well, we ought to be-getting them, too, right!"
Data, man. Research. Reason. Come on.
Thanks for confirming what I've been saying about you and those like you, that you dismiss that which disagrees simply because it disagrees, and do so with no proofs or evidence. That a conservative might take one of these awards now and then does not mitigate the point that the awards are not indicative of true merit without bias.
If you have no data to support such claims (you and your whiny, whitey liberal Atlantic writer), then just be quite. It makes you all sound like the lying bastards you are. You're pathetic and what's more, your source proves you know nothing of conservatism and your behavior demonstrates you know nothing of Christianity.
Data, man. Research. Reason. You never bring any of it to the table. You're a pathetic reprobate.
And by the way, I provided more than one source and could have provided more. But again, you demonstrate no integrity in dismissing and rejecting purely on the basis that it all disagrees with you, as if you know jack shit, say nothing of anything important.
And it can't be stated too many times, that your citation of a Pulitzer stands so obviously in place of actual evidence in support of the "Prize winner's" criticism of modern conservatives/Republicans. Sure, it sounds about right to you. You're a freaking moron. But that's not evidence of its validity, either, as badly as you'd like it to be.
Then there's your crack about "grammatical error" in one writer's first paragraph...a writer you haven't identified (typical)...as if it diminishes the truth of what he reports. You've done with other sources, particularly as I recall, American Thinker. A cheap way to avoid addressing the point made by whomever it is to whom you dare condescend.
As if that's not enough, you feel free to whine about all manner of things, often without legitimate reason or without the subject of your whine even being true, and when a right-leaning figure lodges reasoned, rational and legit criticisms, you again condescend as if it flows from some emotional flaw. What a hack you are! A lying, cowardly hack! Not a shred of truth, integrity or Christianity resides in you whatsoever. Just rank hatred for those you are clearly incapable of opposing legitimately. You're a clown.
Marshal... "that you dismiss that which disagrees simply because it disagrees, and do so with no proofs or evidence."
He said, without providing any proof of his claims.
This guy you cite (Bruce Thornton) and you, by extension, are making the claim that the Pulitzer is "not a merit-based objective reward for true excellence and achievement."
Bullshit.
He then goes on for hundreds of words where he repeats variations on this claim. He REALLY REALLY thinks it is not awarded ("rewarded," sic) for excellence and achievement... and yet, he provides not a single bit of evidence for his claim. Like you and Trump, it's just another series of empty and unsupported claims.
He (and you) are the ones making the claim. The onus is on YOU two to provide support for that claim.
You fail because you don't.
My "support" for my claim (that he and you provide no support) IS objectively factual in the complete absence of any kind of rational support for the claim. This guy REALLLY thinking this is NOT support. Thus, I support my position by pointing to the absence of support for your position.
See?
Marshal... "Then there's your crack about "grammatical error" in one writer's first paragraph...a writer you haven't identified (typical)...as if it diminishes the truth of what he reports."
I cited and referred to the guy YOU cited, Thornton. Follow your own words, fella.
Thornton goes on to say that the Pulitzer committee is populated by "reporters, media executives, foundation functionaries, and university faculty, all of whom are notoriously progressive."
Oh, the horror! If conservatives want to be considered for such positions, they should do better writing. And THAT is why a simple obvious grammar mistake was pointed out. You can't criticize people who are clearly genii in writing while at the same time having simple grammars in your writing... nor when you sound so conspiratorial. It undermines your credibility as a writer.
As to the "villains" on the Pulitzer committee, it includes...
"Dr. Alexander has held distinguished professorships at Smith College, Columbia University, and Yale University, where she taught for 15 years and chaired the African American Studies Department... and is author or co-author of fourteen books. Her book of poems, American Sublime, was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in Poetry in 2006, and her memoir, The Light of the World, was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in Biography in 2015."
All of that doesn't happen unless you're an intelligent, literate scholar.
Or how about Nancy Barnes, who is with NPR, one of the most respected and awarded news agencies (well, except in the tinfoil hat communities)...
"Barnes has spent nearly 30 years leading high-performing teams in delivering award-winning journalism to the public... Barnes has a master's degree in business administration from the Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina and a bachelor's degree from the University of Virginia. She is the president of the American Society of News Editors and is a member of the Pulitzer Prize Board, Columbia University.
In 2013, while Barnes was editor at the Star Tribune the paper won the Pulitzer Prize for local news for reporting on infant deaths at day care facilities. It also won the Gerald Loeb Award for Breaking News and two 2013 Edward R. Murrow Awards for multimedia journalism.
While she led the Chronicle the paper won the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for commentary. It was a Pulitzer finalist in 2017 for reports on the denial of special education to tens of thousands of Texas students, and a 2018 finalist for its reporting on Hurricane Harvey."
Again, clearly a bright person. These are leaders in the field and yes, they may well be more progressive than you, but so what? No scandals attached to their names, no hint of improprieties or obvious biases (beyond that which is common to all of humanity).
I'm confident that I can go down the list of Pulitzer board members and find no hints of anything but brilliance and integrity.
Your and Bruce's claims are bullshit. You want to talk about quality writing and journalism, write and demonstrate an understanding of quality writing and journalism. Empty-minded, unsupported conspiracy theories are incredibly unimpressive and only undermine your credibility.
"He said, without providing any proof of his claims."
What a moron! I'm citing your behavior in this very comment thread! I've cited the behavior of Blight in his bullshit, conservative hating comments in his book! No evidence, just trash talking! Are you really that stupid? Are you really that much of a liar? (Both rhetorical questions...of course you are)
"This guy you cite..."
...is one of several I offered, you pathetic asshat! Try reading the whole comment and all the links I provide as I do with YOUR bullshit arguments.
Then you dare demand evidence, while the articles point to examples of that left-leaning bias:
---The New York Times for the fallacious "1619 Project".
---The New York Times and Washington Post for their false reports about Trump/Russian collusion prior to the 2016 election.
---Walter Duranty for his lies about Stalin.
These are examples of the problem. You want to insist the Prize is about the quality of writing. Doesn't "quality" include truth? I know truth doesn't matter to you, but it does to honest people and awarding a Prize to so many who chose to lie greatly diminishes the value of the Prize.
But worse than that is your citing the awarding of the Prize as if it makes the crap Blight said any more true and to a level that doesn't require examples to prove the crap. Focus on that, liar, and you'll at least show some courage in discourse if nowhere else.
So you didn't support your claim because you deflected from it to this citation of the Pulitzer Prize to avoid having to do so. You agreed with Blight but offered nothing by way of example of what he said. Like him, you're a lying coward.
"I cited and referred to the guy YOU cited, Thornton."
Again, I cited more than one source, "fella" (I use the term loosely for you). But after reading Thornton's first paragraph repeatedly, I've yet to see a grammatical error. It must be in breech of some obscure grammatical rule only a journalism student who lies would know for the purpose of trashing someone he can't otherwise debunk.
"Thornton goes on to say that the Pulitzer committee is populated by "reporters, media executives, foundation functionaries, and university faculty, all of whom are notoriously progressive.""
It is a horror, Dan, because due to the well-known propensity of lefties to lie...as evidenced by the cited Prize winning examples I provided...it further justifies the charge that the Prize is unworthy of mention in discussions regarding an author's unwillingness to support his unjust attacks on conservatives.
And now you wish to cite specific people as if you can confirm and guarantee they are beyond the charges leveled by the numerous sources I provided and chose not to add. "OH, She's a great writer, so that means she's honest and unbiased!!!" What a pathetic attempt at a defense!
But again, dipshit, it's not about the quality of the writing. It's about whether or not it means jack shit that a writer/author received the Prize...as if it means an author cannot be questioned, cannot be expected to back up a charge, simply because he's a recipient. You're a freakin' clown, Dan. Blight made unjustified cracks about modern conservatives and Republicans as if whether or not they're true is a given. It's not, but like you, he demonstrates no understanding of conservatism.
And to have my credibility questioned by a known, inveterate liar like you has no weight whatsoever.
Isn't it at least possible - if not very likely - that you have been swindled by a conman? That you've bought into a big lie and you're so confused about it all, you can't even see how deeply and fully you've been fooled?
"[Hitler's] primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.
Beyond Langer, psychologists and sociologists throughout the twentieth and twenty-first century have been intrigued by the success of the Big Lie strategy — meaning a story pushed by a political leader that is clearly bald-faced, yet so grandiose as to make it hard to believe that someone would fabricate it. Indeed, it is an intriguing question as to why this works politically, and why so many millions are so quick to believe Big Lies — be it about voting fraud or Jewish conspiracies. The counterintuitive nature of the Big Lie tactic is perhaps what is most peculiar: wouldn't a small lie be easier to pass off than a large one?
"Repetition is important, because the Big Lie works through indoctrination," Dr. Ramani Durvasula, a licensed clinical psychologist and professor of psychology who is noted as an expert on narcissistic personality disorder and narcissistic abuse, told Salon by email. "The Big Lie then becomes its own evidence base — if it is repeated enough, people believe it, and the very repetition almost tautologically becomes the support for the Lie."
Durvasula added that this is amplified by the numerous media platforms which exist in the modern era, as they trick people into thinking a certain falsehood has been reinforced even if all of their media platforms have the same political leanings."
https://www.salon.com/2022/02/03/the-psychological-reason-that-so-many-fall-for-the-big-lie/?fbclid=IwAR0UDcXc3Z4nQt7aX2egdimsoqAW3O-5i82t86np6RCSnEivflZSeOhcvvI
False, unproven claims from you, over and over...
"due to the well-known propensity of lefties to lie..."
No support for this and of course, it's stupidly false to suggest that liberal people have a propensity for lying more than anyone else. You can't really be that blind to think this is even possibly true, do you?
"as evidenced by the cited Prize winning examples I provided..."
You disagree with what you perceive to be a liberal bias. You've proven no false claims, much less overt lies. Unsupported.
"it further justifies the charge that the Prize is unworthy of mention in discussions regarding an author's unwillingness to support his unjust attacks on conservatives."
No support, just an empty charge.
"as if it means an author cannot be questioned, cannot be expected to back up a charge, simply because he's a recipient."
I never said prize winners cannot be questioned. You read but fail to understand and, in that failure, make false claims that reality doesn't support.
I could go on but I don't think you'll get the point.
Another from you...
"after reading Thornton's first paragraph repeatedly, I've yet to see a grammatical error. It must be in breech of some obscure grammatical rule only a journalism student"
I've pointed it out directly at least twice. One is not "rewarded" with an award. One is AWARDED an award. A REWARD is payment for a specific action. An AWARD is a prize given in honor of a body of work. It's not brain science. And the point in pointing it out is that if someone is not a good writer themselves, then it calls into question their ability to be in a place to gauge good writing.
I suspect that it's the case that at least modern conservatives just aren't that good at the arts. When you watch conservative comedians, more often than not, they're not funny except perhaps to people inclined to laugh at their "jokes." Conservative song-writers are often just not that good at the art of song writing. Conservative writers are often just not that good at writing. And when you have a conservative who CAN write well (think Michael Crichton), as soon as he moves to trying to write something on behalf of conservative values, they too often become preachy and lose all the art of what they're writing.
This is true for liberals, as well - the notion of getting preachy and unartful when one tries to push a message - but I see it more often in modern conservative writers and other artists.
"Isn't it at least possible - if not very likely - that you have been swindled by a conman? That you've bought into a big lie and you're so confused about it all, you can't even see how deeply and fully you've been fooled?"
No.
"never allow the public to cool off"
The Biden/Fauci Covid scam has not allowed the public to "cool off".
"never admit a fault or wrong"
Biden and the Democrat party never accept responsibility for all that's gone wrong in the nation since Biden took office. Afghanistan, inflation, lost jobs and closed businesses, rising crime rates, higher rates of suicide, child and spousal abuse, increase in drug and alcohol abuse...the list is long of wrongs the nation has and is suffering due to Biden/Democrat policies.
"never concede that there may be some good in your enemy"
Biden, Dems and asshats like you never give Trump props for any of the good things which his policies produced during his four year presidency. Your overall opinion of conservatives and Republicans in general do not suggest you concede a damned thing you vile hypocrite!
"never leave room for alternatives"
mRNA vaccines only
"never accept blame"
You said that already
"concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong"
As you lefties do with Trump, and as Obama did with Bush. It's a pattern of psychosis with you people.
"people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."
Vax up, mask up, shut down or die. But that's just one of the big lies lefties tell and their sheep follow along obediently because they're spineless. Talk about being conned!
And of course none of this has anything to do with the post or with supplying examples of the Blight comments you find so compelling. It's a big lie both he and you believe without the slightest evidence to back it up. You're such a pathetic clown.
"False, unproven claims from you, over and over..."
I've been pointing out and proving your lies for quite some time, especially in recent months as I've been paying closer attention. The lie Blight tells and you accept as a given is just one of the most recent. Given the certainty with which you both believe it, examples in support should be easy to provide. Still, you've not done so, but rather have spent tons of keystrokes deflecting from that obligation. Typical shit that.
"No support for this and of course, it's stupidly false to suggest that liberal people have a propensity for lying more than anyone else. You can't really be that blind to think this is even possibly true, do you?"
Again, I've supported the charge every time I've made it. That you pretend otherwise is just another lie and hence, stands as further evidence proving the claim. Thanks for helping. And to be clear, when speaking on topics of great import, be it in the realm of politics, religion and social issues, you most certainly lie like it's breathing.
"You disagree with what you perceive to be a liberal bias. You've proven no false claims, much less overt lies. Unsupported."
Oh shit...I didn't realize this was your blog. WAIT! It's NOT your blog, so your demands I do whatever are that which you can ram up your ass...especially until such time as you oblige me with examples of Blight's assertion you find so true.
And by the way, it's not a perception. It's a reality. Those who populate the various awarding groups are known leftists and demonstrate bias routinely. In addition, you've proven nothing about Trump. I'm still waiting for you to produce proven lies by him which have any significance to anything to the degree common Dem lies do...or even come close. But you are free to avoid that at this time so that you can focus on providing evidence supporting Blight's claim.
"No support, just an empty charge."
He says after having done exactly that, otherwise, why mention the Pulitzer at all? You do that to deflect and suggest one has no right to question the integrity of the person in question...in this case Blight. Your continued crap about it is more deflection and cowardly avoidance on your part.
"I never said prize winners cannot be questioned."
Yet you cite his being a recipient of the Pulitzer when I question his unsupportable false assertions about conservatives, as if that means jack shit in relation to those false assertions. You know, this all would go more smoothly if you pulled your head out of your ass.
"I could go on but I don't think you'll get the point."
Your point about what? Are you going to deflect again from defending Blight's assertion? That's really all you should be, as well as should have been, doing.
"I've pointed it out directly at least twice. One is not "rewarded" with an award."
Ah...but that assume Thornton is actually in error. The suggestion is that they are "rewarded" with the award for being good little leftists. You're pretty dense for a clown. But even so, that's another deflection which you've used before, as if something so insignificant subtracts from the truth being told. You can't argue against that truth, so you pretend grammatical or spelling or editing errors are good reasons to dismiss outright the author and his arguments.
"And the point in pointing it out is that if someone is not a good writer themselves, then it calls into question their ability to be in a place to gauge good writing."
But he's not criticizing any writing. He's criticizing the "awarding" of the award and the left-leaning bias regarding who gets one. It's really quite obvious to those who aren't dense clowns.
"I suspect that it's the case that at least modern conservatives just aren't that good at the arts."
Wow...look at that...an incredibly biased and unsupportable opinion. You could get a gig on the Pulitzer committee!
"When you watch conservative comedians, more often than not, they're not funny except perhaps to people inclined to laugh at their "jokes.""
First, you have no understanding of this topic, either. Humor relies on truth. But truth is not equally or properly perceived. If your typical Democratic racist hears jokes belittling black people, it's because he believes blacks are less than equal to him. It's true. When I hear lefty comedians try to mock conservatives, lefties laugh because they stupidly believe it's true (because they're stupid and don't pay attention), while conservatives don't laugh because the comic is mocking a straw man.
In the meantime, Jeff Foxworthy, Tim Allen, Jeff Dunham, Dennis Miller (though he's "socially" liberal), Norm MacDonald (rest his soul), Adam Corolla, Nick DiPaulo, and while Dave Chappelle would not consider himself conservative, his humor, as well as his insistence on performing his humor as he sees fit, is quite conservative in his insights. And he's damn funny.
Here's one or two conservative musicians:
https://www.ranker.com/list/republican-musicians-and-singers-conservative-bands-/famous-conservatives
As to conservative novelists, I'd have to do more research, but Vince Flynn, Brad Thor come to mind. I know conservative politicians who write fiction, like Newt Gingrich. Conservative pundit Andrew Klavan is a writer by trade and one of his books became a Clint Eastwood film. But given lefties make up so much shit, they may indeed be more creative in writing fantasy and fiction. I mean, lefties twist reality to pretend falsehoods are true all the time, so I wouldn't be surprised to find, especially in this day and age, that fiction writers are mostly lefties. Here's the real question: So what?
"This is true for liberals, as well - the notion of getting preachy and unartful when one tries to push a message - but I see it more often in modern conservative writers and other artists."
Sure you do. Sounds like fiction to me.
Post a Comment