Apology Ethics I: Let’s Play “Was Hillary Lying, Pazuzu, Or Was It Just Authentic Frontier Gibberish?”

lying Pazuzu AFG

Bo Copley,  a West Virginia coal miner who recently lost his job, asked Hillary Clinton how she could say what she had said at a CNN forum in March, an apparent climate change manifesto that included the phrase, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business”,  and then still “come in here and tell us how you’re going to be our friend.”

Hillary’s answer:

“What I said was totally out of context from what I meant because I have been talking about helping coal country for a very long time. And it was a misstatement, because what I was saying is that the way things are going now, we will continue to lose jobs. I didn’t mean that we were going to do it, what I said was, that is going to happen unless we take action to try to and help and prevent it. That’s what I meant to say. “

Oh. Well, that explains…wait, WHAT????

NBC headlined this “Hillary Clinton Apologizes to Coal Country Over ‘Out of Business’ Comments.” I guess that means it must be an apology, because NBC would never be biased toward a Democrat or anything. But it’s funny, I don’t see any of the usual features that distinguish an apology, do you?

Of course, NBC might be putting up a dishonest and misleading headline knowing that many readers read no further, and thus the headline is calculated to spawn a little pro-Hillary army responding, when their non-quite-Hillary-corrupted friends or their Bernie-addled colleagues muse out-loud, “Gee, why would Hillary Clinton be so cruel and impolitic as to vow destruction on hard-working coal miners with mouths to feed and families to support?” with “Oh, she apologized for that! NBC reported it.”

Nah! These are trustworthy journalists. You know…like ESPN.

To abandon the snark for harsh truth, Hillary wasn’t apologizing. She was doing what she always does when confronted:

1. She lied,

2. She blamed everyone else for “misunderstanding her”, and

3. She muddied the water as much as she could.

Here is her whole statement from March:

“I’m the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?

And we’re going to make it clear that we don’t want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.

Now we’ve got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don’t want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.”

It’s not ambiguous and it isn’t a “misstatement.” She said that it wasn’t as if she wasn’t grateful for all of those hard-working, sacrificing coal miners in their day, and they should be “remembered,” but she was going to see that their livelihood is wiped of the map.

Heck, she might as well have been talking about killing them.

Initially, what Hillary was really doing with Bo seems to be engaging in one of her specialties, Authentic Frontier Gibberish (AFG).  Let’s see, what she meant to say was that coal miners would continue to lose jobs, which of course is a bad thing, and she wants to prevent “it”—the coal miners losing jobs, now, not the use of fossil fuels that she said have to be replaced and will be under her policies, by…how, exactly?

Here’s a handy Hillary Clinton translation tip: when her spontaneous explanation for what she “really meant” when she’s denying what she said what she said is more convoluted than the original statement, she meant what she said the first time.

Yes, this was AFJ.

But was it even more of a Pazuzu Excuse? This is the Ethics Alarms diagnosis when Mel Gibson or Michael Richards or Helen Thomas says something objectively horrible, and after being roundly condemned they announce that it wasn’t them talking, because what they said wasn’t them, you see, and expressed, for some reason, the opposite of how they really feel.

This is, of course, bull. The only one who had a genuine Pazuzu excuse was Linda Blair in the “The Exorcist,” because when she told Father Damien that, for example, “Your mother sucks cocks in Hell!”  it literally wasn’t her, but this guy..

pazuzu2

….the demon Pazuzu, interlocuting  from somewhere between the possessed girl’s throat and large intestine.

What Hillary said was not “out of context of what she meant,” which is AFJ for “I would never say such a thing,” but exactly when she meant, just like Mel and Helen meant their various anti-Semitic slurs, and Richards (a.k.a  “Kramer”) meant to start screaming “Nigger!” at blacks in his audience when he started screaming “Nigger!” at blacks in his audience.

The headline, therefore, is a trick question.  They are all correct answers. Hillary was lying, and blaming Pazuzu, and employing Authentic Frontier Jibberish.

Just because all sorts of pathetically and tragically corrupt Hillary Clinton supporters are mocking Republicans because they may be saddled with a spectacularly disgusting and unqualified Presidential candidate doesn’t mean I’m going to stop reminding them how nauseating, cynical and unethical their own party’s candidate is, because she demonstrates this almost daily. Anyone who professes to admire or trust Hillary Clinton is a disgrace, and has nothing to be smug or superior about. They should be ashamed of themselves, every one.

I’m going to keep doing this even though I may have to vote for the woman myself if the GOP doesn’t have the integrity and guts to reject Trump.

Honestly, I might prefer Pazuzu.

To either of them.

27 thoughts on “Apology Ethics I: Let’s Play “Was Hillary Lying, Pazuzu, Or Was It Just Authentic Frontier Gibberish?”

  1. A better answer that would have still been dishonest: “Friends don’t let friends work as coal miners. I support job retraining, unemployment, and numerous other programs which will help you transition as the country moves to renewable energy programs”

    That took all of 5 seconds to think up as a response, and I’m not the one on the campaign trail. Can we add incompetent to the list?

    • Beat me to it. I agree with her initial speech (at least, the excerpt pertaining to coal), coal mining needs to stop, it is dangerous and not necessary to subject people to the increased health risks anymore. We have other better forms of energy that per KWh do exponentially less deaths.

      It’s a no win situation, because even if you say what needs to be said “Coal mining needs to stop or be greatly reduced, you all need to learn new skills and move on with your (longer, less cancer/death riddled) lives”, no one is going to like that where she is speaking.

      The dishonest
      >I support retraining you to work elsewhere!
      is cheap but a much better response and was first in my head as well on the list of “shit that is so much better than what you said” things to respond with.

      Other things on the list include
      >I hate all of you
      and
      >Actually, I’m voting for trump this november

      I do not understand how she is winning states versus Bernie, who at least is much more consistent with his opinions on…everything.

  2. Clinton said, “What I said was totally out of context from what I meant because I have been talking about helping coal country for a very long time. And it was a misstatement, because what I was saying is that the way things are going now, we will continue to lose jobs. I didn’t mean that we were going to do it, what I said was, that is going to happen unless we take action to try to and help and prevent it. That’s what I meant to say.”

    It’s not within my soul to ever understand how people can justify calling things like that an apology.

    I’m compelled to repeat myself…

    People use these kinds of crap filled unethical apologies all the time to try and white-wash their actions/words and claim they have apologized and everyone should just drop the subject and move on; the list of people and politicians that have used similar nonsense and will likely use similar nonsense in the future is endless.

    What is so astounding is how many blindly ignorant people kowtow to the nonsense from the political left and its surrogates and accept whatever is said as fact regardless of how much authentic frontier jibberish is contained within the words.

  3. Pazuzu is not a native born citizen; then again, neither was George Washington… Had he been a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution?

  4. OK, I’ll bite. What her statement (the original one) looks like to me is a promise to get these people out of dangerous unhealthy jobs and into new ones. What am I missing? (Shields up, Scotty!)

    • “Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?” sounds benign to you, does it?

      Interesting. And how does “we’re not going to forget” translate into “we’re going to train them and find new jobs for them”?

      Funny, in my language, the way to say “we’re going to get these people out of dangerous unhealthy jobs and into new ones” is to say “we’re going to get these people out of dangerous unhealthy jobs and into new ones.”

      When words can mean whatever it is convenient for them to mean after you have said them, you can pretend anything. Why are you Ok with this?

      • I never said I was ok with it. I’m just saying that my interpretation could be as correct as yours. I am in agreement with Anonymous Coward regarding coal mining, and I would think that by now, after decades and decades of black lung disease, strip mining, and cave-ins, we would all be saying that. Given that mindset, I think you could make an argument for my interpretation.

        • What? This makes no sense at all.

          1. “Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business” does not mean anything close to “we’re going to get these people out of dangerous unhealthy jobs and into new ones.”

          2.Coal is still a major and unavoidable, and so far irreplaceable core source of fuel and energy. Coward is talking fantasy, and you’re inventing meaning that just isn’t there.

          3. It’s a dangerous occupation. So is tuna fishing—roofers—pilots—other forms of mining—law enforcement—construction—truck driving. By your logic, we should just eliminate these too.

          • 1. No, but the other part of her statement implies it:
            “And we’re going to make it clear that we don’t want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories. Now we’ve got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don’t want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.” How can you not see that in a type of twisted speech, she means that she intends to do something to help these people?

            2. Coal. Seriously? Not unavoidable. But I have nothing to back this up except that in this century, we have so many possible forms of energy that we are not working to promote.

            3. It’s a dangerous occupation. Yes, there are many of those. I can’t cite statistics, but I’ll bet that those other dangerous occupations are not primarily being risked by mostly dirt poor folks who live in coal mining regions. These people don’t have a lot of options at this point in time.

            Among her many flaws, HRC is not overly articulate and doesn’t seem well equipped to think on her feet. Not good for a presidential candidate. I believe that behind these inept words of hers, she does have good intentions. (And one of these days, the abuse she’s doing to her vocal folds with her ranting from her throat will take its toll.)

              • 1. You can’t see it, but I do. And since I’m not a fan, this is not confirmation bias.
                2. I see your — and raise you ===.
                3. They don’t have a choice. Most if not all of the others have choices.

          • >Coal is still a major and unavoidable, and so far irreplaceable core source of fuel and energy.
            >it’s still a major source
            Correct, so far as I can find as of 2012 it was 44% of US electricity
            >unavoidable
            Incorrect, we have plenty of viable alternatives (some of which are viable RIGHT NOW) for cheap(waaaaaaaaaaay safer) power, the main one I support happens to be providing the power for about 20% of the US right now (and 17% of the world’s electricity).

            This garbage that because we’re currently using it we should ignore the fact that it’s dangerous and terrible for the environment in general is for the birds. We should not prop up an industry under the basis that we’re currently already using it if it has these major downsides. We’re a first world country, we need to act like it.

            >It’s a dangerous occupation.
            Yes, and one that can be stopped. Let me put it to you this way. Fire Fighting is also dangerous (and a much better analogy than tuna fishing), and we let people do this occupation because we don’t have a way to get it done otherwise.

            BUT, one day, when we’ve advanced enough to replace the human firefighter, we should. We shouldn’t keep employing people in a dangerous occupation if we don’t need to. I don’t care if these people choose to do it, if they don’t have to sacrifice their lives for others, they shouldn’t be even allowed to.

            Roofing and piloting (in a professional sense) probably don’t even come close to comparison for deaths, other forms of mining I’ll give you, and much like those we already mechanize as much of the process as we can, and hopefully one day we will be able to stop altogether (or at least, stop getting people killed so I can upgrade my iPhone every 2 years)

            We have a brighter future, both in the distance and right in front of us, but goddamn if people aren’t too lazy to try and grab it!

            Now, aside from that argument I’d like to ask you a question Jack. Do you support the idea of retraining a workforce for a different industry if you are proposing dismantling that industry (for say, the given reasons for coal?). Do we have a responsibility to retrain these people (and even help them find other jobs?) if we support taking away their profession?

            This isn’t a loaded question I plan on attacking you for, just curious.

            • Also, for my numbers on power generation (and safety)
              http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#3ed8291749d2

              I know this is not entirely fair. For example, most coal workers do CHOOSE to offer their lives, even if they are somewhat coerced into it via economic conditions, while innocent people that may die if a nuclear plant does ever cause a catastrophic incident in the US (thankfully it has not…yet) have not signed off on risking their lives for cheap power.

            • Dismantling a necessary industry when there is no ready, equivalent, reliable replacement (and until we bite the bullet on nuclear, there isn’t) is insane.

              “I don’t care if these people choose to do it, if they don’t have to sacrifice their lives for others, they shouldn’t be even allowed to.”

              This is also an ideological statement that makes no sense, and is totalitarian in content. If there is a profitable profession that adds value to society and produces a necessary product, then free citizens have a right to do it, particularly if they have no other equally lucrative options. You make it as safe as you can without crippling the economy. There a lot of nasty jobs that have to be done, and as of now, coal mining is one of them. You can’t just wish it away with pie-in-the-sky statements like “We have a brighter future, both in the distance and right in front of us, but goddamn if people aren’t too lazy to try and grab it!”

            • we have plenty of viable alternatives . . . . We have a brighter future Who is this “we” you’re talking about? Not the coal miners, and there’s no way she could have meant that because there are NO viable alternatives or bright futures for what the U.S. Bureau of Mines estimates to be116,672 men and 3,328 women who are slowly but surely losing their jobs. They are not losing their jobs because all the coal mines are shutting down but because the mines are becoming increasingly mechanized — a far cheaper solution than to provide the optimum health and safety equipment now available … well, as accessible as orphan drugs anyway. And when they lose their jobs, they lose their homes, their (very tight) communities, and very frequently, their families — there is almost no lateral movement for those employed in such a labor-intensive position. Unlike dentists, Walmart salespeople and computer programmers, miners don’t commute to their workplace, they live there, and none of these areas are conducive to “retraining” nor attractive to new business.

              As for energy alternatives you’re alluding to, this is still largely pie in the sky. We’ve been hearing the promises for free (or at least inexpensive) energy for everyone (or at least, for “us”) for the past sixty years. Are such things possible? Of course. They’re right there on the drawing boards and the not only NOT CHEAP but heavily subsidized- “\wind ranches” and solar-paneled roofs . . . AS partial and unreliable alternatives to the same old standard sources of power. [Headlines last year were optimistic (not at 17%): Hooray! “Solar power now covers more than 1% of global electricity demand”] We don’t have that promised answer, nor do we have in fact particularly bright futures as far as, say, closing down the nuclear power plants and abandoning the fossil fuel sources, putting all our information and entertainment resources on the Net, and getting heated, cooled and recharged from some other magical fount of renewable energy. These are promises all right — AKA “campaign promises;” Most politicians are deft at this; Hillary Clinton is a consummate professional at it.

              There are two ways to deal with sad facts. One is to gloss over them with the latest in Sherwin-Williams’ happy colors; the other is to expose them as “problems” and make false … and impossible … commitments to kiss-an-.. make-it-aw-betta. You just had a prime example of both, flatly contradicting one another — neither of which were bright, viable, or true.

  5. Hillary’s infallible, Jack. Therefore she’s entitled to be unaccountable.

    Non-apologies must be accepted, because misogynist sexist bigot.

    First ballot nomination. Landslide general election winner. Entitled. Hillary.

    My new mantra: “What the Left wants, the Left gets.”

    • “Hillary’s infallible, Jack. Therefore she’s entitled to be unaccountable.” It certainly seems that way, what with not being indicted and imprisoned long after you, I, or, say, Gen. Petraeus would have if his mishandling of classified information even started to approach the level of hers.
      “What the Left wants, the Left gets”
      You have to be firm and consistent with children and the left, otherwise be prepared for them to run roughshod over you.

  6. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt on this one. She’s saying she has a plan to shut down the coal industry and since people will be put out of work she has a plan “which” (?) will bring in solar panel factories and wind turbine factories that will provide new, above ground jobs for all the miners put out of work.

    Which is, of course, preposterous. They won’t be making solar panels in West Virginia, they’ll be made in China. And none of these “renewable” sources of energy will work unless everyone agrees to stop whatever they’re doing when the sun goes down or the wind stops blowing as if we’re all sailors in the 16th Century. Nuclear needs to happen but not as long as lefties think Homer Simpson is running the local power generating station.

    But I’d have to say her original statement, preposterous as it is, was not mean to coal miners. She said she was going to improve their lives with more mindful energy policies. Which is baloney, but there it is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.