A Little Parable About False Witnessing and Malice from the Slacktavist...

[liz_marcs]

The Slacktavist has a little parable about bearing false witness on his blog today that is really a must-read.

It's also pretty clear just who he's talking about in his parable as he tries to explain the fearful, malicious mindset we're seeing coming from the "Obama is reely a sekrit Muslim!" crowd and Palin's vicious acceptance speech, which seemed to be 50% lies. (Oooops! She lied again again! And again!)

And what really confuses the hell out of me is that even after Palin's been caught in several lies over and over again over the past week, she keeps repeating the same damn lies. It's almost like she thinks people are stupid.

The Slacktivist — reporter, progressive, and evangelical Christian — attempts to explain this mindset to us reality-based peoples in today's blog entry. (It's Part 1 of a two-part series.)

Although I am loathe to support his anti-Heinlein theory that one should never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to malice, since he's more familiar with the kind of mindset that he's targeting I'll take his word for it that the population of people who fall into this category is a whole lot bigger than I'd like to believe.

In the meantime, I still believe that there are some low-information voters out there who just need a few facts.

So, mon amis, I have a list of sites you should bookmark and read on a regular basis so that when you meet a low-information voter who just might believe that Obama's a supah sekrit Muslim bent on killin' whitey (presumably after he raises whitey's taxes), you'll be properly prepared to set them a-right.

[Oh, and for you GOPers out there, you might want to take advantage of these sites, too. No matter what they tell you, the facts do not have a liberal bias. I swear. Cross my heart and hope to die.]

Sites you need to bookmark until at least November 5:

• PolitiFact, a graphics-heavy, interesting little site from the St. Petersberg Times. Be sure to read the commentary that comes with each of the ratings, because you'll quickly find that something may be technically true (and thus rated as true) while still being a lie.
  
  
• FactCheck.org from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Not flashy, but definitely my fave. So painfully politically neutral that its earnestness rolls off the page.
  
  
• OntheIssues.org, non-partisan guide to the candidates and the issues. Feels a little like it's being held together by chewing gum, spit, and a whole lot of volunteers, but definitely a good way to get a quick snapshot on where all the candidates stand.
  
  
• OpenSecrets.org is where you go when you wanna follow the money in the politics.
  
  
• I'm not a fan of RealClearPolitics because it's got too much opinion and not enough analysis. That said, I'm throwing it out there because it's got a lot of fans.
  
  
• FiveThirtyEight (leans left), Electoral-Vote (leans center-left), Pollster.com (neutral), and Election Projection (leans right) are all excellent sites that help the common voter make sense of polling, the Electoral College, surveys, and how news (and the lack of news) affect polling results from one day to the next. Highly educational whatever your political stripe.
  

---

P.S. — Can someone tell me where the summer went? All I know is that one minute it was June 30, and now it's September 8.

Do you realize that I still owe something like 5 people phone calls from the first week in July that I said I'd call? [Tries not to look at szandara and kurukami and a handful of other LJ-type people who might not want the general public to know they live near me.]

I swear I meant to call. I did.

But, see, I was kidnapped by this army of ducks while kayaking...



This meeting of the Glorious Duck Revolution shall now come to order. Top of the agenda: How do we get stupid humans to feed us more bread?
[Photo taken while kayaking the Charles River on Sunday, July 27, 2008. (Photo by Lizbeth Marcs)]

Comments

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

You've defended two Republicans, brought up socialism, and compared disparate real world things as opposite equals. Hm. You've not said one thing about an actual Dem, just defended McCain and Palin both.

[rudyhenkel.livejournal.com]

I've only defended McCain and Palin because they are the only ones being attacked in this thread. If someone wants to make claims on here about Obama that I think are factually untrue, I'd be glad to argue with them as well.

You think because that I'm not a socialist, I must be a Republican? As another poster quickly deduced, I consider myself more a libertarian more than anything else. I think that a government taking my earnings and giving it to others is just as much a violation of rights as forbidding abortion. You may disagree with these values, but there's nothing hidden about my position.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Yeah, well, libertarianism only works in a perfect world where all people start out equal in size, power, status...etc., etc., No wonder young males like you like it so much. Proves my point about age and experience, though.

[rudyhenkel.livejournal.com]

It only proves your point is one assumes that you're correct in your analysis.

It depends on how one defines "works." My standard of societal success rests on two things: efficiency of the economy and individual rights. By individual rights I mean rights reciprocal between individuals. e.g. I won't kill you, you won't kill me.

What standard of "works" are you using?

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

"Works" as in "everyone has what they need to survive and make the most of their lives". More than just individual rights, individual and collective prosperity.

[rudyhenkel.livejournal.com]

See, to me, that is a dangerously malleable definition. "and make the most of their lives," can be slowly expanded to include complete and comprehensive, health care, college education (never mind the fact that everyone having a college education is extremely wasteful,) perhaps next will be roomy housing and cosmetic surgery (I doubt that last one, but your definition could encompass it.)

It also completely ignores the concept of limited resources. This is reflected in the sometimes encountered naive view that we could, theoretically, give anyone whatever surgery they needed. Those countries that have governmental health care have limits on what ages can get what treatments precisely because this isn't possible.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

"and make the most of their lives," can be slowly expanded to include complete and comprehensive, health care, college education

You say that like it's a bad thing.

(never mind the fact that everyone having a college education is extremely wasteful,)

How? Demonstrate this. Give sources.

It also completely ignores the concept of limited resources. This is reflected in the sometimes encountered naive view that we could, theoretically, give anyone whatever surgery they needed.

Sure, if you want to ignore the fact that, with prompt medical attention, many conditions that require surgery later on can be caught early and treated without. Or that, without the massive advertising programs undertaken by for-profit drug companies to no good end, drugs would not be nearly as expensive as they are. Or that we could in fact devote a great deal more time and energy to actual health care were it not for the expensive and wasteful system of insurance and liability that currently exists in this country.

Those countries that have governmental health care have limits on what ages can get what treatments precisely because this isn't possible.

I presume you have a citation for this?

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Libertarians claim impartiality, but tend to defend Republican positions far more, because of that whole "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" bullshit that the rich sell the people in an effort to justify not giving a crap about the poor.

What's sad is, at least the Republicans realize that it IS expedient bullshit; libertarians actually believe it.

[rudyhenkel.livejournal.com]

Hmm. It may be true than Libertarians support Republicans more than Democrats. However, I do not think that will be as true this election due to the very centrist nature of his politics. Most Libertarians are also isolationists, something else that won't win points for McCain.

It's not a matter of "giving a crap." I give to the salvation army, I donate blood, I volunteer assistance with a local MathCounts program. The issue, for me at least, is that the government does not have the right to take my money and give it to others.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Do you believe in paying for services rendered? Because the government provides a lot of services. Your taxes are payment for those. It's like your electric bill or your water bill, this is your "government services bill".