Sunday, October 30, 2005

BROOKS: WHY ARE DEMS SO OVERHEATED?



Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not find evidence to prove that there was a "broad conspiracy to out a covert agent for political gain. He did not find evidence of wide-ranging criminal behavior. He did not even indict the media's ordained villain, Karl Rove,"

"Leading Democratic politicians filled the air with grand conspiracy theories that would be at home in the John Birch Society."
"Why are these people so compulsively overheated?.. Why do they have to slather on wild, unsupported charges that do little more than make them look unhinged?
Brooks quotes from an essay written 40 years ago by Richard Hofstadter called "The Paranoid Style in American Politics."
Hofstadter argued that sometimes people who are dispossessed, who feel their country has been taken away from them and their kind, develop an angry, suspicious and conspiratorial frame of mind. It is never enough to believe their opponents have committed honest mistakes or have legitimate purposes; they insist on believing in malicious conspiracies.
"The paranoid spokesman," Hofstadter wrote, "sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms -- he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization." Because his opponents are so evil, the conspiracy monger is never content with anything but their total destruction."

Brooks states: "Democrats were not content with Libby's indictment, but had to stretch, distort and exaggerate. The tragic thing is that at the exact moment when the Republican Party is staggering under the weight of its own mistakes, the Democratic Party's loudest voices are in the grip of passions that render them untrustworthy."


I know some of you libs are thinking you smell blood in the water from this crap, but c’mon people, NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED..............I REPEAT, NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED.
Bottom line Dems, the average American does not give a shit about this. People are still reconstructing their lives after a few Hurricanes, Gas prices, and heating costs are still a concern.
Bush still has to get a nominee for the court.
I’m sorry but I don’t give a shit about Joe Wilson and his wife. Did Libby fuck up, yup, is dude lying about his “faulty memory” sure. But he did not intentionally “out” a CIA agent. If dude did he should face a firing squad.
These liberal news organizations need to get a fucken grip. All of this other hand wringing from liberal news sources, the talking head shows and the liberal blogs is just a bunch of crap.

3 Comments:

Anonymous El Borak said...

"All of this other hand wringing from liberal news sources, the talking head shows and the liberal blogs is just a bunch of crap."

Call it the "green car" school of political science.

A famous old creationist dude once explained to me the proper use of the scientific method. He said, in short, that a real scientist proposes a theory and then immediately sets out to disprove it. He does not look for evidence in its favour, though he has some - which is what caused him to notice and propose his theory in the first place. Rather, he looks for evidence that would show it not to be true. Failing to find that evidence, especially over a long period, raises our confidence that the theory is in fact correct.

An example of this might be the scientific theory, "all cars are green". A real scientist, after noting enough green cars to cause him to propose his theory, would go out and look for red cars, blue cars, yellow cars...anything but green cars. He only needs to find one and his theory will be disproven. Once he finds it, he's learned something and a scientific myth is put to rest. Truth is advanced by exposing error.

The "green car" scientist, on the other hand, will try to 'prove' his theory by counting green cars and no other. If a car is not green, he ignores it, concentrating instead upon the millions and millions of cars that are green. He operates on hope and ideology, not on a concern for truth. His conclusions will probably be incorrect, even though he has millions and millions of data points that show his theory well-founded.

The difference is simple: the scientist who reaches the truth finds it because he went looking for it; the one who seeks to 'prove' his theory will be busy, self-satisfied, and incorrect.

What has this to do with liberal blogs and Bush?* Simple. With their theory that "The Bush Administration is the most corrupt/incompetent since (Coolidge, Grant, Julius Caesar)," they concentrate on "proving" it by grasping onto the data they need to make the case. Every piece of data, like every green car, is another point in their favor. Was the government response to Katrina slow? It's Bush's fault and any other data is to be ignored. Is there a scandal? It's Bush's fault and everyone - prosecutors and prosecuted alike - is covering up for him personally. Is there an economic problem? It's Bush's fault, and all other data (peak oil, family structure, demographics) is ignored. This 'scandal' is the next 'Watergate,' not because of anything objective, but because it MUST be for the theory to be correct. And since we know the theory is correct, ergo the data must be whatever the theory predicts. Quad erat demonstrandum.

That's why the liberal bogs are so predictable. Every piece of data "proves" them correct - at least in their own minds and to like-minded true believers. The issue is not whether the "theory" is true, because they are already convinced, for political reasons, that it is. The issue is evangelical: demonstrating the truth of the theory to the masses, by showing how every piece of data fits their grand unified theory.

The real problem is not Bush. It's citizens who confuse moral outrage with critical thinking. Those citizens vote for people who display similar skills. And if we wonder why we have a confederacy of dunces in power, we only need to look at the people who hired them.

Oh, yeah, and props for the Hamilton quote. You are the man.

* the same could be said for conservative blogs during the Clinton administration.

30.10.05  
Anonymous Snoop said...

Good Point!!

I may use your post on another liberal blog! LOL!

30.10.05  
Anonymous El Borak said...

Be my guest. Gotta a funny feeling they wouldn't get it, though...

30.10.05  

Post a Comment

<< Home