News The midnight ride of Sarah Palin.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy Snyder
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around misconceptions about Paul Revere's ride, particularly in light of comments made by Sarah Palin. The original narrative taught in schools suggests Revere rode to warn the minutemen of the British approach, but the thread argues that his actions were misinterpreted, claiming he intended to warn the British instead. The conversation shifts to critiques of Palin's historical knowledge, especially her assertion that Revere rang bells to alert the British, which is seen as a significant misunderstanding of history. Participants express concern over the implications of such inaccuracies for public figures and the potential impact on education. The discussion also touches on the media's treatment of political figures, particularly how mistakes by conservatives like Palin are scrutinized more harshly than those by liberals. Overall, the thread highlights the intersection of historical interpretation, political commentary, and media bias, emphasizing the importance of accurate historical representation in public discourse.
  • #51
mege said:
That is, http://www.nas.org/polimage.cfm?doc_Id=1983&size_code=Doc").
I fully agree with you, this is a serious problem and getting worse. Are you presenting this as a reason not to make the small fix that I propose?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Jimmy Snyder said:
I fully agree with you, this is a serious problem and getting worse. Are you presenting this as a reason not to make the small fix that I propose?

I'm ignoring the 'Sarah Palin should make a video' comments you're making because I don't have an opinion on it. One hand, yes, fully accepting actions and correcting statements is a good thing. On the other hand, I have limited faith in it being of consequence. The lack of consequence is not because it's Sarah Palin, but because the public's attention span for any news story only extends through the initial orgasm of information.

Take this discussion for example - we've already discussed this mistep for dozens of posts. If Palin did release a video correcting her self totally and humbly, would we pay much attention to it (esspecially compared to this thread)? Very likely not, causing the earlier action to be more prevelent in our memory anyhow totally negating the effort of the 'corrective' video.
 
  • #53
mege said:
I'm ignoring the 'Sarah Palin should make a video' comments you're making because I don't have an opinion on it. One hand, yes, fully accepting actions and correcting statements is a good thing. On the other hand, I have limited faith in it being of consequence. The lack of consequence is not because it's Sarah Palin, but because the public's attention span for any news story only extends through the initial orgasm of information.

Take this discussion for example - we've already discussed this mistep for dozens of posts. If Palin did release a video correcting her self totally and humbly, would we pay much attention to it (esspecially compared to this thread)? Very likely not, causing the earlier action to be more prevelent in our memory anyhow totally negating the effort of the 'corrective' video.
The video would be for distribution in schools. I am suggesting that she do it because it is the right thing to do to correct a mistake. I understand that she is a politician and her enemies will never give her an inch, but what has that got to do with it?
 
  • #54
Take this discussion for example - we've already discussed this mistep for dozens of posts. If Palin did release a video correcting her self totally and humbly, would we pay much attention to it (esspecially compared to this thread)? Very likely not, causing the earlier action to be more prevelent in our memory anyhow totally negating the effort of the 'corrective' video.
It must be nice having so many unproven assumptions to make your arguments better.
 
  • #55
turbo-1 said:
Are you equating Obama's election with the idiocy of Sarah Palin? He's a Constitutional scholar and professor with a strong grasp of history. Palin's only claim to fame is that McCain was ignorant enough to take her on as a running-mate.

Once more - please support your description that Obama is a "Constitutional scholar and professor with a strong grasp of history" - we discussed this in another thread last week didn't we?

As for Palin - wasn't she a mayor and a governor?

edit - I see Mege beat me to the point.
 
  • #57
  • #58
WhoWee said:
Once more - please support your description that Obama is a "Constitutional scholar and professor with a strong grasp of history" - we discussed this in another thread last week didn't we?

As for Palin - wasn't she a mayor and a governor?

edit - I see Mege beat me to the point.

I can't find that thread, do you remember which one it was? The keywords "Obama" and "constitutional" are all through P&WA.
 
  • #59
WhoWee said:
Once more - please support your description that Obama is a "Constitutional scholar and professor with a strong grasp of history" - we discussed this in another thread last week didn't we?

Google knows the answer in 0.13 seconds...

Statement Regarding Barack Obama

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
 
  • #60
apeiron said:
Google knows the answer in 0.13 seconds...

I was going off what Wikipedia says, which doesn't make any mention of him as a Professor in the section I looked it (but it does make mention, at second look, in another section).

Even conceeding the point of President Obama's legal creditentials, at worst case, (what spurred this discussion on President Obama) Sarah Palin and President Obama were equally qualified to run for office. She still had more executive experience than him as both a Mayor and Governor, he had zero executive experience (unless you count his [strike]revolutionary[/strike] community organizer experience).
 
  • #61
mege said:
I was going off what Wikipedia says, which doesn't make any mention of him as a Professor in the section I looked it (but it does make mention, at second look, in another section).

Even conceeding the point of President Obama's legal creditentials, at worst case, (what spurred this discussion on President Obama) Sarah Palin and President Obama were equally qualified to run for office. She still had more executive experience than him as both a Mayor and Governor, he had zero executive experience (unless you count his [strike]revolutionary[/strike] community organizer experience).

Speaking from the point of view of the foreign press, Obama still looks like the best President the US has had for a long time - but of course a complete lame duck because of the financial mess he inherited, the Republican control of Congress, the various oil wars the US is committed to, etc, etc.

Talk of Palin, Trump and other obvious non-entities as future Presidents seems like putting the inmates in charge of the asylum. :smile:

It would be fun to put these guys through some objective psychometric testing like you would for any serious job, let alone future leader of the free world. In the meantime, what academic heights did Palin manage to scale?

Oh, Google tells me: "Bachelor of science in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho". Yowsa!
 
  • #62
apeiron said:
Speaking from the point of view of the foreign press, Obama still looks like the best President the US has had for a long time - but of course a complete lame duck because of the financial mess he inherited, the Republican control of Congress, the various oil wars the US is committed to, etc, etc.

Talk of Palin, Trump and other obvious non-entities as future Presidents seems like putting the inmates in charge of the asylum. :smile:

It would be fun to put these guys through some objective psychometric testing like you would for any serious job, let alone future leader of the free world. In the meantime, what academic heights did Palin manage to scale?

Oh, Google tells me: "Bachelor of science in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho". Yowsa!

The foreign press liking President Obama is actually something to be scared about, IMO. Who's interests are they rooting for? Their own or the American people? (Not to say they're totally exclusive interests, but different enough). I do find it interesting, though, that many of the European countries have gotten more conservative in the past few years even with all of the international media attacks on President Bush (biggest most recent example of this is various Euro leaders: "http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/17/multiculturalism-has-failed# "). Also, how many of them want our help in Libya now? The hatred of President Bush by the foreign powers was overblown and really only fueled by some of the extreme leftist rallies that were broadcast. The current international trending (without the US at the helm) is towards the western exceptionalism that did dominate Bush-era foreign policy.

Tax cuts aside (which aren't really linked to the recession in general); the financial mess is only President Bush's fault in so far as he, and the Republican congress at the time, were unable to act against the housing bubble for political reasons. If they had attempted to eliminate the subprime subsidies, it would have just been seen as an 'attack on the poor' instead of the prudence that we now see it as. Unfortunately that's the problem with any social program is that even when introduced as a stop gap it becomes a dependence that is impossible to wrangle with later (check out this http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2011/06/09/thursday-morning-must-reads-11/ where they talk about just that - I know the link is to The Blaze, but the video is there and it's easier to navigate than ABC's website :p).

Oil wars... hmm? Why are we in Libya and Yemen? Those are totally President Bush's fault too, I know. (sorry, I'll try not to be snarky :p) Congress voted (Almost unanamously, and across party lines) to go into Afghanastan and Iraq. Why is this always pinned on President Bush exclusively? It's been a political convenience for President Bush's opponents to oppose the middle east conflicts when things weren't going well. The vast (early) congressional support of the wars showed that there was support from different perspectives. This is a tired argument (blaming President Bush), esspecially when, in just over 2 years of President Obama, we're involved in 2 more countries without congressional approval and without any 9/11-type event of provication to put focus on the Middle East. This is a major issue I have with President Obama - his unpredictability. Love/hate/whatever him, President Bush was predictable and steadfast in his convictions.

Lastly, for a politician, what does education have to do with it? Would you rather have only lawyers as politicians (which I feel is part of our problem) or would you rather have a mix? Now, I'm not saying that a high school dropout should be welcomed into politics, but indicting Sarah Palin for 'only' getting her BS from a non-ivy league school seems incredibly elitist and closed minded. Palin has actually lived a life outside of politics, activism and academia, I'd say that carries more weight than someone, like President Obama, that's lived in privledge and a fantasy land his whole life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
mege said:
Tax cuts aside (which aren't really linked to the recession in general); the financial mess is only President Bush's fault in so far as he, and the Republican congress at the time, were unable to act against the housing bubble for political reasons. If they had attempted to eliminate the subprime subsidies, it would have just been seen as an 'attack on the poor' instead of the prudence that we now see it as.
I have to disagree with the section I bolded. They were perfectly able to act, but chose not to for political reasons. They were warned about the Fannie and Freddie insanity causing a big problem, and didn't stop it. I don't know what's worse: the left enacting such a dangerously destructive policy, or Republicans not putting a stop to it when they had the chance.

Personally, I blame the Republicans more. Blaming Democrats for it is kind of like blaming wolves for eating sheep. Republicans are the ones that claimed to be against such insanity, then just went along with it.
 
  • #64
Al68 said:
I have to disagree with the section I bolded. They were perfectly able to act, but chose not to for political reasons. They were warned about the Fannie and Freddie insanity causing a big problem, and didn't stop it. I don't know what's worse: the left enacting such a dangerously destructive policy, or Republicans not putting a stop to it when they had the chance.

Personally, I blame the Republicans more. Blaming Democrats for it is kind of like blaming wolves for eating sheep. Republicans are the ones that claimed to be against such insanity, then just went along with it.

Didn't I say that? ;)

I suppose I did make it seem more of a mandate than a choice, but still - the decision to not interfere with subprime lending was made because of political reasons (unfortunately). This is one area where Palin gains clout with conservatives - she doesn't think about political gain/loss - she is really thinking about accomplishing an adgenda with little moderation. Bad for her - this mentality makes her unelectable, but still makes her a force in the political ring because she's willing to say things that clout-minded politicians aren't willing to.
 
  • #65
Jimmy Snyder said:
Unfortunately, it has percolated. So that while Palin is the ultimate source of the misinformation, the kids may not necessarily hear it directly from her. There are people now determined to rewrite history. That is not Palin's fault, but is a fact that simply cannot be ignored. I don't see any downside to her making a video and setting the record straight.
You mean she should lie and pretend that she was wrong? Even NPR now is acknowledging, after a little research, that http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636/how-accurate-were-palins-comments-on-paul-revere"

It looks like people would check their facts before calling someone an idiot for knowing something they didn't. :rolleyes::smile::smile::smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #66
Al68 said:
You mean she should lie and pretend that she was wrong? Even NPR now is acknowledging, after a little research, that http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636/how-accurate-were-palins-comments-on-paul-revere"

It looks like people would check their facts before calling someone an idiot for knowing something they didn't. :rolleyes::smile::smile::smile:

I think saying she was right is a little bit of a stretch. Saying she was right is a little like saying the intent of my driving to Ohio last month was so I could pump gas into my Jeep - although admittedly, as often as I did pump gas, one could certainly be forgiven for getting that impression.

The British had already been warned that local patriots were well armed by local residents still loyal to the British. In fact, marching troops to Concord was the British response to that warning. It's a fact that the local alert system would have tipped off the British that the patriots knew the British were coming, but that fact was a side effect of the local alert system; not the intent of it.

Prof Allison definitely grades on the curve and almost cynically holds politicians to a different standard than his students. :smile:

BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.

Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did. And remember, she is a politician. She's not an historian. And God help us when historians start acting like politicians, and I suppose when politicians start writing history.

And, if grading on a politician's curve, Palin's comments probably deserve a better grade than Rick Santorum's. At least her comments were unscripted.

Rick Santorum said:
Almost 60,000 average Americans had the courage to go out and charge those beaches on Normandy, to drop out of airplanes who knows where, and take on the battle for freedom. Average Americans. The very Americans that our government now, and this president, does not trust to make a decision on your health care plan. Those Americans risked everything so they could make that decision on their health care plan.

Imagine what would have happened if Hitler were allowed to choose our health care plan!

Actually, I think one could truthfully say Hitler's "health care" plans for selected groups were appalling enough to be worth storming beaches, but that's still a gross misrepresentation of the Normandy invasion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #68
BobG said:
I think saying she was right is a little bit of a stretch.
Darn! I loved the image of Paul Revere ringin' those bells and firin' those warning shots to warn the British!

I'd love to hear Palin's musings on why the Little Big Horn (battle of greasy grass to the plains tribes) went so wrong for Custer. I'd never want it repeated to school-kids, but it would probably be funny for adults that enjoy studying history.
 
  • #69
ATTENTION ALL PILERS-ON (never say I'm not a good sport) prepare for receipt of treasure:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/09/sarah-palin-emails-text-_n_874573.html

"The state of Alaska on Friday will release thousands of Sarah Palin's emails from her first two years as governor, a disclosure that has taken on national prominence as she flirts with a run for the presidency.

The emails were first requested during the 2008 White House race by citizens and news organizations, including The Associated Press, as they vetted a vice presidential nominee whose political experience included less than one term as governor of Alaska and a term as mayor of the small town of Wasilla. The nearly three-year delay has been attributed largely to the sheer volume of the release and the flood of requests.

Alaska is releasing the more than 24,000 pages of emails in paper form only and asking news organizations to pick up several boxes worth of documents in Alaska's capital city, accessible by only air or water. Reporters from several news organizations have already begun arriving in Juneau and are making various plans to disseminate the emails to the public.

Palin told Fox News Sunday that "every rock" that could have been kicked over to uncover things in her family has been. But she also said "a lot of those emails obviously weren't meant for public consumption" and that she expected people might seek to take some of the messages "out of context.""


Enjoy in good health!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #70
turbo-1 said:
Darn! I loved the image of Paul Revere ringin' those bells and firin' those warning shots to warn the British!

I'd love to hear Palin's musings on why the Little Big Horn (battle of greasy grass to the plains tribes) went so wrong for Custer. I'd never want it repeated to school-kids, but it would probably be funny for adults that enjoy studying history.

At least be thankful she didn't watch the Rocky and Bullwinkle show:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgqobl_paul-revere_shortfilms

General: I gave that yell and in exactly 60 seconds we had a line.

Sherman: Would you call them 60 second men, Mr Peabody?

Mr Peabody: Of course not, Sherman. I'd call them... minutemen.
 
  • #71
Soooo-eee!
 
  • #72
WhoWee said:
It took a while - but anything for you Lisa.:smile:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3304783&highlight=chicago+law#post3304783

The original conversation began when someone claimed he earned a doctorate - this claim is toned down a bit - IMO.
What a bunch of misdirection! Obama is a scholar of constitutional law and served as a professor. That is all true. If you would like to refute it, start a new thread and make your point. If you want to defend Palin's ignorance, that's fine, too, but it's not pretty.
 
  • #73
mege said:
On President Obama as a 'constitutional scholar' - I would be really interested in his papers while he was at Columbia and Harvard. Too bad they're all locked away. Also, he was a part time faculty instructor, not a Professor.
Conspiracy theories are not a great way to make your arguments, even on political issues. Queue Donald Trump saying that the investigators that he sent to Hawaii found some shocking things about Obama...
 
  • #74
turbo-1 said:
What a bunch of misdirection! Obama is a scholar of constitutional law and served as a professor. That is all true. If you would like to refute it, start a new thread and make your point. If you want to defend Palin's ignorance, that's fine, too, but it's not pretty.

It can just as easily be phrased that President Obama was a part time lecturer and Governor Palin has administrative experience in a variety of public offices. I noticed you've dropped the "strong grasp of history" component of your argument.
 
  • #75
WhoWee said:
It can just as easily be phrased that President Obama was a part time lecturer and Governor Palin has administrative experience in a variety of public offices. I noticed you've dropped the "strong grasp of history" component of your argument.
I didn't drop the "strong grasp of history". Why should you even claim that? It should be readily apparent that Obama's status at Harvard implied a pretty solid grasp of history and of our laws. If you want to make claims that attempt to de-legitimize Obama's presidency, it would be best if you started a new thread for that purpose, IMO.
 
  • #76
turbo-1 said:
I didn't drop the "strong grasp of history". Why should you even claim that? It should be readily apparent that Obama's status at Harvard implied a pretty solid grasp of history and of our laws. If you want to make claims that attempt to de-legitimize Obama's presidency, it would be best if you started a new thread for that purpose, IMO.

Isn't "a pretty solid grasp of history" a little different than "strong grasp of history"?

It seems to me Palin's comments in NH are now old news.
 
  • #77
WhoWee said:
Isn't "a pretty solid grasp of history" a little different than "strong grasp of history"?

It seems to me Palin's comments in NH are now old news.
Bachmann's comments in NH about being the state where the first shots of the Revolutionary war were fired might be old news. Palin's misguided statements about Revere might be old news, too, if not for right-wing supporters making excuses for her ignorance. :-p

If you think Obama has no grasp of American history, or is ignorant of constitutional law, please start a new thread instead of sniping.
 
  • #78
WhoWee said:
Isn't "a pretty solid grasp of history" a little different than "strong grasp of history"?

Depends on what curve you're grading on. :smile:

Among politicians, Obama has "a strong grasp of history". It doesn't take "a pretty solid grasp" to reach that level, though. (http://www.etruth.com/Know/News/Story.aspx?ID=543729 )

Signifant insight of this article:

But voters might just as easily ask: Even if the founders didn't say those things, would they have agreed with them?

Possibly a more insightful question would be:

Weren't the founders just politicians of their day and as susceptible to spouting nonsense as today's politicians?

It does seem that all of the founding fathers couldn't be inspired by divine truth when there were some radically different views among the founding fathers (Hamilton vs Jefferson, for example). For any view you want support for, it seems to me you could probably find a quote from one founding father or another to support it without resorting to misquotes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #79
BobG said:
Weren't the founders just politicians of their day and as susceptible to spouting nonsense as today's politicians?

This seems like a good opportunity to show off the web page Time has devoted to Joe Biden:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1895156,00.html
 
  • #80
Al68 said:
You mean she should lie and pretend that she was wrong? Even NPR now is acknowledging, after a little research, that http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636/how-accurate-were-palins-comments-on-paul-revere"

It looks like people would check their facts before calling someone an idiot for knowing something they didn't. :rolleyes::smile::smile::smile:
A firm grasp of history is not the same thing as clutching at straws.
your own link said:
But he, personally, is not getting off his horse and going to ring bells.
Sarah Palin said:
(Paul Revere is) He who 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.

Who was Einstein?
He was an orchestra conductor.
No he wasn't, he was a physicist, the discoverer of the theory of relativity.
No, he really was an orchestra conductor, he played the violin.
That's not the same thing.
But he didn't play all by himself, there were others too, so there must have been a conductor.
He played in a quartet.
See, I was right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #81
WhoWee said:
This seems like a good opportunity to show off the web page Time has devoted to Joe Biden:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1895156,00.html

But can he actually rank #1 on the dumbest quotes list?

Just a sampling of dumb comments by politicians in 2010:

''I've always been fascinated by the fact that here was a relatively small country that from a strictly military point of view accomplished incredible things.''
—Ohio GOP House candidate and Tea Party favorite Rich Iott, explaining why for years he donned a German Waffen SS uniform and participated in Nazi re-enactments as part of a group that calls itself Wiking (Atlantic interview, Oct. 2010)

''These are beautiful properties with basketball courts, bathroom facilities, toilet facilities. Many young people would love to get the hell out of cities.''
—Carl Paladino, New York State Tea Party-backed candidate for Governor, describing his idea to transform prisons into dorms for welfare recipients, Aug. 2010

''I want to help clean up the state that is so sorry today of journalism. And I have a communications degree.''
—Sarah Palin, Fox News interview with Sean Hannity, Nov. 22, 2010


''The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries.''
—President Obama, Tampa, Fla., Jan. 28, 2010

''His mom lived in Long Island for ten years or so. God rest her soul. And- although, she's- wait- your mom's still- your mom's still alive. Your dad passed. God bless her soul.''
—Joe Biden, on the mother of Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen, who is very much alive, Washington, D.C., March 17, 2010

''Why would you want to put people in charge of government who just don't want to do it? I mean, you wouldn't expect to see al Qaeda members as pilots.''
—Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), on the prospects of Republicans taking back control of Congress, May 21, 2010

''We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we've had one under Obama.''
—Rudy Giuliani, Mr. 9/11, forgetting 9/11, Jan. 8, 2010
 
  • #82
BobG said:
Imagine what would have happened if Hitler were allowed to choose our health care plan!
lol. I'm not a big Santorum fan, but it seems pretty obvious that he meant that they were protecting U.S. individual liberty from authoritarianism in the general sense, using health care as an example.
Actually, I think one could truthfully say Hitler's "health care" plans for selected groups were appalling enough to be worth storming beaches, but that's still a gross misrepresentation of the Normandy invasion.
The only misrepresentation here is yours about Santorum's comments. He clearly was not saying anything like that.
 
  • #83
You would think Palin would go out of her way to have garnered a good knowledge of American history, above and beyond what most people even knowledgeable about the basics of it have. I mean it shouldn't be that hard. Get some big, fat books by respected scholars on American history and spend time reading through them. Read a book on each of the founders (Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, etc...), maybe a book on the Constitution's history, and then to double-check your knowledge, study the Cliff's Notes of American history so you know all the big stuff off of the top of your head.

Palin in particular one would think would make sure to do this because she knows that if she decides to start talking about American history, one slipup and she will get hammered.
 
  • #84
CAC1001 said:
You would think Palin would go out of her way to have garnered a good knowledge of American history, above and beyond what most people even knowledgeable about the basics of it have.
Sounds like a bad plan to me. After all, look how much good it did her to know something about Paul Revere that most people didn't. She would have been better off knowing absolutely nothing more than the basic "The British are coming" quote everyone knows.
 
  • #85
Most of Biden's slips are more political faux pas or screwups.

This is not the same as implying that one has foreign policy experience because Russia can be seen from some points in Alaska.

I saw a reference to my statement about Obama having a Ph.D. Yes, a doctor of law is a JD, not a doctor of philosophy. My mistake.
 
  • #86
Ivan Seeking said:
I saw a reference to my statement about Obama having a Ph.D. Yes, a doctor of law is a JD, not a doctor of philosophy. My mistake.
You know admitting a mistake is a good way to ruin your reputation around here, Ivan. :biggrin:
 
  • #87
Al68 said:
You know admitting a mistake is a good way to ruin your reputation around here, Ivan. :biggrin:

Definitely not a mistake that I should have made. If I could climb a tall enough tree, I could see Harvard from my farm.
 
  • #88
Al68 said:
Sounds like a bad plan to me. After all, look how much good it did her to know something about Paul Revere that most people didn't. She would have been better off knowing absolutely nothing more than the basic "The British are coming" quote everyone knows.
But what she thinks she knew was wrong.

The colonists at the time of Revere's ride were British subjects, with American independence still in the future. But Revere's own writing and other historical accounts leave little doubt that secrecy was vital to his mission.

The Paul Revere House's website says that on April 18, 1775, Dr. Joseph Warren, a patriot leader in the Boston area, instructed Revere to ride to Lexington, Mass., to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them.

In an undated letter posted by the Massachusetts Historical Society, Revere later wrote of the need to keep his activities secret and his suspicion that a member of his tight circle of planners had become a British informant. According to the letter, believed to have been written around 1798, Revere did provide some details of the plan to the soldiers that night, but after he had notified other colonists and under questioning by the Redcoats.

Intercepted and surrounded by British soldiers on his way from Lexington to Concord, Revere revealed "there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the country all the way up," he wrote.

Revere was probably bluffing the soldiers about the size of any advancing militia, since he had no way of knowing, according to Joel J. Miller, author of "The Revolutionary Paul Revere." And while he made bells, Revere would never have rung any on that famous night because the Redcoats were under orders to round up people just like him.

"He was riding off as quickly and as quietly as possible," Miller said. "Paul Revere did not want the Redcoats to know of his mission at all."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110605/ap_on_el_ge/us_palin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #89
I love it. A spokesperson for Palin, just now on tv news said that the e-mails of Palin contains tons of e-mails that are personal and have nothing to do with government business, therefor they have not been released.

Uhm excuse me? Tons of e-mails by Palin on government computers are personal and have nothing to do with government business? I think we do need to see those.
 
  • #90
Evo said:
But what she thinks she knew was wrong.
Not according to any evidence presented in this thread, including what you just provided. This thread is bizarre.
 
  • #91
Ivan Seeking said:
Most of Biden's slips are more political faux pas or screwups.

Biden's major historical mistake from what I remember was when he said during the 1929 crash, FDR got on the television to calm Americans down (when Hoover was President then and there was no TV yet). The two differences I think though were:

1) Biden has a long reputation of foot-in-mouth syndrome, so many people were like, "YEAH, but that's Biden, no surprise there."

2) Biden wasn't going around America on a bus celebrating America's history
 
  • #92
Al68 said:
Not according to any evidence presented in this thread, including what you just provided. This thread is bizarre.
You haven't seen her video? She's a loon. Do you need me to post it for you?
 
  • #93
Evo said:
I love it. A spokesperson for Palin, just now on tv news said that the e-mails of Palin contains tons of e-mails that are personal and have nothing to do with government business, therefor they have not been released.

Uhm excuse me? Tons of e-mails by Palin on government computers are personal and have nothing to do with government business? I think we do need to see those.

I don't know, should we? I mean I doubt it is illegal to talk some personal stuff with say your husband while using the government computer in your office as a government employee, no?
 
  • #94
Al68 said:
Not according to any evidence presented in this thread, including what you just provided. This thread is bizarre.

If Palin is correct, then more power to her, but my major point is she needs to make sure to be especially clear when talking about such issues or she will get hammered, rightly or wrongly. If she said the right thing, but said it in a manner so that many people think it was wrong, then she wasn't being clear.
 
  • #95
CAC1001 said:
I don't know, should we? I mean I doubt it is illegal to talk some personal stuff with say your husband while using the government computer in your office as a government employee, no?
Yes, actually, it is.
 
  • #96
CAC1001 said:
If Palin is correct, then more power to her, but my major point is she needs to make sure to be especially clear when talking about such issues or she will get hammered, rightly or wrongly. If she said the right thing, but said it in a manner so that many people think it was wrong, then she wasn't being clear.
She was wrong.

Palin had this to say.

He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and, um, making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20110603/od_yblog_upshot/palin-flubs-explanation-of-paul-reveres-ride

People have been vandalizing wikipedia to change the story to match Palin's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #97
Evo said:
You haven't seen her video? She's a loon. Do you need me to post it for you?
I was referring to whether or not her statements about Revere were true, not whether or not she is a "loon".
 
  • #98
Al68 said:
I was referring to whether or not her statements about Revere were true, not whether or not she is a "loon".
Well, as you can see her statements about Revere were wrong.
 
  • #99
Evo said:
People have been vandalizing wikipedia to change the story to match Palin's.
I suppose they vandalized http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636/how-accurate-were-palins-comments-on-paul-revere", too? As well as many other sources about Revere?

BTW, Wikipedia locked its http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Revere" , so that it only shows verified info about Revere, including essentially what Palin said.

What I see is plenty of people claiming Palin was wrong, with experts and legitimate sources confirming she was essentially right. Yep, pretty bizarre thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #100
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Paul Revere's 1795 time capsule found
Replies
2
Views
2K
The Scientist as Hero - or not
Replies
1
Views
3K
Could Paul Revere discern if there were one or two lanterns?
Replies
3
Views
2K
News Bush: we need some way to make this war ?
Replies
18
Views
3K
Need help from FUNNY people (creating a game for my students)
Replies
7
Views
2K
News Is the British Monarchy Based on a Historical Error?
Replies
16
Views
5K
I No relativistic Bohmian mechanics and superluminal causation
Replies
37
Views
3K
News Worse violence in Iraq in the coming weeks
Replies
11
Views
2K
News Shows how much of a laughing stock the UK's justice system is
Replies
13
Views
4K
News What Was the Hitchens Galloway Debate About?
Replies
4
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top