Lots of times I'm asked why I don't take many stands in politics. Why I've got bad words for everyone. Repubs, Dems, Internet-Libertarians that worship Ron Paul. The reason is very much simple; it isn't that I don't care, or that I don't follow the news. I just don't know what to believe. And I do not want to discuss what might not be the truth.
Here's a recent example - the tasing incident in Florida. Among a few friends of mine, the topic of debate here is clear; whether police go too far with their means of apprehension. This is the only issue I can find that is worthy of discussion. Yet there are some folks that think that more things like this should happen to "punk ass students", which is absolutely asinine, while liberals are spinning this into a free speech martyr. Watch the clips of the incident in which they so conveniently cut out the parts that show the student cutting the line, being rude, etc. What about when his alloted time was over? The kid was treated harshly, but he also took time away from other students. Then there are reports of his possible antics before the speech, and of him asking if camera crews would be at the police station. In another light this kid is opportunistic and scheming, and nothing at all like the martyr people want him to be. And yet, so many of these claims are (as far as I can tell) unreported. and so its tough to condemn him. Point is, every side wants to spin this to suit their need, and no amount of false plays of innocence is going to pull the wool over my eyes. Is it a free speech issue? Tough to say when no one wants to look at the whole picture.
It happens in so many other places. Obviously the headlines on cnn or msnbc.com are load of crap, filled as much with celebrity news as anything. But its tough to believe some of the news pieces that pop up on Digg with flooring and devastating news about the administration when their sources seem so asinine and anything but concrete. I'm sorry, but when people on that site start to feel good about the president of Iran because they hate Bush so much, it is hard to take them seriously.
Remember the Downing Street memo? I showed it to someone who was absolutely floored by it. It was a pretty shocking document. But amazed as I was, I was also there when I learned parts of it were edited and changed, which I had to factor into my consideration of the information. I don't think she ever did the same thing. Anything condemning Bush was A-ok for her and so many others. But it isn't a very good idea to fight your opponent when your own information may not be kosher.
Just what the hell is correct? Who is giving us the straight skinny? And how the hell do you convince people that the little slice of it that is sitting in their heads and cranking out their brash armchair political analysis might be wrong?
Makes me question all those history classes I've taken
No comments:
Post a Comment