…this is already getting tiring, isn’t it?
Still, I should post the “Clarification” he appended to the post in question, which wrongly accused President Obama of “essentially calling for the shooter to be arrested and convicted” despite the fact that Obama had said no such thing:
Washington Monthly’s Jesse Singal calls me out for “lying” about Obama’s remarks regarding the Martin tragedy.
I will acknowledge being guilty of hyperbole and exaggeration - something Washington Monthly engages in when calling me a liar. Writing that Obama was “essentially calling for the arrest and conviction” of the shooter, was, I freely admit, not a quote, but rather reflected my opinion of the consequences of the president’s actions and his ill-timed and ill-chosen remarks.
Only little children and liberals believe that bringing DoJ into this incendiary local matter doesn’t guarantee Zimmerman’s eventual arrest and conviction for…something. Manslaughter, violation of Martin’s civil rights - it only matters in the sense that the hysteria ginned up over this horrible incident will ensure that authorities will shape their investigation to satisfy the howling mob. When so much is unknown - and perhaps unknowable - about what actually happened, prosecutors will find some way to appease those who are emotionally unhinged and might respond to a call for “retaliation” or vigilante action. Like it’s never happened before? Just ask Sacco and Vanzetti.
Mr. Singal prefers to take a politicians [sic] words at face value. For myself, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a liberal or conservative, I tend to question the motives and intent of politicians - especially presidents - who inject themselves thoughtlessly into controversies like the Martin tragedy.
I have every right to interpret Mr. Obama’s intent as much as Singal or any other liberal who, I believe, constantly and consistently deliberately misinterprets the intent of conservatives. In this case, writing that the president would be pleased to see Zimmerman arrested and convicted is as valid an interpretation as anything ever written by Mr. Singal about the right.
Of hyperbole, I plead guilty. Perhaps Mr. Singal would now plead guilty to the same for saying that I was “lying.”
At the end of my original response, after noting that his use of “essentially” was pretty slick, I wrote, “I’m curious as to whether Moran will correct his post, point to the part of Obama’s statement where he comes anywhere close to (essentially) calling for Zimmerman’s arrest, or hide behind a slippery word. My money’s on Option 3, which is too bad because Moran is essentially lying here.”
This was pretty obviously a cute reference to Moran’s own use of the e-word. But I’ll update and expand my original analysis: Either Moran lied about what Obama said, he didn’t read what Obama said, or he didn’t understand what Obama said (in which case he should have asked someone to explain it to him before writing an inflammatory blog post on the subject).
Moran does deserve some credit for clarifying his post, however, even if his argument throws into disarray millennia worth of philosophical thought on meaning, logic, and the philosophy of language. I do not have the energy to dissect his response, but I invite any readers who are less burned out than I am to do so in the comments section.
Feed the Political AnimalDonate
Washington Monthly depends on donations from readers like you.