Sunday, August 15, 2010

New depths of stupidity and revisionist history

What's the first thing I hear on C-SPAN this morning?  We shouldn't blame poor former President Bush for anything, because after all when he came into office he had to deal with the aftermath of 9/11 -- which happened on Clinton's watch

Let's see.  9/11 = September 11, 2001.

Bush inauguration = January 20, 2001.

Definitely one of those should I laugh or cry moments. 

That call was followed immediately by someone ranting about Woodrow Wilson taking the country off the gold standard in 1937.  Nice trick, considering that Wilson died in 1924. 

So much for any fantasies a person might cherish about C-SPAN viewers being more literate or knowledgeable than the general public.  Maybe I should stop admitting I watch "Washington Journal" as much as I do.


  1. Yeah, well, yesterday I was skimming through an "abandoned places" photo forum, and as usual, many of the entries showed crumbling Soviet-era facilities across the former USSR.

    The comments on one thread quickly evolved from a lament for the country's current state to enthusiastic agreement-- among a bunch of Russian 20-somethings-- of how much better things were under Stalin. The level of revisionism and genocide denial was staggering. "The people Stalin had executed were all criminals, causing the country great harm, and there is nothing wrong with getting rid of those"... it was like Lavrenty Beria was talking.

    My already dim view of the future turned just a little darker.

  2. And Germany has Holocaust deniers and folks nostalgic for the good old days under Hitler. We're all screwed.

  3. Holy crap, makes you wonder how these people get through life with so little brainpower. Honestly, people, if you're going to rant about a topic to a live national audience, don't you think you could get your facts straight first?


  4. And does no one ever correct them? I hear Rachael Maddow correcting politicians and others all he time on her show, but no one else seems to ever point out all the lies and inaccuracies.

  5. Half the time I think the commentators don't know the history either. Rachel can correct people because she is super intelligent and educated. Some of the others? Not so sure!


My space, my rules: play nice and keep it on topic.