A few considerations seem to apply.
One is that the antonym of informed is ignorant. No one knows everything. However, when someone issues a statement that presumes it is a fact, “… most beloved president,” the requirement is that the statement’s issuer in fact have sufficient fact-based knowledge to support the statement. By definition, any deficit of such knowledge is ignorance. As example, everyone who would contend, contrary to all available evidence that Richard Nixon was not “a crook,” demonstrate either their ignorance and/or an extremely deceptive nature. As RR claimed, “Facts are stubborn things,” and that “everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.”
“Miserable” is an adjective, meaning very unhappy, wretched.”
That an apology is due to a first party presupposes that a second party has said or done something that was an inapposite response or reaction to the first party’s behaviors or expressed sentiments.
Additionally, we’re not talking here about some arcane details of the Peloponnesian Wars, say, the names of the leaders of the Delian League in the fifth century, BCE. Nor in the discussion are concerns over the iterations of an engineer, a plumber or a housekeeper; what they perhaps should have known prior to opining on some political issue. Nor ought we to gloss over the extraordinarily deleterious effects each and all of us are suffering as a direct consequence of a president’s policies of just 20 and 25 years ago.
No! Ms. Craig has advertised herself as a “TEACHER;” one charged with the edification of those who will soon be guiding this country. And the history, as I proposed above, is less than three decades recent!
Therefore, if anyone can demonstrate where the first hint of apology to Ms. Craig seems the least appropriate, I stand fully prepared to listen. One of my greatest joys in life is having my own preconceptions burst.
Where, how, by dint of what should an apology for calling a spade a spade be anything less than some self-serving, cowardly thing for me to do?
On the other hand, are there reasons why none should pretend, even for ostensibly generous causes, such as being polite and keeping the peace in a group oriented along somewhat mutual lines, that more fitting reactions might be expressed than hostility to an outrageous assertion?
I submit that there are.
For decades the hard Right has worked their malicious game plans with rather a free hand. Those in the middle and to the left have, each and every time, caved — “Oh can’t we all just get along and be nice?” — shamefully before the coercive, brutalizing hordes.
After the Holocaust, Jews everywhere shouted the same mantra: “Never again!” But here, Democrats and their progressive allies have offered not outcries of offense but the other cheek, again, and again, and again. Max Cleland, the Democratic senator from Georgia, Max Cleland who left three limbs on the battlefield in Vietnam, was painted with heaped on shovelfuls of “unpatriotic, anti-American” excreta by patriots who hadn’t themselves the courage to don a uniform. In 2004, they smeared 2-tours-in-Vietnam Senator John Kerry as unpatriotic and un-American. And the Democrats and progressives slinked on their bellies, cowed and whimpering.
Richard Nixon avoided impeachment by resigning. But for all his vile trespasses, those by Ronald Reagan, Vice-president Bush, and the nearly six score of appointed officials in the Reagan administration were worse; if the damage done is any tolled sum. (The S&L scandal — the absolute product of Reagan’s deregulate everything philosophy — cost US taxpayers $125 billion in bailout money!!!!! By the way: Yeah! Yeah! I know the S&L was not an impeachable offense. However Iran-Contra and a dozen other acts of mal- and misfeasance were.)
But not even the whispered sentiment “impeachment” could be heard in the Democratic controlled House. It was “Shhhh, we already went through that just ten to 15 years earlier; don’t want to ‘put the country’ through that again.”
Not Washington, not Jefferson . . . no president has entered the office with a résumé so near to platinum as did George Herbert Walker Bush; WWII hero (the youngest combat pilot, flew 58 combat missions, was shot down and awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for bravery), Yale grad, congressman, Ambassador to the UN, US ambassador to China, and CIA Director. But when asked about his knowledge concerning the Iran-Contra scandal, the vice-president claimed “He was out of the loop.”
Yeah, and about that bridge over some Kansas farm field you’re offering to sell me . . .
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
