Grazing Rites

If someone says something that does not make sense or is demonstrably false, does pointing out this fact make you an ‘attacker’?

If you’re at a dinner party, sure it would be bad form, impolite. But let’s say the person in question has some kind of executive political power and wants more.

Let’s say in trying to gain more power this person keeps mentioning their family. Does mentioning that person’s family in reply seem out of bounds or part of the conversation?

If you believe that Sarah Palin is right, and her so-called ‘attackers’ are wrong what else MUST you believe?

You must believe that being a rape victim is taxable.

You must believe that Katie Couric has an agenda to trick Palin by asking her softball questions.

You must believe it possible to read ALL newspapers and yet not remember the name of a single one.

You must believe it possible to see Russia from as far away as New York City if you had a sight line.

You must believe that stopping a project because the funding falls out is the same as turning down the project. Want a fact check? In 2006 she ran on, among other things, a platform supporting the ‘bridge to nowhere’. Here’s a link from a local paper:
http://www.adn.com/politics/story/511471.html

You must believe asking people to lie for you to cover up the associations of your husband is a moral way to behave.

You must believe that David Letterman is a pedophile.

You must believe that some parts of America are real, while others are not.

You must believe she was right to put a $150 bounty on the head of every wolf in Alaska, even though a state judge said she didn’t have the authority. I guess we can put the state judge in the ‘attacker’ column.

You must believe all of the multiple ethics complaints are in the wrong, including the Branchflower report which stated “Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired” and “permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor’s office” was wrong. More ‘attackers’ I suppose.

I could go on but this could easily become my life’s work. In short let me ask you to apply the reasoning of Occam’s razor. Which is more likely? Everyone must believe everything listed above or her so-called ‘attackers’ might just be describing reality or at the very least have legitimate grievances.

This entry was posted on July 5, 2009 at 8:37 pm and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.