Too Clever By Half

So, in Boston, Sarah Palin makes a reference to Paul Revere warning the British...



...for which she is roundly ridiculed by the Left. Everyone knows that Paul Revere's ride was to warn the towns of Lexington and Concord of the coming British invasion. We all read the poem in middle school.

Of course, it turns out she was right. In Revere's own words from a 1798 letter, he had warned the British that “there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.”

Perhaps before mocking someone's ignorance, we ought make sure we are knowledgeable on the subject ourselves?

The Left's response was, of course, telling. Upon having their ignorance pointed out, they merely insisted that, "OK, maybe Sarah was right, but she couldn't have known she was right. She just got lucky." This is a wonderful argument: it is absolutely unprovable. It is simply assertion about what someone else was thinking. Since no one knows what anyone else is thinking, the assertion cannot be proven false.

But of course, for the Leftists, it can be proven, by their weird logic. Remember, these are the Cultural Elite. The Brights. The Educated and Informed. They don't get their news from stupid channels like Fox News. They get it from reliable sources, like MSNBC and NPR, which never spin and are never wrong. They have degrees from Columbia and Berkley. They're smarter than you.

So, really, it's quite simple in their logic:
M. Leftists are smarter than right-wing rabble.
m. Leftists did not know that Paul Revere warned the British.
C. Therefore, Sarah Palin could not have known that Paul Revere warned the British.

You see? Quite clever. Too clever, one might say, by half.

Now that the election is over....

A couple bumperstickers I want.

One, "Palin 2012"

Secondly, something that summarizes these posts by Scott Ott and John C. Wright.

Over the last eight years, I've gotten so sick of the hatred and vitriol directed at the current president. You know, the bumper stickers that say "Not my president" or "Bush should be behind bars" or "Buck Fush" or "Bush is poopy" (yes, I did see that one; it reflects the level of maturity I expect from the left). Even the media (especially the media) had resorted to it. Did anyone ever notice how President Bush was never referred to as such in virtually any newspaper article? Every time I saw him referenced, it was always as "Mr. Bush".

Now that there's someone I don't like in the white house it's my turn to show that I am the better man, and refrain from resorting to such infantile name-calling. I'm thinking a bumper sticker like:

"Obama is my president. He may be a liberal hack, but he's MY liberal hack."

Also, it may be time that I stopped shirking my responsibility to defense of my family and bought a firearm, before they are banned. The advice of some guy on the internet is "First, get a shotgun. If you can afford it, a Benelli M4. If you can't, get a Remington 870, preferably a 'Police Magnum'. Barring that, a standard 870 in a minimum-legal length barrel configuration will do superbly. You can also get a plain 870 hunting shotgun and get whatever barrel you want for it. There's plenty of 870 aftermarket accessories to make it do whatever you want it to. Mossberg 500s run a close second, but the safety location makes some add-ons unwieldy. If it's going to be for home defense, get a flashlight add-on. If you've got the money, a Surefire foregrip is ideal. If not, pick up a Maglite LED with a pressure switch and a mount. But a light of some variety is essential."

Reasonable advice? I know there are at least two readers of this blog who are also gun owners. What do they think? Perhaps I should head to a local gun store on December 4th?

"Punished with a baby."



I think this highlights the basic difference between pro-life and pro-choice. Pro-lifers see children, basically, as a joy. Pro-choicers see them, primarily, as a burden.

It's Nice to Know that Eugenics Is Still Alive and Well.
In which the left continues to demonstrate that they're only in favor of a woman's right to choose so long as the choice is abortion.

OK, this is the last Palin post (for a bit), I promise.

The newest concern over Sarah Palin: A Canehdian doctor is concerned that "women have the choice of abortion and that greater public awareness of women making choices like Palin to complete a pregnancy and give birth to their genetically-abnormal baby could be detrimental and confusing to the women and their families."

Wow. How anti-(true)Feminist can you get? I think the Feminists for Life have the best response: "Feminism has long championed the strength and dignity of women and equality." The attitude that a woman would become "confused" by this and not make the (right) choice to abort, because she's not prepared for the difficulties of raising a (Down syndrome) baby is one of the most insulting thing towards woman I have heard.

Nope. Women aren't strong enough to be mothers of special-needs children. They might as well get back in the kitchen and bake me a pie.

Note the original LA Times article was removed because it incorrectly (so says the Times) emphasized Doctor Meng—er—Lalonde's concern. He's not concerned that abortions in general will decrease, only those of Down syndrome babies.

I'm sure Margaret Sanger is rejoicing in her grave.


* * *

Recipe for fun: take this comment from this LA Times article.

"I believe it to be an almost criminal act that when you find out (which is real easy these days) your baby will have down syndrome to go ahead and have the baby anyway. This is not only incredibly selfish, but ultimately it will be the state and taxpayers who will have to take car of that baby. This child will have a miserable and unproductive life at best and no religion in the world can make that any better. In this case pro-life is not much different than being pro torture."

Now replace "Down syndrome" with "Cystic Fibrosis", "Sickle-cell disease", "Haemophilia", "Phenylketonuria", "Autism", "Diabetes", "heart disease", "obesity", "cleft palate", "an increased chance of breast cancer", "Jewishness", "being black", or the genetic defect of your choice.

How to tell when you've done something right:

Examine the level of vitriol spewing forth from your opponents.

And by that measure, apparently McCain has picked the best-possible running-mate. John C. Wright does a good job of rounding up the utter, utter hatred of Palin (so I'll just link him). From being called "not a real woman" by a spokeswoman for NOW to "a woman who hates women" by Pink, the left's seething attacks on her can only be taken as an indication that she's the right woman for the job.

The only question is should I put a Palin '12 or Palin '16 bumper sticker on my car?

(I think this was my favorite round-up article.)

Virgin Conception Shocks Nation.

In which Joe attempts to return to his roots of satirical fake news

In what is being called a detrimental blow to the concept of abstinence-only education, Bristol Palin, daughter of Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin has become pregnant without having engaged in sexual intercourse, according to sources.

"This just goes to show how completely unreliable abstinence-only education is," said Amanda Huggins, spokesperson for NOW. "It's irresponsible for us to be teaching such an ineffective method of birth control to our children."

Even though it is only the second time in recorded history that a woman has gotten pregnant without intercourse or IVF, it is still being used as an example of the failings of abstinence as a method of birth control. "That's why we need to teach our children about condoms," continued Huggins, "the fool-proof method of birth control that never fails."

* * *

The reaction to Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy is interesting to note. "The president running this country -- I want that person to have one point at least to have had a five minute conversation with their teenage kids about birth control. That's all," quips David Letterman. "Who needs sex education when you've got abstinence, right?" says the author of a popular webcomic that I (used to) read.

(Aside: do we know for a fact that Sarah or Todd Palin did not talk with their children about birth control? Do we know for a fact that Bristol did not use a condom?)

Dennis Prager pointed out the chutzpa of a man who's only child is five years old lecturing the parents of several teenagers about responsible parenting of teenagers.

I always chortle when someone rails against abstinence as an effective method of birth control. "Really," I think, "how many people do you know who got pregnant without having sex?" Discounting IVF, I can only think of one.

For some reason, if a child who is taught that abstinence is the only fool-proof method of avoiding pregnancy chooses to ignore her education and becomes pregnant, that is a failing of the education itself. But if a child who is taught the proper use of condoms uses one and becomes pregnant anyways, that is not a problem with the educational method.

Of course, the argument against abstinence goes something like, "well, you can't expect kids not to have sex. There are just too many societal pressures and peer pressures. It's unrealistic to expect them to remain chaste. We might as well just make sex as safe as we can for them."

Aside from the fact that this would seem to indicate a serious problem with society itself that ought to be dealt with, talk about setting your expectations low. Maybe if you lower your expectations enough, you can guarentee that kids will live down to them. You certainly won't be giving them incentive to try and achieve anything better.

It's interesting to note that this defeatist attitude is already creeping into other areas of teenage behavior. A couple years ago, I heard Laura Ingraham interview a woman who would throw "beer parties" for her teenage son and his friends. The attidue: "they're going to drink anyways, I might as well make it safe for them, so they don't have to drive home after they've gotten drunk." I wonder how long before anti-drug campaigns such as Above the Influence are given up on, and instead the focus changes to making recreational drug use as safe as possible, with schools teaching kids to always use clean needles.

The defeatist attitude is most apparent in the reactions to the Bristol Palin pregnancy. I have heard no criticisms of the Palins on the fact that their 17-year-old-daughter had sex, but instead everything is focused on the fact that she didn't have sex properly. This is perhaps the culmination of that attitude that "she's going to do it anyways."

And even more telling is the silence from those who you would expect to be on their case about the irresponsibility of a 17-year-old having sex (the right). Instead, we're still too awed about how much Sarah Palin talks the pro-life talk and walks the pro-life walk. She gave birth to a Down-syndrome baby and her daughter is fessing up to her mistakes and going to try to make a life for the person she created. What a perfect embodiment of the pro-life attitude that "all human life is precious."