I only wanted to put her out of my misery.
The purpose of this article is not to convey my innermost feelings as I struggled to avoid the temptation to snuff out someone's life. It's to show how easily people can be misled, or how easily they will mislead themselves, given the opportunity.
There were no weapons of mass destruction. Never were.
Not a single life has been lost on US soil since 9/11 due to terrorism. Well over 2000 US soldiers have died in Iraq alone, however, since the US attacked that poor country looking for those non-existent weapons.
Nor was I tempted to kill anyone. I stated that clearly in the title. If you read this looking for a confession, the unburdening of my soul, you misled yourself.
Yesterday I removed the name of one person from my Gather network. She made a strong case in an article, quoting several respected sources, to explain how the world is going to hell in a handbasket because the planet's atmosphere has warmed by one Celsius degree since the end of the mini Ice Age, about 1850.
My comment in reply to her emotional frenzy was that when examining any controversial subject we should look at both (or all) sides of the story. To not give fair play to both sides was, I said, emotional terrorism, fear mongering.
Following a few carefully chosen adjectives about my intentions, for none of which she provided any support, she challenged me to present a case, complete with valid references, to dispute her thesis. I declined, stating that the objective of my comment was to urge each reader to look at the differing opinions on the subject.
I wanted to use reason to examine the subject. She wanted to use statistics and names of scientists (in abundance) to make her point.
I don't need to tell you that statistics can be tortured enough to confess to anything. And if the president of the world's most powerful and dangerous country can lie to his people, in defiance of facts known to him through CIA documents, and have a majority of those people believe him enough to agree to take their country into war and drive it into debt so badly that it may never recover, what good is the word of a "respected" person?
It is true that literally hundreds of scientists have urged President Bush to take action because of climate fluctuations and devastating weather phenomena. But neither they nor the person who wrote the article quoting them in Gather made any suggestions for solutions. Hysteria, yes.
What the scientists want is grant money and for the US government and administration to take actions to prepare their country for the inevitable changes that will result from natural tragedies. What the media, who gleefully report statistics predicting Armageddon, want is for more people to buy their newspapers and watch their television stations so that they can attract more money from a dwindling supply of cash from commercials.
In all of the reading that I have done on the subject of climate fluctuation, not a single scientist has made a practical proposal to limit the "greenhouse gases" that are poisoning the population. What they do call for is action to stop the air from getting warmer. Nothing on poisoning, lots on getting warmer.
I believe that a strong dose of reason is required. The world today is being driven by hype. Some hype is fomenting a false need for war. Some is persuading people that they should become martyrs as suicide bombers. Still more convinces us to buy products we don't need and that will use natural resources unnecessarily. The effect of most of the hype is like that of pissing into the wind.
We need to understand that leaders of various kinds have learned that they can get our attention (and our money and votes) by making us afraid. Fear never helped anything. But it does get votes and money. It also educates no one. Fearful people don't do research.
All this because not enough of us will take the time to learn the facts and to express our considered opinions to the right people. And to our neighbours, so that they will learn more as well.
Hype will get attention, even among Gatherites. But, like fear, it will accomplish nothing beyond generating fear.
I object to the waste of human life on fear.
Bill Allin
'Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems,' striving to trash the hype and get to some real learning.
Learn more at http://billallin.com
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 39
Excellent article.
(now, how'd you get that disconnect to work. I haven't been able to disconnect lately)
Thank you, Steve, Mandi, Zenith and Sandy for the compliments. Propaganda is one of the areas of sociology about which I have some expertise. When I see propaganda that is not labelled at least as opinion, I hit the big red button. When it is used to brainwash people or to hurt people, the language weapons appear.
Sandy, on any Gather page on which you are signed in, click on People in the horizontal navigation bar across the top of the page. That will provide you with a list of people in your network. Under each name you will find a link that says Delete.
However, if you receive messages because that person is a member of the same group as you are, the procedure above does not apply. The only way you can avoid comments in that case is to remove yourself from that group.
I get so tired of being afraid, and I know worrying does not set anything right, but both behaviors are deeply ingrained and it takes a conscious decision to *enjoy* the good things in life and take positive steps as I go. You leave wonderful footprints to follow as I hunt around for a path. :-)
Ben says it is a glitch his people are working on.
On one level, it seems to be about using a clearly misleading title and then glibly implying that anyone misled by it is a sucker who is too easily led astray by an obvious interpretation of carefully selected words.
Having established how clever you are, you then apparently use that to prove your opinions (stated as facts) that the lying president of the "most . . . dangerous country" misled a population far more gullible than your wise self into a senseless slaughter of innocent civilians.
Your statement that the president "lied" to "his" people effectively enough to have "a majority of those people believe him enough to agree to take their country into war and drive it into debt so badly that it may never recover" is, of course, a gross over-simplification of the democratic process that approved and supported the Iraq war, but I assume you know that (does that make you a "liar"?).
I'm not exactly sure what the relevance of the Iraq diversion was, but it seems to be used to support your opinion (again, stated as fact) that the talk of global warming is nothing more than fear mongering by scientists seeking research grants.
A couple of points for you to consider.
First, your writing is obviously very good, but this article is dripping with the very hype you profess to decry.
Second, by setting up anyone who disagrees with you as a gullible puppet of liars, you are hardly inviting reasoned debate.
No one can force you to be afraid unless you are willing to allow them to control your life. No one has earned that right. No one ever will.
You won't find others on your own path. But the good ones will be nearby on their own, close enough to wave and have a chat once in a while. And close enough to help each other when needed.
There is an abundance of evidence available publicly to prove everything that I stated as fact. In fact, the only opinion in the pice is clearly labelled as such. For you to try to label facts as opinion is just what the conservatives have been doing in the US for many years.
Please expand your sources of reading material if you aren't aware of what is available that supports the facts I stated.
We may have to agree to disagree, which is a position you claim that I did not allow. But be certain of what you are disagreeing with. Your comment suggests that you are disgruntled, but not with what. As a Canadian, I have no vested interest in US politics. Our media report both sides of every issue, where possible. That, sadly, is not the case in the US, where most of the media are owned by conservatives.
No, I won't prove that to you either. A reasoned debate is only possible when both parties have equal access to the same set of facts. You apprently do not, or are reluctant to read what is available.
Thanks for your comments.
My objection was to you stating opinions as fact. And you continue to do that in your last comment. So, in reality, you're the one running in circles.
You also continue to dismiss what you correctly assume to be my disagreement with your opinions as the simple result of naiveté and/or ignorance on my part.
I find that approach to "discussion" at the same time incredibly elitist yet boringly typical of those who oppose a conservative viewpoint.
Here's a question for you.
In your article, you state: "Not a single life has been lost on US soil since 9/11 due to terrorism."
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I assume you think that somehow proves a larger point that military action was not necessary after 9/11 and the fools who supported military action in response to an attack on the United States were just gullible suckers deceived by their fear mongering leaders.
How, exactly, does the lack of further attacks on U.S. soil prove that point?
You'll probably reiterate your glib suggestion that I should expand my reading base to some unidentified set of materials that all the fancy, elite people like you know about but ignorant, gullible people like me either aren't aware of or, perhaps, aren't intelligent enough to really understand.
But, after you do that, can you explain how it is not equally plausible that the absence of additional terrorist attacks on U.S. soil is the result of the persistent U.S. military actions against the source of those terrorost attacks?
I'm anxious to hear you explain that, but I'm willing to clue you in up front that, as far as I know, there is no way to prove the point either way.
As far as I know, you can't really prove a negative. But I finished up grad school almost 20 years ago (and, evidently, have been becoming more ignorant, gullible and naive ever since) so if there are new technologies out there, please let me know.
The article title fits well with the theme of the article, though it might be difficult for some to understand. The title itself shows how people can mislead themselves by "understanding" something that was never intended.
I have no opinion as to whether it's fair that someone's preconceived notion of what story should follow the title turned out to be incorrect. Titles and headlines can intentionally be misleading in any media we may read.
You always have the choice to read something that looks interesting that way.
Did they give you the same one????
and I thought I was special;-(
Best line, and the first:
I only wanted to put her out of my miser.
My favorite line:
I don't need to tell you that statistics can be tortured enough to confess to anything.
Keep on Bill
Brenda, there is indeed money to be made by using hype and fear. Advertising agencies and religions do it all the time. And there is power as an incentive too. Wars function totally on hype, fear and lies.
But here's an important point: people who believe that there are more important things in life than money or power stay quiet, even though they are in the majority. I want to change that, and I hope you do too.
Thanks, Julius. I hope you have had a busy day of reading.
I will also assume that your failure to respond to the question raised in my last comment proves my point, which is you have no response.
In your response to my initial comment, you stated that all of your opinions were actually facts.
I think we may have a disagreement about what a fact is.
Your assertion that President Bush lied, may or may not be a fact. As far as I know, President Bush has never confessed to lying and, since lying involves a conscious decision to mistate facts, I'm not exactly sure how you know whether or not it is a fact. So, your statement that Bush lied is your opinion, not a fact.
I should point out that an opinion does not become fact simply by virtue of being endlessly repeated in the blogosphere by a bunch of self-congratulatory bloggers who, like yourself, arrogantly dismiss contrary opinions as the misguided bleatings of uninformed sheep hypnotized by the grand conspiracy.
Your response to my comment effectively said that I should "google it" which is a favorite response of left wing bloggers.
Since you made the laughable statement that the American Media is controlled by conservatives, I will make the much more verifiable statement that the blogosphere is clearly dominated by the left. As a result, I'm sure you are quite comfortable that if I do "google" your opinions, I will find countless articles essentially parroting your assertions as "facts."
At the end of the day, your article uses a stream of hype to make the point that hype is bad. You may be unable or unwilling to see the hypocrisy, but it is abundantly clear to me.
Not responding might be wise though.
Look up "circular" in the dictionary (not original with me!) and there is a picture of Jake.
And I particularly liked your challenging the time-worn practice of driving to a conclusion by spouting "expert testimony" ("I don't need to tell you that statistics can be tortured enough to confess to anything.").
But then things fell apart:
"It is true that literally hundreds of scientists have urged President Bush to take action because of climate fluctuations and devastating weather phenomena. But neither they nor the person who wrote the article quoting them in Gather made any suggestions for solutions. Hysteria, yes."
Stating that none have offered solutions is disingenuous. In the Kyoto Protocol and Gorbachev's Earth Charter there are many reasoned steps proffered that could reduce the risk of irreversible climate change brought about by our culture's careless management of its environment and resources. These documents, and many others, present a case that, I believe, would make any reasonable thinker to question the long term environmental effects of our policies.
I applaud your call to reason in our addressing our global issues. But I'm disappointed that you are holding out uninformed cynicism as a replacement for "emotional terrorism, fear mongering".
I do believe that he was sure he was going to find those weapons based on history, bad advice, but also with less than enough real facts to back up his decision based on that only. I also don't believe that was the only reason for going into Iraq, but may have bought into the WMD in a similar fashion as to what your article is about.
Lastly, I also disagree about your comment on the media. If you lock yourself into one news source, you could get a slant in either direction. To be truly informed one should use several available sources to help form an opinion, and they are hardly all conservative.
Slightly tongue in cheek, I find it interesting that the ones that are so sure global warming will heat up the planet, and raise the ocean levels as soon as a decade from now, are also the ones in a big hurry to throw billions into rebuilding New Orleans only to find it under water soon.
Thanks again for the article.
(1) Never argue with someone who uses emotion rather than reason. You can never win because their energy is boundless and they constantly accuse you of using the same falacious arguments as they use themselves.
(2) Never argue with a fool. It's how they increase their numbers.
I didn't say that no valid proposals have been made as to how to alter the direction of climate change. Many have been made. But equally valid arguments have been made that these will only slow down "global warming," not reverse it.
The truth is that no one knows what is causing the global trend and even whether it can be reversed.
That does not alter our obligation to do something about how we are fouling our own beds. In a different context, the pollution and destruction of our natural environment would be called genocide. In this case, not genocide for the sake of ethnic purity, but for money.
Please remember that it is impossible to reproduce a person's whole range of considered thought on this subject in one short article and a few comment replies. I do not excuse the rape of the environment in the slightest way. I wish only to use reason rather than emotion to address our problems. Emotional arguments allow those who use them to escape scott-free as nothing ever gets done about them. Once the emotional wave dies down, there is little left to support it.
There were much better reasons for going into Iraq than either WMD or oil. Look around the world at officially Muslim states or primarily Muslim countries to see where violent Muslims are killing peaceful and innocent Muslims randomly. They use hate of the USA as their rallying cry, but they are killing their own people. Their purpose is to create chaos and anarchy, which will be followed by a Taliban-style resurgence and a regime based on Sharia (a fundamentalist and brutal style of it). They are using the same pattern as they saw work in Afghanistan after the Russians left.
Nowhere is this seen better than in Iraq. But it would be impossible to persuade the American people to support an invasion of Iraq based on this historical example.
Just as with Christianity in the times of the Crusades, many Muslims are prepared to die in order to advance the cause of their religion. They are being told by ely small number of clerics that Allah wants them to be martyrs and will reward them in heaven for their sacrifices. It's working.
The bad guys are using propaganda all over the world. They good guys seem to know little about it. Instead of using the same tactics, only using them more effectively based on their greater numbers, the good guys end up going to war to fight the bad guys. The good guys can never win that kind of war because you can't create peace by making war. It's fundamentally, conceptually wrong.
You are dead-on correct that greed not only drives the creation of resources-raping and destruction of our environment, but it prevents remediation.
Again, the good guys must work together to make things right or the bad guys will continue to reign supreme. That's what 'Turning It Around' is all about. Get in. Get involved, Learn how to make changes happen.
I am going to draw a lesson from your self-doctrine regarding who is worthy of debate. In the future, I think I will try to avoid wasting my words on closed-minded, pompous pseudo-intellectuals.
For the record, I gave your article a 10 many comments ago because even though I regard much of it as hype, it is very well written hype. In addition, I agree with much of what you said about radical islam in your comments to John S.
Fear can destroy a lot and propaganda the same. The latest can destroy the love shared by people no matter of race, culture etc.
Vey good indeed and thank you!
I want people to think objective, not to follow. Therefore I have no need to prove or even to support my opinions. They are merely prompts to get readers to look at all sides of an issue and make up their own minds. If you and Jake believe that my objective was to prove a point of opinion, then you both missed the objective or the piece. Or I didn't word it well enough to get my message across to people who may or may not have set and unalterable opinions that fit well with popular hype.
Your "finally" refers to my signature line, which often accompanies articles and blog entries. It's a way for people to learn more about the person who wrote the piece they have just read.
Just because I may have an interest in selling a book does not preclude me from eithe praising or criticizing the written work of others who I believe are peddling something that is deceptive to a naive public. I have as much right as anyone else to both express my opinions and to sell my product. Your final point is specious.
Thank you both for demonstrating how opposing opinions can be made freely even among comments. Just because I do not wish to conduct a pissing contest with Jake does not mean that I would deny him the opportunity to rant in my comments section.
Fear and love cannot live together in the same heart.