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)
Then you shouldn’t have appealed to Fischer’s expertise as to why he was correct in his reframing. 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.
Saying I’m not an expert is also an inverse appeal to authority. As long as my reframing is factually accurate (it was), I can reframe any goddamn thing I want. You should be more concerned that my reframing of the conversation better matches your expert’s reframing via his summation than your unproven opinion does.
BZZZZZZZZZZZ!
Now dance for me some more, Propaganda Monkey!
1) Then you shouldn’t have appealed to Fischer’s expertise as to why he was correct in his reframing. 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.
2) Saying I’m not an expert is also an inverse appeal to authority. As long as my reframing is factually accurate (it was), I can reframe any goddamn thing I want. You should be more concerned that my reframing of the conversation better matches your expert’s reframing via his summation than your unproven opinion does.
BZZZZZZZZZZZ!
Now dance for me some more, Propaganda Monkey!
@ Buddha “No. It’s Fischer’s accurate rewording of a factual conversation. It is not a fact because “he’s an expert” – that’s the fallacy of appeal to authority.”
Fischer is an expert. His analysis is not correct because he is an expert (that would be an appeal to authority); it is correct becasue he’s done the supporting analysis of the primary documents. It would be expert testimony.
@Buddha “No. It’s a fact for the same reason Fischer’s words are fact: they are an accurate rewording of a factual conversation based upon the evidence and not supposition.”
You, unlike Fischer, are not an expert. You don’t get to reword or claim your rewording is accurate and then establish it as a fact. It remains your opinion.
Now ring your buzzer again.
“I didn’t make the inference; Palin did. I just opined that it was a fair inference for her to draw.”
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.
My . . . that’s . . . some reasoning you’ve displayed there.
Poor reasoning, that is.
The phrase “castle made of sand” does come to mind.
BZZZZZZZZ!
Try again, Lil’ Propagandist.
Again, that pattern is “never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and [. . . ] repeat [. . .] frequently”.
Come on.
Dance some more, Lil’ Propaganda Monkey.
Or choose options 3 or 4.
Option 1 has failed and option 2 is impossible, but I’m willing to keep grinding your organ to mincemeat as long as you are content to continue your liar’s dance.
@ Buddha
“I have no problem with you making an inference – incorrect though it is – but rather with you presenting your inference as evidence of fact in the face of actual formally valid factual evidence to the contrary.”
You continue to be confused.
I didn’t make the inference; Palin did. I just opined that it was a fair inference for her to draw. There is no evidence to the contrary. Revere’s deposition is silent as to the import of his actions.
Does avoiding that you have no concrete evidence of your assertions – only your unproven opinion – make you feel important when you try to present said opinion as fact?
“‘“He also told them what he had been doing that night, and warned that he had alarmed the militia at Lexington, and their lives would be at risk if they lingered near that town.’ That’s a fact becasue it is Fischer’s expert analysis.”
No. It’s Fischer’s accurate rewording of a factual conversation. It is not a fact because “he’s an expert” – that’s the fallacy of appeal to authority. Fishcer’s rewording is a fact because it’s a fact backed by evidence of the conversations – not supposition.
“This, however, is not a fact: ‘the only warning Revere gave the Redcoats was that they were walking into a stand up fight and their own certain deaths.’ This is your characterization of the facts, i.e., your opinion.”
No. It’s a fact for the same reason Fischer’s words are fact: they are an accurate rewording of a factual conversation based upon the evidence and not supposition.
Reframing does not change facts. It just reframes them. Supposition without evidence does not change facts either. It merely creates unproven opinion.
BZZZZZZZZZZZ!
Try again, Lil’ Propagandist.
@Buddha
Does you Buzzer onomatopoeia make you feel important?
@Buddha
“You cannot win an argument by resorting to admitting yours is merely opinion in the face of a preponderance of evidence that your opinion is wrong ”
Who appointed you judge?
I see you’ve chosen option #1 – continuing the failed tactic.
“And, as for ‘we’re gonna be secure and we were gonna be free,’ Only Buddha seems to have a problem with this inference.”
I have no problem with you making an inference – incorrect though it is – but rather with you presenting your inference as evidence of fact in the face of actual formally valid factual evidence to the contrary.
BZZZZZZZZZ!
Try again, Lil’ Propagandist.
@Buddha — ““He also told them what he had been doing that night, and warned that he had alarmed the militia at Lexington, and their lives would be at risk if they lingered near that town.” That’s a fact becasue it is Fischer’s expert analysis.
This, however, is not a fact: “the only warning Revere gave the Redcoats was that they were walking into a stand up fight and their own certain deaths.” This is your characterization of the facts, i.e., your opinion.
“That you are so stupid as to pick an expert that agrees with me (and the facts as evidenced by the depositions) is your problem. That you’d think your supposition is more valid than your experts own words is just hilarious.”
This is also an opinion. A foolish opinion. That’s my opinion.
And just because The KC Royals have, bats, balls, a stadium….does not mean they are going to win the world series either….
@OS
“Forgot that she got the part right about Revere riding a horse.”
She also got this part right: “[Revere] warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms … And we we’re gonna be armed” [This is not an obscure detail; the vicar told her this.]
And, at worst, the only part she got wrong about “by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots” is that he didn’t personally do those things. He just told somebody else to do them and then they were “instantly” done for him. This would be a nitpick. (at best, she got it entirely right based on the broad dictionary definitions of “send” and “ring”) [the ringing of bells and the shooting of warning shots is alo not an obscure detail.]
And, as for “we’re gonna be secure and we were gonna be free,” Only Buddha seems to have a problem with this inference.
The “obscure details of depositions” and “academic nitpicking” are Buddha’s way of not confronting the main isssues head on as he has once again done in the post immediately above.
“That’s right. My opinion is based on the two depositions and Fischer’s analysis. It is a fair inference to draw therefrom.”
Supposition is not evidence. It’s opinion without evidence.
“’Fischer’s summation, in fact, mirrors my own summation that the only warning Revere gave the Redcoats was that they were walking into a stand up fight and their own certain deaths.’
And that’s your opinion.”
No. “He also told them what he had been doing that night, and warned that he had alarmed the militia at Lexington, and their lives would be at risk if they lingered near that town.” That’s a fact. That you are so stupid as to pick an expert that agrees with me (and the facts as evidenced by the depositions) is your problem. That you’d think your supposition is more valid than your experts own words is just hilarious.
“As I’ve stated before, the entire dispute is based on linguistic interpretation (opinion) and interpretation of historic documents and depositions (opinion).”
Just so long as others realize that you don’t know the difference between opinion and proof, propaganda troll.
Please . . . do keep bleating. Continue your pattern of behavior for all to see. That pattern is, to be clear, “never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and [. . . ] repeat [. . .] frequently”.
You cannot win an argument by resorting to admitting yours is merely opinion in the face of a preponderance of evidence that your opinion is wrong by saying “I know you are but what am I”.
That didn’t work in the third grade.
It’s not going to work now.
Your options are these:
1) Continue your failed tactic.
2) Come up with a deposition that says Revere rang bells, fired shots and warned that “we were going to be secure and we were going to be free”.
3) Admit you cannot meet your burden of proof – an express admission that yours is opinion unsupported by evidence and, ergo, a tacit admission that you are wrong (as was Palin).
4) Walk away.
Because when you look up the word “relentless” in the dictionary? It has my picture next to it. Ask any regular poster.
As long as you continue to practice the Big Lie, I will keep pointing to your tactic and to your failed attempts at historical revisionism and lack of substantive evidence for your claims.
Sorry. Not 100% wrong. Forgot that she got the part right about Revere riding a horse.
I fail to understand how this exchange got from the truly dumb thing Sarah Palin said to obscure details of depositions that she undoubtedly had no knowledge of.
All the academic nitpicking does not obviate the fact she said something stupid. Inexcusably stupid. And 100% wrong.
@Buddha, that long comment of yours is nothing but your opinion. Just so you know.
You only raise one new issue which hasn’t been rsponded to:
“This mentions nothing of “as result we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.” That is your supposition – your opinion – not that opinion expressed by your expert witness Fischer.”
That’s right. My opinion is based on the two depositions and Fischer’s analysis. It is a fair inference to draw therefrom.
“Fischer’s summation, in fact, mirrors my own summation that the only warning Revere gave the Redcoats was that they were walking into a stand up fight and their own certain deaths.”
And that’s your opinion.
As I’ve stated before, the entire dispute is based on linguistic interpretation (opinion) and interpretation of historic documents and depositions (opinion).
“No, based on your opinion.”
No. Based upon a preponderance of evidence. The only opining going on here is yours.
“‘Evidence that you have yet to sufficiently challenge.’
Again, in your opinion.”
No, your evidence is insufficient in fact according to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
“‘So that makes you both wrong as to matters of fact.’
No, based on your opinion.
‘That is not an opinion.’
Actually, it is.”
Actually it makes you wrong in fact. It is your opinion that it does not, but your opinion is wrong as a matter of evidence.
“‘Revere rang no bells, he fired no shots and he wasn’t warning the Redcoats [verbally] that “we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.’
He did cause others to ring bells and fire shots.”
But that is not the same thing as “he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells”. Grammatically the only other correct reading of those words might be that Palin was trying to say that the horse was ringing bells and firing shots. Your understanding of causal connectivity is weak at best, but your understanding of the English language is pitiful.
“And, he did warn the Redcoats that they wouldn’t be taking our arms because the colonials would be armed and resisting and as result we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.”
No. He didn’t warn them of any result other than their impending death. He said nothing about security and freedom and this is confirmed by the evidence.
“‘Until you have evidence that he – personally – rang bells, fired shots’
I don’t need evidence that he personally did thee things becasue my claim does not rest on him personally doing these things. Yours does.”
Actually you do need evidence. I’ve met the burden of proof for my assertions and Palin’s language is clear that she was referring to Revere’s personal actions (or that of his horse – she is just that stupid). Your claim is that she was correct. I have proven that she wasn’t with evidence admissible. As counter-claimant, the duty to overcome the preponderance of my evidence is your burden of proof to make. And you haven’t.
“or warned the Regulars that ‘we were going to be secure and we were going to be free’?
This comes from Revere’s and Sanderson’s depositions and Fischer’s expert analysis based on same.”
Actually it comes from your selective reading and misunderstanding of Sanderson’s deposition. Sanderson’s deposition actually bolsters my claim factually, it is only your opinion that it supports yours. That you submitted evidence that works against you speaks only to your lack of skill in argumentation. In addition, nowhere in Fischer’s analysis does he come to the conclusion that the discussions were a warning to he Regulars that ‘we were going to be secure and we were going to be free’.
To be clear, this is the quote you presented:
““Gentlemen,” Revere told them, “you’ve missed of your aim.”
“What of our aim?” one answered in a “hard” tone. Another insisted that they were out after deserters, a frequent employment of British officers in America. “I know better,” Paul Revere boldly replied.
“I know what you are after, and have alarmed the country all the way up.”
Even as the British officers posed the questions, Paul Revere began to control the interrogation. Before the Regulars realized what had happened, the prisoner himself became the inquisitor. Paul Revere proceeded to tell his astonished captors more than they knew about their own mission. He informed them that Colonel Smith’s expedition had left Boston by boat across the Back Bay, and that “their boats had catched aground” at Lechmere Point, and that the Regulars had come ashore in Cambridge.
He also told them what he had been doing that night, and warned that he had alarmed the militia at Lexington, and their lives would be at risk if they lingered near that town. “I should have 500 men there soon,” he said, adding, “if I had not known people had been sent out to give information to the country, and time enough to get fifty miles, I would have ventured one shot from you, before I would have suffered you to have stopped me.” 16 (Revere, Draft Deposition, ca. April 24, 1775; Sanderson, Deposition, 32; Sanderson’s version of this conversation is generally consistent with Revere’s deposition, but more detailed and dramatic. Here as elsewhere, Paul Revere’s three accounts err on the side of understatement. )
Fischer, David Hackett (1995). Paul Revere’s Ride (Kindle Locations 2314-2326). Oxford University Press, USA. Kindle Edition.”
Although Fischer notes that Revere told the Regulars that he “knew what they were up to”, note that the beginning of Fischer’s summation of the discussion is the sentence, “He also told them what he had been doing that night, and warned that he had alarmed the militia at Lexington, and their lives would be at risk if they lingered near that town. This mentions nothing of “as result we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.” That is your supposition – your opinion – not that opinion expressed by your expert witness Fischer. Fischer’s summation, in fact, mirrors my own summation that the only warning Revere gave the Redcoats was that they were walking into a stand up fight and their own certain deaths. Far from supporting your assertion, Fischer’s words actually reveal your assertion (that Palin had the facts correct) as not based in substantive evidentiary fact but rather simply your misinformed personal opinion.
You not only didn’t provide sufficient evidence of your assertion, you provided evidence that further aids in the cutting of your own throat.
Nice job.
And by “nice”, I mean “pathetic and funnier than Hell”.
Please to come back some more though. I’m willing to point out that you are trapped in the Big Lie’s repetitive denial loop as a consequence of not being able to meet even the illusion of a burden of proof as long as you want to keep running your mouth. That you are using the Big Lie is without question at this point. Just as it is without question that you suck at it. That is the result of you attempting to use tools you do not have sufficient skill to wield without harming yourself and attempting to use them in a forum full of Artisans and master craftsmen of logic, English and the skills of persuasive speech.
That and my never ending amusement at tormenting propaganda trolls as an educational tool.
Can’t forget that.
There is no way out of the box and the more you fight, the more you prove my points about propaganda.
So please . . . do continue.
Don’t do the smart thing and walk away.
You haven’t done a smart thing yet.
Why start now?
@Mike Spindell — cuckoo