Friday, February 1, 2013

Teach the Controversy

I'm sure most of you have heard the above phrase.  It has arisen, in the last few years, as a battle cry among evangelical Christians and their enablers, after it became clear that they were never going to be able to convince sane people to replace the established scientific facts of evolution with a pack of infantile myths crammed down the throats of school children.  So, they fell back on their "compromise" position, which involves battering us into treating their patent nonsense on an equal footing with scientific fact.  This would be the "centrist" thing to do, and therefore, it would be fair to everyone, right?

Well, I am sure most of you are familiar with this idiocy, but what I have been noticing lately is that it is a paradigm of the entire Republican approach to reality- the fabrication of a wholly specious (and in the end utterly ridiculous) alternate reality, and then immense pressure being applied to force people to grant this mythology equal validity with real evidence about the world in which we live.  The result of this behavior, normally abetted in every way by our miserable excuse for a mainstream press, has been the watering down and eventual neutralization of every attempt to respond meaningfully to the problems that we face.

We are seeing a classic example of this at work today in the gun debate provoked by the recent school shooting in Connecticut.  Even the most rational, harmless proposals from the left, like eliminating the gun show loophole or requiring guns to be kept securely, are obscured and neutralized by endless, moronic right wing bleating about video games and violent movies- in fact nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to blame the left (and the Jews in particular, as is always the case when someone on the right attacks Hollywood) for the damage wrought by uncontrolled gun possession in this country.  The real evidence that violent murder is directly related to the number of available guns, and that people with guns are far more likely to be victims of gun violence than people without them, is washed away by the endless crackpot theories from the right, which continue to receive respectful treatment from the press.  The result this time, as in all previous occasions, is inevitably going to be a slow draining away of any momentum for dealing with the problem, until nothing but the most superficial action is taken; where the issue will rest until the next appalling gun murder, at which time the process will repeat itself.

Of course, there is no more blatant example of this phenomenon than the supposed controversy about global warming.  Although scientists who study this subject agree 100% (okay, okay, in reality only 99.83%) that man made global warming is a threat to the continued existence of the human race, pseudo-scientific lies paid for by the energy industry are routinely treated as equally trustworthy as scientific research; the result being that the real issues (which are beyond doubt to anyone who cares about the truth) are obscured, momentum for dealing with this very real problem is dissipated, and nothing is done.

And let us not forget the most damaging and destructive of all Conservative pseudo-theories: supply side economics.  Despite this notion being patent nonsense from the very beginning, and despite the fact that every effort to implement it has resulted in nothing but disaster, its proponents- rich people who stand to benefit from it regardless of its effects on everyone else- continue to pour money into spreading this looking-glass lunacy, and the mainstream press continues to collaborate with them in treating their claims as equally valid as conclusions derived from actual real world evidence.  And thus, no amount of being right time after time can result in the likes of Paul Krugman being treated as anything but a crazy ideologue, while conversely, the many people who have pushed this disastrous nonsense in the face of failure after failure are still treated as if they were serious participants in some sort of actual dialogue, rather than hired intellectual thugs employed to prevent the truth from interfering with the schemes of their masters.

Though I could go on here, let me finish with right wing, neoconservative foreign policy, whose total reliance on belligerent bullying and massive acquisition of military hardware has, as far as I can tell, produced nothing but one disaster after another, but which is still promoted far and wide as the answer to every foreign policy problem the country ever faces.

And thus, government in the United States today:  reality versus deliberate lies concocted to achieve a desired outcome for a small fraction of the people, on every single issue; and a playing field in which the rules- that both sides must be given equally respectful treatment- insure that those who want to deal with our country's problems are simply worn out fighting against idiotic but highly financed nonsense from their opponents.   Thus, despite occasional victories, we seem to be able make little real headway in our fight to right our country, which continues to founder in seas of dissembling and self-serving nonsense.

Given this situation, it is amazing that Obama and the Democrats were able to muster enough support to enable them to avoid a total depression.  Of course, the forces of ignorance keep doing everything they can to push us back off the economic cliff, so sad to say, the results aren't really in on that one.  It is enough to make most any rational person just give up and move to Costa Rica or something; of course that is exactly what it is intended to do, so that the forces of destruction can continue eating away at the flesh of the country until its corpse collapses on top of them.  So far, their strategy, no matter how implausible and ridiculous it may seem from the outside, seems to be making slow but continued progress as it slouches toward inevitable apocalyptic destruction.  Of course, to the religious lunatics on the right, that would be a wonderful thing too.

19 comments:

  1. Given this situation, it is amazing that Obama and the Democrats were able to muster enough support to enable them to avoid a total depression.

    Kudos all around! I wouldn't have had the courage, despite the pledge I took in 1997 to never give up hope.

    I don't know if you believe in God, but it is clear that Obama was put in power more less to save the world from itself. RW Christians are fond of saying that governments are instituted by God, neatly sidestepping any political figures that are clearly satanic. But I think maybe God might have cared enough to nudge an Obama victory, maybe by doing something as simple as asking people to examine their own consciences and sensibilities.

    The RW came up with the idea of Obama being a type a Savior that could be ridiculed by those that did not follow him.

    I always thought of Obama as a sort of Moses. One who would lead the people out of darkness. No one else really could have summoned the courage. We were so totally fucked and ruined.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whooo Ahooo, horse puckey from the left. It smells just as bad as if it came from the right.

      Delete
    2. Whooo Ahhhh,horse puckey from the left and it smells just as bad as horse puckey from the right. IMNHO...

      Delete
    3. Rational Nation, thanks so much for the usual substantive analysis from the right. I understand how you felt the need to post it twice, given as how you obviously put so much effort into answering my comments.

      Delete
  2. Flying Junior, it's interesting to me that you mentioned Moses, because more and more the last few years I have felt that our country is like the Children of Israel, doomed to wander in the desert for forty years, until all of the people with the old sort of thinking have died off- they just seem so far beyond redemption to me that I have come to despair of ever getting them to see how self destructive their behavior is. It's sad to think of so many people and come to see them as impossible to save, but that's where I am now. As for God, the more I see the hatred out there toward Obama and any other Democrat, the more I think that it may indeed have taken some sort of otherworldly intervention to get him elected twice.

    In general, I try not to think too much about religious issues, because I'm afraid that we don't have the luxury any more of telling ourselves that God will take care of it. If we don't do everything we can on our own, I'm afraid we are doomed. And if God wants to give us a helping hand, well, we appreciate your effort, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "...moronic right wing bleating about video games and violent movies- in fact nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to blame the left (and the Jews in particular, as is always the case when someone on the right attacks Hollywood)"

    I am afraid I must object to this. It is not ONLY the jews that are successful in Hollywood. It's blacks, gays, non-primary english speakers, women--well, just oodles of people the ReiKKKwing fears and reviles.

    Shorter RWA foreign policy: Threaten smaller, weaker countries; attack those that are insufficiently cowed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As if the violent video games and the violent images coming out of Hollywood have no impact whatsoever on impressionable youth.

      Personally I could not care one iota less whether it be the left, the right, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Zoroastrians, or whatever, the fact is the images we bombard our youth withhas an impact.

      Think about it.

      Delete
    2. I don't mind thinking about it. All I'd like is a bit of evidence, which is totally lacking, even though right wingers have used this idiocy as a way to deflect attention from guns for years now. Adam Lanza played video games? I have two sons aged 22 and 26, and as far as I can tell every male in that age group plays video games. I haven't noticed them out en masse shooting up their elementary schools. No, leave that to a kid whose mother was obsessed with guns and saw to it that he knew just how to shoot up a school.

      Delete
    3. "No, leave that to a kid whose mother was obsessed with guns and saw to it that he knew just how to shoot up a school."

      And your evidence that weapons proficiency is related to criminal insanity would be? I've noticed little to indicate that policemen and military personnel have that tendency and I think perhaps we have here just that kind of propaganda and failure to grasp the larger view that Octo was talking about. I think "our" side is every bit as good at refusing to discuss crime and its causes as are the NRA fanatics. Maybe better when it comes to the irresponsible use of hyperbole to deflect attention.

      No, you're right that video games don't promote mayhem, not in normal people anyway, any more than pornography promotes sex crimes as many liberals have argued, but when we talk about people who slaughter children, we're not talking about normal people nor about any more than a tiny portion of the population.

      Delete
    4. Captain,

      I interpreted Green Eagle's comment somewhat differently. Allow me to elaborate. We are not talking about weapons proficiency as a determinant of criminal insanity, but about an egregious error in judgement by ONE person. Here is a statistical outlier of 150 million standard deviation points from the top of a bell curve. Let face it: The mother has a son with a severe pervasive developmental disability disorder, a kid considered alienated and unstable by all accounts. Yet, this mother keeps a Bushman among other weapons in her house - not under lock and key - and takes her developmentally disabled son to shooting ranges. A disaster waiting to happen, it cost her life and the lives of 20 innocent children plus 6 others. When we talk about gun control, we are talking about extreme outliers of irresponsible behavior and the need to foresee and prevent such tragedies.

      Another case in point: Over the weekend, Navy Seal veteran Chris Kyle was killed by a former Marine whom he was mentoring, a man allegedly suffering from PTSD. Symptoms of PTSD? Flash backs, hyper-vigilance, extreme volatility, and unpredictable behaviors. Such people should not be around guns. Error in judgement. Lessons learned? Nada. Zip.

      Our discussions about gun control sort of remind me of PTSD: Flash-backs, hyper-vigilance, extreme volatility, and that "hyperbole" word when context is misunderstood.

      Delete
    5. "No, leave that to a kid whose mother was obsessed with guns and saw to it that he knew just how to shoot up a school."

      Perhaps I should have said hypergolic, 'cause it's designed to produce a lot of heat. OK, sure the woman did very stupid things( and payed the price) but doesn't that seem hyperbolic; suggesting that she deliberately trained her son as a mass murderer of school children and that to be able to hit a paper target and to operate a firearm safely is to know how to slaughter innocents. Yes, it would have been so much better if she didn't have a Bushmaster that holds 20 or 40 rounds and he only killed 12 or 16 or 18 with a pistol. Hyperbolic or not, that seems to be the argument and it's not a good one.
      Look, the last go-round I had was about how the NRA was promoting murder, wanted more of it and that American Law Enforcement was refusing to prosecute murder. Yes, maybe my temper is being strained, but if such isn't hyperbole, I don't know what is.

      Is there an implication that from this we derive that no one should be trained in safe use of guns? No recreational shooting and no hunting should be allowed? Have we decided that insanity is not the important factor here and that all should be denied lest one misuse?

      " When we talk about gun control, we are talking about extreme outliers of irresponsible behavior and the need to foresee and prevent such tragedies. "

      Exactly! but are we or are we actually doing that by getting angry when I suggest that I agree with Obama's proposal that the most effective solution is to keep disturbed people, drunks, crack-heads and people with a history of violence away from guns? Didn't someone tell me that this is ridiculous to blame the acts of crazy people on crazy people and that the only acceptable solution is to ban guns? No, it's ban it or "beat it you gun-crazed nut." And don't you try to talk about how it can be done or compare it with banning drugs or banning booze.

      Arriving at conclusions too far from the observations we started with is my working definition of hyperbole and I think it's poisoned the discussion.

      In fact no one seemed to notice that I was and am supporting gun control and agreeing with the president and not his opposition.
      Are we trying to obstruct discussion of why people go on rampages, why people kill -- whether it can be predicted,whether it can be minimized? It seems curiously similar to what the NRA is doing.

      Yes, returning veterans may have PTSD after the longest war in our history and I assume you're arguing that perhaps for the time being such disturbed people should not keep and bear arms. I agree and I think it's a lot more workable to enforce and reinforce those prohibitions than making hundreds of millions of them disappear at a word. I presume you're not going to say that the Marine was trained specifically to murder people who were trying to help him, that this is deliberate national policy or that ex Marines are gun-obsessed and that to solve this problem the military must be disarmed and all guns must disappear -- because that would be hyperbolic at the very least.

      Again, I'm for rigorous background checks and for forcing hospitals and health care professionals and law enforcement to report what they're required by current law to report. I have no problem with trying to get rid of hundred round magazines, even though they account for less carnage than plain old revolvers, a fact not apparent from our rhetoric -- but I'm for learning lessons from past experience and I don't know why suggesting that we remain objective makes me the enemy if it isn't that we only want scary guns to disappear and are willing to do or say anything and use anything to make it happen. I hope I'm wrong.

      Delete
    6. Captain, you misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I'll take the blame and assume I said it in a very unclear manner, so let me try again: There's a subtext when a parent is fixated on guns and takes her unstable child to shoot them: She is inculcating in him the notion that using guns is an acceptable way to deal with his frustrations. This is likely to have been a far bigger factor in his behavior than video games or anything else, really.

      I agree with the conclusion, by the way, that all of the mental health gun restrictions on earth wouldn't have stopped this mass murder. The only thing that would have helped would for politicians forty or fifty years ago to have had the courage to stand up to the NRA and have prevented this sort of weapon from being freely available in the first place.

      Delete
    7. OK, I'll take the blame too. I don't know if we can be sure what she taught him, but we all wish he had never had access to as much as a slingshot. Thank you for that reply.

      the one thing I have to argue though, is the notion that it's the type of weapon that makes such incidents so much worse. I have to insist that a pair of revolvers and certainly even one autoloader would have done enough damage to make the incident equally as horrific. One victim is far too much and one or two less is still unacceptable.

      I think that by putting so much effort into making it all about these "assault weapons," we're setting ourselves up for another bill designed to give us a false sense of security without making any difference in the frequency of such incidents or the death toll.

      A great deal of money is being spent propagandizing about this and I'm still hearing from a great number of people who insist that yes, you can go out and buy a machine gun that fires special, extra deadly ammunition and I think this is all dangerously counter-productive.

      Sure his mother facilitated his insanity. We all wish she hadn't. We all wish we could eliminate such crimes, but the best we can hope for is to keep it at a minimum and gun control plays a part in that.

      I also fear that going at this as we have been is going to polarize a gun-loving public so much that we may have seen the last Democratic president for a long, long time. Guns are a larger part of country life, particularly in the South and no one wants to be called names because of a 400 year old tradition. Plenty of us don't listen to the NRA but still want to protect the rights of sportsmen and hunters. We have to make that more clear by restraining ourselves from vilifying normal people.

      Still, I strongly back Obama's approach and I think in time it will make a difference.

      Delete
  4. The phrase "Jew controlled Hollywood" has been used so often that it should be written as one word. The movie business was a risky opportunity at first, but one that was open to Jewish immigrant entrepreneurs when little else was. It took quite a while before Black and Chinese and other actors and professionals became a significant part of it all, but the idea of the melting pot has been more typical of the movie/TV/music industry than almost anything else.

    Yep, that's why McCarthy made a career out of accusing them of being Commies "for scratching your ass when the flag marched by" as Robert Mitchum (I think) was quoted as saying.

    We have our Dennis Millers in the industry, but there are a lot of liberals and a lot of liberals that people listen to. Perhaps it has to do with memory.

    "Threaten smaller, weaker countries; attack those that are insufficiently cowed. "

    Here we agree but I think it's also a domestic policy. Bullying is, IMO, the practice of weak and fearful people and nations and as our economic power becomes relatively weaker and our military might becomes our only crutch, we become more bellicose and more dangerous. I almost miss the Soviet threat and the cold war.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Green Eagle,

    "Of course, to the religious lunatics on the right, that would be a wonderful thing too."

    Oh, but according to Fox, Christianity not only isn't a religion, it's not an apocalyptic one. I guess when you hear it from Fox, you know the opposite is true.


    " because I'm afraid that we don't have the luxury any more of telling ourselves that God will take care of it."

    Yes, exactly. The idea that it's all going to end any day feeds the argument for raping the planet and putting up with injustice of all sorts - because God will make it all right after the big one or maybe in heaven. Without that idea, we wouldn't have suicide bombers and the idea that all of this is temporary might make us take things more seriously and value life and the things that support life much more.

    Nice post.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And, Democommie, of course you are right. I've spent my career in film production and of course I have seen all sorts of people have a chance to work there. What I meant is that, among right wingers, "Hollywood," at least when it comes in for negative attacks, is a euphemism for "Jews."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Good going Swashies. The great David Gerrold, creator of the Sleestak and Tribble, has used one of your graphics on his facebook page.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Green Eagle,

    Nice post, indeed. I think all progressive bloggers have been struggling with this "error of the mean" (no pun intended) since the beginning of the Bush administration. It reminds me of a Rumi parable about the blindfolded men and the elephant; we describe the parts but never get our hands around the whole.

    Most of all, I blame mainstream media for aiding and abetting the "controversy" with mind numbing he-said/she-said commentary. Outright lies are treated as newsworthy. Talking heads give the appearance of balance. Yet, there are few attempts to check the veracity of competing claims. With a public platform to spout bullshit, the lunatic fringe gains exposure and legitimacy. This is how deception, ignorance, propaganda, and bad policy metastasizes cancer-like through our public life.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "the lunatic fringe gains exposure and legitimacy. This is how deception, ignorance, propaganda, and bad policy metastasizes cancer-like through our public life."

    Wow - a stunning summation indeed.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.