Bush v. Gore Did Not

— SCORN QUOTES — “change history”, but not for the reasons Althouse adduces. (Although she’s not wrong in her own context.) Folks, this has broader implications than con-law inside baseball. And remember this when you’re calibrating your BS meter. Very rarely does it take inside knowledge to throw the bright yellow bollocks flag. Most of the time, all you need is basic understanding of how the world works.

Take this case, frex. Nothing that happened in the past — no matter how epochal its effects — can properly be said to have “changed history.” And all you need to know to realize that is the definition of history. History is a recording of past events. By definition you cannot change that. Oh, you can learn new facts and change the recording, but that’s not the usage here. The usage is claiming that past events changed past events.

Just sitting here watching your head wobbita, boss.

Certain epochal events could be said to have made history, but just saying that should let you realize how silly the contention is. Historical events made history. Well… DUH.

Oh, and…

On Gore v Bush

It was my opinion at the time and remains so today that the contretemps in Florida during the 2000 Presidential election was the tip of the iceberg of the Democrat party trying to steal an election. And, if you remember the recordings of the preppy Republican mob calling for an honest count in Dade County, I was not alone in that assumption. I seem to recall that one left-leaning friend of mine agreed as well. Gore got caught and had to defend the indefensible. And, yes, it may very well have unhinged him, but he was on the CAGW hobbyhorse long before that (read: Earth in the Lurch (1992)).

(H/T: Insty.)

Comments are closed.