Some day, no doubt, historians will ask how the most powerful country in the world could seriously debate whether the president of the United States was a Muslim, a socialist, or foreign-born, whether global warming was real, and whether discredited policies of austerity that failed to address the problems of the Great Depression should now be embraced to address the problems of the Great Recession. Historians will scratch their heads not over Americans having arguments but over the vehement hostility to reason and the shameful ignorance of fact, and they will be forced to conclude that a large swath of America in the early 21st century was, to be blunt, delusional.
Since so much of this comes from right-wing extremists, this group typically takes the brunt of the blame for denying reality. But right-wing know-nothingism could not have taken hold had it not been for another component of American life — one that that occasionally operates on the left as well as the right — the reverence for opinion above everything else. In America today, opinion is the new fact.
Comments
There is a grain of truth to this wind bag's column, but he clearly is infected with his own disease. There are many liberal opinions, which are treated as a priori truth, by the left and their minions in the media. Repeated often enough, these opinions are given the elevated status of being factual, when in fact, they are just a product of the left wing world view. GLobal Warming caused by man, for example, is an interesting theory. But it is not proven fact. It is telling that this ideologue compares people who question the theory to people who question the location of the president's birth. Obviously, one can prove where the president was born, but the theory of Global Warming caused by man cannot be proved to the same degree of certainty. But to the liberal observer, anyone who disputes their "facts" is an extremist.
Vehement hostility to reason and shameful ignorance of fact? Many Americans are delusional? Is this editorial meant to be satire? Most Americans, especially those of us on the right recognize empirical evidence, the left does not. The empirical evidence is that Obama has an extreme fondness for Islam, whether or not he is Koran carrying Muslim is irrelevant. Is Obama foreign born, who knows? We do know that he produced a provable photoshopped forgery of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii and we do know that no hospital in Hawaii has any records that his mother Ann Dunham was ever a patient. We do know that no hospital in Hawaii has mounted a plaque on their building celebrating it as the birthplace of President Obama. Is Obama a socialist? Maybe not in the mold of the old USSR but his rhetoric and open hostility toward succsssful people and profits is enough to set off the alarm bells. As for the global warming hokum, we do do know that the so-called scientists who started the whole scam admitted that they fudged their records to promote a false conclusion. In the part about austerity and the great depression I have no idea what the author is talking about, but being a right-wing economic illiterate that is to be expected. My guess is he is making some oblique reference to stimulus spending.
"Everyone knows the culture is poisonous and nobody expect that to change" is one opinion of the famous Peggy Noonan. This column is a perfect example of that poison. That, "folks" is my opinion. "Right-wing-know-nothingism" and questions of Mr. Obama's origin and behavior are examples of what Americans enjoy; free speech and the right to express their opinion. This previously unknown "columnist" seeks to make a name for himself by rant and rage and name calling in the extreme. May I suggest that he is, to be blunt, delusional. Perhaps, ignorance is his excuse. He needs to get a motor for his bycycle so his cruises along the journlistic highway clear his head of all those exhaust fumes.
Interesting article, but, in my opinion, the headline is misleading.
Any comment that starts off with name-calling is always bound to be incisive and persuasive.
Thanks for supporting Mr Gaebler's argument by providing an immediate example. I suspect that he appreciates it. I know that I do.
Mr. Gabler, in a way, you have been snookered. Your article appears alongside Cathy Young's who sees equal malfeasance on the left. However she presented no evidence for her case in contrast to the more sound effort you have made. Be that as it may the comments here by the usual suspects who refuse more weighty dialog but rather just want to throw their weight around, usually in a nasty way. It is a mystery of the human psyche why certain people stick to their guns even when obvious flaws in their reasoning are factually presented. Besides expressing opinion there must be some deeper need. Perhaps their very sense of survival has become tied up in their belief system and any change in a position becomes a threat and I can respect that. To deal with the impasse the true dialog should occur on a much different level if we are to get anywhere. How about, you tell me what you want to keep and why, and I can tell you what I want to change and why. Maybe then we can have a worthwhile conversation. It calls for a greater understanding of each other's world view.
Sir, how's the eye? The one with the biblical moat in it? The Boston Globe from cover to cover is an opinion, mostly leftist, rarely reporting the news. C'mon!
and who crusades the culture wars?
and who crusades the culture wars?
and who crusades the culture wars?
Neal, I suggest you read Cathy Young's article for a better take on reality
no evidence? how's that reading comprehension?
your straw man set up in the 1st paragraph fail completely. 1. Obama is a socialist - he does have socialist tendencies and policies. a closet socialist From Powerline: Consider Obama's record in the U.S. Senate. He was rated by one prominent index as the most liberal member of that body during his tenure. That's not the record of a pragmatic liberal. Indeed, Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, served with Obama. Since Obama's voting record was arguably to the left of Sanders', it is hardly fraudulent to suggest that Obama is a socialist. Before entering the U.S. Senate, Obama served in the Illinois state Senate. As Stanley Kurtz has shown, although the future president worked with Republicans at times, the substantive thrust of his work in Springfield was quite consistent with the contemporary socialist agenda. Thus, Obama pushed for redistributionist social welfare legislation. Working with a socialist colleague, Quentin Young, Obama repeatedly proposed a state constitutional amendment mandating universal health care. And he openly favored a single payer system. Two political scientists who graphed the legislation Obama sponsored as a state senator found that the bar for social welfare legislation towered over every other category. The result was similar for legislation that Obama co-sponsored. The two professors concluded that other than social welfare and a sprinkling of government regulation, Obama devoted very little effort to most policy areas. This is how we would expect a socialist state legislator to behave. In 2000, Obama ran for Congress against left-wing incumbent Bobby Rush. In this race, Obama received the endorsement of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) (again I rely here on Stanley Kurtz). Clearly, it viewed Obama's "moves" as other than those of a "pragmatic liberal." And for the reasons stated above, they were right. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/barack-obama-so-much-more-than-a-pragmatic-liberal.php Furthermore, if we look back four years earlier, still within Maraniss' 16 year window, we find that Obama joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. Furthermore- "you did not build that" is not exactly a thought of a capitalist. 2. Global warming - it is NOT a proven fact. NASA on a recent "GW" event: "The Greenland ice sheet is a vast area with a varied history of change. This event, combined with other natural but uncommon phenomena, such as the large calving event last week on Petermann Glacier, are part of a complex story," said Tom Wagner, NASA's cryosphere program manager in Washington. "Satellite observations are helping us understand how events like these may relate to one another as well as to the broader climate system." . . "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says
Neal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443477104577553211912280818.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
. . . . And yet you continue to faithfully read it (and even pay to do so!), when you have so many other options available that may match your worldview. Oh, and that's spelled "mote".
This piece is almost devoid of evidence to support the claim that Americans are delusional. But suppose the claim were true. What would that say about the quality of our liberal-dominated public schools?
Suppose the claim that public schools are liberal dominated were true. What would that say about those who refuse to believe the science, history, and facts they learn in those liberal-dominated public schools. It would say that they're delusional.
No, opinions are not facts. Nevertheless, Mr. Gabler and Ms. Young have the same message: my side only has a few nuts but everyone on the other side is bonkers.
Your comments show a complete lack of understand about what science is. Science is neither liberal nor moderate nor conservative. Do you know what "science literacy" means? Well, you don't have it.
Apparently lack some other form of literacy, Martha1, because you don't understand that that's my point exactly. In other words, when clowns like Ozark make claims about "liberal-dominated public schools," does that mean that the content of the learning that goes on in schools is completely worthless if we even partially grant the truth of his assertion? Science is still science, etc.
See the link below, flags, for someone who decided that the "global warming hokum" is real: [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html ]