Tuesday, January 13, 2004

The Right Rediscovers The Concept Of "Implication"

The Right keeps trying to tell us that irony is dead -- due, one suspects, to the fact that it keeps kicking them in the balls -- but I know that it is alive and well, because it's coming damn close to killing me.


Glenn Reynolds excoriating Joe Conason for suggesting, in "the dumbest bit of oil-based conspiracy-theory yet," that Bush called for a mission to Mars so that Halliburton can drill there for oil, "an idea that could only occur to someone utterly ignorant of the laws of physics."


In an update, Glenn Reynolds saying in response to an email pointing out that Conason was not referring to oil drilling, "it sure seems like it to me, and a whole bunch of readers."


In yet another update, Glenn Reynolds agreeing with an emailer that Conason strongly implied that the drilling would, in fact, be for oil, and that his misapprehension was fully justified because of his hypersensitivity caused by the constant "blood for oil" accusations against the war in Iraq.


In the same update, Glenn Reynolds stating his belief that pointing to non-oil drilling in order to defend Conason's article "is more O'Neillesque backpedaling," and that Conason is "trying to have it both ways" by writing a technically correct piece that implies that Mars drilling would be for oil.

And then witness:

Glenn Reynolds, who makes frequent use of the phrase "they're not anti-war, they're just on the other side" when referring to terrorists and vandals, self-righteously denying that he "deliberately [blurs] the line between antiwar and anti-America," and then detailing the way in which what he says is technically correct - ignoring the obvious fact that the context, ambiguous phrasing, and constant repetition of the above phrase strongly imply an inherent connection between the two.

I don't know about you, but I say fuck it - I'm just glad to see that the Right now realizes that you can say something without saying it.

Now, let us talk of imminent threats to national security, hmm?

No comments: