2 ms·

I hate to be dense, but I am not following you here. What are the two ways of being wrong that the author is conflating? It seems to me that in either case--

I hate to be dense, but I am not following you here. What are the two ways of being wrong that the author is conflating? It seems to me that in either case-- whether you are a Silicon Valley leader or a faux-politician-celebrity, if you are wrong, you should own up to it, and suffer the consequences (and, one would hope, learn the lessons). I think everybody should be devoted to the truth. Could you elaborate on what you found distasteful in the OP, because I'm not getting it.

Helianthus 15y ago
Any method in which Palin could own up to being so disastrously wrong would be admitting that she was being idiotic with her knowledge of history. She just isn't going to do that, because being as wrong as she was ought to (and will, eventually) get her tossed. Being able to own up to your mistakes only works when you're trying really hard to be right. That's the difference between the two forms of being wrong; one's a consequence of trying, and the other's the sin of political drudgery. Either OP doesn't get that Palin's not trying very hard to be right so she can't realistically admit she was wrong, or he thinks that it's ok for her not to be devoted to the truth.