-- just in case that wasn't already perfectly clear to everyone.
Like some others on the Left, I am a bit disappointed in the current administration for a few things: ramping up the insane, inhumane War on Drugs; being a little too cozy with some big businesses, and too accommodating with Republicans, most of whom have made it clear they have absolutely no intention of reciprocating.
Unlike those few turnips who are voting Green or Socialist or another party to the left of the Democrats, besides grasping the concept of proportional representation, and the fact that we don't have it yet in the US, as I explained in my previous post, I understand that politics means compromising to achieve something rather than sticking strictly to my ideals and accomplishing nothing, or worse than nothing, as that nincompoop Ralph Nader and his nincompoop followers did when they helped W take the Presidency in 2000. (Nota bene, as usual, I did not say that W was elected President, because I don't think he was.) And unlike them, I can see the huge obvious differences between Obama and Romney, and between Democrats in general and Republicans in general. Democrats actually want government to help people who need help. Republicans want to work people to death at sweat-shop wages and let them die in the streets -- or the ER's, as the case may be. Democrats respect women. Republicans say that their "religious freedom" includes their right to push women's rights back to the 19th century. Many of them, let's be clear, are not only against all abortion, they're against all birth control. Romney and Ryan won't go on the record with this last bit, but neither will they call out and denounce the whackos in their party who are the record in this way. Romney and Ryan also won't distance themselves from the birthers and the racists. Decent people who are more than half-witted need to send the Republicans a real message here. Not just in the Presidential race but all the way down the ticket.
Get out and vote! I know that many of you already have: help get others to the polls. Let's do this, hard. Let's show the whackos that the grown-ups are still in charge.
(And then after the election we can start to get on Obama's case to end the Drug War, and to be more serious about financial and corporate regulation and the environment and so forth. And we can promote a change to proportional representation. After the election. One thing at a time. I repeat: politics means compromising to achieve something rather than sticking to your ideals and thereby accomplishing nothing or worse than nothing. Vote Democrat.)
Showing posts with label obama 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama 2012. Show all posts
Monday, November 5, 2012
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Mitt Romney Is a Creep!
Well, there goes my career as a big-time journalist, unless MSNBC, Mother Jones or Rolling Stone will have me.
The US is cursed with a terrible misconception about "objective journalism." Actually, it's several misconceptions: 1) That there is such a thing as objectivity. 2) That objectivity is particularly important when reporting about politics. 3) That it is particularly important -- outside of exceptions such as editorials, but to a great extent even there -- for a reporter not to share whatever personal opinions he or she may have about particular politicians, as if anything anyone ever said was more than either a personal opinion or a lie, but to confine him- or herself to a narrowly-defined category of "facts."
Some sensible journalists and observers of journalism, including Hunter S Thompson, have put a dent in such silly notions, but it's still only a dent. And so most political journalists in our mainstream media feel it is part of their job description to carefully hide, as much as they can, how much they loathe Mitt Romney. Those who are both intelligent and forthright are accused of extreme liberal bias, nut just by the idiots and tools at Fox "News," but also by some otherwise-intelligent and upright citizens who have been infected with the "objective journalism" nonsense.
Still, despite this huge barrier between US voters and relevant information, I think the word has somehow gotten around, to wide enough circles, that Mitt, for religious and/or whatever other reasons, is a pathological liar, and a sadistic homophobe and a creep in other ways, that he will not be elected President.
The US is cursed with a terrible misconception about "objective journalism." Actually, it's several misconceptions: 1) That there is such a thing as objectivity. 2) That objectivity is particularly important when reporting about politics. 3) That it is particularly important -- outside of exceptions such as editorials, but to a great extent even there -- for a reporter not to share whatever personal opinions he or she may have about particular politicians, as if anything anyone ever said was more than either a personal opinion or a lie, but to confine him- or herself to a narrowly-defined category of "facts."
Some sensible journalists and observers of journalism, including Hunter S Thompson, have put a dent in such silly notions, but it's still only a dent. And so most political journalists in our mainstream media feel it is part of their job description to carefully hide, as much as they can, how much they loathe Mitt Romney. Those who are both intelligent and forthright are accused of extreme liberal bias, nut just by the idiots and tools at Fox "News," but also by some otherwise-intelligent and upright citizens who have been infected with the "objective journalism" nonsense.
Still, despite this huge barrier between US voters and relevant information, I think the word has somehow gotten around, to wide enough circles, that Mitt, for religious and/or whatever other reasons, is a pathological liar, and a sadistic homophobe and a creep in other ways, that he will not be elected President.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
...and maybe 400
At ElectoralVote.com they have a Rasmussen-free electoral-vote map which shows 332 electoral votes going for Obama and 206 for Romney. But they consider only 138 of those electoral votes to be "solidly" for Romney. Six states are only pink instead of red, and a seventh, North Cackalacky Its Dangself, is only outlined in pink. Seven states where Romney's lead is less than lead-pipe-cinch certain. If Obama takes all the blue states on that map plus those seven he will have a nice round 400 electoral votes. In my opinion Missouri and and Arizona should be pink too, so make it 421.
What? All the "experts" are doing this all the time, except in the opposite direction, talking about how Romney could win if he won in all the red and pinks state plus every state that isn't dark blue. All except for Nate Silver at the New Times' 538.com. Everybody calls him a genius. But none of the other pundits seem to listen to him, let alone benefit from his good sense. Nope. It's just Nate and me, all alone in a sea of rubes.
Will 421 be enough for all of you people out there to stand up to those of your friends, families and neighbors who have embraced the bagger/birther/everything's-Obama-fault horseshit, and firmly tell them that they are stupid and that enough's enough and it's time for them to listen to the grownups and the brighter ones among the children? Would 421 give you balls enough to talk sense right out in public?
It's not enough for Obama to win. They have to really, really lose, once and for all.
What? All the "experts" are doing this all the time, except in the opposite direction, talking about how Romney could win if he won in all the red and pinks state plus every state that isn't dark blue. All except for Nate Silver at the New Times' 538.com. Everybody calls him a genius. But none of the other pundits seem to listen to him, let alone benefit from his good sense. Nope. It's just Nate and me, all alone in a sea of rubes.
Will 421 be enough for all of you people out there to stand up to those of your friends, families and neighbors who have embraced the bagger/birther/everything's-Obama-fault horseshit, and firmly tell them that they are stupid and that enough's enough and it's time for them to listen to the grownups and the brighter ones among the children? Would 421 give you balls enough to talk sense right out in public?
It's not enough for Obama to win. They have to really, really lose, once and for all.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Mainstream Media Coverage of the Presidential Campaign is Terrible
For example, an editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle reads, "Romney Gets Welfare Politics Right as Attack Ad Misses on Facts." Yeah, I'm not sure what that means, either. If you read the editorial you'll see it means that Romney's recent welfare attack ad is misleading some voters with lies -- so why isn't that the headline? Why do you have to read the long-winded editorial halfway through to see what it's getting at?
More to the point, does the Chronicle think that viewers who are apt to be mislead by ads like this one really read editorials down further than the headlines? Do they care about informing the public? Or do they see their role as shaking their heads sagely in the wings as Rome burns, to mix metaphors? There really are a very great many thoroughly useless people in positions of high prestige and power. It'd be nice if we lived in a meritocracy. We're not very close to that yet, if you ask me.
Is the mainstream media really going to remain "objective" in the "controversy" between Harry Reid and Mitt Romney over Romney's hidden tax returns, or, worse, take Romney's side, calling Reid's behavior inexcusable ten times for every time they point out how many more returns than Romney every Republican and Democratic nominee for President has released, going back decades? Just about every single day Romney either flat-out lies -- that we know about. How many more lies would we know about if Romney weren't so hyper-secretive? -- or contradicts something he said earlier. Sometimes earlier the same day. So why does the mainstream media insist on presenting stories suggesting that Romney and Obama and their campaigns are about equally dirty?
Presumably, reporters who spend ALL DAY EVERY DAY studying a subject FOR A LIVING know more about that subject than the average Schmoe. But what good is that knowledge if they deliberately hide it in the name of some purely imaginary "objectivity," which over and over again in political journalism boils down to refusing to take sides between a Fire Department and a fire? Are these professionals really going to wait until the last slack-jawed yokel in the United States has figured out that Mitt is full of shit before they dare to go so far out on a limb as to make pronouncements such as, "It seems that many Americans have begun to wonder whether they can trust everything Mitt Romney says. There is a growing perception that some of his statements may be inconsistent. Insiders have pointed out that many Presidents and Presidential candidates -- even including Mitt's own father, Goerge Romney" *gasps and screams of amazement can be heard in the background, but the on-camera pundit remains stony-face* "have been more forthcoming about their personal finances than Mitt Romney..." and are they going to pat themselves on the back for being so far behind the curve, or, as they call it, "objective," as if perception wouldn't have grown much more quickly in accurate directions if more pundits had been doing their fucking jobs and REPORTING WHAT THEY KNOW?!
Yes, I think they're going to continue to do the same pathetic job of covering this campaign on CNN and the broadcast networks, and no, I don't think they're really even going to try to protect you from lies and corruption. WAKE UP, turn off "The Newsroom," which is designed, as "The West Wing" was, to keep you in a happy trance in a wonderful what-if parallel universe while the real world goes to Hell, GET OFF THE COUCH and work for Obama.
More to the point, does the Chronicle think that viewers who are apt to be mislead by ads like this one really read editorials down further than the headlines? Do they care about informing the public? Or do they see their role as shaking their heads sagely in the wings as Rome burns, to mix metaphors? There really are a very great many thoroughly useless people in positions of high prestige and power. It'd be nice if we lived in a meritocracy. We're not very close to that yet, if you ask me.
Is the mainstream media really going to remain "objective" in the "controversy" between Harry Reid and Mitt Romney over Romney's hidden tax returns, or, worse, take Romney's side, calling Reid's behavior inexcusable ten times for every time they point out how many more returns than Romney every Republican and Democratic nominee for President has released, going back decades? Just about every single day Romney either flat-out lies -- that we know about. How many more lies would we know about if Romney weren't so hyper-secretive? -- or contradicts something he said earlier. Sometimes earlier the same day. So why does the mainstream media insist on presenting stories suggesting that Romney and Obama and their campaigns are about equally dirty?
Presumably, reporters who spend ALL DAY EVERY DAY studying a subject FOR A LIVING know more about that subject than the average Schmoe. But what good is that knowledge if they deliberately hide it in the name of some purely imaginary "objectivity," which over and over again in political journalism boils down to refusing to take sides between a Fire Department and a fire? Are these professionals really going to wait until the last slack-jawed yokel in the United States has figured out that Mitt is full of shit before they dare to go so far out on a limb as to make pronouncements such as, "It seems that many Americans have begun to wonder whether they can trust everything Mitt Romney says. There is a growing perception that some of his statements may be inconsistent. Insiders have pointed out that many Presidents and Presidential candidates -- even including Mitt's own father, Goerge Romney" *gasps and screams of amazement can be heard in the background, but the on-camera pundit remains stony-face* "have been more forthcoming about their personal finances than Mitt Romney..." and are they going to pat themselves on the back for being so far behind the curve, or, as they call it, "objective," as if perception wouldn't have grown much more quickly in accurate directions if more pundits had been doing their fucking jobs and REPORTING WHAT THEY KNOW?!
Yes, I think they're going to continue to do the same pathetic job of covering this campaign on CNN and the broadcast networks, and no, I don't think they're really even going to try to protect you from lies and corruption. WAKE UP, turn off "The Newsroom," which is designed, as "The West Wing" was, to keep you in a happy trance in a wonderful what-if parallel universe while the real world goes to Hell, GET OFF THE COUCH and work for Obama.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Hey, Mitt!
Why don't you show us your returns? What are you hiding? Risky business in Switzerland and the Caribbean? A net worth much, much bigger than $250 million? People can keep speculating day and night about what you're hiding -- and why on Earth shouldn't they, when you behave differently in this respect than every other major-party candidate going back decades? Including John McCain, it's not correct when you claim you released the same amount of returns as he did, because he's released his returns every single year since the late '80s. You ticked off Bill Clinton yesterday by misrepresenting him, do you really want to tick off McCain, too? Didn't he see a lot of these top-secret-none-of-you-people's business returns when he vetted you?
You're such a clown! Today you say you're not a business and that's why the returns are nobody's business. Okay, so you're not a business. And you're already on the record saying that corporations are people. It follows from those two statements that you are not a person. Okay, that's easy for me to believe.
So what are you, a Martian or a robot?
You're such a clown! Today you say you're not a business and that's why the returns are nobody's business. Okay, so you're not a business. And you're already on the record saying that corporations are people. It follows from those two statements that you are not a person. Okay, that's easy for me to believe.
So what are you, a Martian or a robot?
If Romney Told the Truth
Earlier today someone speculated that the next Romney ad might attack Obama for smoking cigarettes. Which of course is an absurd thought, because Obama actually has smoked cigarettes, and the Romney campaign avoids truth the way Frankenstein's monster avoids fire.
It'd be neat if Romney released some honest ads. (Not to mention those friggin tax returns!) Imagine along with me:
"Romney: Because you'd rather see yacht sales skyrocket than poor people catch a break."
"Romney: More lies in one week than JFK told in a year. And JFK was gettin busy."
And of course: "Romney: he's white." (As we speak, the Romney campaign may be trying to hire Newt Gingrich to hint at that one. Back around the time Newt dropped out of the nomination race, Chris Matthews, whom I trust not to talk out of his ass as much as I trust Harry Reid -- which is to say I regard him as a solid source -- seemed convinced that Newt was furious at Mitt, because of Mitt's low blows and lies during the GOP primary debates, and would stab him in the back if he ever got a chance. Is this Newt's chance? Will he take a gig from the Romney campaign, with them expecting him to smear Obama, and instead ask, in front of Republicans from coast to coast, why Romney won't release those tax returns the way everyone else does these days who's running for President, the same way he asked during those debates, only with people paying attention this time? That would be really cool. If Newt does that I could imagine almost respecting him for a little while. [A half-hour or so. Let's not get carried away.])
"Romney: Creating jobs. Sweatshop jobs in China and India. Admit it, you really like all your inexpensive sweatshop products."
"Romney: Because you hate unions, teachers, firemen, blacks, women and Catholics. Biden's Catholic! Catholic and a liberal! One heartbeat away! After LBJ and Hoover went to all that trouble!"
It'd be neat if Romney released some honest ads. (Not to mention those friggin tax returns!) Imagine along with me:
"Romney: Because you'd rather see yacht sales skyrocket than poor people catch a break."
"Romney: More lies in one week than JFK told in a year. And JFK was gettin busy."
And of course: "Romney: he's white." (As we speak, the Romney campaign may be trying to hire Newt Gingrich to hint at that one. Back around the time Newt dropped out of the nomination race, Chris Matthews, whom I trust not to talk out of his ass as much as I trust Harry Reid -- which is to say I regard him as a solid source -- seemed convinced that Newt was furious at Mitt, because of Mitt's low blows and lies during the GOP primary debates, and would stab him in the back if he ever got a chance. Is this Newt's chance? Will he take a gig from the Romney campaign, with them expecting him to smear Obama, and instead ask, in front of Republicans from coast to coast, why Romney won't release those tax returns the way everyone else does these days who's running for President, the same way he asked during those debates, only with people paying attention this time? That would be really cool. If Newt does that I could imagine almost respecting him for a little while. [A half-hour or so. Let's not get carried away.])
"Romney: Creating jobs. Sweatshop jobs in China and India. Admit it, you really like all your inexpensive sweatshop products."
"Romney: Because you hate unions, teachers, firemen, blacks, women and Catholics. Biden's Catholic! Catholic and a liberal! One heartbeat away! After LBJ and Hoover went to all that trouble!"
Friday, June 29, 2012
2012 Presidential Election Forecast
It's much the same as 4 years ago: I'm not worried, and I'm wondering why so many of my fellow Democrats, and others horrified by Republicans, and ex-Republicans, and so forth, are so worried. I don't think this is going to be close. A lot of people seemed to be really worried in 2008 that McCain-Palin could win. I told them they were being ridiculous, and of course I was right.
Maybe Barack
won't get as many electoral votes in 2012 as he got in 2008 -- maybe -- he got 365 by the way, a little more than twice as many as McCain -- but I'm studying the polls, and I can't see how his chances of carrying every single state he carried in 2008 are any slimmer than Mitt's chances of getting 270.
Could this simply be an example of my autism allowing me to do the math much more easily and correctly than most people? I don't like math, and I can't do it as well as Rain Man or that nice young British man Steve Kroft interviewed on "60 Minutes" who's both an Asperger and a real big deal in the world of math, who has memorized pi to a very unusual number of digits and associates numbers with colors, and on the show he was obviously -- obviously to me -- made very uncomfortable by the surf crashing onto a seawall where Kroft wanted to stop and interview him, although Kroft seemed completely clueless about what it could possibly be which was bothering the young fellow, sorry I can't track down his name -- but I can easily handle the math involved in Presidential elections, without a calculator. Obama has at least 240 electoral votes locked up. At least. That's being very kind to Romney, and saying for the sake of argument that Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida are all toss-ups. That makes 107 tossup electoral votes, of which Obama needs 30 to be re-elected, and Romney needs 79 to beat him.
Which means Romney won't beat Obama. Okay, fine, be worried. Whatever. I'm right.
And things keep getting worse for the Republicans. They are splitting into two parties, the Tea Party whackos and the regular Republicans, many of whom like Obama better than they like the Tea Party. There are growing cracks in the usual disciplined Republican unity. The fury directed from the Right toward Chief Justice Roberts is just the latest of many such stories this year. Usually it's the Democrats in disarray in election season, savagely attacking each other while the Republicans come together and put aside their squabbles until after November. Other way around this time. Sure, there are the usual Democratic or ex-Democratic or otherwise Leftist nincompoops claiming they were deceived and that now they see that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, because their disappointment over one issue has rendered them blind to all of the obvious things in the rest of the world -- but there is no Ralph Nader gathering them together and leading them this time. No King of the Leftist Nincompoops in 2012, as far as the eye can see. No significant third-party madness on the Left, no serious Democratic competing with the POTUS for the nomination.
And on the Right, even if Paul and Santorum and Gingrich and Bachmann and Pawlenty and Huntsman and Perry don't run on any third party tickets they're still all going to get significant numbers of write-in votes from wingnuts who hate Romney, except of course in the case of Huntsman who will get significant numbers of protest votes from moderate Republicans who hate Romney. They're going to get together in Tampa and nominate somebody everybody hates! Romney's a poster boy for party dysfunction.
And the Libertarian party is running a former Governor of New Mexico. In short: there is great disarray on the Right, even if you don't hear much about it, or about other very significant things like how severely and obviously skewed the polls from Rasmussen and others are, from the big media outlets.
Don't worry. Obama 2012. Take it to the bank. If you want to worry about something, worry about why the broadcast networks and CNN keep trying to present this as a close race. If they're really that dumb then that's something to worry about. If they're not that dumb then they're fundamentally dishonest, another thing worth worrying about.
Maybe Barack
won't get as many electoral votes in 2012 as he got in 2008 -- maybe -- he got 365 by the way, a little more than twice as many as McCain -- but I'm studying the polls, and I can't see how his chances of carrying every single state he carried in 2008 are any slimmer than Mitt's chances of getting 270.Could this simply be an example of my autism allowing me to do the math much more easily and correctly than most people? I don't like math, and I can't do it as well as Rain Man or that nice young British man Steve Kroft interviewed on "60 Minutes" who's both an Asperger and a real big deal in the world of math, who has memorized pi to a very unusual number of digits and associates numbers with colors, and on the show he was obviously -- obviously to me -- made very uncomfortable by the surf crashing onto a seawall where Kroft wanted to stop and interview him, although Kroft seemed completely clueless about what it could possibly be which was bothering the young fellow, sorry I can't track down his name -- but I can easily handle the math involved in Presidential elections, without a calculator. Obama has at least 240 electoral votes locked up. At least. That's being very kind to Romney, and saying for the sake of argument that Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida are all toss-ups. That makes 107 tossup electoral votes, of which Obama needs 30 to be re-elected, and Romney needs 79 to beat him.
Which means Romney won't beat Obama. Okay, fine, be worried. Whatever. I'm right.
And things keep getting worse for the Republicans. They are splitting into two parties, the Tea Party whackos and the regular Republicans, many of whom like Obama better than they like the Tea Party. There are growing cracks in the usual disciplined Republican unity. The fury directed from the Right toward Chief Justice Roberts is just the latest of many such stories this year. Usually it's the Democrats in disarray in election season, savagely attacking each other while the Republicans come together and put aside their squabbles until after November. Other way around this time. Sure, there are the usual Democratic or ex-Democratic or otherwise Leftist nincompoops claiming they were deceived and that now they see that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, because their disappointment over one issue has rendered them blind to all of the obvious things in the rest of the world -- but there is no Ralph Nader gathering them together and leading them this time. No King of the Leftist Nincompoops in 2012, as far as the eye can see. No significant third-party madness on the Left, no serious Democratic competing with the POTUS for the nomination.
And on the Right, even if Paul and Santorum and Gingrich and Bachmann and Pawlenty and Huntsman and Perry don't run on any third party tickets they're still all going to get significant numbers of write-in votes from wingnuts who hate Romney, except of course in the case of Huntsman who will get significant numbers of protest votes from moderate Republicans who hate Romney. They're going to get together in Tampa and nominate somebody everybody hates! Romney's a poster boy for party dysfunction.
And the Libertarian party is running a former Governor of New Mexico. In short: there is great disarray on the Right, even if you don't hear much about it, or about other very significant things like how severely and obviously skewed the polls from Rasmussen and others are, from the big media outlets.
Don't worry. Obama 2012. Take it to the bank. If you want to worry about something, worry about why the broadcast networks and CNN keep trying to present this as a close race. If they're really that dumb then that's something to worry about. If they're not that dumb then they're fundamentally dishonest, another thing worth worrying about.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Dan Brown and the Templars and the Grail
For at least a few years now, due to Dan Brown, very many people have been thinking about the Templars in association with the Holy Grail. Whether Brown alone is responsible for the dimensions of this current fascination, or whether he has just been riding a wave of great popular interest before him, I don't know.
I do know that at least partly due to Brown, and to people like those at the History Channel riding Brown's wave, many people have gotten the idea that the Grail, or at least the idea of the Grail, goes way back in time into the early Dark Ages, if not actually into antiquity, if not actually all the way back to Jeebus Himself, when in fact the Grail originated in 12th-century fiction. Dingbats like Brown and the folks working for and consulted by and associated with the History Channel are spreading the notion that the Grail is nonfictional, whether it's a jeweled chalice as in the popular Arthurian stories, or some sort of magic stone, or Jesus' great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-granddaughter. There's all this awful bullshit about the Mysteries of the Grail, when there's no mystery, and therefore also no need for any self-described genius to come along and solve the mystery. Any decent introductory course in Medieval French literature solves the mystery by informing the student that Chrétien de Troyes invented the Grail in his epic poem Perceval. There ya go, folks, Grail mystery solved, yr welcome.
Lately it occurred to me to wonder how many people may have been mislead in the opposite direction: they already knew that the Grail was fictional, either because they had attended a competent class in Medieval literature or because they generally pay attention, and now, having never heard of the Templars before this aside from their mention in fiction, the widespread hoopla about the Grail and the Templars has led them to assume that the Templars are fictional, that they also never existed.
I get the impression that a large portion of the public, and of the reporters of the mainstream public, have first heard of mythicists via Bart Ehrman's recent book-length attempt to discredit them. If this is correct then it may mean that Ehrman's attempt has in fact been quite successful.
But it's so hard to really know what the general public thinks. Public-opinion polls, even when they're done well, and Lord knows they aren't always, have serious shortcomings. Presidential elections less so -- but wait, how do I know that? Well, of course, I don't. I'm just guessing and speculating and poking around in the dark all over the place here, as is anyone who tries to gauge public perceptions. At least some of us know we're just guessing. Above I assumed that mainstream-media reporters had been pretty ignorant of the historicist-mythicist debate until Bart Ehrman recently succeeded in leading them astray -- but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the publishers and editors of mainstream media deliberately keep the sharper reporters far away from any stories about religion. That would be both bad and good news: bad, of course, because it would mean that media bosses are deliberately misleading us more than we might imagine, and good because it could mean that their nefarious attempts to keep us in the dark are not as successful as they or anyone else thinks.
Sometimes public opinion is suddenly and surprisingly revealed, in a good and reassuring way. When I was in the 8th grade it was assumed that either a certain rich girl, daughter of a physician, my primary-care physician as it happened, although the term "primary-care physician," to my knowledge, was not yet in use, would be elected homecoming queen, or one of two other members of her clique. Because they were the popular girls. Or so everyone assumed. But no, the other girl surprisingly on the dais with them as a finalist, not a rich girl, dressed much more like the rest of us because she couldn't afford to dress like the rich cliques, none of us could, was announced the winner and the place went nuts. Conventional wisdom was proved wrong.
Don't accept conventional wisdom just because it's conventional. And don't assume that the assholes and idiots have quite as tight a hold on public perceptions as Time magazine and The New York Times may have you believe. I'm not denying that things are often awful, just suggesting that maybe, maybe, good sense is more widespread than it may appear. bubbling under the surface. For goodness' sake, vote to re-elect President Obama.
I do know that at least partly due to Brown, and to people like those at the History Channel riding Brown's wave, many people have gotten the idea that the Grail, or at least the idea of the Grail, goes way back in time into the early Dark Ages, if not actually into antiquity, if not actually all the way back to Jeebus Himself, when in fact the Grail originated in 12th-century fiction. Dingbats like Brown and the folks working for and consulted by and associated with the History Channel are spreading the notion that the Grail is nonfictional, whether it's a jeweled chalice as in the popular Arthurian stories, or some sort of magic stone, or Jesus' great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-granddaughter. There's all this awful bullshit about the Mysteries of the Grail, when there's no mystery, and therefore also no need for any self-described genius to come along and solve the mystery. Any decent introductory course in Medieval French literature solves the mystery by informing the student that Chrétien de Troyes invented the Grail in his epic poem Perceval. There ya go, folks, Grail mystery solved, yr welcome.
Lately it occurred to me to wonder how many people may have been mislead in the opposite direction: they already knew that the Grail was fictional, either because they had attended a competent class in Medieval literature or because they generally pay attention, and now, having never heard of the Templars before this aside from their mention in fiction, the widespread hoopla about the Grail and the Templars has led them to assume that the Templars are fictional, that they also never existed.
I get the impression that a large portion of the public, and of the reporters of the mainstream public, have first heard of mythicists via Bart Ehrman's recent book-length attempt to discredit them. If this is correct then it may mean that Ehrman's attempt has in fact been quite successful.
But it's so hard to really know what the general public thinks. Public-opinion polls, even when they're done well, and Lord knows they aren't always, have serious shortcomings. Presidential elections less so -- but wait, how do I know that? Well, of course, I don't. I'm just guessing and speculating and poking around in the dark all over the place here, as is anyone who tries to gauge public perceptions. At least some of us know we're just guessing. Above I assumed that mainstream-media reporters had been pretty ignorant of the historicist-mythicist debate until Bart Ehrman recently succeeded in leading them astray -- but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the publishers and editors of mainstream media deliberately keep the sharper reporters far away from any stories about religion. That would be both bad and good news: bad, of course, because it would mean that media bosses are deliberately misleading us more than we might imagine, and good because it could mean that their nefarious attempts to keep us in the dark are not as successful as they or anyone else thinks.
Sometimes public opinion is suddenly and surprisingly revealed, in a good and reassuring way. When I was in the 8th grade it was assumed that either a certain rich girl, daughter of a physician, my primary-care physician as it happened, although the term "primary-care physician," to my knowledge, was not yet in use, would be elected homecoming queen, or one of two other members of her clique. Because they were the popular girls. Or so everyone assumed. But no, the other girl surprisingly on the dais with them as a finalist, not a rich girl, dressed much more like the rest of us because she couldn't afford to dress like the rich cliques, none of us could, was announced the winner and the place went nuts. Conventional wisdom was proved wrong.
Don't accept conventional wisdom just because it's conventional. And don't assume that the assholes and idiots have quite as tight a hold on public perceptions as Time magazine and The New York Times may have you believe. I'm not denying that things are often awful, just suggesting that maybe, maybe, good sense is more widespread than it may appear. bubbling under the surface. For goodness' sake, vote to re-elect President Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)