Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
I’m sure most Americans are aware that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has been on a bus tour along the east coast of the United States. What is the purpose of her tour?
Only Palin knows for sure. She did, however, provide people with her reason for taking this tour of historical places on her Sarah PAC website.
It’s interesting when (for the 100th time) reporters shout out, “Why are you traveling to historical sites? What are you trying to accomplish?” I repeat my answer, “It’s so important for Americans to learn about our past so we can clearly see our way forward in challenging times; so, we’re bringing attention to our great nation’s foundation.” When that answer isn’t what the reporters want to hear, we’ve asked them if they’ve ever visited these sites like the National Archives, Gettysburg, etc. When they confirm that they haven’t, it’s good to say, “Well, there you go. You’ll learn a lot about America today.” (They usually don’t want to hear that either!)
Last Thursday, Palin stopped in Boston for a tour of three Revolutionary War sites. She said she was “getting goose bumps’’ from all the history she was glimpsing in Boston. She added, “You’ve got to know a lot about our past in order to know how to proceed successfully into the future.’’ And thanks to Palin we’re learning history anew as she provides reporters with her version of American historical events when she speaks to them on stops along her way.
After visiting the Old North Church in Boston’s North End, she hailed Paul Revere and what he did on his “famous ride.” Here is how Palin described that event: …he who warned the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, uh, by ringin’ those bells and, um, makin’ sure as he’s ridin’ his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we’re gonna be secure and we were gonna be free. And we we’re gonna be armed.
Got that? Revere warned the British! That’s news to me. And to think that I thought for decades that Paul Revere had been riding around on his horse warning certain American colonists about the British. The archivist at the Cambridge Public Library doesn’t know what really happened that fateful night either. The archivist wrote the following in a blog post: “Paul Revere and his famous midnight ride is so much a part of the collective memory of the American Revolution that it is often forgotten that Revere was just one of several men and one woman who alerted the Minutemen of the impending British advancement.”
I guess the History Channel got it wrong too. Following is what I found on the channel’s website. It includes no mention of bells.
By 1775, tensions between the American colonies and the British government had approached the breaking point, especially in Massachusetts, where Patriot leaders formed a shadow revolutionary government and trained militias to prepare for armed conflict with the British troops occupying Boston. In the spring of 1775, General Thomas Gage, the British governor of Massachusetts, received instructions from Great Britain to seize all stores of weapons and gunpowder accessible to the American insurgents. On April 18, he ordered British troops to march against Concord and Lexington.
The Boston Patriots had been preparing for such a British military action for some time, and, upon learning of the British plan, Revere and Dawes set off across the Massachusetts countryside. They took separate routes in case one of them was captured: Dawes left the city via the Boston Neck peninsula and Revere crossed the Charles River to Charlestown by boat. As the two couriers made their way, Patriots in Charlestown waited for a signal from Boston informing them of the British troop movement. As previously agreed, one lantern would be hung in the steeple of Boston’s Old North Church, the highest point in the city, if the British were marching out of the city by Boston Neck, and two lanterns would be hung if they were crossing the Charles River to Cambridge. Two lanterns were hung, and the armed Patriots set out for Lexington and Concord accordingly. Along the way, Revere and Dawes roused hundreds of Minutemen, who armed themselves and set out to oppose the British.
Tim Murphy—snarking little fellow—wrote this in an article at Mother Jones: “We don’t mean to nitpick—we just think that if you launch a major publicity tour on the subject of great moments in American history, it might make sense to brush up on the details first. We can only imagine how Palin might try to spin this: ‘Listen my children and you shall hear, of the midnight ride of Paul Revere. If the story doesn’t sound like what you read on Wikipedia, you know who to blame: the elite liberal media.’”
It’s just not fair! Tim Murphy and other members of the “lamestream media” love to make fun of Palin. I don’t understand why. She’s only trying to give us the scoop on what really happened in our country’s past—just like Representative Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota. Thank heavens we have women so well versed in American history that they can enlighten us today with their knowledge.
SOURCES
Palin hits town to pick her spots, take her shots (Boston Globe)
Just passing through (Boston Globe)
Reminding Reporters, too, of America’s Foundations (Sarah PAC)
Sarah Palin’s Reasons for Bus Tour Misguided (Yahoo)
Paul Revere’s Ride, Reimagined by Sarah Palin (Mother Jones)
The Other Paul Revere: William Dawes’ Midnight Ride through Cambridge (The Cambridge Room)
Revere and Dawes warn of British attack (History.com)
Repeat a failed argument again too.
My but you are persistent.
Dumb.
But persistent.
Did I strike too close to home there, “Mr.” Palin? Awwwww.
Do you have that deposition from Revere yet that backs up Palin’s stupidly wrong account of his actions on April 19, 1775 yet, Puddin’?
No?
Really, you should learn when to walk away.
But I’m sure you’ll come back and continue to blame others for your failure as you admit no wrong despite evidence to the contrary.
Fortunately for you, you don’t have to be smart to use the Big Lie – just persistent.
Unfortunately for you, the smart thing would be to just . . . walk away.
Are we finally done or are you going to repeat your arguments over again?
BTW, I found another historical error of yours:
Buddha: “What I particularly love about this whole scenario is the complete blindness of Palin defenders to realize sequence. The ride took place in 1775. The constitutional convention did not even convene until 1787. The 2nd Amendment wasn’t adopted until 1791.”
Here’s the real historical sequence: English Bill of Rights adopted in 1689 granting the right to bear arms to English protestants, such as the American colonists. The ride took place in 1775. The constitutional convention did not even convene until 1787. The 2nd Amendment wasn’t adopted until 1791 and modeled after the English Bill of Rights of 1689 right to bear arms.
Too funny.
Is this Todd character your imaginary friend? That’s precious.
Awwww. Does puddin’ have a hangover?
Blame me for your failures in both your choice and execution of tactics and your substantive argument some more, Todd.
It’s funny.
Repeat until you think somebody believes you.
@Buddha
“you should say that it is my expert opinion.
What with me being a lawyer and all. Which makes me an expert on evaluating evidence. Presenting it too. What I have presented stands.”
A real lawyer, or do you just play one on TV? No real lawyer would make such a stupid comment. Attorney argument is not evidence. The only time I have seen a court allow an attorney to testify as a legal expert is in patent cases regarding patent office procedure. And, this is not such a case.
“My argument is based on fact as evidenced by depositions and even bolstered by the concurrence of my framing of the facts by your expert witness in his analysis of said depositions as a historian.”
Your argument, which is merely your opinion, is based on the depositions but not on your “bolster[ing of your] the concurrence of my framing of the facts” since that reframing is merely your attorney argument (opinion) and not evidence.
“I’m not reframing anything at this point.”
Actually, you just did again. See above.
Ring your buzzer. And then bang your spoon against your high chair.
Troll is probably going for the bonus he will get if he has the last word. What does being a Koch Gomer pay these days? He does not grasp the fact that he is the toy and we play with our toys.
Bob,
You know I play with my food. Much like a cat. When it stops moving, I’ll stop playing with it.
Please stop feeding the troll.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Don%27t_feed_the_Troll
Actually, if you wish to continue to frame my presentation of fact and evidence based argument as opinion instead of the factually proven (until disproved) argument and statement of historical fact that it is, when it comes to proofs, evidence, judging qualities of evidence and argument, you should say that it is my expert opinion.
What with me being a lawyer and all. Which makes me an expert on evaluating evidence. Presenting it too. What I have presented stands.
My argument is based on fact as evidenced by depositions and even bolstered by the concurrence of my framing of the facts by your expert witness in his analysis of said depositions as a historian.
I’m not reframing anything at this point.
I’m clubbing you over the head with it.
Now go drink away your sorrows over being so sucky at your job as a propagandist.
Run along. Or come back to get your nose rubbed in it some more. Makes no difference to me either way.
“Just to be clear.”
Clear as mud.
As usual.
“Except for the historical depositions that show that you are both wrong as a matter of fact.”
In your opinion.
“It’s still raw analysis that comports with both the evidence and my argument.”
In your opinion.
Leaving you with . . . what was that again? Unproven opinion with no supporting evidence.
“At least you’ve finally admitted that what you are spewing is your opinion instead of trying to pimp it as fact”
You’re actually the one who’s been pimping that and who continues to pimp it.
But, you keep those reframes coming. Me, I’m going out for drinks.
Obfuscation?
That’s funny from a guy who just spent 700 plus comments trying to distort history to match his opinion.
Evidence of facts and arguments based thereupon are not obfuscating by their nature, but rather clarifying.
We may reach 1000 comments because of my clarifications and your lame attempts at obfuscation, but we should be clear as to who is doing what. I clarify by proof and argument. You obfuscate with bullshit.
Just to be clear.
“All I know is that she drew an inference and I think it is accurate. You think it is not. That’s a matter of opinion because there there is no evidence that confirms either opinion.”
Except for the historical depositions that show that you are both wrong as a matter of fact.
“Fischer did not summarize; he analyzed, redering an expert opinion.”
Let’s assume that his summary paragraph wasn’t a summary but raw analysis. It’s still raw analysis that comports with both the evidence and my argument. Leaving you with . . . what was that again? Unproven opinion with no supporting evidence.
BZZZZZZZZZZ!
At least you’ve finally admitted that what you are spewing is your opinion instead of trying to pimp it as fact. Monkeys all dance with baby steps, even propaganda monkeys. You’ve still lost as to the facts and you’re still losing as to your tactic.
But as long as you keep coming back?
I’ll rub your nose in it every time you crap on the historical and evidentiary carpet.
With the benefit of Buddha’s incesant obfuscation, we may hit 1000 comments after all. I was beginningto have my doubts.
Keep those reframes coming.
@Buddha “Then you shouldn’t have appealed to Fischer’s expertise” I didn’t. I relied upon his analysis — his expert analysis.
“That Fischer’s expert testimony comports to my framing of the evidence simply means that in court, your expert backs my argument better than your unfounded and unproven supposition.”
That’s what you would argue. And attorney argument isn’t evidence.
“Saying I’m not an expert is also an inverse appeal to authority.”
You aren’t an expert. So, your opinion is not entitled to any special status, unlike Fischer’s.
“I can reframe any goddamn thing I want.”
Indeed you can. And all your reframes will be nothing more than your opinion and will never rise to the level of fact.
@ Buddha “Based upon your supposition she had read Fischer as a source material or the original depositions. So you back her supposition with your supposition that does not match Fischer’s own words in summation.”
I never claimed that she read Fischer or the primary docs. i don’t know what she has reead or been exposed to, other than what the Vicar has claimed.
All I know is that she drew an inference and I think it is accurate. You think it is not. That’s a matter of opinion because there there is no evidence that confirms either opinion.
“So you back her supposition with your supposition that does not match Fischer’s own words in summation.”
She made an inference. I offered my opinion. Fischer did not summarize; he analyzed, redering an expert opinion.
Please don’t let that interfere with your next weak ass attempt to defend Palin and revise history though.
Hmmmm.
Not sure about that double post thing there. WordPress burp.
And just because you like it so much . . .
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!
One on the house.