When Is A Distraction Not A Distraction?
-
When is a distraction not a distraction?
An easy riddle, as it turns out
Jonah Goldberg
It's going to be bait and switch for as far as the eye can see.
That's how it looks now that the smoke has cleared after the recent "Mommy War" skirmish over Democratic operative Hilary Rosen's comment that mother of five Ann Romney had "never worked a day in her life."
There's no need to re-litigate all of that again. If Rosen apologized any more she'd have to sever a digit Yakuza-style. And the White House couldn't distance itself more if they dispatched the Secret Service to burn down Rosen's house and salt the earth for good measure. Fortunately, the Secret Service is too busy with other things.
And besides, the whole episode was a "distraction." That was the quasi-official line almost the moment Rosen's comments caught fire. It was a "manufactured controversy." NBC's Chuck Todd, easily one of the best political analysts in the mainstream media, responded to the spat by proclaiming: "Welcome to the world of the shiny metal object. A person no one agrees with has ignited a manufactured controversy."
Way over on the left, the editor of The Nation, Katrina vanden Heuvel, said on ABC's "This Week": "I think this whole debate has been a distraction. The issues we should be talking about are equal pay, combating rising health-care costs for families, and sick payday leave for women. And these are issues that the Republicans oppose."
In fairness, Todd and vanden Heuvel are right, at least about the spat being manufactured. The Romney campaign smartly pounced on Rosen's comments as a way to turn the tables on the Obama campaign, which had been banging the war drums on the entirely phony "Republican war on women" ever since the entirely manufactured Sandra Fluke controversy.
Fluke, recall, was the Joan of Arc of free birth control who wasn't invited to testify at a congressional hearing about the Obama administration's effort to force religious institutions to pay for medical services that violate their religious teachings. A 30-year-old activist who picked Georgetown because she wanted to fight Catholic policies from the inside, Fluke was a ringer, and the Democrats wanted to use her to distract from their deeply unpopular plan to bulldoze religious liberty.
When Rush Limbaugh went overboard mocking Fluke's arguments to the point where he suggested she was a "slut," the Democrats leapt into action. So did the mainstream press. Fluke became a national martyr, treated with kid gloves by nearly every outlet. The same Katrina vanden Heuvel who mocked the "distraction" of Hilary Rosen anointed Fluke a "profile in courage" who "speaks for millions of women who won't allow Rush Limbaugh to silence their voice with his vile viciousness."
The Democratic Party raised millions off Fluke from the ginned-up controversy. Limbaugh was denounced in Congress. Allegedly pro-free speech left-wing celebrities started demanding the FCC permanently censor Limbaugh by revoking his broadcast license. After all, Limbaugh had tried to "silence people that are speaking out for women," in the words of Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.).
Funny how all of the "distraction" and "manufactured controversy" talk starts when Republicans are benefiting from a distraction.
Now, you might complain that Limbaugh is a much bigger deal than Hilary Rosen -- and that's true. Limbaugh is vastly more influential and important than Rosen. But he's also not a professional Republican like Rosen is for Democrats (if you actually listened to Limbaugh's show you'd know that). She's visited the White House some 35 times and is a business partner with Anita Dunn, the former White House communications director.
Regardless, the point is that the controversy over Limbaugh's comments (for which he rightly apologized) was wholly and completely a distraction from the relevant issues. Heck, his Fluke comments were a distraction from the distraction from the relevant issues.
And let me say a word in defense of distractions. Elections are about what voters want them to be about. Rosen's comments, for instance, may have been hyped by the Romney campaign, but the hype wouldn't have mattered if the comments didn't resonate with the public.
My complaint isn't about distractions, it's about the press's tendency to treat controversies that help Republicans as "distractions" and ones that hurt Republicans as Very Serious Issues.
And the pattern continues. This week, the Romney campaign is rightly distancing itself from some idiotic comments by rocker Ted Nugent. On cue, Andrea Mitchell -- who seems to cover Republicans like they're from some foreign land, oddly fitting for NBC's "chief foreign affairs correspondent" -- is happily distracted by the story. When Bill Maher, HBO's criminally unfunny and obtuse jester (and million-dollar Obama super-PAC donor) says something idiotic, it's a meaningless distraction.
It's nothing new, of course. (Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers were preemptively deemed "distractions" by the media.) But it is annoying.
-
They put this stuff out there all the time, T.
For as much affect as they can get.... then they back off it.
Worse comes to worse, they "disagree" with a Van Jones. or whatshername Shirley Lee.
The wild and vicious claims are orchestrated, surely - the blabbers of this garbage
are Obamao's useful idiots. Like O.J. trial. Throw so much stuff at the wall, that the truth
gets lost. The distractions cloud over the reporting of Obamao's failures, and the destructive direction
he openly wants to take America.
-
-
I'd post funny pictures too but Cal would tell me I'm off topic and our all powerful moderator would delete them
-
Well, they'd just get deleted or edited by our magnificent ruler
-
Woody translation:
"sniff"
"I can't find any really cool funny pictures that don't tell the truth about Obamao"
-
Woody translation:
"sniff"
"I can't find any really cool funny pictures that don't tell the truth about Obamao"
Woody translation:
"sniff"
"I can't find any really cool funny pictures that don't tell the truth about Obamao"
I guess that was on topic...
and you assume I've looked, IDK why.
1) Not a liberal, and I know that confuses you. If I start posting anti-conservative pictures I might completely lose you.
2) I wouldn't know where to look for good ones. I'm not a member of any forums that just tell me back what I want to hear politically.
3) If I really wanted to find something, it'd be something you couldn't dispute. Something like graphs and charts or videos of Fox News lying/fucking up. Mean spirited pictures that don't really prove anything can be funny, especially in circles where everyone thinks like you do (cuz that's how the world works, right?). I mean, just take an issue, highlight the worst part of it, give it an ugly character and have it saying something stupid. Or just take a still of Obama, photoshop on something to help prove your point and then give a stupid sounding saying in an air bubble... all super legit and productive.
I mean, they can be funny if they are generally clever (or has a kitty in it)
-
Well, stars hasn't changed in like 60 years so I guess that works, lol.
Believe me I understand how you can pretty much make data say whatever you want. Throw in some flashy graphics and a legitimate sounding Institute name and you can influence some people no doubt.
-
Well, stars hasn't changed in like 60 years so I guess that works, lol.
Believe me I understand how you can pretty much make data say whatever you want. Throw in some flashy graphics and a legitimate sounding Institute name and you can influence some people no doubt.
Well, stars hasn't changed in like 60 years so I guess that works, lol.
Believe me I understand how you can pretty much make data say whatever you want. Throw in some flashy graphics and a legitimate sounding Institute name and you can influence some people no doubt.
I don't know what "stars hasn't changed in like 60 years so I guess that works" means. Fill me in.
I think lying with statistics includes what you said, but it goes beyond what you said.
Garbage in garbage out. Distractions. We have seen so many issues presented as science that completely violate the scientific method.
-
I meant "stats hasn't changed", cuz that book is from the 50s.
And you can make numbers say a lot of different things, you just need to look into how the data was found.
It seems like conservatives aren't the biggest champions of science, especially when it isn't saying what they want to hear.
-
I meant "stats hasn't changed", cuz that book is from the 50s.
And you can make numbers say a lot of different things, you just need to look into how the data was found.
It seems like conservatives aren't the biggest champions of science, especially when it isn't saying what they want to hear.
I meant "stats hasn't changed", cuz that book is from the 50s.
And you can make numbers say a lot of different things, you just need to look into how the data was found.
It seems like conservatives aren't the biggest champions of science, especially when it isn't saying what they want to hear.
Okay woody let me ask you this:
Do you personally believe that there is a universal right and wrong?
An actual moral and immoral?
If you do, do they conform to the laws of natural science?
And if they don't, why gripe so much about someone else's?
WSS
-
I meant "stats hasn't changed", cuz that book is from the 50s.
And you can make numbers say a lot of different things, you just need to look into how the data was found.
It seems like conservatives aren't the biggest champions of science, especially when it isn't saying what they want to hear.
I meant "stats hasn't changed", cuz that book is from the 50s.
And you can make numbers say a lot of different things, you just need to look into how the data was found.
It seems like conservatives aren't the biggest champions of science, especially when it isn't saying what they want to hear.
OK "stats", I didn't want to assume.
Of course you can make numbers say anything. But if the scientific method isn't followed the whole dog and pony show is a fraud. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the hypothesis isn't proved or cannot be found false we are left with just a theory.
Oh Woody, stab a conservative in the back with science. What will kids think of next?. Tee-hee
-
Well, if you prove your hypothesis through rigorous and multiple experiments then you get a scientific theory. It's not "just a theory" in the sense that it doesn't matter and has no bearing on anything. Theories come about through lots of testing and observation and aren't just thought up for the hell of it. Saying "just a theory" in the terms of scientific knowledge really doesn't make sense and undermines the actual scientific definition of a theory.
If the scientific method isn't followed, then you may get something of value out of your experiments but probably not. It would be really easy to poke holes in the results I would imagine.
I just said the science and conservatives thing because it isn't the first time I've noticed it.
-
Yes, when I want to learn something science related, I make sure to ask Bunker....
But I'm wasting my time. I should go back to not responding to your posts
-
Well, if you prove your hypothesis through rigorous and multiple experiments then you get a scientific theory. It's not "just a theory" in the sense that it doesn't matter and has no bearing on anything. Theories come about through lots of testing and observation and aren't just thought up for the hell of it. Saying "just a theory" in the terms of scientific knowledge really doesn't make sense and undermines the actual scientific definition of a theory.
If the scientific method isn't followed, then you may get something of value out of your experiments but probably not. It would be really easy to poke holes in the results I would imagine.
I just said the science and conservatives thing because it isn't the first time I've noticed it.
Well, if you prove your hypothesis through rigorous and multiple experiments then you get a scientific theory. It's not "just a theory" in the sense that it doesn't matter and has no bearing on anything. Theories come about through lots of testing and observation and aren't just thought up for the hell of it. Saying "just a theory" in the terms of scientific knowledge really doesn't make sense and undermines the actual scientific definition of a theory.
If the scientific method isn't followed, then you may get something of value out of your experiments but probably not. It would be really easy to poke holes in the results I would imagine.
I just said the science and conservatives thing because it isn't the first time I've noticed it.
Thanks Woody!
-
Bunker said:
you need that time, and a lot more of it to try and disprove God. its pretty sad when a man wants to kick God out of their life just so they dont have to feel the guilt of sin and disobedience.
I explain something about science
You don't like it and don't understand it
I make fun of you
you start talking about God and sins and stuff. Wtf?
Look, if me explaining something science related really attacks your core values that much maybe you should be looking into your values and beliefs. I also have no beef with God and have never tried to disorder gods existence because that is impossible. It's also impossible to prove there is a god. You're confusing me not liking religion with me attacking a man in the sky.
But I'll take you completely going off topic as admitting I was right and you were wrong
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login