|
Post by uscientist on May 17, 2009 21:46:41 GMT -5
www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0207GREETINGSGreetings from Idiot America By Charles P. Pierce The rise of Idiot America is essentially a war on expertise. It's not so much antimodernism or the distrust of intellectual elites that Richard Hofstadter deftly teased out of the national DNA forty years ago. Both of those things are part of it. However, the rise of Idiot America today represents -- for profit mainly, but also, and more cynically, for political advantage and in the pursuit of power -- the breakdown of a consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people whom we should trust the least are the people who best know what they're talking about. In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a preacher, or a scientist, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert. The Gut is the basis for the Great Premises of Idiot America. We hold these truths to be self-evident: 1) Any theory is valid if it sells books, soaks up ratings, or otherwise moves units. 2) Anything can be true if somebody says it on television. 3) Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it.
|
|
|
Post by kwombles on May 17, 2009 22:15:49 GMT -5
Well, that sums up the people we're standing counterpoint to. :-)
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on May 17, 2009 22:47:34 GMT -5
Well, that sums up the people we're standing counterpoint to. :-) i tried posting this a number of times tonight on huffpo, but it kept getting bounced. then i got banned after the 4th attempt.
|
|
|
Post by principaldad on May 18, 2009 0:15:53 GMT -5
Well, that sums up the people we're standing counterpoint to. :-) i tried posting this a number of times tonight on huffpo, but it kept getting bounced. then i got banned after the 4th attempt. Nothing there is against what HuffPo claims are their terms of service. The moderators on the "science" threads are just as bad as FoxNews.
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on May 18, 2009 12:10:26 GMT -5
i tried posting this a number of times tonight on huffpo, but it kept getting bounced. then i got banned after the 4th attempt. Nothing there is against what HuffPo claims are their terms of service. The moderators on the "science" threads are just as bad as FoxNews. in some respects they are worse. they've had this holier than though approach to politics etc against the bush era and now they're doing the same. if it doesnt fit their message they remove or dont write about it. like i said the other day when all the press was breaking the news on gitmo and obama, they had nothing on the site.
|
|
|
Post by mnballetmom on May 18, 2009 17:51:08 GMT -5
I haven't been posting much on the main threads anymore. Some of my favorite posters - like naughty Tiff are over-the-top Obama supporters. They were from day one in the primary - and they continue to be now. They don't allow for any dissension or questioning of policy. I'm not a fan of Arianna - but at least she questions stuff like Geithner and the appearance of many foxes in the hen house. I was not an Obama supporter until he was the nominee - because I sensed in him, exactly what I am seeing now. He's way too eager to please and be bipartisan - and I'm currently in no mood. Don't get me wrong - I'm happy he's president and all - I just wonder if the ol' gal mighta been better.
|
|
|
Post by nicole on May 18, 2009 21:16:09 GMT -5
I was not an Obama supporter until he was the nominee - because I sensed in him, exactly what I am seeing now. He's way too eager to please and be bipartisan - and I'm currently in no mood. Don't get me wrong - I'm happy he's president and all - I just wonder if the ol' gal mighta been better. That's pretty much how I feel. I lost my interest in blogging about it a couple of weeks ago because of my disappointment. I haven't been posting much on the poli threads either because there seems to be little room to discuss the negatives. Ah, well. At least he is not McCain. And I would have supported almost anyone against Palin. Ye gods, that woman gives me nightmares.
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on May 18, 2009 22:25:30 GMT -5
I was not an Obama supporter until he was the nominee - because I sensed in him, exactly what I am seeing now. He's way too eager to please and be bipartisan - and I'm currently in no mood. Don't get me wrong - I'm happy he's president and all - I just wonder if the ol' gal mighta been better. That's pretty much how I feel. I lost my interest in blogging about it a couple of weeks ago because of my disappointment. I haven't been posting much on the poli threads either because there seems to be little room to discuss the negatives. Ah, well. At least he is not McCain. And I would have supported almost anyone against Palin. Ye gods, that woman gives me nightmares. its good to hear folks of a similar opinion. i just wish huffpo wasnt such a cheerleader for anything other than bush. perhaps we can have a subforum for this on here? john cussak's post here today is interesting since on the whole huffpo has ignored the "flip-flop" on the latest photo scandal: www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/a-war-on-terror-by-any-ot_b_204887.html
|
|
|
Post by nicole on May 19, 2009 6:51:18 GMT -5
|
|