I wonder about the direction of causation. To some extent I think that people who wanted the Iraq war found ways to believe whatever was necessary to justify it.
In fact, I'll bet that plenty of people who read your post don't agree that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda has not been found, weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq, and that world public opinion didn't favor the US going to war with Iraq. They'll think that you're either lying or willfully mistaken.
Among people who liked the Iraq war and are too literate to fake their own reality, I think a lot of them privately disbelieve in the facts.
md
· 1 year ago
I 100% agree with you. I find it appalling how intellectually lazy we are as a society. Even worse, people who question the majority are quickly dismissed as "unpatriotic" which is strange to me, b/c this country was founded by a group of people who were not afraid to question authority...
My personal take away on this subject is that ultimately, that's back on us as parents to model a good example to our kids. Are you the kind of parent that models watching sports and American Idol... (doh!) or do you teach your kids to learn and question?
Go Lakers!
steveray
· 1 year ago
Great post/
The most insidious ignorance meme going forward is the liberal-bias-in-media propaganda. Lately (the last week or so) I am seeing a lot of objective data being presented by the MSM about the proportion of "positive" coverage Obama has gotten vs. the amount of "negative" coverage McCain's campaign has gotten, and then using that data to draw the conclusion that the media is biased.
The problem with that line of logic is that OBAMA/BIDEN ARE OBJECTIVELY THE BETTER CAMPAIGNERS AND THEIR CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN OPERATED MUCH MORE SKILLFULLY THAN MCCAIN/PALIN's HAS.
By any impartial measurement this can be shown to be true - politics aside. Obama has made fewer mistakes, been more consistently on message, been more skillful with his communication strategy, been the better debater, given the better speeches, and shown better judgment. When Obama has made a mistake (clinging to guns and religion, having a batshit crazy minister friend) the press has been all over him. But his mistakes in aggregate don't compare with not knowing the difference between a Sunni and Shiite, prattling on and on about the surge and whether its successful or not, choosing a woefully unqualified ideologue as a running mate, saying he's going to suspend his campaign and cancel the debate and then not doing it, saying the economy fundamentally sound, scowling like a crazy old coot during the debate, etc. Obama has kicked McCain's ass at politics for 5 months and an objective non-biased press should indicate that fact, just like the polls do now and just like the ballots will next week. There is a difference between fairness and justice, and an objective press doesn't have a duty to make sure the positive/negative ratio is 1 for both candidates. When one guy is better, its OK for that fact to come out.
But to come back to Mark's post, perpetuating this liberal bias myth is the ultimate Orwellian capitalization of a populace's ignorance. As long as the Republican spin meisters can find a home deep in our public consciousness for this line of bull, they'll have a reliable patch of ignorance from which to launch their other misleading screeds. It doesn't matter what FACTS YOU READ OR HEAR, the only unbiased truth comes from Hannity and Rush and the other troglodytes.
Most fascinating to me is that those who attack moral relativism also seek to undermine objective fact. If we accept that there are immutable moral precepts do we not, by extension, relate those precepts to objective fact? If we know absolutely right from wrong of what use are these determinants if we do not know what is and what is not?
While I don't mean to demonize Sarah Palin, which is not a very satisfying sport, she does represent an aspirational projection of a neo-conservative ideal. This ideal, with the power of moral certainty, seeks to apply its determinants to a proto-factual Heisenberg cloud.
Sarah is the vanguard of a generation raised in a new evangelism, which is unique for the short history of its seminal theology and its desire for expression as political theater. And, this admixture of nascent spirituality and the profane can only be achieved through suspension of objective truth. Faith requires this and it is admirable in the spiritual context; but it completely undermines political discourse.
My hope is that Obama is not the change, but, rather, the fortunate beneficiary of a profound cultural shift. I see other signs, too -- Campbell Brown has an entire new show committed to the idea that the sky *is* blue. And, the "chirpy" Rachel Maddow and "dour" Pat Buchanan seem to have made a truce on the common ground of objective truth while espousing their respective political philosophies during her nightly show.
All Comments
In fact, I'll bet that plenty of people who read your post don't agree that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda has not been found, weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq, and that world public opinion didn't favor the US going to war with Iraq. They'll think that you're either lying or willfully mistaken.
Among people who liked the Iraq war and are too literate to fake their own reality, I think a lot of them privately disbelieve in the facts.
My personal take away on this subject is that ultimately, that's back on us as parents to model a good example to our kids. Are you the kind of parent that models watching sports and American Idol... (doh!) or do you teach your kids to learn and question?
Go Lakers!
The most insidious ignorance meme going forward is the liberal-bias-in-media propaganda. Lately (the last week or so) I am seeing a lot of objective data being presented by the MSM about the proportion of "positive" coverage Obama has gotten vs. the amount of "negative" coverage McCain's campaign has gotten, and then using that data to draw the conclusion that the media is biased.
The problem with that line of logic is that OBAMA/BIDEN ARE OBJECTIVELY THE BETTER CAMPAIGNERS AND THEIR CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN OPERATED MUCH MORE SKILLFULLY THAN MCCAIN/PALIN's HAS.
By any impartial measurement this can be shown to be true - politics aside. Obama has made fewer mistakes, been more consistently on message, been more skillful with his communication strategy, been the better debater, given the better speeches, and shown better judgment. When Obama has made a mistake (clinging to guns and religion, having a batshit crazy minister friend) the press has been all over him. But his mistakes in aggregate don't compare with not knowing the difference between a Sunni and Shiite, prattling on and on about the surge and whether its successful or not, choosing a woefully unqualified ideologue as a running mate, saying he's going to suspend his campaign and cancel the debate and then not doing it, saying the economy fundamentally sound, scowling like a crazy old coot during the debate, etc. Obama has kicked McCain's ass at politics for 5 months and an objective non-biased press should indicate that fact, just like the polls do now and just like the ballots will next week. There is a difference between fairness and justice, and an objective press doesn't have a duty to make sure the positive/negative ratio is 1 for both candidates. When one guy is better, its OK for that fact to come out.
But to come back to Mark's post, perpetuating this liberal bias myth is the ultimate Orwellian capitalization of a populace's ignorance. As long as the Republican spin meisters can find a home deep in our public consciousness for this line of bull, they'll have a reliable patch of ignorance from which to launch their other misleading screeds. It doesn't matter what FACTS YOU READ OR HEAR, the only unbiased truth comes from Hannity and Rush and the other troglodytes.
UPDATE: This post echos your sentiment http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-man...
While I don't mean to demonize Sarah Palin, which is not a very satisfying sport, she does represent an aspirational projection of a neo-conservative ideal. This ideal, with the power of moral certainty, seeks to apply its determinants to a proto-factual Heisenberg cloud.
Sarah is the vanguard of a generation raised in a new evangelism, which is unique for the short history of its seminal theology and its desire for expression as political theater. And, this admixture of nascent spirituality and the profane can only be achieved through suspension of objective truth. Faith requires this and it is admirable in the spiritual context; but it completely undermines political discourse.
My hope is that Obama is not the change, but, rather, the fortunate beneficiary of a profound cultural shift. I see other signs, too -- Campbell Brown has an entire new show committed to the idea that the sky *is* blue. And, the "chirpy" Rachel Maddow and "dour" Pat Buchanan seem to have made a truce on the common ground of objective truth while espousing their respective political philosophies during her nightly show.