When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

4est_4est_Gump

Run Forrest! RUN!
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Posts
89,007
Our Truest Lies
If the truth doesn’t serve social justice — well, tell a noble lie.
Victor Davis Hanson, NRO
SEPTEMBER 24, 2013

At the end of John Ford’s classic Western, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, the editor of the local paper decides not to print the truth about who really killed the murderous Valance. “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

Legends now become facts in America at almost lightning speed. Often when lies are asserted as truth, they become frozen in time. Even the most damning later exposure of their falsity never quite erases their currency. As Jonathan Swift sighed, “Falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it.”

After the recent shooting tragedy at the Washington Navy Yard, cable news shows, newspaper reports, and talking heads immediately blasted lax gun laws. The killer, Aaron Alexis, had mowed down 20 innocent people — twelve of them fatally — with yet again the satanic AR-15 semi-automatic “assault” rifle. The mass murdering was supposedly more proof of the lethal pathologies of the National Rifle Association and the evil shooter crowd that prevents good people from enacting proper gun-control laws. Once more an iconic tragedy had the chance — in a way that eventhe near-simultaneous shooting of 13 in Chicago did not — to energize the nation to do the right thing and ensure that no other such mayhem would follow.

Then the assault weapon vanished into fantasy. Instead, over the course of the week, it was slowly learned that the unhinged Alexis had somehow passed at least two background checks, legally bought a shotgun, modified it, and for 30 minutes shot and reloaded it to slaughter the innocent. Are we to outlaw the owning of shotguns despite background checks and lawful purchases? Vice President Joe Biden, remember, had recently urged Americans to obtain old-fashioned, all-American shotguns for protection rather than dangerous semi-automatic assault rifles. If a shotgun could be used to commit mass murder in the middle of a military installation, how could any gun-control law, short of the confiscation of all guns, ensure that such heinous crimes could not be repeated?

...

BidenShotgun.png


All this is old hat. We still do not know exactly what happened that night of the tragic fatal confrontation between Travyon Martin and George Zimmerman. But we at least do know that most of the fables initially peddled by the media were demonstrably false — but even now not remembered as demonstrably false. George Zimmerman was not a bigoted “white Hispanic” who used racist language in his 911 call as he deliberately hunted down a black suspect. And he really did suffer visibly bleeding head wounds from a hard blow of some sort from Trayvon Martin. The latter was not a diminutive model student or the vulnerable pre-teen pictured in most media photos. Even photoshopping and doctoring tapes could not create a teachable moment out of such chaos.

No matter; such a moment was created anyway. Without any statistical support, our moral censors still wished to traffic in narratives of white racist vigilantes hunting down innocent African-American male teens. That narrative served as a reminder of why we have a civil-rights movement of the sort championed by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who fiddle while thousands of minority youths are gunned down each year in our inner cities. In other words, as far as the Zimmerman trial went, the human story of tragedy, misjudgment, accident, reaction, and overreaction simply did not serve the larger liberal effort to address perceived issues of social justice. Tragedy was better served by melodrama, and both Zimmerman and Martin became cutout caricatures rather than tragic individuals.

The same may be unfortunately true of the infamous Matthew Shepard case. The savagely murdered gay youth was probably not, as we were told for years, the victim of the rage of Wyoming redneck homophobes, energized in their hatred by the sexual prejudices of an intolerant culture. The truth was more complicated, though Shepard’s fate just as tragic.

A 13-year-long investigation by a gay writer, who reexamined the Shepard case with the intention of writing a screenplay, instead suggests that it might be more likely that Shepard was cruelly tortured and beaten into a coma by methamphetamine-crazed psychotics, who may on prior occasions have shared their drug use with Shepard and intended to rob him. For all their crude macho talk, the two evil perpetrators may have been bisexual themselves. Shepard’s own homosexuality, in other words, seems to have been incidental to, not the cause of, his lamentable death. If Shepard’s sad fate must be an icon of anything, it more likely serves as a warning that the vicious meth cartels in rural America are out of control, and the addicted can ensnare and murder anyone, including naïve college students. Again, no matter — what was false has served noble purposes in a way that what was true will not.

Many of the progressive tales that Americans grew up with in the 20th century have also been proven either noble lies or half-truths. The American Left has canonized the narrative that anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti were framed, subjected to a show trial, and then executed as a result of widespread American prejudice, xenophobia, and reactionary fear-mongering. Their executions sparked worldwide protests, novels, and plays reacting to the intolerance of a morally suspect America. Yet decades later, most historians, while they concede that the trials of 1921 did not match jurisprudence of a near-century later — nevertheless also quietly accept that the two were indeed anarchist terrorists, and at least one was probably guilty of armed robbery and murder, and the other of being an accessory after the fact. Bigots do not always arrive at bigoted verdicts.

Liberal culture likewise assumed that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed on false charges of spying for the Soviet Union and that at least one of them had not really passed on secrets about the American hydrogen-bomb project. The two accused became causes célèbres as thousands worldwide rallied to save them from dangerous American know-nothings. Their messy electrocutions were supposedly likewise symptomatic of a paranoid America lashing out at easy victims in an era of Red-baiting, anti-Semitism, and rank McCarthyism.

The truth was in comparison banal. While we know that the Soviets would probably have gotten the H-bomb soon anyway, and that they claimed they were still our allies when they received top-secret American information, and while we know too that today the Rosenbergs would probably have received 20-year sentences, we also know from Soviet archives that they both worked as Soviet spies, who passed to our enemies information about nuclear weapons and other valuable classified projects.

There was no greater liberal icon than Alger Hiss, a smooth, debonair diplomat and foundation head, who likewise was supposedly ground up by the right-wing buzz saw with unfounded charges of spying and treason. While we are still not sure of the degree of damage that Hiss actually did, it is clear that he was at some point in his life a Soviet spy — a damning fact for an American diplomat at times entrusted with matters of the nation’s security during the early Cold War. That disturbing truth, however, was minor in comparison to the larger untruth that the Hiss case represented the dangerous excesses of reactionary America. So Hiss became a sort of progressive Great Gatsby, a fake, self-inventing himself into something grand that he was not.

In recent memory, several popular icons of revolutionary resistance have been revealed as frauds and worse. Che Guevara — locks, beard, and motorcycle — was a psychotic thug who enjoyed executing his political opponents. Bill Ayers by his own admission was “guilty as hell” of being a violent terrorist; until he had the bad luck of hawking on 9/11 his memoir of his terrorist days, he was on the road to canonization. Rigoberta Menchú was not quite a gifted author who revealed the horrors of right-wing repression in a cry-of-the-heart memoir of resistance. More likely, she fabricated stories in service to her perceived higher calling of exposing brutal reactionary class violence against the poor.

Popular icon Mumia Abu-Jamal was not framed for a crime he did not commit because of endemic institutionalized racism, but rather really did shoot and kill a Philadelphia police officer. All the progressive protests in the world cannot alter that fact. Angela Davis was not quite a sincere advocate of those unduly incarcerated. While a jury found that the guns she supplied a number of San Francisco murderers did not constitute her own culpability for the attack on the Marin County courthouse, she was nonetheless an unrepentant Stalinist. Of those who suffered in the Communist archipelago, she once scoffed, “They deserve what they get. Let them remain in prison.”

In more recent days, from Tawana Brawley to the Duke lacrosse team, the theme remains disturbingly the same: The original progressive untruth proves far stronger than subsequent pedestrian correction. The point was not that the Duke players did not rape a black stripper and commit a “hate crime,” but that they were the sort who in theory could have, and she was the sort who in theory could have been raped by virtue of her race and gender — a virtual truth that trumps a known lie.

We are left not with the truth that Aaron Alexis bought a shotgun to murder, but with the conjecture that he could have bought legally an AR-15 and therefore in some sense figuratively did — despite the later and less publicized corrections. If it takes some mythologies about Matthew Shepard to expose the plague of homophobia, why indict a noble lie to promote an ignoble truth? What difference does it make what actually happened between shooter Wesley Cook and slain officer Daniel Faulkner, when the Mumia myth serves larger agencies of social change?

Like Orwell’s dead souls, we live in an age of statist mythology, in which unpleasant facts are replaced by socially useful lies. So we print the legend that better serves our fantasies.

Fascinating topic...
 
In fact, legends you can believe in!



Obama the Storyteller
Ed Lasky, American Thinker
September 24, 2013

President Obama unwittingly disclosed his modus operandi in a single statement back in 2012. The sentence explains why he has been able to both win elections and been such a failure once in office.

In the summer of 2012, President Obama refused to take responsibility for failures during his first term. As is his wont, he blamed others. In this case it was not the "usual suspect," Republicans, but all Americans. He told CBS News; Charlie Rose that his biggest mistake of his first term was not being a good enough storyteller:

"The mistake of my first term. . .was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right. And that's important. But the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times."
Mitt Romney mocked his answer, "Being president is not about telling stories. Being president is about leading, and President Obama has failed to lead."

But why wouldn't Obama think that success was based on telling stories? After all, his ability to tell stories was key to his string of election victories. He never had much of a record to run on (many Americans overlooked or did not care that his career was marked by "voting present" when not claiming credit for work he did not do) so to fill up a sparse resume he created stories.
;) ;)

http://www.americanthinker.com/prin...rticles/../2013/09/obama_the_storyteller.html
 
Forty years ago I learned that the media looks for the sexiest spin.

I was a fireman back then.

We had a house fire in a garage apartment behind the main residence.

There were no hydrants at that location so we brought a 9000 gallon water truck to supply the pumper truck.

So we parked the pumper truck on the street, connected it to the water truck, and ran hoses to the garage from the pumper. SOP.

A reporter comes along and wants to know why we didn't park the semi-water tanker adjacent to the garage.

We said, ITS NOT NECESSARY, ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO BECAUSE OF THE TRUCKS TURNING RADIUS, AND OUT ON THE STREET ITS EASIER TO SEND THE TRUCK FOR MORE WATER.

So next day, in the paper, the headline says: FIREMEN INCOMPETENT TO OPERATE FIRE EQUIPTMENT.
 
What is the legend?

Religion of Peace, with the same amount of violence as any other religion and no more admonishments to violence and conquest than any other religion. Misunderstood by bigots, racists and xenophobes.

:cool:


Legend?

Man-made CO2 controls the climate. Misunderstood by flat-earthers, science haters and crazy Christians.

;)
 
Dangerous Legend?


Money is money, spending is spending and therefore government spending is as good as evil big business spending, maybe even better, because money goes to current socially acceptable people and causes. Misunderstood by the greedy and selfish; the people who hate minorities, the elderly, children and the poor.
 
Journalism, like Law, is a degree that qualifies you expert in any art or science.

Amen. Except you are superior for you have a moral code that allows you the unique ability to separate fact from fiction and expert from non-believer. Misunderstood by extremists and radicals on the uncompromising right.
 
The food stamp bill passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives earlier this month, widely criticized for supposedly cutting the nutrition assistance program to the poor, would actually raise spending over the next decade by 57 percent, to $725 billion from the $461.7 billion that was spent on the program in the last decade.

No sooner had the House voted, 217 to 2010, on September 19 to pass the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act than the usual suspects were rushing to portray the measure as stingy and coldhearted. “House Republicans Pass Deep Cuts in Food Stamps,” was the headline in The New York Times national news section. The Republican “war on food stamps” shows that the congressmen are “meanspirited class warriors,” wrote Nobel laureate Paul Krugman.

That line of attack seems to be getting traction. “I agree with Krugman here,” a prominent New York rabbi wrote on Facebook. A news reporter at the Wall Street Journal posted on Facebook, “It’s stark to have this wonderful Pope preaching charity at the same time House Republicans are defunding food stamps.”

Alas, the episode says more about the quality of Republican communications (poor) and of the press (often shallow and reflexively hostile to Republicans) than it does about what would actually happen to food stamps under the 110-page bill the House passed.
Ira Stoll, Reason
http://reason.com/archives/2013/09/23/gop-food-stamp-bill-will-increase-govern
 
"There will always be some people who are so sick, poor, old, young, or unlucky that they need help with food, and, despite what Professor Krugman would have you believe, there’s a pretty broad consensus in this country about the desirability of helping those people, through both private charity and government programs. The real policy action is over how to strengthen the economy to the point where more people are able to feed themselves without help from the government or from charity. Instead, the politicians in Washington are mandating studies of white potatoes. Look for those spuds soon at a federally subsidized farmer’s market near you, along with some halal marine-mammal-meat."
Ira Stoll
 
Religion of Peace Legend

There’s a tendency in the Western public to believe that the scenes of mayhem, cruelty and destruction are somehow a turn-off to the al-Shabaab cause. They imagine that these grisly scenes will discourage new recruits.

Why would they think that? People talk about dog whistles. This is a message in a special pitch.

Making the assumption that terrorism attracts the idealistic, disaffected, and alienated is as epic a blunder as assuming Che Guevara was a nice guy. Or that Pol Pot only had humanity in mind. Like everything else, the prospect of inflicting death, pain, and cruelty on others attracts a certain kind of individual.

It’s the same old call from the same shadowy places. The lure of power. The chance to gratify sadism, perversion, and greed. For the most brutal, it is a chance to inflict fear and absolute abjection as a way of affirming the nothingness in them.

Oh they dress it up with a line of patter. But that’s just to add insult to injury. Not only are they going to hurt you, but they are going to make you thank them for it before they’re through.

There have always been people like that, in every society, on the fringes of certain political ideologies and even at the center of them. And of course there are people ready to make excuses for them. For they feel the attraction too, but are too chicken to put their actions into practice. So they cheer instead, feeling they’ve done their bit by supporting the Cause. It gives them a sense of importance and an escape from their own deeply felt mediocrity.
Richard Fernandez, PJMedia
 
Media Matters has been on the attack over journalist Stephen Jimenez’s The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths about the Murder of Matthew Shepard. In their quest to uphold the apparent mythmaking surrounding Shepard, Media Matters oddly labels all coverage of The Book of Matt “right-wing,” suggests that questioning the oft-told Shepard story is “trutherism,” and neglects to make even a single argument about Jimenez’s argument: that Shepard’s death came at the hands of men to whom he was dealing meth, and at the hands of a man with whom he was lovers, rather than the anti-gay killing pounced on by the media and politicians with an axe to grind. “To right-wing media figures,” Media Matters slimes, “Jimenez's theory is significant for more than just how we understand Matthew Shepard. It's also an opportunity to assail the LGBT community's campaign for equal rights and protection from violence and bigotry.”

Sadly for Media Matters, the facts seem to be on Jimenez’s side. Jimenez, who is gay, has had his book endorsed by famed gay journalist Andrew Sullivan, who writes, “If you’re going to base a civil rights movement on one particular incident, and the mythology about a particular incident, you’re asking for trouble, because events are more complicated than most politicians or most activists want them to be... No one should be afraid of the truth. Least of all gay people... Shouldn’t we understand better why and how?” The book has been excerpted at The Daily Beast, covered by The Huffington Post, and reviewed favorably by Aaron Hicklin of The Advocate, who wrote, “What if nearly everything you thought you knew about Matthew Shepard’s murder was wrong? What if our most fiercely held convictions about the circumstances of that fatal night of October 6, 1998, have obscured other, more critical, aspects of the case?”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/09/23/Media-Matters-Shepard
 
Amen. Except you are superior for you have a moral code that allows you the unique ability to separate fact from fiction and expert from non-believer. Misunderstood by extremists and radicals on the uncompromising right.

I know what works, and I'm too impatient to wait for the sack of goodies Obama/Santa promised to bring me if I'm good.
 
Myth - Keep your doctor, keep your plan, lower premiums, lower deficit, everyone covered...

The press worked diligently to make sure we believed this whopper and anyone who misunderstood it was a racist.

I remember the posters who bought this myth hook, line and sinker fighting for it with the religious tenacity of al Qaeda, but they all went away, or they stay silent, or the frequency of their posting has diminished and they avoid the topic with just one or two last fanaticals still screaming LIAR LIAR RACIST LIAR!


:cool:
 
Myth - Keep your doctor, keep your plan, lower premiums, lower deficit, everyone covered...

The press worked diligently to make sure we believed this whopper and anyone who misunderstood it was a racist.

I remember the posters who bought this myth hook, line and sinker fighting for it with the religious tenacity of al Qaeda, but they all went away, or they stay silent, or the frequency of their posting has diminished and they avoid the topic with just one or two last fanaticals still screaming LIAR LIAR RACIST LIAR!


:cool:

Hey AJ, yesterday I asked your "bro" Vetty if he was able to keep his doctor. For some reason he was too chickenshit to answer.

Maybe you could help me out here. Since Obamacare has been enacted, have YOU been able to keep your doctor or has Obamacare forced you to change physicians?

I know it's an article of faith on the fringe right that that nasty Obamacare will force everyone to change doctors, but I've yet to see anyone actually forced to do so.

Help a brother out here!
 

The right wing remains fascinated with trashing Matthew Shepherd years after his death, because they loathe hate-crime laws that deprive them of their "right" to bash homos, and because they never pass up an opportunity to go after the LGBT community.

Jimenez has carved out a profitable niche tell the fringe right what they want to hear about Jimenez, his obsession with Shepherd makes me think he's either a closeted homosexual (or perhaps a "recovering homosexual" like AJ.

Good article on the Shepherd smear here:
What's Really Behind Right-Wing Media's Matthew Shepard Trutherism
 
That line of attack seems to be getting traction. “I agree with Krugman here,” a prominent New York rabbi wrote on Facebook. A news reporter at the Wall Street Journal posted on Facebook, “It’s stark to have this wonderful Pope preaching charity at the same time House Republicans are defunding food stamps.”

I love this one. As if the government equals "charity." "Charity" extorted from the public under penalty of law at best and at the end of the barrel of a gun in the worst case is not "charity" at all. It is extorted monies being spread around for the government's own purposes. True charity is a voluntary act on the part of individuals or organizations. Without the voluntary component it's a rather meaningless act.

Ishmael
 
It would seem as if the repudiation of religion and religious values is replaced with the audacity of government and equality of outcome.


;) ;)
 
Back
Top