They are everywhere – a few examples:
The Obama administration is refusing to discuss reports that emerged early Thursday claiming that the White House is considering imposing sanctions on Israel for continuing construction on Jewish homes in Jerusalem.
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf dodged several questions on Thursday when confronted with reports that the administration had held secret internal meetings to discuss taking action against Israel for its ongoing building in East Jerusalem…
And then this:
Rolling Stone has gotten a lot of publicity recently with a sensational article about a rape in 2012 at the University of Virginia, written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely and featuring some harrowing and disturbing details. The victim was identified only as “Jackie.”
Almost as soon as the story was published, doubts arose about its veracity, or at least about the journalistic standards of its author, who did not manage to interview the alleged perpetrators even though it would seem there were ways to have contacted them. Even worse, Erdely hasn’t been forthcoming about the extent of her efforts to find them, and did not include any mention of any of her efforts or failures in the article.
I’ve read many articles pro and con, including of course the original Rolling Stone piece in question (warning: it’s long), and I’ve got my own opinion, which is that not only did Erdely demonstrate abysmal journalistic standards, but that the story itself is quite possibly a fabrication by the alleged victim…
And then, this:
…When asked about Mubarak’s exoneration, State Department Spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki offered a rambling non-answer which did not fool the diplomatic press corps one bit. When Associated Press reporter Matt Lee called Psaki out for essentially saying “nothing,” Psaki gave it another try.
“Generally, we continue to believe that upholding impartial standards of accountability will advance the political consensus on which Egypt’s long-term stability and economic growth depends,” she said. “I don’t have any more specifics on this.”…
But she also told the audience that the world still has a long way to go in terms women’s participation.
Of the hundreds of peace treaties signed since the early 1990s, between or within nations, she said fewer than 10 percent had any female negotiators and fewer than 3 percent had women as signatories.
“Is it any wonder that many of these agreements fail between [sic] a few years?” Clinton asked.
So, we’ll lift sanctions on Iran even though, as just one for-instance, they hang people for being gay, but we’ll mull placing sanctions on Israel because they’ll build a house. Meanwhile, over in race-and-gender-war-land, we’ll write an article full of details but won’t include any proof the event in question happened. Over at State we’ll mouth some meaningless words and at the end of the verbal spew which contained nothing specific, we’ll say we don’t have any further specifics (in defense of the State Department flack, she was later caught on a hot mike admitting that her statement was worthless). And to top it all off, we’ve got the putative next President of the United States asserting that only if a few more women had signed the treaties, wars and calamities would have been prevented.
Why, when Hillary made her absurd statement, did the audience not immediately laugh in scorn, walk out and announce their support for Elizabeth Warren in 2016? When the article for the Rolling Stone went up to the editors, why didn’t even one of them ask, “you got any facts to back this up?”. The reason for those two bits of stupidity – and all other liberal stupidity we see these says – is that they didn’t dare. You see, to hold Hillary in utter contempt for her stupid statement is forbidden to liberals – such an act would do the worst thing possible: confirm that the liberal narrative is wrong. Similarly, when the Rolling Stone story hit the editor’s desk, there was no chance such a question would be asked: merely to ask such a question would indicate a disbelief in liberal ideology about what goes on at elite universities vis a vis women.
If you ever thought that at some point liberals, as such, could become sensible then just give that thought up – the only way they can is by switching all the way over to conservative. To be a liberal in 2014 requires belief in not just a series of lies, but in a series of very stupid lies – and my guess is that the enforcers of thought on the left want it this way: the more absurd beliefs they can enforce, the more firm their control – after all, to switch from being liberal in 2014 not only requires you to change your beliefs, but to admit you believed things which anyone with an IQ of 80 could see were stupid lies. Just do the mental exercise yourself for a few minutes and think of all the admissions of being a sucker a liberal would have to make by switching to conservatism…and how much fear of humiliation that carries along with it. Better for most to just brazen it out: “Ok, so I believe a lot of stupid stuff: but I can’t admit it or I’ll have to admit I was a fool so I’ll just keep going! Hey, conservatives, if women signed treaties there would be less war!”.
To me, its all rather sad – and yet another reason to work hard to get these people away from the levers of power. Who knows what the opinion enforcers of the left will force their minions to believe next…
UPDATE: Huge amount of comment today around the interwebs regarding the Rolling Stone article…a bunch of “how could this have happened”. Seriously? People gotta ask how an MSM outfit could have allowed a falsehood to get published? Look, my friends, when it comes to reports which advance the liberal agenda – especially in areas of race, gender and class – assume every one of them is a lie…if not an outright fabrication, then at the least a severe twisting of the facts to fit the liberal narrative. Dishonesty in liberalism isn’t a bug, its a feature.
But, you say that you know honest liberals? Sure. Bet you do. But where the rubber hits the road, that won’t matter all that much. Think about it – you’re at the editorial meeting and the UVA story comes up for review. To question the story – which supports the liberal narrative – would be highly dangerous. Even if you proved to all and sundry that it shouldn’t be run, you’ll anger the more hard core leftists whom you work with – and who might have charge of your employment prospects. Meanwhile, if you let it all slide, 90%+ of the time no one is ever seriously called out for falsehoods. Much easier to go along to get along, even if you want to be honest…the hard core lefists didn’t care, don’t care and never will care if the UVA story is true: what matters to them is that it must be true because that is what leftism demands; even if the particular details of this story are false – even if you can never find an actual, demonstrable example of that sort of thing going on (and, remember, the contention of the story is that the horrific action described is endemic to the culture of UVA…that the student body of that school knowingly and callously does this horrible thing as if they believed it to be a good thing) – the overall story is true: because those who in any way adhere to any institution not on the side of the left are just like that in the view of the left…rat bastards who kill, steal, pollute and oppress just for the sheer fun of being evil. Anything which attacks non-left institutions is thus good and true, even if false in actual fact.