Slashdot Mirror
Palin Fans Deface Paul Revere Wikipedia Page
An anonymous reader writes "Fans of Sarah Palin were found to be changing the article on Paul Revere to make it fit their idol's view that Paul Revere was not warning the American colonists that the British were coming, but rather warning the British were not 'going to taking away our [guns]'."
how they no it was sarah palin "fans"? could have been opposite
because, seriously. Wikipedia is not the reference to end all references. If some dummy changes it and it's wrong, either someone will change it back, or (hopefully) the avalanche of other sources on Paul Revere will remain correct.
12:50 - press return.
Besides the poor English in the summary if you check Wikipedia's history for this entry you probably won't find much to indicate what is claimed...hmmm...act reactionary very much?
Unfortunately those fans don't seem to read books. The 1984 parallel of editing the past to fit the political 'truth' of the moment is lost on them.
There's stuff about it on the discussion page
Don't they know that Conservapedia is their home on the internet, free of the lies and corruption of the liberal filth?
Why don't you check the revision history? Find on page? Really?
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I find it hard to believe... on the one hand, out of millions of idiots, it seems that sure that a few could go off the edge and completely sink their own candidates campaign (not that it's even started yet).
This sort of thing happens on both sides. And I think it really DOES happen. The down side of making Wikipedia easy to edit is that it's easy to edit.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I have $20 that says it was opponents that did this. Why? Because this is how politics is played.
The title to the linked article is 'Palin Fans Trying to Edit Wikipedia Paul Revere Page'
Being fans of Palin it is perfectly understandable and likely they got confused and gave up.
It was a speech. IIRC there are some articles on Gawker about it and her subsequent attempts to justify her historical fiction of the event.
Either way I agree with some of the posts on Gawker, concerned for her brain damage, as most people would be embarrassed by such gaffes, but she seems to have no shame.
One of the comedians or shows (can't remember which) had a fake Palin for 2012 Republican Nomination ad, with "Paid for by Barack Obama" line at the end... This kind of thing of gaffe on her part just reemphasizes the funny...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
that moron said that paul revere was warning not the americans (or colonials) but british.
Read radical news here
Have politics ever really focused on social issues, rather than the people(be they bonehead or genius) who support or dismiss them?
If Palin runs, it'll be a double edged sword. Most of her base will vote for her and dilute the vote. On the other hand if she wins, it will be bad. It's not so bad that people get things wrong; it's when they refuse to admit it in the face of evidence. That makes for a dangerous combination of people who have power.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
You do realize that Paul Revere was captured on his ride and did warn the British that they would not be able to take away the colonists' guns?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Pretty funny how she's actually right yet people on the left still can't admit it and it all must be some big conspiracy
http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1343353
Palin was wrong, no doubt, but that characterization is also misleading... she didn't say Revere was "warning the British," she said he was "warning the British that they're not going to be taking away our arms." She wasn't characterizing Revere as a British sympathizer.
Not that she wasn't wrong... she was... I would like to think that republicans are smart enough NOT to make her the GOP candidate, but there's so many people trying that a split vote could lead to someone like Palin winning the nomination... and the democrats would rejoice.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
It's not about describing what you did, it's about how silly what you did was. All the information you want is in the discussion page, obviously. That's what it's there for.
Good points... the sad part is that wikipedia is actually a very good reference when looking up non-political stuff (and even most political stuff). But then incidents like this make it look like you can't trust it at all.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Palin actually has fans?
Maybe it's time to call in those Vogon construction ships after all.
some guy using the name TimothyHorrigan made one change that was almost immediately reverted.
I'm no Palin supporter, but this isn't news, it's just sensationalism.
But that was not the purpose of his ride, which Palin claimed. She's retarded. Absolutely retarded.
LA Times backs up Sarah Palin:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html
And so does Boston Herald:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/
that moron said that paul revere was warning not the americans (or colonials) but british.
From The Boston Herald:
Sarah Palin yesterday insisted her claim at the Old North Church last week that Paul Revere “warned the British” during his famed 1775 ride — remarks that Democrats and the media roundly ridiculed — is actually historically accurate. And local historians are backing her up.
and
In fact, Revere’s own account of the ride in a 1798 letter seems to back up Palin’s claim. Revere describes how after his capture by British officers, he warned them “there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.”
Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”
and
Meanwhile, the state’s Democratic Party held a thin blue line on the issue, insisting on mocking Palin despite a brief historical review of the matter. State party chairman John Walsh wise-cracked that the region welcomes all tourists, even those with “an alternative view of history.”
“If you believe he was riding through the countryside sending text messages and Tweets to the British, still come to Boston,” he said. “There are a lot of things to do and see.”
But Cornell law professor William Jacobson, who asserted last week that Palin was correct, linking to Revere quotes on his conservative blog Legalinsurrection.com, said Palin’s critics are the ones in need of a history lesson. “It seems to be a historical fact that this happened,” he said. “A lot of the criticism is unfair and made by people who are themselves ignorant of history.”
I believe that last statement could refer to you. You should be careful of who you call "moron". You know the old saying about glass houses, right?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
You also know that Palin never said she could see Russia from her house right? It was just an SNL Skit.
Actual quote from Palin: "They're our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska."
I'm no fan of Palin but please try to separate her real gaffes from the ones the media made up.
On the one hand, it's possibly Palin supporters who are trying to promote Palin's mistakes. This makes Palin look stupid. On the other hand, it's possibly Palin detractors who are trying to publicize Palin's statements. That makes Palin look stupid.
Whoever is doing the edits, one thing is clear. Palin's statements make her look stupid.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Granted, but do we need to feel quite so superior?
Blank until
You're all being more idiotic than Palin... Here's Revere alerting the British (though no mention or arms):
"I observed a wood at a small distance, and made for that. When I got there, out started six officers on horseback, and ordered me to dismount. One of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me where I came from and what my name was: I told him. He asked if I was an express: I answered in the affirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston: I told him; and added that their troops had catched aground in passing the river, and that there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the country all the way up." -Massachusetts Historical Society's Collections, First Series, Vol. V pp. 106ff.
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Actually right now she is blowing PAC money from donations to drive around and being an media whore. IT's the idiots that donated money to her that are flitting the bill, not News Corp .
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I don't have enough faith in humanity to assume that Palin winning the primary would be enough to get a democrat into the white house in 2012.
I just checked the Paul Revere page and there don't seem to be huge sections devoted to:
- Paul Revere in Animé.
- Paul Revere in Manga
- Paul Revere in Western Animation
- Paul Revere in Comics
- Paul Revere in Graphic Novels
Truly, an e-atrocity. I assume the Palinistas deleted them all.
Why do people pay so much attention to her? Her coverage is way out of proportion to her actual influence. Ignore Sarah Palin. If she polls highly, then go and cover her, but look:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rudy-giuliani-leads-republican-field-cnn-poll/
Giuliani, Romney, Palin, Paul, Cain... 16%-10%
How much coverage is Giuliani or Romney getting? Paul or Cain? In proportion to Palin? Why is this also-ran attracting the same media attention as if Queen Elizabeth and the reanimated corpse of Michael Jackson and Xenu toured East Coast tourist spots?
It's bizarre. Palin is an also-ran. Please try to ignore this media virus.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
How the hell is this news for nerds? How many times has the Palin or Bush or Wikipedia pages been defaced? Don't recall it being trumpeted here...
At least a pretense of impartiality would be welcome...
This is no more a good example of "Wikipedia working" than people cleaning up after graffiti vandals is a good example of society working.
The title to the linked article is 'Palin Fans Trying to Edit Wikipedia Paul Revere Page' Being fans of Palin it is perfectly understandable and likely they got confused and gave up.
Not their fault. Over centuries liberals intentionally decreased the readability of English texts by introducing foreign words.
Nice selective editing just like the conservative blogger. This is what she said:
âoewarned the British that they werenâ(TM)t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as heâ(TM)s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.â
That just didn't happen. He didn't ring any bells, he didn't shoot any guns, and the purpose of the ride was not to warn the British. In the process of warning the militia he was captured and gave an inflated count to the British as a warning.
I have actually seen the video of her comment and what she said was consistent with the history of the incident, see ArcherB's post further down the thread.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You do realize a broken clock is right twice a day, right?
"But this one goes to 11!"
You do realize that Paul Revere was captured on his ride and did warn the British that they would not be able to take away the colonists' guns?
False. After his capture Revere told the British that the country was raised against them. Not one word about taking away the colonist's guns.
And while it is true that "you can't take their guns" is a reasonable inference from "they are ready and waiting for you", it is also a reasonable inference that "you can't take their trousers" or "you can't quarter soldiers in their homes", but for some reason you don't mention either of those, nor the dozens of other things you could reasonably infer from what Revere reported telling them, which was not "you can't take their guns" but "the country is raised against you."
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Paul Revere
by The Beastie Boys
Now here's a little story, I've got to tell
About three bad brothers, you know so well
It started way back in history
With Adrock, M.C.A., and me, Me Mike D,
They had a little horsy named Paul Revere
Just me and my horsy and a quart of beer
Riding across the land,and kicking up sand
Sheriff's posse on my tail cause I'm in demand
One lonely Beastie I be
All by myself, with nobody
The sun is beating down on my baseball hat
The air is gettin' hot, the beer is getting flat
I was lookin' for a girl, I ran into a guy
His name is M.C.A., I said, "Howdy", he said, "Hi"
He told a little story, that sounded well rehearsed
Four days on the run and that he's dying of thirst
The brew was in my hand, and he was on my tip
His voice was hoarse, his throat was dry, he asked me for a sip
He said, "Can I get some?"
I said, "You can't get none!"
Had a chance to run
Pulled out his shotgun
Quick on the draw, I thought I'd be dead
He put the gun to my head and this is what he said,
"Now my name is M.C.A., I've got a license to kill
I think you know what time it is, it's time to get ill
Now what do we have here, an outlaw and his beer
I run this land, you understand, I make myself clear."
We stepped into the wind, he had a gun, I had a grin
You think this story's over but it's ready to begin
Now, "I got the gun, you got the brew
You got two choices of what you can do
It's not a tough decision as you can see
I can blow you away or you can ride with me" I said,
I'll ride with you if you can get me to the border
The sheriff's after me for what I did to his daughter
I did it like this, I did it like that
I did it with a whiffleball bat
So I'm on the run, the cop's got my gun
And right about now, it's time to have some fun
The King Adrock, that is my name
And I know the fly spot where they got the champagne."
We rode for six hours then we hit the spot
The beat was a bumping and the girlies was hot
This dude was staring like he knows who we are
We took the empty spot next to him at the bar
M.C.A. said, "Yippe Yo, you know this kid?"
I said, "I didn't.", but I know he did
The kid said, "Get ready cause this ain't funny
My name's Mike D. and I'm about to get money."
Pulled out the jammy, aimed it at the sky
He yelled, "Stick 'em up!", and let two fly
Hands went up and people hit the floor
He wasted two kids that ran for the door
"I'm Mike D. and I get respect
Your cash and your jewelry is what I expect"
M.C.A. was with it and he's my ace
So I grabbed the piano player and I punched him in the face
The piano player's out, the music stopped
His boy had beef, and he got dropped
Mike D. grabbed the money, M.C.A. snatched the gold
I grabbed two girlies and a beer that's cold.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
He just said the same people who contribute to Palin pages positively are the same ones editing the Paul Revere page. This rules out people trying to screw her reputation, this rules out trolls. This does not rule out supporters and random lunatics, though.
You really need to clean up your quote. It's quite difficult to read.
But, in response, I'm sure that Sarah Palin thinks that Paul Revere stopped at every church, hopped off of his horse, ran inside and rang the bells before heading off to the next church.
Her quote may be a bit convoluted, but that doesn't give you the right to make up your own unrealistic interpretation of what she meant.
But, hey. Don't take my word for it:
Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”
I'm sure that you know more than a guy with a Ph.D. from Brown University. Please be sure to copy any responses to him directly and be sure to tell him that you think he's a moron and knows nothing about history.
It's really kind of sad. I mean, it's OK to not like Sarah Palin. You are even free to think she's not very bright. But when you have to change facts in your own mind to back up your opinion, it just makes you self disillusioned partisan. You are supposed to find facts that already back up your assertion, not change facts that don't.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Paul Revere was not warning the American colonists that the British were coming, but rather warning the British were not 'going to taking away our [guns]'."
In AD 1775 War was Beginning.
John Hancock: What Happen?
Paul Revere: Somebody set us up the cannon!
British: All of your forts are belong to us! Ha ha ha ha!
Samuel Adams: Take off every HORSE!
Paul Revere: For great justice!
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
I love watching you guys squirm as you carry water you really don't want to be carrying. Please, by all means, keep defending Palin. It's hilarious, and it doesn't make either of you look any smarter.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The Boston Herald is a notorious right-wing paper. Even the article in the Herald says if you stand on your head and cross your eyes she "sorta coulda" be correct. His comment to the British came AFTER he was captured, when the jig was up. It wasn't why he was riding in the first place. These are the kind of arguements you got from OJ Simpson's murder trial defense.
The author of the LA Times article (Andrew Malcolm) is also a baiting conservative writer. Like most writers of his ilk he was brought in to upset readers and to feed conservatives appetites and show they have both sides in their editorial pages. Right-wing media like Fox News doesn't do this so I guess the left doesn't have the same desperate need to be pandered to.
If you honestly believe Revere was out to warn the British soldiers then you really need to try reading actual history books.
Look at the contributions of this user. He describes the Revere comment as Palin's "gaffe". Clearly he does not actually think that Palin's comment was true. He put it on Paul Revere's page because he decided to have a few laughs at the expense of Palin by abusing the reliable sources policy (by claiming that since Palin said it, Wikipedia has to, under its reliable sources policy, treat it as truthful). There were other people who did mistake him for being serious, but he himself carefully worded his comments in the talk page; he didn't say Palin's remark was true; he said that it needed to be put in as a reliable source.
The idea that this was put there by some guy who's a fan of Palin and (presumably) is stupid enough to think the statement was correct, is wrong. This was an anti-Palin troll, put there by Wikipedia editor who most probably is anti-Palin, and at a minimum was certainly aware, by his own words, that Palin's statement was a gaffe.
She said Paul Revere on that night warned the British that an armed militia was forming, and to back off. The leftist media slammed her as ignorant. Then it turns out that yes, Paul Revere did warn the British that night, it's right there in his memoirs.
Just like recently she said not to "party like its 1773" just yet. She was slammed for her ignorance that the revolution happened in 1776, one well-known blogger writing "WTF happened in 1773?!" But she was referencing the Boston Tea Party, which indeed happened in 1773.
They want to nail her so bad they show their own ignorance in trying. They are just trying to hard to perpetuate the "Palin is dumb" meme. This is almost as bad as them deriding her for saying she can see Russia from her house, which she never even said.
Not that I like Palin, I could never vote for a religious fundamentalist Intelligent Designer, but it's funny to see this rabidly mad group trying to show its superiority, and in the process showing its inferiority -- to her no less.
There's nothing wrong with hating people who try to falsify history, nothing good can come of it.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
I presume you must know that Palin was rightly mocked for her actual quote as well. The "I can see Russia from my house!" bit was a hyperbole meant to ridicule the actual statement for its stupidity.
Her actual statement was trying to lend legitimacy to herself. As if being close to Russia meant she was somehow an expert on it. She was conflating seeing it with being informed and knowledgeable about it.
And that's logically asinine. I live next door to a physician. That in no way qualifies me to treat anyone medically and gives me no expertise in the medical field. And if I were trying to claim medical expertise by mentioning proximity to a doctor, I'd rightly be thought a fool for it.
So she says people are free to carry guns, that words should be well defined and mean what they are meant to mean, and that murder is wrong. Seems like a pretty good consistent stance to me.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Not a digital clock.
Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the British missions to Lexington and Concord in fact *specifically* to seize supplies in those towns, in particular military supplies?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/338392/Battles-of-Lexington-and-Concord
So I don't know what stupid edits were done 'reinterpreting' what he said on wiki - Paul Revere was most definitely just announcing their method of advance - but the POINT that he was announcing the approach of the British "to take away privately-owned guns" is entirely reasonable.
-Styopa
Yeah for some reason the copy and pasting went to crap.
And I may not know more about history than the Ph.D. but obviously I can analyze things more independently and reasonably than he can. I am not a Democrat. I am a registered independent. I believe both sides are filled with idiots but right now the Republicans have the lead.
You cannot change what she said - she said that Paul Revere was shooting guns and ringing bells. That is not what happened. End of story.
Let me try to quote to make life easier:
“...warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.”
That's like saying I didn't post this message; my computer did. Fact is that bells were rung as a result of Paul Revere's ride. It is true that he did not ring the bells himself and it would have been more accurate if Ms. Palin had said, "“...warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by having those bells rung..." But to call Sarah Palin a "moron" over this after Obama's "57 states"* comment is a bit one sided.
Although, as I understand it, the original complaint was not that Palin had said that Revere was ringing bells, but that she said he had warned the British. I'm not aware of anyone trying to update the Wikipedia page saying that Paul Revere was actually ringing bells. Truth is, he was probably trying to remain as stealthy as possible as he rode, notifying others to ring the church bells, fire guns or whatever local methods were agreed upon to signal that the British were coming.
* Obama said he had visited 57 states while campaigning. Of course, I'm sure he meant 47 and just slipped. Some people tried to make Obama look like an idiot over the statement, but no one took them seriously. To try to make it seem as if Palin truly believes that Paul Revere was riding around ringing a bell would be same as those saying that President Obama truly believes that there are 57+ states.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Actually, yeah. The original complaint was that she said that Paul Revere warned the British, which was fact. Here are some links:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2011/06/03/sarah-palin-paul-revere-gaffe.htm
As any elementary school student can probably tell you, Paul Revere was not attempting to warn the British when he rode around crying, "The British are coming." Nor was he ringing bells and trying to protect gun rights.
Apparently Palin learned nothing at any of the five colleges she attended.
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/06/03/sarah-palin-paul-revere-warned-the-british/
This certainly gives us an entirely new point of view to consider when examining our nation’s founding.
While I had been led to believe that Revere’s historic ride was actually for the purpose of warning our forefathers that the British were coming, it turns out that his midnight ride, complete with ringing bells and warning shots, was really all about letting the English know that we were armed.
http://www.huliq.com/3257/sarah-palin-paul-reveres-midnight-ride-warned-brits
Former vice-presidential candidate and Alaska governor Sarah Palin has never been accused of being a brain surgeon, but her latest gaffe is another cautionary example of why she is, many say, unqualified to be a Presidential candidate: Paul Revere's ride was not to warn U.S. Revolutionary War patriots, but instead to warn the British.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Leaving leap units aside, there are (24 x 60 =) 1440 minutes in a day. Twice in those 1440 minutes the clock will be correct, so it is right 2/1440 (0.138888...)of the time.
If it has a second hand, there are (24 x 60 x 60 =) 86400 seconds in a day. Twice in those 86400 seconds the clock will be correct, so it is right 2/86400 (0.0023148148...%) of the time.
I'm more interested in the problem on the discussion page dealing with authoritative sourcing.
The issue seems to be:
Wikipedia wants to be a neutral source and just report what is asserted by trusted sources. The Palin-camp wants to include quotes from her, cited in mainstream media, on this page (same as you would quote and source a historian on this same page who wrote something in a published book).
This is interesting as it puts horns on the dilemma for wikipedia about authoritative. I can't just write a blog article on my personal website, post a link in wikipedia and call it a source. But if the LA times quotes my blog, I can use that as a source. But when someone who is not an expert is quoted in the media b/c they are sensational (in the sense of worth quoting right or wrong, in terms of newspaper sales), the notion of authoritative source kind of goes out the window.
Not sure how wikipedia will cope with this - or whether it's just a corner case that we can ignore most of the time?
Demographics are meaningless in this case. Let's say you're right (I have no idea whether you are or not) that, "a majority of conservatives seem to be a bit older (40s and up); a lot of them probably don't even know how to edit a Wikipedia page. . ."
How many people does it take to deface a Wikipedia page? So, even if it's true that most the Repubs have no idea how to change a Wikipedia article, it only takes 1. Or maybe a small handful.
It's sort of like arguing "The majority of muslims aren't radical terrorists, and don't know how to fly planes, so radical islamic terrorists can't be responsible for destroying the World Trade Center towers."
The first statement being true doesn't make the second statement true. They are logically disconnected.
As ill-qualified as Palin is, she's still far better than Obama.
Though she also believes superstition should be taught in science classes, that rape victims should be forced to bear the rapists children and that the US army is on a direct mission from God. This qualifies her for a padded room and not presidency.
If you're 20 and conservative, you don't have a heart.
If you're 40 and liberal, you don't have a brain.
Pick apart regular speech as if you are opposite someone defending a thesis so you can ignore the larger truth.
For some reason, partisans never seem to do it with the speech of their own.
Been to the 57th state lately?
You can't cram for New England history and come here and spout what you know and try to bluff your way through it with word salad. There are 391 years of it here, and we know all of it.
You either admit you don't know or we're going to ridicule you until you cry yourself to sleep.
And the next person who says that somehow this is a Christian nation like Sarah is wont to do, I am going to take a copy of the Touro Synagogue letter from George Washington *and* a copy of the Bloudy Tenent, roll them both up, and shove them down his neck.
--
BMO
There's nothing wrong with hating people who try to falsify history, nothing good can come of it.
Like that fake story about this dude who rode aroung and warned people "the British are coming"? Sorry, but Paul was nabbed before he could make much of the ride, and his horse was taken from him, so it never really happened. Some other dude did the deed. But the poet didn't like the sound of "The Midnight Ride of Samuel Prescott.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
We try... Lord knows, we try... but when you can't tell parody from reality, that's its own special kind of gaffe.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
False. After his capture Revere told the British that the country was raised against them. Not one word about taking away the colonist's guns.
And while it is true that "you can't take their guns" is a reasonable inference from "they are ready and waiting for you", it is also a reasonable inference that "you can't take their trousers" or "you can't quarter soldiers in their homes", but for some reason you don't mention either of those, nor the dozens of other things you could reasonably infer from what Revere reported telling them, which was not "you can't take their guns" but "the country is raised against you."
If you've watched the movie Braveheart, you would know that the English had previous experience with opponents without trousers. The lack of trousers, while offense to the eye at times, does nothing to prevent infantry action and close combat. Weapons are the thing, specifically, guns. An armed and ready population is a very different thing than a lone family asleep in their beds as far as the prospects for retaining their arms - a very real concern.
Gun Control: A Historical Perspective, Part 1
Nobody had to say a word about taking the colonist's guns - it was British policy. How else do you think they were dealing with the rebellion?
Surely the reasonable inference isn't: the British will crush the rebellion and take away arms, everywhere but here?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Everyone knows Revere from his famous ride. Except, even that, is a historical whitewashing.
Revere was better known at the time for his arrogance and incompetence that led to America's greatest naval disaster until Pearl Harbor: The Penobscot Expedition of 1779.
The British were helping defend colonists who wanted to remain loyal. The Americans couldn't let them secure the area.
The Americans turned up on July 25th with 40 ships, almost 2,000 seamen and marines, 100 artillerymen and 870 militia with the fleet mounting 350 guns. Against them stood 700 men and three sloops mounting 50 guns. The British didn't even have proper defenses: the earthworks had only been built waist high when the Americans turned up.
The Americans artillery under Revere refused to attack without the ships attacking first. The ships refused to attack without the artillery going first. The 870 militia, despite initial successes, then got pinned down without support from their artillery while the British finished building their earthworks.
On August 13th, three weeks later, a six ship British relief force, bringing the British up to 9 ships and around 250 guns to the American 40 ships and 350 guns, arrived. The armed American ships proceeded to flee as fast as they could, leaving the transports to be destroyed. Even then, they didn't get away. Those that weren't destroyed ran aground and were set on fire by their crews.
In the aftermath, the commodore was blamed and stripped of his command. Revere was not officially reprimanded but was so heavily criticized by the other officers for his difficult personality and how his attitude caused much of the defeat that he actually requested his own court marshal to try and clear his name - a request that was denied.
Keep in mind that this was 1779. Revere's reputation wasn't rebuilt until Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem "Paul Revere's Ride." Longfellow wasn't born until 1807, 28 years after the event. The poem was written in late 1860 and first published in 1861, almost a century later.
So, Palin can claim Revere all she likes. The reality of it is he's a man who died in relative disgrace having, through his incompetence and difficult personality, contributed to the deaths of hundreds of American troops and America's most crushing naval defeat for over 150 years. It was only through historical reconstruction - the writing of a poem a century later and the near total removal of the Penobscot Expedition from US history books - that he gained his fame. If Palin wants to do more of the same, how's that any different?
English is not computer code. You can use just one "=" symbol for the word "equals"
I've done it here.
But at least I attack her for what she actually says, and for the obvious meaning in context, and don't put up strawman.
Liberals like to say she is a detriment to political discourse in this country, but instances like this show me the opposite is true: Her attackers continually dig from the bottom of the outhouse in their crazed effort to discredit her in any way. It shows, your ignorance of basic things like the date of the Boston Tea Party shows. You are showing your desperation. That she has this effect is one of the very few things I like about her.
If you want to attack someone's ignorant statements, try Obama, Biden or Michelle Bachmann. They've got a ton of them, absolutely indefensible ignorance or just flat-out lies, but you mainly see only Bachmann's in the media.
If this debateable point makes Palin a "stupid twat," then how about Obama thinking Arkansas is closer to Kentucky than his own Illinois, which shares a border? How about him thinking they speak Arabic and Kurdish in Afghanistan? How about him thinking the Selma marches were before he was born?
You used a sexist label, so let's use a racist one, "dumb nigger."
Actual Transcript:
"GIBSON: Let's start, because we are near Russia, let's start with Russia and Georgia.
The administration has said we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals.That's why we have to keep an eye on Russia.
And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."
The leading question to her response was actually asking how her close proximity of Alaska gave her insight into Russia. On careful read she mangled the response to how being close to Alaska gives her insight, she could have talked about cultural and trade ties between Alaska and Russia. But its also not a response that she came up with to legitimize her foreign policy knowledge. Once again you are talking about a misinterpretation of the real interview based on the SNL representation.
And let me state this again, I am not a Palin fan, and think she is clumsy in press engagements. However I think the majority of people in this country falsely attribute the Tina Fey parody to the politician.