Let's Discuss "Conclusive Evidence", Shall We?

This author actually intends to let Enormous Thriving Plants proprietor Audrey II's decision to flee debate go with a minimum of further commentary.

But if there's one thing this author is not prepared to do, it's allow Audrey to reinvent old arguments she lost to pretend that she won.

First, one should peruse this particular thread wherein Audrey can pick out nothing in this video that demonstrates that a Tea Party protester intentionally spit on congressman Emanuel Cleaver.

It allegedly takes place at 0:13 of the video.

-Here's a video still from the video in question:

The accused can clearly be seen, hands cupped over his mouth, shouting vociferously at Cleaver as he passes by. From Cleaver's reaction it's clear that something has happened -- as Andy Ostray points out -- from Cleaver's word, he has been spit upon, or as Cleaver subsequently phrased it, the protester in question allowed his saliva to hit Cleaver's face.

The saliva on Cleaver's face should not be in question. Andrew Breitbart offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who could produce not video evidence of this spit, as Crooks and Liars and the Huffington Post have claimed, but for hard video evidence that the protesters hurled racial epithets at the congressmen:

"I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point."

Not only have they failed to produce hard video evidence of this -- the actual subject of the offer -- but they've also failed to produce conclusive evidence that a tea party protester intentionally spit on Cleaver.

Yet Audrey continues to pretend that the evidence conclusively shows intent -- despite that she can't point to a single instant from that video that would support this claim.

So perhaps Audrey simply doesn't know what conclusive evidence is. So, one supposes, she'll simply have to be shown some.

Consider a more recent episode in which supporters of Senator Harry Reid (he of the "negro dialect" remark) were videotaped throwing eggs at a bus carrying protesters to a Tea Party protest against Reid. Another counter-protester also threatened Breitbart.

The video clearly shows eggs striking the bus, coming from the direction of the pro-Reid counter-protesters.

While that's far from 100% conclusive, they did manage to produce a photo of one of the egg-throwers midway through his throwing motion:

(It's pretty clear the counter-protester in question throws like a girl.)

So, let's compare:

We have a video of a tea party protester shouting at Congressman Emanuel Cleaver through cupped hands -- shouting before, during, and after the actual spittle even by Cleaver's own account.

On the other hand, we have video of pro-Harry Reid counter-protesters throwing eggs at a bus carring Tea Party protesters, and a photograph of one of them with an egg in the palm of his hand.

One of these things is not like the other. One of these examples is clearly conclusive, and the other is not.

It would be amusing to hear Audrey insist that the counter-protesters in question were "accidentally" throwing the eggs. Unlike Audrey's Ostroy-esque insistence that the notion that Cleaver was sprayed with saliva mid-bellow is ridiculous (an argument that relies on viewing the events in question through a conspiratorial mental lens), that actually would be ridiculous.

It's become clear that it's Audrey, not Andrew Breitbart, who is constructing an alternate reality. It's clear that Audrey subscribes to a "truthi-alty" -- an intellectually selfish conception of the world in which she's not only entitled to her own opinion, but entitled to her own reality.

No one should expect Audrey to acknowledge any of this. After all, she made the decision to run away from debate for a reason.