Friday, 19 November 2010

James O'Keefe is a credit to his ideology. A man in a bar purchased a drink for a special education teacher, Alissa Ploshnick, attending a conference on special education law. Over the course of the conversation, which the man was secretly recording, Ploshnick never mentioned how, back in 1997, she’d thrown herself between her special education students and an out-of-control van and suffered severe injuries that still pain her today, nor did she mention the letter she received from President Clinton praising her for her actions that afternoon. She did inform the man that the state of tenure in New Jersey is such that she once witnessed another teacher—one who is not an award-winning, student-lives-saving special education teacher—yell “You nigger!” at a student, and that this other teacher was merely demoted. This man, who had plied her with drinks, as a professional journalist should, and recorded her words without her knowledge, as a professional journalist should, then brought the tape of Ploshnick recounting what happened to another teacher to James O’Keefe, who then posted it, with captions, on the Project Veritas Youtube channel. The relevant moment looks like this: In response to criticism that followed Ploshick being suspended and docked a pay raise for recounting what another teacher had said, Project Veritas posted a video in which it prefaced her comments with this: That’s right: O’Keefe and company claim that the word “nigger” is so volatile that there is no context capable of mitigating its appearance in response to a video in which they captioned someone thus: No context can mitigate its appearance, it seems, unless that context is “targeting an award-winning, student-lives-saving special education teacher for matters of political convenience.” Put differently: If you believe anything even resembling the title of this post, you are a terrible person and never to be taken seriously again.
How not to help your cause Turns out one of Goldstein's brood took exception to my previous post and attempted to refute it by making a series of patently idiotic claims. For example: But Scott could at least have had the sense to not admit profound ignorance on what Beck ever says. I’m not surprised, though, because I know that for Serious People like SEK, admitting that he pays attention to the likes of Glenn Beck would collapse any credibility he may have among those whose good graces he desires to be in. Your eyes don't deceive you: the argument is, in fact, that criticizing Glenn Beck would "collapse any credibility [I] may have among those whose good graces [I] desire to be in." Because we all know left-leaning academics who criticize far-right lunatics are shunned by their colleagues. Further depressing my credibility is my intellectual honesty, which here takes the form of my admission, up front, that I'm not a regular viewer of the show. Note, though, that the claim is that I admitted a "profound ignorance on what Beck ever says," which is strange because I did no such thing. I wrote: I try not to pay attention to Glenn Beck, but even when I have, I never really paid attention to him. That's "passing familiarity," not "profound ignorance," and the difference between the two should be obvious, and is, unless your refutation of my post continues thus: You see, all of the topics that Glenn addresses–the dots that Scott attempts to connect–are topics that Glenn has has talked about at length in the past, so when he mentions this or that, he’s harking back to discussions he’s already had, discussions that most of the people watching have already heard. Translation: "All the dots Scott connected have been connected in the past, and this refutes his argument somehow." How exactly? Like so: See, what Glenn has said in the past about the Chinese is that unlike us, they plan waaaaay far ahead. They have contingency plans and stuff. And they’re looking to achieve hegemony in Asia and maybe more. Glenn has NEVER said that the Chinese plan to invade the U.S. So his fear-mongering concerning the Chinese is related to their desire to "achieve hegemony in Asia and maybe more." That's some non-ominous "maybe more" there, and the fact that it didn't issue from his mouth only makes my point stronger: he's inculcated his Fear of a Yellow Planet in his audience so successfully that even when they attempt to claim that his fears are fact-based and rational the fruits of his irrational speculation appear. To wit: Glenn has expressed this fear for a long time. He posits that a lot of powerful radicals, financed by Soros cash, are counting on Obama to fulfill their political wish list, but that if he proves to be unable or unwilling to do so, they’ll take him out. Claiming that he's "posit[ed]" something sans evidence for "a long time" doesn't disprove my argument that he engages in...

Become a Fan

Recent Comments