Real wrong. I ran a little video on my little blog here not all that long ago, showing Jim Webb's announcement that he was running for POTUS - and I remember saying I'd give the guy a look because he did some decent things in his one term in the US Senate (not the least of which was simply keeping George Allen out of that seat).
Anyhoo - I've been wrong about a lot of things, but never wronger than thinking Jim Webb as a candidate for Prez was worth more than a spit shine a dead man's shoes.
Samantha Bee:
In the early 1800s, Jackson was doing what most people were doing, and it all seems to be in line with the standards of his time.
Tubman was doing things that were illegal in the mid-1800s; things that were considered by at least half of her contemporaries to be seditious and treacherous and evil.
Looking back on it all, which one was actually doing the good things, and which one was doing the shitty things? What would you want to be remembered for - The Underground Railroad or The Trail Of Tears?
So by Webb's metrics, Bull Connor (eg) was an OK guy because we need to think of his complete assholery as something other than complete assholery because he was a man of his time and so we have to judge him by the standards prevailing in Alabama in 1963? What-the-actual-fucking-fuck?
Webb decries the PC / White Privilege criticism while arguing a position that is totally embedded in it.
Here's the thing, Jim - when you've got your head up your ass, even if you open your eyes, all you're gonna see is your own shit. I need you to work on that one for me, OK?
Anyhoo - I've been wrong about a lot of things, but never wronger than thinking Jim Webb as a candidate for Prez was worth more than a spit shine a dead man's shoes.
Samantha Bee:
The OpEd piece Ms Bee refers to is still up at WaPo, and I was kinda struck by a line Webb uses in the last paragraph:
Mark Twain once commented that “to arrive at a just estimate of a renowned man’s character one must judge it by the standards of his time, not ours.”OK, but let's look at the behavior of both Jackson and Tubman thru the lens of those standards - which, btw, change over time. You don't get to suspend the rules to suit your convenience - we play the full nine innings here.
In the early 1800s, Jackson was doing what most people were doing, and it all seems to be in line with the standards of his time.
Tubman was doing things that were illegal in the mid-1800s; things that were considered by at least half of her contemporaries to be seditious and treacherous and evil.
Looking back on it all, which one was actually doing the good things, and which one was doing the shitty things? What would you want to be remembered for - The Underground Railroad or The Trail Of Tears?
So by Webb's metrics, Bull Connor (eg) was an OK guy because we need to think of his complete assholery as something other than complete assholery because he was a man of his time and so we have to judge him by the standards prevailing in Alabama in 1963? What-the-actual-fucking-fuck?
Webb decries the PC / White Privilege criticism while arguing a position that is totally embedded in it.
Here's the thing, Jim - when you've got your head up your ass, even if you open your eyes, all you're gonna see is your own shit. I need you to work on that one for me, OK?
No comments:
Post a Comment