Via Atrios, we get this marveloous analysis by Jamison Foser of why Bu$hCo has gotten away with the greatest assault on the Constitution, on the American people, since, well, since never.
Think through this for a moment: According to Weisberg, Clinton's explanation of what music is on her iPod was "premeditated" and the result of political "calculations." For Weisberg to be right, Clinton's answer must be dishonest. Now: Does anybody really believe that Clinton doesn't like Aretha Franklin's "Respect"? How many professional baby-boomer women don't like "Respect"? Does anybody really believe Clinton doesn't like the Beatles? They're the Beatles! It's hard to believe any rational person could assume that Clinton doesn't actually like and listen to the music she listed. And if she does, Weisberg's entire premise can be tossed out the window: There's nothing calculated or insincere in answering a question about what music you like by listing the music you like.
But give Weisberg credit for trying: He describes Clinton's stated fondness for both the Beatles and the Rolling Stones as some sort of trying-to-have-it-both-ways Clintonian dishonesty. There's a word for arguments like this: Stupid. How many Beatles fans actually dislike the Rolling Stones? How many Stones fans dislike the Beatles? It's like suggesting someone is dishonest for saying they like both ice cream and cake: Who doesn't like ice cream and cake? Allmusic.com even lists the Beatles among 20 "similar artists" to the Rolling Stones.
It's a good piece, go read, or it will turn cold & rain on your Memorial Day festivities. I have a direct link to Pat Robertson, bitches, so heed when I say read. I know, I know, it rhymes.
2 comments:
What about Motown? Anyone who doesn't like Motown would probably kick a puppy.
Feel free to visit my blog: https://www.myonlinebuy.us/viagra-for-men-cvs
Post a Comment