The fact is that almost the entirety of what one reads in the paper or on the web is speculation. The writer isn't telling you what happened, he is offering an interpretation of what happened, or offering a projection of the future. The best scenario is that these theories are novel, compelling, informed, and based on reporting and research. But that is rarely the case. More often the interpretations of current events, and prophesies of future ones, are merely the products of groupthink or dogma or emotions or wish-casting, memos to friends written by 27-year-olds who, in the words of Ben Rhodes, "literally know nothing." There was a time when newspapers printed astrology columns. They no longer need to. The pseudoscience is on the front page.
Nor are the empty conjectures and worthless hypotheses limited to Donald Trump. Yes, pretty much the entire world, myself included, assumed he would lose to Hillary Clinton. Indeed, a not-insignificant segment of the political class, both Democrat and Republican, thought the Republicans would not only lose the presidency but also the House and Senate. Oops! I remember when, as the clock reached midnight on November 8 and it became clear Trump would be the forty-fifth president, a friend called. "Are we just wrong about everything?" he asked. Perhaps we were. But at least we had the capacity to admit our fallibility.
There are few who can. Conjectures and guesswork continue to dog Trump in the form of "the Russia thing," the belief that the president, his "satellites," or his campaign worked with the Russians to influence the election in his favor. Months after the FBI opened its investigation into whether such collusion occurred, no evidence has been found. The charge itself is based on an unverified and gossipy and over-the-top memo prepared by a former British spy for Democrats.
(Link to the whole thing)
6 comments:
The Russian thing has no evidence, not to mention that Trump policies are much worse for Russia than Hillary's would have been and Putin knew this, so helping him win makes no sense.
On the obstruction of justice crap, Dershowitz made it clear today on FOX that even if the allegations are true, and even if it should be illegal, it's just not illegal under current law for the President to do it. He can tell the head of the FBI anything he wants and fire him for any reason. Dershowitz also said that Mueller and the lawyers being put on the case are both mistakes due to conflict of interest and obvious bias.
Dershowitz is the only lefty with any sanity today. The rest are neck deep in the fever swamp of hatred and disappointment.
Remember the End of History?
They've been wrong for at least 25 years and, if you're honest, more like 50.
Heard the moronic "Give Peace A Chance" for a bit today.
The yoots of then make up "the political class" now.
Do. The. Math.
Leftists have been wrong about everything since Engles/Marx decided that their ideas had value and merit.
i just finished reading a biography of Benjamin Franklin. Franklin later changed his mind about this but at one time he doubted the efficacy of smallpox vaccinations. He did not have his son vaccinated, and the boy later died of the disease. That death haunted Franklin for the rest of his life. By way of contrast, Cotton Mather, who had endorsed the Salem witch trials, was an early adapter of smallpox vaccinations. Sometimes the brightest people are wrong, and the dumb fucks get it right. Rasputin was an ignorant, superstitious horndog, but he was the only person in the Czar's circle who predicted that Russia would lose her empire and the Czar would lose his crown if he entered the war against Germany.........Elections don't always turn out the way I liked, but I respect the process. I've been wrong about more things more often than the electoral majority. Not that they always get it right either, but they've got a better track record than me.
Crichton died over 8 yeare ago. He wrote State of fear about 14 years ago. He had all this stuff figured out back then.
To me, that book is the modern day equivalent of 1984, except he was smart enough to put in an epilogue that left no question what the book was about. You don't have progressive socialist claiming State of Fear was a warning about the capitalist techniques to gain power.
As a free market type guy I wonder why an unbiased media has not entered the market? There used to be 'Headline News' on in all the airports. Just the facts, a news reader giving the bare bones on national stories, repeated every 30 min. Maybe some sports scores, or entertainment minute.
As a free market type guy I give myself the answer: Because no one wants to pay for non-slanted news. The news consumer wants to be lied to, manipulated, or to be given only the talking points for 'our' side of the story.
Post a Comment