Diana West says it for me
I agree with the view of this article,
at TownHall.com. It does not contain any factual errors but does take a side on how to view some of those facts. I agree with those perspectives on the record of Kerry, after informing myself with due diligence that I am not taking an unreasonable position. I do recognize that the same body of evidence can lead to other conclusions, and if you have the view that a summary of John Kerry spells out whoop-de-do for the world, then it shouldn't be a problem for you to click on the link and read it.
I know everything is tainted with bias, but if you think for yourself, like the songs and movies and celebrities all constantly indocrtinate you to do(heh that's a weird thought huh) then you won't be harmed by going and reading. Thinking for yourself immunizes from you from most effects of partisanship except your own. Suddenly it becomes clear that some amount of partisanship is a good thing even if too much can be bad.
Go ahead and say what you believe, too. And don't say that it is something you know unless you can honestly make the argument to yourself. There is nothing wrong with just saying 'I don't know'. There is nothing wrong with asking, being told, and still not knowing. We all believe something, so it's important to get together and compare and contrast our beliefs so it will help us to get a better idea of what is true
. There's nothing wrong with being wrong in these cases on the individual level.
Just relax...no need to shudder just yet. Just step back and realize that we can disagree and not punch each other on national issues.
Also...What's with calling it 'bias' anyway. I know what it means, thanks, but it just seems a misnomer. 'Bias' makes it sound like there is a conscious manipulation of the argument to get a pre-manufactured or preferable conclusion. And yeah, that exists too. But it's too close to saying 'prejudiced' or 'blindly stupid'. What do I mean, my answer is biased? Biased from HWOT?! Yours?! Heh, Zell Miller came through for a minute there. What it means is that the core beliefs I have, that can differ among good men, lead me to consistently reach a different conclusion on certain questions than someone with different core beliefs. It's not a bias, it's a point of view. There is a statistical bias to how my conclusions will differ from those of my friends on the left, sure. But what's the use of using the word 'bias' as if there were a 'nonbias' that could be used without referring statistically to conclusions that scatter to both the left and right of the political spectrum. Does that make sense? Never mind, I'm almost to the shutting up part.
If you accept that we are all biased, or inclined towards bias as a general rule at lease...then there is no control group. There is no center of the political spectrum, just people that are less demanding of conclusions that have fidelity to core beliefs. That makes sense. So for anyone to have to go around stating that they are biased seems absurd. That someone should have to go around willing to state what their bias is seems more reasonable.
posted by M@ at 3:58 AM