William Saletan is not actually my favorite writer, but he does a good job on the liar and coward part. Kelly lied about Rep. Frederica Wilson, his lie was exposed and proven to be a lie beyond any doubt. Now he claims to have witnesses who will confirm that something which wasn't actually what he said originally is true, but he won't say who they are or how he knows that they can confirm his claim; whereas the mayor of Miramar, who was present, has come forward to say that Kelly is indeed lying. As Saletan puts it:
As for the racist part, perhaps there is room for doubt that there is a racist undertone to Kelly's lies about Rep. Wilson. But there is no room for doubt about this. Kelly told Faux News propagandist Laura Ingraham:
Kelly publicly invokes unspecified allegations by anonymous witnesses. If he has witnesses, he should present them. If he won’t put them on the record—or at least specify where and when they claim Wilson made the statements he attributes to her, so that reporters can check out their stories—then he’s just compounding his smear. There’s nothing honorable or trustworthy about claiming to have secret evidence. And it’s particularly damning that Kelly has retreated to unfalsifiable allegations after his falsifiable allegations were discredited.
I would tell you that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man. He was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state, which 150 years ago was more important than country. It was always loyalty to state first back in those days. Now it's different today. But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War, and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand.Lee of course did not fight for his state, but for the Confederate States of America, a treasonous alliance that existed for the sole purpose of preserving and defending the institution of slavery. His conscience told him to defend slavery, which means that he was not an honorable man. And one demands to know what sort of "compromise" Kelly has in mind about slavery.
Maybe it doesn't shame a four-star general to be a racist. But a liar and a coward?
Update: I anticipate someone coming along and claiming that the cause of the Confederacy wasn't really slavery. Read this.
15 comments:
It is so stunningly telling that Trump gold-coats everything associated with him. He actually has the OPPOSITE of the "Midas touch": he sullies everything and everyone with whom he comes in contact. I would never, ever accept an invitation to meet the man. To come into contact with him is to be covered in a substance that is worse than the smelliest, foulest excrement.
All people who associate with him, including the lying, cowardly Kelly, are worse than excrement, as is Trump himself. Trump is a psychic vampire. He projects all his inadequacies onto the world with an unsatisfiable lust for attention because deep down he knows he's worse than worthless.
PS, the last comment is mine--Don Q.
This is true, but it turns out the Kelly didn't need sullying. He was already a kindred spirit.
Kelly should put forth any witnesses he claims to have. You run your mouth, you need to have the goods.
That being said, most people other than the media, Democrats and some in his own party who's sole objective is to get rid of Trump, see every misstep as an opportunity to destroy their perceived political opponents.
I'm not all that interested in what some nobody moron with a cowboy hat and Donna Karen dark glasses said what to whom. And I would also ask you to balance General Kelly's military accomplishments and distinguished service against any transgressions you think he has committed. None of this, even if true, negates his stellar lifelong service to this nation.
As for statements about General Robert E. Lee, the larger story is that we are holding all historical figures accountable by today's standards.
Slavery was common among leading nations of the world at that time. England introduced slavery to the colonies. Most all international powers of the time utilized slavery. It was standard. And the US was not the last to have abolished slavery.
Lincoln stated that preserving the union was more important than abolishing slavery.
Woodrow Wilson advocated separating the races.
FDR imprisoned Japanese-Americans
The list goes on and on and, in each case, none were outside the cultural norms for their day. Yet, only a select few are demonized in this fashion for political purposes.
The doofuses (doofi?), both students and teachers, of today's academia don't seem to understand the context of the cultural norms of the day when discussing historical figures. They're looking for boogymen to hate.
When the south seceded, it was precisely because the opinion in the rest of the country had turned against slavery. Slavery was not "common among the leading nations of the world at that time." England abolished slavery throughout the empire in 1833. Russia abolished slavery in 1723, and abolished it in Crimea when it annexed the peninsula in 1783. France abolished slavery in its colonies in 1848. Slavery had been abolished throughout most of Latin America by 1860, though it did continue in Cuba and Brazil, and continued in some places after the civil war. Your statement, however, like most of what you say, is categorically false.
1848 France abolishes slavery, for the SECOND time. It was re-instituted in 1802. Colonies were give three years, but in reality, they took much longer than that, to free slaves. But this second abolition did not apply to Algeria.
1858 Portugal abolishes slavery, although all slaves were subject to a 20 year "apprenticeship".
1861 - Netherlands abolishes slavery in Dutch Caribbean colonies
Then there was the European "forced Labor" category for workers they could no longer legally reduce to slave status even though they worked in servitude.
Even in America, Lincoln didn't issue the emancipation proclamation until 1863. Hello!! The war started in 1861.
So yeah, these nations are the same general timeline as the American experience. I think you're just trying to win an argument by splitting the finest of hairs.
And all this now begs the question as to why aren't France, Brazil, Portugal and England (among others)demonized by the American liberal left for introducing slavery in the first place?
Where is the outrage and disdain for these European bastards?
I do believe you are correct in that worldwide, slavery was on the way out. There is a good argument that within a several years the South would have had to give it up anyway and America would not have to go through a war that cost more lives than WW II, the Korean War, and Vietnam combined.
How do you feel about measuring all of these historical figures by contemporary standards? Do you acknowledge that flaw in the discourse when discussing all of this confederate stuff? Does it matter? Should it?
Will generations to come demonize popular contemporary heroes such as MLK or John Glenn because they ate meat, were capitalists or some other issue that might be deemed unacceptable by those in the future?
I didn't read GBB's rants. But he does his homework and is putatively, passionately pugnacious in perpetrating his petulant posts.
PS: Cervantes, regarding your update: Yes, there is seemingly no limit to what the Orwellian forces behind Trump will say/do in their efforts to obfuscate truth. I hope our country is up to the task of remaining a republic instead of descending into authoritarian madness.
You know who else is--are--racists and cowards?
Most Republican congressmen and senators!
This, from the NY Times, 11/7/17:
"Gunman Had Been Trailed by Trouble
By DAVE PHILIPPS 28 minutes ago
Mr. Kelley, a former member of the United States Air Force, had been jailed for domestic abuse, kicked out of the military and charged with animal cruelty."
GUNS don't kill people...the NRA and Republicans kill people!
PS Because they won't allow research into the very real and dire public health problem of gun violence, or gun regulation!
"You know who else is--are--racists and cowards?
Most Republican congressmen and senators!
This is a really good example of how *not* to make an argument. Who listens seriously to anyone when all that person has is the "us against them" rage mentality"?
I can't speak for everyone, but I personally don't listen anymore when others use the term 'racist' because it's been so overused. The statement that all of his perceived enemies are racists is certainly not true and it doesn't help the discourse to make these stupid and untrue statements.
As for the gun issue, Cervantes, I'd like to hear what your solution might be. This guy was not qualified by law to purchase or own guns already so a legal solution doesn't viable. Just using this crime to justify more laws that won't be obeyed is an exercise in futility.
Gay Boy Bob...as usual, all brain and no heart. And a faulty brain at that!
1) I never said "all of" my "perceived enemies are racists"--what dork you are, GBB. I said "most Republican congressmen and senators" are racists and cowards because they kowtow to the NRA...which supposedly supports states' rights--except the District of Columbia's rights to ban handguns! We all know the NRA is in the business of promoting gun sales, to the detriment of public safety. They discourage science.
2) I don't have enemies; but I detest willful ignorance.
3) Yes, GBB, racism does exist and is at the core of this country's problems. As Cervantes will back me up on this, you just don't get it. This central issue is just that--the central issue in our country's violent past and present.
4) My statements may be stupid and untrue to your deaf ears--but just 'cause you can't hear the music don't mean I'm gonna stop dancing.
I suspect Cervantes will say--among other things, if he replies--that studies implicating gun violence as a public health menace must be funded and propagated, and that common-sense regulation of firearms--as with cars--is essential to public health in the USA.
But so many of us already know all this...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/opinion/texas-guns-shooting-trump.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/06/opinion/how-to-reduce-shootings.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region
Thanks for the article...
NYT: The right law was on the books but enforcement was lax.
Sounds about right.
One of the big problems is everyone wants a quick fix. Just pass a law, we're told, and that'll do it. Well, it doesn't do it if no one follows through.
http://tinyurl.com/y7sqw9t4
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has known for at least two decades about failures to give military criminal history information to the FBI, including the type of information the Air Force didn't report about the Texas church gunman who had assaulted his wife and stepson while an airman.
Post a Comment