A commentor on Huffington Post today brought up the "wonderfully intelligent" arguments of Intelligent design. My reply is not comment length and so I posted it here. I hope that for anyone confused about science, religion, and evolution, it can help to clear up the confusion that has been created by the ID propagandists. Although I can't find the link right now, anyone interested in a wonderful satirical exposition of this nonsense should read The Onions article on the theory of gravitation being replaced by the theory of Intelligent Falling. It is wonderful.
Here is my response to the post which basically just repeats the nonsense that ID has repeated to attempt to confuse people about science and evolution..................
Brighterside, some have made comments about your writing that bordered on cruel. I will try to be as nice as possible, but you should know that the "problems" you cite concerning evolution and THE ENTIRELY SEPARATE ISSUE OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, are talking points, they are not real issues. I hope that if nothing else you can learn today that evolution has absolutely nothing, zero, nada, zip to say about the origin of life. You are talking about a completely different aspect of science and calling it evolution. If you do this people will always be able to correctly say that you don't know what you are talking about. If you broadcast that you don't know what you are talking about in these ways, you will receive much derision and scorn and you'll deserve it.
Ignorance is not knowing something you should know. Nescience is not knowing something you wouldn't be expected to know. If you are not a scientist and you keep your unfounded ideas to yourself you are merely nescient, as are many people about science. Then your response to this issue would be "I don't know enough about science so I rely on the experts (in science) to inform me." If you begin to broadcast the fact that your uninformed imaginings should be just as important to scientists as real science then you cross the line into ignorance and you should be prepared to have that label appropriately attached to you.
I, for example, know science but I know little about auto mechanics. If a mechanic looks at my car and concludes that the battery is dead they might offer to replace the battery. Ah, but here is your objection and so we must say that isn't the only possibility! There could be a supernatural being living in my battery who has merely taken the day off to visit family in Fresno. Can you prove to me that that is not the REAL problem with my battery? I should. of course, insist that my mechanic check to see if my battery god has maybe left a note, maybe the number of his family in Fresno. We could ask when he's coming back! Then my car will be healed. To some people this sounds silly but that would only be the scientifically minded boobs.
My auto mechanic might, (before calling an ambulance to take me to the ER for psychiatric evaluation) correctly tell me that he or she has no idea about battery gods but the whole process really does work well without the invocation of any supernatural forces. He or she might say it is pretty simple; I take the old battery out, put the new battery in and you are good to go. They might tell me that whatever I might believe about who or what is living in my battery really doesn't relate to auto mechanics. He or she is probably a nice person so I think they would offer to let me keep the old battery if I really believed I had a special friend living inside.
How do you think your mechanic would respond to the suggestion that there really should be a debate about the gaps in battery science and the possibility that your battery god should be invoked to fill those gaps? Aren't there advances in battery science every year? Doesn't that prove that we really know nothing about batteries? After all you just put a pile of metal together with some special water and my car magically starts? Come on, who is stupid enough to believe that could happen without the intervention of the battery god? Really! Metal and water and then my car somehow comes to life. Can you believe that auto mechanics believe such rubbish? Of course you and I know that this would be impossible without the intervention of the battery deity. Its just common sense. Why do you think auto mechanics don't see this obvious truth? There in a nutshell are your objections to science. They make sense, right?
How do you think he or she would react to your suggestion that the teaching of auto mechanics is incomplete if we don't have a debate about whether the battery makes electricity in the way science has shown it does or whether the battery needs our supernatural being to work. Then, of course, we must debate your god's influence on the radiator and the fan belts and most importantly the air bags. Can't any person with half a brain see that it could only be by the direct intervention of (fill in the name of any of hundreds of deities) that they could know just when to deploy to save our life? Smart people can see this, correct? While the auto mechanics cling foolishly to talk of sensors and relays and explosive deployment devices, you and I know that it is only by the will of allah, krishna, jesus, etc., that such a miraculous event could unfold. Why wouldn't the auto mechanics join us in such an important debate? I mean sure, they could spend their time using science to make even safer cars but why do that when the issue of divine intervention in automobile function remains unsettled?
How do you think auto mechanics would respond to the idea that the battery deity theory should be taught alongside the scientifically based understanding of how batteries work? How do you think they would respond if you told them your ideas about the battery deity aren't really religion, the battery deity is obviously an auto mechanics issue, not an issue of belief!
How would you suggest that your auto mechanic begin the process of looking for your battery god? Does he look for only yours or does he look for all deities created by earthlings? Is he required to scour the psychiatric wards and look for everyone's imaginary friends? How exactly do you suggest the mechanics begin this search in a scientific manner?
I think that your auto mechanic would say this, "You know lady/sir, you want a new battery or not. I don't care who you think lives in your battery. You can believe the pope is in their if you want but I can only tell you about what's real. Your battery is dead. You want it fixed? Please tell me now and move on. I have more important work to do then discuss Batterio the almighty battery god with you."
This is what scientists are saying to you. Do you want to know how reality works? We'll tell you what we know. Does any of it require the invocation of supernatural forces? No. Are you free to believe whatever you want about supernatural forces? Yes, you are. Just don't come tell us it has something to do with science and should be taught as science. And be aware that if you want to use the advance of science as a criticism you will be sad to discover that the outcome of scientific advance has usually been to fill in another area purported to be supernatural with a natural explanantion. So if history be your guide then you would have to put your money on the fact that the "gaps" where you would like to insert your imaginary friend will also someday be filled in by science. You can argue with your other non-reality based friends about whether the battery god is really the father or allah or great spirit or agni or jesus and make lots of beautiful wars over it. But please don't come tell us we need to dialogue with you about your imaginings. You've all made up different beings with different likes and dislikes and different rules. You want us to look for the god of everyone's imagination? Should medical science begin a dialogue on Vulcan physiology? Perhaps the alien species of Battlestar Gallactica should be the focus of medical school curricula? Perhaps doctors have better ways to spend their time?
Let us stick to reality. When we teach science, let us stick to reality. When you get your kids home you can undo whatever you wish, tell them that it is only through the intervention of the flying spaghetti monster that cars can transport us from one place to the next. You are free to do this! Scientist aren't going to go door to door with textbooks in their hands trying to convince you otherwise. Anyway, we don't like to wear black pants and white shirts. It reminds us of when we worked as busboys to pay for college.
Do you understand any better? If not, then have this conversation with your mechanic the next time your car breaks down. Ask him or her why they aren't considering the supernatural possibilities for your car's dysfunction. Ask them to dialogue with you about the impossibility of something as complex as cars without the intervention of your favorite deity. Ask them how they can accept that a blob of metal mixed with magic water somehow creates the miracle of life in your car. Ask them why auto mechanic school doesn't engage this important debate.
Before you do take these precautions. Line up a new mechanic and write your name in your underwear so they aren't stolen on the psych ward. When you are discharged from the hospital, come back and tell us about your experience with bringing an intelligent approach to auto mechanics. If you wish to continue to dialogue about science, I would suggest these steps.
Learn what science is and what it isn't.
Learn what religion is and how it differs from science.
Learn what evolution is and what it isn't.
Learn that what you think may be possible and what is real may differ.
If you learn these 4 simple things, you will have nothing further to say about science, evolution and religion. But if you continue to remain willfully ignorant of those 4 issues that are essential to your arguments and yet are entirely misunderstood by you, you will meet with scorn and derision from people who have taken the time to understand these issues.
I will tell you emphatically, you should not listen to me if I tell you I have some great idea for repairing your car. You should also understand the limitations of your knowledge in the area of science and vow to avoid making ignorant statements about things you know nothing about. We all should.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
On Not Repeating Past Mistakes
As we have traversed this period of history encompassing the first and second “gulf wars” and the events of 9/11/2001, we have heard from many corners caveats about repeating past errors. Frequently, where US military action is concerned, we hear about not repeating “the mistakes of Viet Nam.” It seems, however, that this may be one of those phrases that enters the murky waters of “common knowledge” and we cease to seek agreement on its meaning before we toss it into our conversations. I for one have used the phrase and even, I find, assumed that the listener knows what I mean. I think it is not an issue confined to me, however. I think it may be a pervasive cultural phenomenon that we all know what “the mistakes of Viet Nam” were and we use the phrase rather casually. It is my own reflection on my personal use of the phrase that leads me to ponder this question: What are the mistakes of Viet Nam? Today, I’ll talk about the first mistake that I’ve identified. I'll post others later but feel free to add to it in the comments.
Threat Exaggeration
My self-examination ran roughly along a temporal line. What errors did we make first? It seems highly probable that the earlier mistakes laid an important foundation that allowed Viet Nam to become the runaway train it so disastrously became. What preceded our involvement and coaxed us onto our path. Then, as now, we started with threat exaggeration.
Our involvement in Viet Nam fell on the heels of the anti-communist frenzy of the 1950’s. Interestingly, then, as now, we misidentified the threat prior to exaggerating the chosen target. The threat of totalitarian, repressive government was misidentified with the economic system that it accompanied in its major forms in that time period, communism or socialism. The threat was seen as pervasive and as inseparable from totalitarianism. Hysteria ruled, culminating in Joseph McCarthy’s communist witch-hunt. The military threat that countries such as the USSR and the PRC posed was grossly overestimated resulting in gross over-reaction on our part. We began to see the threat as so pervasive that we thought ourselves the only people capable of saving the world from certain doom. Our worldview became increasingly paranoid. We developed a mythical view or ourselves as savior to the world and we marched our boys off to fight the falling dominoes in the grand communist conspiracy.
It is hard to say how much the exaggeration is intentional. I believe that it is to some degree but I also recognize that as humans we have some of these tendencies written into our DNA. The tendency to mythologize our tribe as the favored of god is not a uniquely American trait. The tendency for xenophobia and suspicion of the motives of outsiders and other tribes is probably hard wired into us as well. One of the mistakes we make is not acknowledging our programming in order that we may rise above it, when appropriate. Would not a survival benefit have accrued in past times to those whose threat assessment software was tuned a little to the paranoid side? It seems obvious that personal survival and even tribe survival would be enhanced by threat exaggeration as opposed to threat minimization.
To accomplish realistic threat assessment, we have to ask ourselves the pertinent questions. What evidence do I have that the threat has been appropriately identified? What evidence do I have to support the assessment of the threat level?
In the 1950’s we laid the foundation for Viet Nam by misidentifying the threat as communism rather than totalitarianism. Half a century later we still operate on this mistaken assumption. We will support the most brutal of totalitarian regimes for the sake of democracy, as long as they don’t pursue socialist/communist policies. Out of the other side of our mouths, we deplore all the same actions by brutal regimes that operate under the banner of socialism/communism. In order to support our misguided belief we live with the obvious conflict that capitalist propaganda, capitalist disrespect for human rights, capitalist torture, and capitalist repression of dissent is all “good” merely because it isn’t communism.
Our collective paranoia is institutionalized in organizations like the CIA. They get paid to be paranoid. Reason tells us we need wise leaders who can evaluate evidence and consider the source. Think then, about a regime taking power for whom even our institutionalized cold war paranoia is not paranoid enough! Is it any wonder they have brought us to this point?
When the First Indochina War ended with the Geneva Conference in 1954, the country was temporarily divided at the 17th parallel. Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh controlled the North and the south was given to EMPEROR Bao Dai, who had been installed as Emperor by the Japanese. The condition of the treaty was for democratic elections to take place in 1956 to restore a unified Viet Nam. Wow! That sounds like the kind of stuff we like! Elections! In 1955, the megalomaniacal Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem deposed Emporer Bao. When Ho Chi Minh said lets talk about those elections, it was the south that refused to adhere to the treaty signed in Geneva. So the US rode in to save the democratic elections, right! Of course not, because our fear and paranoia turns us away from the lofty democratic goals to which we give lip service. If totalitarianism was our enemy, we would have found elections a reasonable path. Our real enemy was the exaggerated threat of communism and so no democratic deal was strong enough to keep us from living out our domino theory destiny.
So here we find ourselves today. Is the threat radical terrorist, who happen to identify with the religion called Islam or is it Islam? The Joseph McCarthy’s of the 21st century tell us that it is Islam. They say it is violent religion and you can see that in the koran. They often say this with a bible, probably the most violent work of religious literature, in hand. They tell us congressional representatives who are Muslim can’t be trusted. They tell us that the enemy is pervasive among us. Be afraid! They tell us that it isn’t these extremists we need to go after but rather the states that identify with this religion are our ultimate target. Then, based on this hysteria, they lead us into foreign adventures doomed to failure. They trample democratic principles, at home and abroad, under the banner of the paranoia they’ve created.
Once again, the seed of our undoing lies in an inability to localize the actual threat and to control our own paranoid tendencies. Our paranoia has led us back to THE VERY SAME CONCLUSION that we drew in the pre-Viet Nam era; That we must become the aggressors in order to make the world safe for democracy and we must limit freedom in order that the world may be free like us! Anyone who wishes to examine the runaway paranoia and ask for a more realistic threat assessment is treated with the same tribal instinct that was leading us astray 50 years ago. Their loyalty to the tribe is questioned. Their loyalty to the King is questioned. They become presumed members of the conspiracy against us. Ultimately, they are derided and dismissed.
The voice of reason is easily lost in the cries of battle and the exhortations to rally round the flag. The ability to reason is easily overwhelmed by our urge to paranoia and tribal protection. We watched our brave young men sacrificed on the altar of our communist paranoia then and we vowed to learn. We vowed not to repeat our mistakes. This is just the first of the lessons that we as Americans have to admit we didn’t learn from Viet Nam.
Threat Exaggeration
My self-examination ran roughly along a temporal line. What errors did we make first? It seems highly probable that the earlier mistakes laid an important foundation that allowed Viet Nam to become the runaway train it so disastrously became. What preceded our involvement and coaxed us onto our path. Then, as now, we started with threat exaggeration.
Our involvement in Viet Nam fell on the heels of the anti-communist frenzy of the 1950’s. Interestingly, then, as now, we misidentified the threat prior to exaggerating the chosen target. The threat of totalitarian, repressive government was misidentified with the economic system that it accompanied in its major forms in that time period, communism or socialism. The threat was seen as pervasive and as inseparable from totalitarianism. Hysteria ruled, culminating in Joseph McCarthy’s communist witch-hunt. The military threat that countries such as the USSR and the PRC posed was grossly overestimated resulting in gross over-reaction on our part. We began to see the threat as so pervasive that we thought ourselves the only people capable of saving the world from certain doom. Our worldview became increasingly paranoid. We developed a mythical view or ourselves as savior to the world and we marched our boys off to fight the falling dominoes in the grand communist conspiracy.
It is hard to say how much the exaggeration is intentional. I believe that it is to some degree but I also recognize that as humans we have some of these tendencies written into our DNA. The tendency to mythologize our tribe as the favored of god is not a uniquely American trait. The tendency for xenophobia and suspicion of the motives of outsiders and other tribes is probably hard wired into us as well. One of the mistakes we make is not acknowledging our programming in order that we may rise above it, when appropriate. Would not a survival benefit have accrued in past times to those whose threat assessment software was tuned a little to the paranoid side? It seems obvious that personal survival and even tribe survival would be enhanced by threat exaggeration as opposed to threat minimization.
To accomplish realistic threat assessment, we have to ask ourselves the pertinent questions. What evidence do I have that the threat has been appropriately identified? What evidence do I have to support the assessment of the threat level?
In the 1950’s we laid the foundation for Viet Nam by misidentifying the threat as communism rather than totalitarianism. Half a century later we still operate on this mistaken assumption. We will support the most brutal of totalitarian regimes for the sake of democracy, as long as they don’t pursue socialist/communist policies. Out of the other side of our mouths, we deplore all the same actions by brutal regimes that operate under the banner of socialism/communism. In order to support our misguided belief we live with the obvious conflict that capitalist propaganda, capitalist disrespect for human rights, capitalist torture, and capitalist repression of dissent is all “good” merely because it isn’t communism.
Our collective paranoia is institutionalized in organizations like the CIA. They get paid to be paranoid. Reason tells us we need wise leaders who can evaluate evidence and consider the source. Think then, about a regime taking power for whom even our institutionalized cold war paranoia is not paranoid enough! Is it any wonder they have brought us to this point?
When the First Indochina War ended with the Geneva Conference in 1954, the country was temporarily divided at the 17th parallel. Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh controlled the North and the south was given to EMPEROR Bao Dai, who had been installed as Emperor by the Japanese. The condition of the treaty was for democratic elections to take place in 1956 to restore a unified Viet Nam. Wow! That sounds like the kind of stuff we like! Elections! In 1955, the megalomaniacal Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem deposed Emporer Bao. When Ho Chi Minh said lets talk about those elections, it was the south that refused to adhere to the treaty signed in Geneva. So the US rode in to save the democratic elections, right! Of course not, because our fear and paranoia turns us away from the lofty democratic goals to which we give lip service. If totalitarianism was our enemy, we would have found elections a reasonable path. Our real enemy was the exaggerated threat of communism and so no democratic deal was strong enough to keep us from living out our domino theory destiny.
So here we find ourselves today. Is the threat radical terrorist, who happen to identify with the religion called Islam or is it Islam? The Joseph McCarthy’s of the 21st century tell us that it is Islam. They say it is violent religion and you can see that in the koran. They often say this with a bible, probably the most violent work of religious literature, in hand. They tell us congressional representatives who are Muslim can’t be trusted. They tell us that the enemy is pervasive among us. Be afraid! They tell us that it isn’t these extremists we need to go after but rather the states that identify with this religion are our ultimate target. Then, based on this hysteria, they lead us into foreign adventures doomed to failure. They trample democratic principles, at home and abroad, under the banner of the paranoia they’ve created.
Once again, the seed of our undoing lies in an inability to localize the actual threat and to control our own paranoid tendencies. Our paranoia has led us back to THE VERY SAME CONCLUSION that we drew in the pre-Viet Nam era; That we must become the aggressors in order to make the world safe for democracy and we must limit freedom in order that the world may be free like us! Anyone who wishes to examine the runaway paranoia and ask for a more realistic threat assessment is treated with the same tribal instinct that was leading us astray 50 years ago. Their loyalty to the tribe is questioned. Their loyalty to the King is questioned. They become presumed members of the conspiracy against us. Ultimately, they are derided and dismissed.
The voice of reason is easily lost in the cries of battle and the exhortations to rally round the flag. The ability to reason is easily overwhelmed by our urge to paranoia and tribal protection. We watched our brave young men sacrificed on the altar of our communist paranoia then and we vowed to learn. We vowed not to repeat our mistakes. This is just the first of the lessons that we as Americans have to admit we didn’t learn from Viet Nam.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
On greater sharing of language between Americans
Here is a link on ThinkProgress to a conversation between BillO and his "ombudsperson" named Dhue, unless he's fired her for not putting out and then he may have, by now, hired Huey or Luey.
Their theory...too many "haters" are contacting the ombudsperson about facts! Facts that are incorrect! Bill cheers for the "regular viewers" to write in and tell him how right he is instead. And there we have for all to see the Fox News definition of acountability, and I'd dare say the conservative definition as the current resident of the white house appointed the same sort of ombudsperson at CPB.
Of course, the problem is simply that the definition of ombudsperson accepted by the English-speaking world differs dramatically from the definition amongst the neocon faithful. It is a very common aspect of cult behavior; Creating "cult-speak" that the non-initiated find baffling and vacuous. The problem with communication seems to be that the neocon faithful are unaware that their definition of ombudsperson differs from the rest of the English-speaking world. When people are speaking a similar, but significantly different language, trouble almost certainly ensues. Really, it is a recipe for disaster that is being repeated day after day between liberals and conservatives.
At some point, it must be acknowledged that we speak 2 related dialects of a language called English but we certainly don't speak the same language. The first step to improving communication is understanding that we speak different languages and beginning the arduous task of creating a Liberal English-Conservative English dictionary and train translators to work, first and foremost in the congress. Then a translator should add subtitles in Liberal English on Fox News. I theorize that once enough data on this new dialect is collected, we will find that it differs significantly from any dialect of English currently spoken. I suspect we will realize in the future that watching a minimum amount of Fox News was a unnecessary requisite for fully understanding the dialect. Unfortunately, this activity also seems to erase the knowledge of standard English/Liberal English. Therefore, it becomes impossible for someone to expose themselves to the requisite time to fluency and still be able to relate the new meanings back to other speakers of standard English. This complicates the path to translation greatly. In my experience, which I know is merely anecdotal evidence to begin theorizing and not data, speakers of conservative English are unaware that they were ever educated in standard English. Bill O'Reilly and Ms. Dhue are good examples. They seem completely suprised that announcing an ombudsman would initiate any emails concerning the inaccurate facts promoted by the show.Yet anyone who was aware of the standard English definition of ombudsperson would expect exactly that. This amnesia for the previous dialect is very interesting and does not seem to be common in language groups were multiple dialect knowledge is needed for functioning. Many Chinese, for example are fluent in Mandarin (putonghua or the "official" language) despite the fact that most of them speak a different dialect at home. (I wonder if it has to do with their being more distinct differences between Chinese dialects or that this new English dialect is disseminated in such a way that tricks the mind into believing this was always the definition of ombudsperson. Obviously, a large number of people not fluent in the language of this cult, made the assumption that he was using the word in the standard way, unaware of what ombudsperson means in this cults vocabulary.
The process of creating this dictionary is going to take long hours of reading exchanges between people on Fox News (merely because it is that richest source of this new dialect) deducing the intended meaning of their speech and trying to check via other shared words if we have made the correct deduction. Of course, the time to fluency would have to be carefully avoided or the person would be entirely convinced that the cult-speak was standard English.
To try to help, at least in this instance where it is clear the difference in dialect left both sides suprised, I wrote the following email to Ms. Dhue. I hope it will be a first step towards Americans being able to communicate with each other and solve problems together.
*******************************************************************************
I read with great amusement the conversation between you and BillO about your job as ombudsperson.
The problem can be easily solved. You have taken the title of ombudsperson, which suggests that your job is to check the false "facts" endorsed by Mr. O'Reilly on his show. Therefore, people who speak English are naturally going to assume that you wish to be made aware of the multitude of falsehoods that are promoted every day on Bill's shows. Of course, the "regular people" to whom he refers don't understand that calling them "regular people" is a well known way to promote falsehood by making people feel a part of the "in crowd". If what a person says is true they have no reason to suggest (without any data of course-unless of course you can supply the itinerary for his trip to meet all the "regular" people who watch his show and confirm their unanimous endorsement) that all "regular people" (definition please) agree with the falsehood, i.e. the statement at odds with reality.
The position you and Bill described today would be more accurately called "Defender of the Faith". Obviously, if the Catholic church publically announced a content related ombudsman, they would get all sorts of mail pointing out that most of their assertions have no basis in reality. And on the third day he rose again? How is an ombudsman going to check the facts on that? It is simply an article of faith, as is most of the content of the show that your title suggests you hold accountable to the truth. I'm sure they wouldn't wish to deal with that mail and thus they don't have an ombudsman, they have a defender of the faith. (I know they've tried to change the name but not with much public ado.)
Of course, those writing to the defender of the faith that Mr. O'Reilly promotes would be the letters you are looking for. The "regular people" who watch the show and believe will tell Bill how great he is, how right he is, how valuable his work to convert the masses to neocon fascism has been. I hope that you see the difference clearly...ombudsman checks statements against facts...defender of the faith checks statements against an irrational belief system and finds "truth" when the statement matches the belief system regardless of its relationship to reality. You and Bill very clearly made that distinction today.
If defender of the faith is distasteful, I have suggested another option in the subject line...OmBill'sperson would get what you tried to communicate today across. You could also consider the rather clumsy OminBill'sPocketperson. It doesn't roll off the tongue but it would have a relationship to his past conduct that many of us would watch the show just to hear him say!
Oh! Judging from the aging of Bill's demographic, my medical opinion would be that a majority of them are not regular. Maybe his website could add a BillOLax to help him be talking to more regular people when he promotes this faith based system. May I suggest a picture of Bill with is face distorted in a mighty grunt for the packaging?
I think that as long as you retain the title of ombudsperson, English speaking people's will assume you check facts and send you reams of emails each day that merely represents how far from reality the views expressed on the show are. If you don't want reality based emails and you want the emails from the "regular people", which I assume means other members of the neocon fascist faith group, then a simple change to a more accurate title would, I'm sure get all of that nasty reality out of your inbox!
I'm glad I could help with this problem that is obviously troubling both of you.
*****************************************************************************
I hope we can start the process of reconciliation. My next thought goes to the realization that these cult members are reading the constitution in conservative English. God knows what that sounds like when translated to standard English. Maybe there is a need for a national standard English that everyone must know. Children may be being taught at home that the constitution was written in this new dialect. The fact that this dialect is of recent vintage and could not be the language of the founders needs to be disseminated as well.
Their theory...too many "haters" are contacting the ombudsperson about facts! Facts that are incorrect! Bill cheers for the "regular viewers" to write in and tell him how right he is instead. And there we have for all to see the Fox News definition of acountability, and I'd dare say the conservative definition as the current resident of the white house appointed the same sort of ombudsperson at CPB.
Of course, the problem is simply that the definition of ombudsperson accepted by the English-speaking world differs dramatically from the definition amongst the neocon faithful. It is a very common aspect of cult behavior; Creating "cult-speak" that the non-initiated find baffling and vacuous. The problem with communication seems to be that the neocon faithful are unaware that their definition of ombudsperson differs from the rest of the English-speaking world. When people are speaking a similar, but significantly different language, trouble almost certainly ensues. Really, it is a recipe for disaster that is being repeated day after day between liberals and conservatives.
At some point, it must be acknowledged that we speak 2 related dialects of a language called English but we certainly don't speak the same language. The first step to improving communication is understanding that we speak different languages and beginning the arduous task of creating a Liberal English-Conservative English dictionary and train translators to work, first and foremost in the congress. Then a translator should add subtitles in Liberal English on Fox News. I theorize that once enough data on this new dialect is collected, we will find that it differs significantly from any dialect of English currently spoken. I suspect we will realize in the future that watching a minimum amount of Fox News was a unnecessary requisite for fully understanding the dialect. Unfortunately, this activity also seems to erase the knowledge of standard English/Liberal English. Therefore, it becomes impossible for someone to expose themselves to the requisite time to fluency and still be able to relate the new meanings back to other speakers of standard English. This complicates the path to translation greatly. In my experience, which I know is merely anecdotal evidence to begin theorizing and not data, speakers of conservative English are unaware that they were ever educated in standard English. Bill O'Reilly and Ms. Dhue are good examples. They seem completely suprised that announcing an ombudsman would initiate any emails concerning the inaccurate facts promoted by the show.Yet anyone who was aware of the standard English definition of ombudsperson would expect exactly that. This amnesia for the previous dialect is very interesting and does not seem to be common in language groups were multiple dialect knowledge is needed for functioning. Many Chinese, for example are fluent in Mandarin (putonghua or the "official" language) despite the fact that most of them speak a different dialect at home. (I wonder if it has to do with their being more distinct differences between Chinese dialects or that this new English dialect is disseminated in such a way that tricks the mind into believing this was always the definition of ombudsperson. Obviously, a large number of people not fluent in the language of this cult, made the assumption that he was using the word in the standard way, unaware of what ombudsperson means in this cults vocabulary.
The process of creating this dictionary is going to take long hours of reading exchanges between people on Fox News (merely because it is that richest source of this new dialect) deducing the intended meaning of their speech and trying to check via other shared words if we have made the correct deduction. Of course, the time to fluency would have to be carefully avoided or the person would be entirely convinced that the cult-speak was standard English.
To try to help, at least in this instance where it is clear the difference in dialect left both sides suprised, I wrote the following email to Ms. Dhue. I hope it will be a first step towards Americans being able to communicate with each other and solve problems together.
*******************************************************************************
I read with great amusement the conversation between you and BillO about your job as ombudsperson.
The problem can be easily solved. You have taken the title of ombudsperson, which suggests that your job is to check the false "facts" endorsed by Mr. O'Reilly on his show. Therefore, people who speak English are naturally going to assume that you wish to be made aware of the multitude of falsehoods that are promoted every day on Bill's shows. Of course, the "regular people" to whom he refers don't understand that calling them "regular people" is a well known way to promote falsehood by making people feel a part of the "in crowd". If what a person says is true they have no reason to suggest (without any data of course-unless of course you can supply the itinerary for his trip to meet all the "regular" people who watch his show and confirm their unanimous endorsement) that all "regular people" (definition please) agree with the falsehood, i.e. the statement at odds with reality.
The position you and Bill described today would be more accurately called "Defender of the Faith". Obviously, if the Catholic church publically announced a content related ombudsman, they would get all sorts of mail pointing out that most of their assertions have no basis in reality. And on the third day he rose again? How is an ombudsman going to check the facts on that? It is simply an article of faith, as is most of the content of the show that your title suggests you hold accountable to the truth. I'm sure they wouldn't wish to deal with that mail and thus they don't have an ombudsman, they have a defender of the faith. (I know they've tried to change the name but not with much public ado.)
Of course, those writing to the defender of the faith that Mr. O'Reilly promotes would be the letters you are looking for. The "regular people" who watch the show and believe will tell Bill how great he is, how right he is, how valuable his work to convert the masses to neocon fascism has been. I hope that you see the difference clearly...ombudsman checks statements against facts...defender of the faith checks statements against an irrational belief system and finds "truth" when the statement matches the belief system regardless of its relationship to reality. You and Bill very clearly made that distinction today.
If defender of the faith is distasteful, I have suggested another option in the subject line...OmBill'sperson would get what you tried to communicate today across. You could also consider the rather clumsy OminBill'sPocketperson. It doesn't roll off the tongue but it would have a relationship to his past conduct that many of us would watch the show just to hear him say!
Oh! Judging from the aging of Bill's demographic, my medical opinion would be that a majority of them are not regular. Maybe his website could add a BillOLax to help him be talking to more regular people when he promotes this faith based system. May I suggest a picture of Bill with is face distorted in a mighty grunt for the packaging?
I think that as long as you retain the title of ombudsperson, English speaking people's will assume you check facts and send you reams of emails each day that merely represents how far from reality the views expressed on the show are. If you don't want reality based emails and you want the emails from the "regular people", which I assume means other members of the neocon fascist faith group, then a simple change to a more accurate title would, I'm sure get all of that nasty reality out of your inbox!
I'm glad I could help with this problem that is obviously troubling both of you.
*****************************************************************************
I hope we can start the process of reconciliation. My next thought goes to the realization that these cult members are reading the constitution in conservative English. God knows what that sounds like when translated to standard English. Maybe there is a need for a national standard English that everyone must know. Children may be being taught at home that the constitution was written in this new dialect. The fact that this dialect is of recent vintage and could not be the language of the founders needs to be disseminated as well.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Modern American Journalism
Here is the problem with the media in a nutshell. It is definitely not liberal bias.
Watch the juvenile, slanted, loaded question "interview" by the "journalist" Tucker Carlson, which is typical of what I see whenever I turn on Fox News (Tucker is at MSNBC) here (Hat tip to Crooks & Liars where I first saw this video):
Notice that the "journalist" begins the interview by expressing his personal disapproval of the guest's views. This is akin to beginning the interview with an acknowledgment that the interviewer is such an egotistical idiot that he is certain we care more about his adolescent opinions than the story he is presenting. Then he proceeds to attempt to steer the conversation away from any discussion of Mr. Kucinich's trip or his views and instead attempts to create a "Hanoi Jane" storyline where none exists. Instead of getting information about the middle east, Mr. Kucinich is forced to explain to the "journalist" why creating caricatures is not an appropriate approach to fact finding. Should this not be a topic covered in journalism school? Shouldn't we, as Americans with some modicum of common sense, dismiss and turn off "journalists" who give us caricatures in lieu of real news?
What we are left with is a show purported to be about news, which instead turns out to be about Tucker Carlson's ego and instead of news we are forced to sit and listen while an adult attempts to explain to the journalist how to do his job and how journalism works.
Then, for contrast, watch Jon Stewart interview Lt Col Nagl about the Counter-Insurgency Manual. This is obviously someone whose views on the war differ from Jon's. However, the _*comedian*_ is able to handle that, ask reasonable questions in a respectful manner that are not loaded, and demonstrate that he has some familiarity with the manual and may have actually read it!
Do you feel more informed on the topic of each interview after the liberally biased comedian or the "journalist"? Notice that the comedian doesn't preface his interview with an egotistic comment to begin to frame the interviewee into the caricature that he is about to try to create. Notice how his questions are straightforward and don't attempt to box the Lt Col into a storyline that forces him to abandon the information he has to share in order to defend against the caricature that is being forced upon him. I would also notice that the comedian seems much more aware than many journalists are that he is speaking to a man in uniform and therefore has an ethical/legal line to walk as far as eliciting a political response from his guest.
Some people say it is a sign of the apocalypse that so many people get their news from a comedian but if we can remember when we last had some actual journalism in this country, this is closer to what journalism actually looks like than Carlson's approach, which to me is more like comedy. Carlson's approach leaves us with a sad conversation of a man trying to make some cogent points, talking with a toddler who hasn't had his nap. The data shows that those who watch the Daily Show tend to be more well informed about the facts. Yet Tucker's ego trip is what we pay journalists for in America. So I guess that while the media is only willing to do comedy and the comedians are the only ones willing to do journalism, we take it where we can get it.
Of course, writing this reminds me that it was Jon Stewart who confronted Tucker and Paul Begala about their lack of journalism and started Tucker toward the door at CNN.
Watch the juvenile, slanted, loaded question "interview" by the "journalist" Tucker Carlson, which is typical of what I see whenever I turn on Fox News (Tucker is at MSNBC) here (Hat tip to Crooks & Liars where I first saw this video):
Notice that the "journalist" begins the interview by expressing his personal disapproval of the guest's views. This is akin to beginning the interview with an acknowledgment that the interviewer is such an egotistical idiot that he is certain we care more about his adolescent opinions than the story he is presenting. Then he proceeds to attempt to steer the conversation away from any discussion of Mr. Kucinich's trip or his views and instead attempts to create a "Hanoi Jane" storyline where none exists. Instead of getting information about the middle east, Mr. Kucinich is forced to explain to the "journalist" why creating caricatures is not an appropriate approach to fact finding. Should this not be a topic covered in journalism school? Shouldn't we, as Americans with some modicum of common sense, dismiss and turn off "journalists" who give us caricatures in lieu of real news?
What we are left with is a show purported to be about news, which instead turns out to be about Tucker Carlson's ego and instead of news we are forced to sit and listen while an adult attempts to explain to the journalist how to do his job and how journalism works.
Then, for contrast, watch Jon Stewart interview Lt Col Nagl about the Counter-Insurgency Manual. This is obviously someone whose views on the war differ from Jon's. However, the _*comedian*_ is able to handle that, ask reasonable questions in a respectful manner that are not loaded, and demonstrate that he has some familiarity with the manual and may have actually read it!
Do you feel more informed on the topic of each interview after the liberally biased comedian or the "journalist"? Notice that the comedian doesn't preface his interview with an egotistic comment to begin to frame the interviewee into the caricature that he is about to try to create. Notice how his questions are straightforward and don't attempt to box the Lt Col into a storyline that forces him to abandon the information he has to share in order to defend against the caricature that is being forced upon him. I would also notice that the comedian seems much more aware than many journalists are that he is speaking to a man in uniform and therefore has an ethical/legal line to walk as far as eliciting a political response from his guest.
Some people say it is a sign of the apocalypse that so many people get their news from a comedian but if we can remember when we last had some actual journalism in this country, this is closer to what journalism actually looks like than Carlson's approach, which to me is more like comedy. Carlson's approach leaves us with a sad conversation of a man trying to make some cogent points, talking with a toddler who hasn't had his nap. The data shows that those who watch the Daily Show tend to be more well informed about the facts. Yet Tucker's ego trip is what we pay journalists for in America. So I guess that while the media is only willing to do comedy and the comedians are the only ones willing to do journalism, we take it where we can get it.
Of course, writing this reminds me that it was Jon Stewart who confronted Tucker and Paul Begala about their lack of journalism and started Tucker toward the door at CNN.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
What's O'Hanlon Been Handlin'
Mr. O'Hanlon has taken to the op-ed pages again to defend the op-ed that he couldn't defend when Glenn Greenwald asked him the relevant questions that the media as a whole couldn't come up with. Scary!
He's calling it "The Work Behind Our Iraq Views" and it is quite a work! In it he once again refers to himself as a critic of the administration's war policies in responding to an op-ed by Jonathon Finer ("Green Zone Blinders"), despite this statement to Greenwald:
Mr. O'Hanlon has held himself out as an academic, a learned man drawing conclusions based on good data, albeit data supplied by those who profit from his positive conclusions. But he's shown himself to be a person willing to shade the truth and even to have different truths (about himself, no less) on different days of the week. But he's also shown himself to be one capable of the lie of omission to advance his preconception. He fails to address the more substantive critiques of his conclusions (if preconceptions can be graced with such a word).
He does not address the issue of seasonal adjustment of mortality data, which when applied erases the basis of his conclusions. He does not address the obviously fascist idea that the military has data that has to be secret but that contradicts the real data and shows that all is well in Iraq. In what sphere of academia does this pass for intelligent discussion?
The ony one I can think of is the sphere of public opinion where the public has been "softened" with the psuedo-science and anti-science that the bush administration has promoted for the past six and a half years. All of their attacks on science and suppression of facts and aspersions cast on those who believe data have been the air campaign, bombing the minds of America into submission, to prepare for the ground war, led by generals like O'Hanlon. The "shock and awe" of climate change denial, intelligent design, and the wonderfully effective "abstinence only" programs has come to its fruition and a landing has been made by the forces of "we don't need no stinkin' facts!" Inc.
Let me summarize for you the "work" that Mr. O'Hanlon did according to his latest op-ed. He did, in fact, briefly leave the green zone, he did, in fact, listen to the military's "data", he went to school, and he knows people who know people who told him things. Now if I said that I had found a cure for cancer and I should be believed because I have been to cancer wards, I have looked at "data" supplied by the people who want to sell the cure, I've gone to school, and I know people who know people who told me positive things about it...I would be laughed at by my colleagues. But in Mr. O'Hanlon's world, it seems to be something he is quite proud of.
It inspires me to write this FICTIONAL, SATIRICAL defense of his academic credentials in the style of the real Mr. O'Hanlon.
Interviewer: It has been alleged that you spent most of your time in the Rathskeller* while in school. Is this true?
O'Hanlon: Absolutely not! I was taken on several tours of the campus by the administration and I was able to confirm that classes in Political Science were actually going on.
I: And did you attend any of these classes?
O: No, but I did know several of the people who attended classes and they confirmed that they were quite informative. This was a good school, let me remind you! I spoke at length with several students who were directed to me by the administration and they all had wonderful things to say about the classes that they had attended. Let me remind you that some of these tours lasted HOURS! The amount of data I collected about Political Science in those tours was incredible!
I: But you didn't actually attend the classes or collect any actual data about Political Science prior to getting your degree?
O: You know I think there is much to much emphasis on this. I am an academic. I have a special mojo that allows me to take poor data and combine that with my vast social connections and come out with the right conclusions.
I: And in terms of Political Science, what are the "right" conclusions?
O: Why the ones that please my employer and get me airtime as an "expert". Any idiot knows that!
Can't argue with that logic!!
*Back in the olden days, when the drinking age was 21, colleges had bars, often in the basement and frequently called a Rathskeller.
He's calling it "The Work Behind Our Iraq Views" and it is quite a work! In it he once again refers to himself as a critic of the administration's war policies in responding to an op-ed by Jonathon Finer ("Green Zone Blinders"), despite this statement to Greenwald:
if I'm being held up as a "critic of the war", for example by Vice President Cheney, it's certainly only fair to ask if that is a proper characterization of me. And in fact I would not even use that characterization of myself, as I will elaborate in a moment.He is a critic. He's not a critic. What week is this? Did he forget his morning Kool Aid the day he spoke to Greenwald?
Mr. O'Hanlon has held himself out as an academic, a learned man drawing conclusions based on good data, albeit data supplied by those who profit from his positive conclusions. But he's shown himself to be a person willing to shade the truth and even to have different truths (about himself, no less) on different days of the week. But he's also shown himself to be one capable of the lie of omission to advance his preconception. He fails to address the more substantive critiques of his conclusions (if preconceptions can be graced with such a word).
He does not address the issue of seasonal adjustment of mortality data, which when applied erases the basis of his conclusions. He does not address the obviously fascist idea that the military has data that has to be secret but that contradicts the real data and shows that all is well in Iraq. In what sphere of academia does this pass for intelligent discussion?
The ony one I can think of is the sphere of public opinion where the public has been "softened" with the psuedo-science and anti-science that the bush administration has promoted for the past six and a half years. All of their attacks on science and suppression of facts and aspersions cast on those who believe data have been the air campaign, bombing the minds of America into submission, to prepare for the ground war, led by generals like O'Hanlon. The "shock and awe" of climate change denial, intelligent design, and the wonderfully effective "abstinence only" programs has come to its fruition and a landing has been made by the forces of "we don't need no stinkin' facts!" Inc.
Let me summarize for you the "work" that Mr. O'Hanlon did according to his latest op-ed. He did, in fact, briefly leave the green zone, he did, in fact, listen to the military's "data", he went to school, and he knows people who know people who told him things. Now if I said that I had found a cure for cancer and I should be believed because I have been to cancer wards, I have looked at "data" supplied by the people who want to sell the cure, I've gone to school, and I know people who know people who told me positive things about it...I would be laughed at by my colleagues. But in Mr. O'Hanlon's world, it seems to be something he is quite proud of.
It inspires me to write this FICTIONAL, SATIRICAL defense of his academic credentials in the style of the real Mr. O'Hanlon.
Interviewer: It has been alleged that you spent most of your time in the Rathskeller* while in school. Is this true?
O'Hanlon: Absolutely not! I was taken on several tours of the campus by the administration and I was able to confirm that classes in Political Science were actually going on.
I: And did you attend any of these classes?
O: No, but I did know several of the people who attended classes and they confirmed that they were quite informative. This was a good school, let me remind you! I spoke at length with several students who were directed to me by the administration and they all had wonderful things to say about the classes that they had attended. Let me remind you that some of these tours lasted HOURS! The amount of data I collected about Political Science in those tours was incredible!
I: But you didn't actually attend the classes or collect any actual data about Political Science prior to getting your degree?
O: You know I think there is much to much emphasis on this. I am an academic. I have a special mojo that allows me to take poor data and combine that with my vast social connections and come out with the right conclusions.
I: And in terms of Political Science, what are the "right" conclusions?
O: Why the ones that please my employer and get me airtime as an "expert". Any idiot knows that!
Can't argue with that logic!!
*Back in the olden days, when the drinking age was 21, colleges had bars, often in the basement and frequently called a Rathskeller.
Monday, August 13, 2007
The Long, Long Haul
I am aghast, as are many others, at the writings of Stu Bykofsky in a Philadelphia newspaper calling for another 9/11 to unite our country. There are so many things wrong with the article, not the least of which is the fascist idea that if we just had an enemy, real or imagined, to inflame our nationalist, stateist, xenophobic fears we could be the strong fatherland that god intended us to be and rule the world. Many people worry that the holocaust will be forgotten. Well, whether Bykofsky is a Jewish or Polish (or both or neither) name, it is sad to see that the rhetoric of the fascist state would win support under such a name.
I would like to focus, however, on an often repeated lie that appears in this column that points more directly to what is creating the rift that Mr. Bykofsky laments in our society. That is the lie that Americans just can't be in a war for the long haul. He writes,
"Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don't have the patience for a long slog. We've been in Iraq for four years, but to some it seems like a century. In contrast, Britain just pulled its soldiers out of Northern Ireland where they had been, often being shot at, almost 40 years."
Being an Irish-American I have to control my effusive joy for the amazing success that the British occupation was for the Irish people and return to my point. This straw man first appeared (in my lifetime) during the Viet Nam war. Despite its utter lack of credibility, it still seems to have legs with those who support the never-ending-war-of conquest model of American unity.
Since this column appeared in a newspaper, may I be excused for thinking that it represents some form of journalism? If so, might Mr. Bykofsky supply some, oh I don't know, FACTS! Does he have anything to back up this position? Mr. Bykofsky seems to be under the impression that he is watching M*A*S*H II and ratings have declined since they killed off the very popular Saddam character. Can Mr. Bykofsky point to any evidence that those opposed to the war are also suffering under this delusion? Can he point us to the anti-war writings that declare that it's a wonderful war, it just can't sustain an audience for another season, so we oppose it? Are there any polls that indicate that the American people cite this reason for not supporting the war? Does he have anecdotal interviews to make the claim that even some people may oppose the war on this basis? If he does have any of this evidence, he fails to share even a shred of it with his readers.
In fact, if one looks around at the writings of those opposing the war, the reasons have to do with the lies that started the war, the incompetence of carrying it out once the ill-conceived debacle was initiated, the lack of reasonable plans to provide ACTUAL support (beyond bumper stickers) to the troops who were asked to carry it out, the distraction and diversion of resources from the ACTUAL war against the people who attacked us, the cronyism that insured that incompetent management would be the hallmark of the US occupation. Does any of this sound like we wanted the show canceled for lack of interest?
No, and if one takes the time to look for factual evidence to back up their opinion piece, one will find that those who speak of the public being "fatigued" by the length of the war are the very same people, like Bykofsky, who support the war or, worse still, those who started it. I am tired of being handed this straw man by people like him and being told that this represents my opinion. It most certainly does not.
The most ironic aspect of this charade (to me) is that I don't believe that people like Mr. Bykofsky (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) would accept this childish and specious argument from their child. Although a child might have a better excuse for an incomplete understanding of logical discipline and be more easily excused for such a lapse. If you had the misfortune to have a child who repeatedly broke the law and you pleaded with your child to take a look at their actions and the poor choices they have made, all in the hope that the child would see the effects their choices were having and reform, but the child replied that you weren't really concerned about them living a more productive life but actually just fatigued by the length of time they had been breaking the law, how would you respond? "Oh you're right! I really don't care whether you stop torturing the other kids in the neighborhood! I'm just tired of hearing about it every day! Brilliant!" By Mr. Bykofsky's logic, we would all drop our opposition to the child's transgressions and join in, as one big happy family.
Or maybe he would hire the even bigger neighborhood bully to attack his family and show them the joys of pulling together for the clan?
An adult, presumed journalist, ought to know something about logic. He ought to know a straw man when he sees one. He ought not to see his job as the distribution of scarecrows but more correctly as the distribution of fact. I look forward to his exposition of the facts that he uncovered to support his views on the motivations of those opposed to the war in Iraq.
I would like to focus, however, on an often repeated lie that appears in this column that points more directly to what is creating the rift that Mr. Bykofsky laments in our society. That is the lie that Americans just can't be in a war for the long haul. He writes,
"Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don't have the patience for a long slog. We've been in Iraq for four years, but to some it seems like a century. In contrast, Britain just pulled its soldiers out of Northern Ireland where they had been, often being shot at, almost 40 years."
Being an Irish-American I have to control my effusive joy for the amazing success that the British occupation was for the Irish people and return to my point. This straw man first appeared (in my lifetime) during the Viet Nam war. Despite its utter lack of credibility, it still seems to have legs with those who support the never-ending-war-of conquest model of American unity.
Since this column appeared in a newspaper, may I be excused for thinking that it represents some form of journalism? If so, might Mr. Bykofsky supply some, oh I don't know, FACTS! Does he have anything to back up this position? Mr. Bykofsky seems to be under the impression that he is watching M*A*S*H II and ratings have declined since they killed off the very popular Saddam character. Can Mr. Bykofsky point to any evidence that those opposed to the war are also suffering under this delusion? Can he point us to the anti-war writings that declare that it's a wonderful war, it just can't sustain an audience for another season, so we oppose it? Are there any polls that indicate that the American people cite this reason for not supporting the war? Does he have anecdotal interviews to make the claim that even some people may oppose the war on this basis? If he does have any of this evidence, he fails to share even a shred of it with his readers.
In fact, if one looks around at the writings of those opposing the war, the reasons have to do with the lies that started the war, the incompetence of carrying it out once the ill-conceived debacle was initiated, the lack of reasonable plans to provide ACTUAL support (beyond bumper stickers) to the troops who were asked to carry it out, the distraction and diversion of resources from the ACTUAL war against the people who attacked us, the cronyism that insured that incompetent management would be the hallmark of the US occupation. Does any of this sound like we wanted the show canceled for lack of interest?
No, and if one takes the time to look for factual evidence to back up their opinion piece, one will find that those who speak of the public being "fatigued" by the length of the war are the very same people, like Bykofsky, who support the war or, worse still, those who started it. I am tired of being handed this straw man by people like him and being told that this represents my opinion. It most certainly does not.
The most ironic aspect of this charade (to me) is that I don't believe that people like Mr. Bykofsky (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) would accept this childish and specious argument from their child. Although a child might have a better excuse for an incomplete understanding of logical discipline and be more easily excused for such a lapse. If you had the misfortune to have a child who repeatedly broke the law and you pleaded with your child to take a look at their actions and the poor choices they have made, all in the hope that the child would see the effects their choices were having and reform, but the child replied that you weren't really concerned about them living a more productive life but actually just fatigued by the length of time they had been breaking the law, how would you respond? "Oh you're right! I really don't care whether you stop torturing the other kids in the neighborhood! I'm just tired of hearing about it every day! Brilliant!" By Mr. Bykofsky's logic, we would all drop our opposition to the child's transgressions and join in, as one big happy family.
Or maybe he would hire the even bigger neighborhood bully to attack his family and show them the joys of pulling together for the clan?
An adult, presumed journalist, ought to know something about logic. He ought to know a straw man when he sees one. He ought not to see his job as the distribution of scarecrows but more correctly as the distribution of fact. I look forward to his exposition of the facts that he uncovered to support his views on the motivations of those opposed to the war in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)