And no doubt unicorn rides, seeing as the third is just as likely to happen as the first two.
In case you’re wondering, this call is due to the announcement that census worker Bill Sparkman killed himself for the insurance money (H/T: R.S. McCain) – which means that he was not murdered by conservative monsters from the id, or murdered for ideological purposes – or, in fact, was murdered at all. I’m sure that this would be an embarrassment for everyone on the Other Side who flogged this particular narrative, except this would imply that they cared about Sparkman in the first place. Which they didn’t, so expect a grudging bare minimum, at best.
Moe Lane
PS: For the record: when you try to set up your suicide to make it look like you’ve been murdered by your ideological opponents, you have officially abrogated any obligation for me to be upset at your plight.
Crossposted to Moe Lane.
KnightsofMalta
Dan Spencer
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
Dan McLaughlin
Caleb Howe
To them, this will just be evidence
blooch Tuesday, November 24th at 4:25PM EST (link)of a larger conspiracy which can be traced back to Bush. Although Vince Foster is going to get some strange new respect from the Online Left today, I bet.
“Lieutenant Dike wasn’t a bad leader because he made bad decisions. He was a bad leader because he made no decisions.”
"Hummm"
ecroper Wednesday, November 25th at 2:21PM EST (link)If all the LEFT’s did this, then all thats left is RIGHT?
(I read that somwhere) but maybe they are on to somthing, somthing really good!
The thing is,
HoosierHistorian Wednesday, November 25th at 9:10PM EST (link)liberals never admit to their lies. They just stop talking about it for a while and then after enough time has passed for the details to have been forgotten they resurrect the lie as proof of prior wrongdoing by conservatives. Just wait and see; sometime in the next few years liberals will be citing the “murder” of Mr. Sparkman as evidence of right-wing extremism.
Stumbling On
pburton Monday, November 30th at 4:22PM EST (link)I sent Moe Lane’s post to a socialist friend with the comment: “Now here’s a weird one.” (This was my first encounter with the story).
He replied back: “this suicide story was on npr this morning. it did not seem to get more or less coverage than the report of the initial supposed murder”
To which I replied:
Some would say that you stumbled across the problem. And it’s not political.
Regarding “proper” coverage, imagine this: the right disseminates a scurrilous claim that the left engages in political murder. Based on circumstantial evidence, the story is spread for the purpose of besmirching political ideology. Later, it is found that there was no political murder, but rather a staged suicide that was intended as political fodder.
Might you expect that the retraction should have something to do with intended harm, and maybe, in this case, with political craziness? Might you expect that such retraction should be as widely disseminated as the first account?
Dan Rather attempts to influence a presidential election by airing false documents; documents that he had every reason to believe were false. The press is supposed to cover his intent based upon how much air-time was given his initial act?
Does your idea of “proper” coverage have anything to do with the concept of right and wrong? For the left, are these terms known only in political context?
11/30/09