So Sally Denton’s Arguments Are Specious? Who Knew?

By , February 16, 2012 7:04 pm

To me–a Mormon–Protocol of the Elders by Yair Rosenberg is a welcome relief from the myriad uninformed, and sometimes deluded, stories by those who dare tell of–yea, expose–the mysterious world of Mormonism. Sally Denton is one of the latter and one who Rosenberg quotes a few times before he writes of her “specious argument.”

Tellingly, the sort of specious argument that Salon’s Denton makes about the perils of Mormon theocracy is exactly the sort of conspiracy theory that the same publication rightly denounces when it comes from Robert Spencer about Muslims and the threat of creeping Sharia. The latter narrative is clearly seen as false, but the equally problematic nature of the anti-Mormon argument is obscured by partisan blinders.

Sadly, Sally has been spreading her spurious conspiracy claptrap for some time now. I first heard of her when American Heritage magazine gave her the last few pages of one issue to peddle her poorly researched and very biased account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. She now has a book out about how the Right plotted against FDR–and apparently loves to draw parallels between that day and this (she was on NPR peddling her book the other day–NPR! What were they thinking?). I guess America loves a secret exposed–so to speak. Just look at Sally’s bio at American Heritage:

Sally Denton is an investigative reporter and author who writes about America’s hidden history. She has written six books, including her most recent, Pink Lady: The Many Lives of Helen Gahagan Douglas, released in 2009. She was honored with the Woodrow Wilson Public Scholar Fellowship in 2010, and entered the Nevada Writers Hall of Fame in 2008. (emphasis mine)

Sorry, but you’re going to have to find links to Sally’s sad oeuvre by yourself. I’ve already given her more publicity than she deserves–and nobody reads my blog. I will, however, give you a link to a review of her very bad book on Mountain Meadows.

Read Beyond the Headline, or Why Bother

By , February 16, 2012 4:11 pm

So I”m reading my Twitter feed again, and I see this by the Washington Post:

The Washington Post @washingtonpost Man seated next to crying child on plane opens door, deploys emergency slide:

I click on the accompanying link and read the first body paragraph:

HANOI, Vietnam — A mom with a screaming child wanted a quick getaway from a plane on the tarmac in Vietnam and asked for help. The man next to her obliged by opening the emergency exit and triggering the escape slide.

But that’s as far as they got.

Do you see the problem? The headline gives the impression that we’re going to get a great story about a man doing what everybody has wanted to do once a baby starts crying on the airline. But no. The story is really about how an apparently kind man helped a stressed mother who was looking for a quick exit for her and her crying baby.

In this case, no harm, no foul. Yes, I was disappointed that the story didn’t live up to its headline, but that’s it. But how about this headline: Romney on Birth Control, or worse, the Tweet the lead me to it, both by David Frum:

davidfrum @davidfrum Endorsed “greatly expanded programs of …. family planning services to all those who want but can’t afford them.”

Yes, I know Frum was being cute, but was he being fair? Did he have an obligation to be fair, especially in this birth-control charged moment? You be the judge.

Well Does He or Does’t He? Pander, I Mean.

By , February 16, 2012 11:10 am

So on my Twitter feed this morning, I read this:

David F. Mitchell @dfmitchell330 @EdMorrissey [Romney] just panders to everybody all the time. While he’s criticizing Rick, he’s “considering” him for VP. Story of his career!

And just a couple of Tweets later, I find Byron York saying:

Byron York @ByronYork Seeking votes in Michigan, Romney says Massachusetts is home. ow.ly/96SaD

And:

Byron York @ByronYork Romney is asked: ‘Tigers or Red Sox?’ Answer: ‘Oh, Red Sox, I’m afraid. I’ve lived in Massachusetts for how many years now? Forty years.’

Who’s right? If you’re pandering, you’re going with the Tigers in Michigan. If you’re pandering, you’re not saying you call Massachusetts home when you’re seeking the votes of Michiganders, especially when you could truthfully call Michigan home. And didn’t Romney speak out against subsidies in Iowa and fail to Gingrich on the space program in Florida? Has he ever said something that sounded like pandering? Certainly. Was it actually pandering on Romney’s part or wishful thinking on his critics’s part?

Panorama Theme by Themocracy