« Eric Alterman on Slate | Main | Light posting this week »

August 26, 2005


You're right about that absurdity, but it's actually even more absurd than that. He's saying that 64% predicting victory = 64% supporting the war. This doesn't make sense unless you show that the two are equivalent. For example, some might predict that the U.S. will achieve victory through a scorched-earth, WMD military campaign but consider that immoral (predicting victory but not supporting the war). On the other hand, some may consider the war such a moral cause that it needs to be supported regardless of whether it looks like we'll win (supporting the war but not predicting victory).

This sort of voodoo interpretation of the poles is, unfortunately, only the tip of the iceberg in Mr. Blankley's voluntary skewed version of reality. What is even more disturbing is the fact that, public opinion, hearing radically opposite positions from both sides and not being able to make a critical judgement about it due to a lack of time for and/or will to go mining through a variety of information sources (including foreign), has the instinctive tendency of imagining the truth as laying somewhere in between the two opposites. Hence, if a known commentator such as Mr. Blankley deliberately sends extremely skewed spins in the public domain, he, therefore, has a chance to bring the "mid-way" option closer to his personal and partisan views of the issues. This is what is so scary about the Evolution theory versus the so- called "Intelligent Design" debate - especially if both are tought at school- as ill-informed individuals may end-up thinking that the truth must rest "in-between" whereas overwhelming scientific evidences points towards Evolution and none towards its supposed counterpart.

The comments to this entry are closed.