In reference to an earlier post in which I made light of Sarah Palin’s gaffe about Paul Revere riding through Boston to warn the British, not the colonists, about the former’s movements, I need to make a concession, but only a minor one. It is true that when and only when Revere was confronted and captured by the British, he indeed told them

there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up

in his letter to Jeremy Belknap.

Either by accident or a stroke of luck, Palin was technically correct that at some point along his ride, Revere told the British about the American troops.

But she remains solidly wrong in suggesting — and she unequivocally does — that warning the British was the main point of Revere’s trip. The main objective of his trip was to warn the American colonists. Presumably, getting captured by the British was not part of Revere’s plans that day, since he tried to elude them. Seeking out the enemy just to warn them of the American militia would have been silly. One can imagine the conversation going something like this:

Revere: Here ye! Here ye, damned British! The American militia is just up the way, and it is going to deal you a decisive blow!

British officer: That’s great, mate! You are now a prisoner of the British army. Answer my questions or I will blow your brains out. (Indeed, a British major did tell Revere that he would shoot him if he didn’t answer his questions)

We can only assume Revere was bright enough to know that actively seeking out enemy forces just to warn them of their impending demise would be counterproductive at best, and I doubt he much enjoyed being told he was under the gun if he didn’t cooperate.

While militia did fire off some rounds that Revere said startled the British, there’s no record that Revere himself fired any rounds, and there’s no mention of “bells” in Revere’s letter. Revere and other riders warned the colonists quietly with lanterns, not with guns or bells. Again, the idea was secrecy. Town bells did ring once the British were near Lexington, and one of the captured riders (not Revere) did say:

The bell’s a’ringing! The town’s alarmed, and you’re all dead men!

The British then turned back to warn their commanders. In my last post on this topic, I noted that Revere indeed told the British there were 500 Americans on the way, but I just wanted to clarify the point since some historians have now claimed that Palin was indeed correct. My contention remains. While she may have been correct that Revere warned the British at some point that night, warning the British couldn’t have been farther from Revere’s goal, but a residual effect of him getting captured. Secrecy was the game.

I know I’m being a little dated here, but I wanted to briefly address this Sarah Palin/Paul Revere business. For anyone unfamiliar with the story, here’s the incriminating video:

Here, Palin indicates, while on a stop in Boston no less, that Paul Revere rode through town to

warn the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding through town (bizarre change in pitch) to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.

She later defended her comments on FOX News (appropriately, the only news channel to which she will grant interviews) with this retort to critics:

I know my American history … part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there, that, ‘Hey, you’re not going to succeed. You’re not going to take American arms. You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual private militia that we have.’ He did warn the British.”

Sure. She knows her history. After more than one nudging by Glenn Beck (Glenn Beck no less!), she couldn’t name one of the Founding Fathers outside of George Washington and said that all of them were her favorite (I doubt she would have agreed much with Thomas Jefferson). She also gave the same ludicrously broad answer (“All of them”) when Katie Couric, again more than once, asked her to name just one newspaper or magazine that she regularly consulted. Further, she couldn’t name one Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade with which she disagreed:

Back to Revere, here is a letter written by the rider himself to Jeremy Belknap. In it, Revere tells of how he was trying evade the British while warning the colonists of their movements. Conspicuously absent from the letter is any mention of him ringing bells or firing shots to warn the households, as per Palin’s account. He was part of a committee with

the purpose of watching the Movements of the British Soldiers, and gaining every intelegence of the movements of the Tories. We held our meetings at the Green-Dragon Tavern. We were so carefull that our meetings should be kept Secret; that every time we met, every person swore upon the Bible, that they would not discover any of our transactions …

Later in the letter, he recalled how he narrowly escaped some British soldiers but was eventually captured. He then told the British how 500 Americans were on the way after he had warned the colonists of British actions. This L.A. Times article asks whether this is what Palin meant:

So was Revere warning the British that he had warned the Colonists? Is that what the prospective presidential candidate meant? Was Revere serving notice (at gunpoint)?

But Palin was clearing talking about Revere’s ride in the above quote from the FOX News interview (“part of his ride was to warn the British”), not whatever Revere said after being captured. Some Palin supporters have went so far as to erroneously modify Paul Revere’s Wikipedia entry to more closely reflect Palin’s cartoon-like account. Palin’s followers will seemingly do anything to make sure their star stays above board intellectually. But it’s really too late for that. She has disgraced herself repeatedly, and I hope that a majority of Americans understand the kind intellectual absentee that she is if she becomes an official candidate for president.

More recent news from the continued joke-show that is FOX News.

Juan Williams, former National Public Radio employee, was fired Oct. 20 for comments he made on an episode of The O’Reilly Factor, in which he said he gets nervous when on a plane with folks donning Muslim garb. Williams was also serving as a FOX analyst before NPR fired him. I think several contemptible elements are at play here.

First, the supporters of Williams’ comments, like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, have used this episode as a push for ideological rackets like FOX News in blasting what they feel is a liberal slant on NPR’s part. Here’s Palin from Twitter:

NPR defends 1st Amendment Right, but will fire u if u exercise it. Juan Williams: u got taste of Left’s hypocrisy, they screwed up firing you.

And Huckabee:

NPR has discredited itself as a forum for free speech and a protection of the First Amendment rights of all and has solidified itself as the purveyor of politically correct pabulum and protector of views that lean left. It is time for the taxpayers to start making cuts to federal spending, and I encourage the new Congress to start with NPR.

And this bit of garbage is the most destructive critique of all, since, if taken to its end, would provide less (or no) funding for PBS and NPR, two of the most informative and apolitical news outfits in this country. And we can immediately see the game being played, and it is this: If conservative politicians and “analysts,” like Williams and Huckabee and others begin to discredit NPR and propose that we take away its funding, the voices of rationality, fairness and objectivity in journalism begin to recede into the ever after, while squawk boxes like FOX and MSNBC become even more influential within the body politic. Another point: Nowhere has it been claimed, outside of the above comments from Huckabee and others, that NPR is a forum for free speech and First Amendment rights. NPR is a purveyor of information. I think this detail from the above-linked report makes the case clear enough:

In a memo to her staff and affiliate stations, (NPR CEO Vivian) Schiller said the comments violated NPR’s code of ethics, which says journalists should not participate in media ‘that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.’

And punditry is precisely what Williams was engaged in during the O’Reilly interview. Of course, it all worked out for Williams, who now has a new contract with FOX. No surprises there. And here is a seemingly bitter Williams making his case:

Here, Williams gives three examples in which NPR supposedly allowed questionable content to be spewed by its employees without the employees facing retribution. Of course, Williams, in his Talking Points Memo segment of The O’Reilly Factor, gives no dates or direct quotes for his claims, as if often the strategy of FOX pejoratives, and while stuff such as this is more often than not, good enough to sway FOX’s non-thinking viewers, these arguments are immediately discredited for the rest of us. Of course, Williams is, as I write, now just another FOX News hack, and that should tell readers all they need to know about his credibility.

Hmm, pretty sure this is illegal …

This article doesn’t make a conclusive decision on the subject, but it indeed seems that Sarah Palin penned her signature to the American flag on a recent campaigning expedition in Reno. While we can admit that Palin was obviously preoccupied with talking to members of the press in signing books, etc., and thus may have not realized what she was signing her name to (Although the stars and stripes might have been hard not to notice), at about the 1:40 mark in the video, she then grabs a piece of paper from a supporter along with the American flag, which was on top. She takes the pen and scribbles her name on the flag. It seems conclusive to me since the piece of paper that she grabbed along with the flag was still underneath the flag when she handed the items back to the supporter, she did desecrate the flag thusly.

Of course, if this was the case, that would have been in illegal and in violation of the “Respect for flag” section of Title 4 of the United States Code, Chapter 1, which in part g, reads:

(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

So much for the ultra-patriot credo of the Tea Party crowd, ay? Here is the video (And to see stupid heaped onto more stupid, by all means, watch the rest):

and a still shot:

Palin signs flag?

Don’t you just love squirm-in-your-pants moments like this:

Actually, I don’t, and it makes me very sad for America that folks like Christine O’Donnell and Sarah Palin are even in the national spotlight. Neither, barring Roe Vs. Wade (a case in which even high schoolers are familiar) could think of a Supreme Court decision with which they disagree. And if you watch this Palin video with Couric, it’s clear Palin doesn’t know the difference between Federalism and Anti-Federalism either when talking about Roe vs. Wade. “I’m, in that sense, a Federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas.” You have to love the cut-away shot to Couric, in which the interviewer just looks confused. No wonder, since Palin meant Anti-Federalist (or perhaps Jeffersonian republicanism), not Federalist. Of course, to say she “meant” to say one thing and not the other assumes she actually knew the difference.

I was glad to learn yesterday from Sarah Palin that it’s actually the conservatives who are the victims of the liberals, the government and nasty critics, not necessarily the actual homeless, downtrodden, unemployed and uninsured folks in this country, for what do they matter when Reps can seize upon yet another opportunity to rail against their political nemeses? In defending Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s recent and multiple uses of the word, “nigger” — a use that I, as it happens, mostly defended as well — (That is, I defended her freedom to use the word in an honest debate about language. I obviously don’t defend her berating attitude toward the caller, nor her obnoxiousness in saying the word over and over just to irritate the caller.) — Palin even frames a recent Facebook post thusly: “Defending the Fight to Cast off a Conservative’s ‘Shackles’.”

Palin’s choice of the word “shackles” is enlightening as much as it is ironic and offensive, since “shackles” is often used in speaking of slavery, and the central issue here is about Schlessinger’s use of the word “nigger,” but I doubt Palin is far-sighted enough to catch the nuance. Also, speaking of modern conservatives in any analogous context alongside slaves is laughable, in the best case, and utterly contemptible, in the worst.

And here is a recent Twitter post by Palin:

Dr.Laura:don’t retreat…reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence”isn’t American,not fair”)

Now, commentators on cable news shows this afternoon (Aug. 19) were conjecturing over what Palin might have meant by the word “reload!”

The Rev. Al Sharpton, for instance, thought “reload!” meant that Palin was advocating the continued use of questionable and derogatory language to egg on black folks. I’m not quite with him there. Actually, I’m convinced that Palin didn’t really know what she meant by “reload!” other than some very ambiguous, big-feeling, neoconservative woman-power term to encourage Schlessinger to fight a good fight, whatever that might mean. Again, Palin knows not.

Post script: While I’m at it, Palin also in a separate Facebook post said she was “traveling with Greta Van Susteren to Alaska’s North Slope and ANWR to discuss how developing our resources can contribute to America’s energy independence, security, job growth, and economic stability.”

Traveling with? That’s peculiar. And any guesses as to where Susteran works? The answer is obvious and foxy. See previous post.

And these are words from the person who ran for vice president in 2008 and who will likely run for president, no less, in 2012:

Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn’t it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate.

Notwithstanding the illogical statement that “peaceful Muslims” should not welcome a peaceful place of worship at Ground Zero, try to find ”refudiate” in the dictionary? Of course you can’t because it’s not there. The word Sarah Palin was looking for was repudiate, or simply, refute. Palin has since modified the original Twitter post to read:

Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing.

Yet, she still retained this apparent, yet pitiful excuse for the previous error:

“Refudiate,” “misunderestimate,” “wee-wee’d up.” English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!

“Wee-wee’d up??? Palin is now comparing herself to Shakespeare? And we should celebrate what, exactly? That public figures, past vice presidential candidates and likely presidential candidates scarce know their own language. And yet, these conservatives like to rail against Hispanics for not knowing English? They are ones to talk. Learn your own language, and then we can talk about refuting those who enter this country without knowing ours.

If you haven’t heard of her yet, Nikki Haley is the next in a series of Sarah Palin clones — that would be to say, very unremarkable and obscurant — who are making inroads this primary election season.

If you’ve heard one speech from someone in the Tea Party camp, you’ve heard them all, so here’s Haley speaking Wednesday in Columbia, S.C., following the Tuesday vote which placed her just 2 percentage points back from winning the primary outright against Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-Westminster). The two will enter a run-off on June 22 to decide the the Republican gubernatorial candidate for governor.

What is remarkable about Haley and for what I will be proud is my home state’s ability to A, elect its first female to the highest office in the state and B, to elect a non-white (Haley is Indian-American). The New York Times offers this piece on Haley, which at its start, offers this bit of lucid imagery:

Credit: AP

As she entered the top-floor suite of a downtown business club here on Tuesday, Nikki Haley passed an oil painting of nine former South Carolina governors. All were men, all were white, depicted seated along a long table like a political version of “The Last Supper.”

But — and there is almost always a “but” — Haley is riding the far right train to, not just win on the Republican ticket, but to attempt to trade or change the state’s overriding Republicanism to conservatism, whatever that might mean. And in South Carolina, a state whose elected officials routinely ignore the interests of their minority constituents (In nastier cases, hostile to them), Haley’s tired and boring “us versus the establishment” rhetoric can get votes every time.

So, while it will be historic, and possibly refreshing, to have a female governor in a state that has historically trampled on the rights of every race and gender — except white and affluent males — it will not be a surprise and not terribly, if at all, dissimilar to having Palin herself (One can catch glimpses of the Palin charm in Haley’s speech, minus the Alaskan vernacular. She must be practicing).

Since Tuesday will mark the most active day this primary election season, with residents from 11 states heading to the polls to select which House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates they want to see in the general elections, set for Nov. 2, I thought I might run down where we’re at right now. On Tuesday, votes will be taking place in California, Arkansas, South Carolina, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota and Virginia.

Obviously, as the general election nears, the big question is whether Democrats will continue to hold majorities in both houses of Congress. The New York Times in this graphic estimates whether each of the 435 up for grabs in the House and 36 in the Senate are either solidly Democrat, solidly Republican, toss-ups or leaning one way or the other. In the House, 114 seats fall outside of the solid category and are either leaning toward the Reps or Dems or are toss-ups. On the Republican side, 164 will most likely stay red, and on the Democratic side, 157 will most likely stay blue. The party with 218 seats will have a majority.

In the Senate, 17 seats are uncertain. Forty-eight are solidly for Democratic and 35 are solidly Republican.

Here is how the 11 primaries set for Tuesday break down:

• Arkansas — House, toss-up; Senate, leaning Rep
• California — House, solid Dem; leaning Dem
• Iowa — House, leaning Dem; Senate, solid Rep
• Maine — House, solid Dem
• Montana — House, solid Dem
• Nevada — House, solid Dem; Senate, leaning Rep
• New Jersey — House, solid Dem
• North Dakota — House, toss-up; Senate, solid Rep
• South Carolina — House, leaning Rep/Senate, solid Rep
• South Dakota — house, leaning Dem/Senate, solid Rep
• Virginia — House, solid Rep

In addition, all but 13 states will vote in new or returning governors. These races seem more contested, with only seven solidly Rep or Dem. Thirty are listed as toss-ups.

Needless to say, this election could be critical as to whether President Obama can get any other major initiatives passed during his remaining tenure. Already, the health care bill barely passed without a single nod of approval from the right, that would be to say, in spite of Republicans. If the right captures a majority in either house, future measures, including energy or immigration reform, could be doomed before they get hatched.

NPR has a large collection of stories covering many aspects of the primaries, including the rise of anti-government and anti-incumbent sentiment that has swept, interestingly but not surprisingly, a number of Republican women, in Palin’s wake,  into the fray, with 14 women on the right already headed for battles for Senate seats. Here’s a feature on that topic.

In my own criticisms of the Tea Party movement, I was made well aware that supporters don’t take kindly to the term, “tea bagger,” which I used more than a year or so ago, and loosely, in my correspondence with some of the movement’s followers.

President Obama has apparently learned this lesson as well. As reported by this article:

Reading through Jonathan Alter’s new book on President Obama’s first year, “The Promise: President Obama, Year One,” Tapper comes across a November 30, 2009 interview in which Obama declared that the unanimous vote of House Republicans against the stimulus bills “set the tenor for the whole year … That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.”

Never one to hide her ill-gotten feelings on all matters of the Democrat Party or of progressives, Michelle Malkin chimed in thusly:

Really. How many more selective civility police lectures can we take from this vulgarity-clogged White House?

And as Ian Lazaran with Conservatives4Palin (Yes, you read that right) said:

Obama may be the most thin-skinned President we’ve ever had. It’ll be funny to see him apologize for his crude, offensive, and juvenile language when this book officially comes out.

The Tea Party crowd represents an illogical, anachronistic and sheepish antagonism toward something; although, as of yet, we haven’t been given a clear answer as to what that something might be, and we have less notions of any proposed solutions. Thus, the message is: We rail against increased taxes (Which, in reality, would only affect those making 250K a year or more) and government spending, yet we can offer no solutions other than pouring anti-government rhetoric down your collective throats. And the ignorant masses who actually stand to gain the most from this administration’s efforts, who know no better, align with the other side, which, it’s no secret, is far removed from having the poor and middle class’ interests at heart.

But enough.

I’ve shredded the “Don’t Tread On Me” crowd and their arguments before, so I’m done for now.

Really the only response needed toward the Tea Party crowd and this wellspring of irrational, anti-government vitriol is a good measure of ridicule, and on that, I’ll stake my ground.