Why Everyone Is Wrong But Me
Posted by Joshua White on 08.10.2006
This is the first part in a never-ending series of columns about why other people are wrong and I'm not. Part 1: Joe Rivett and Dan Martin.
Let me apologize to you, my loyal followers, for not having this week's column posted yesterday. I know that there are many of you who must have been concerned or worried as your weekly routine was shattered by my absence.
So where was I? Well, yesterday I found out that I owed a little more than $20,000 in school loans that I didn't remember taking out. This was a nice kick in the junk for good ol' J.W. And needless to say after learning that wonderful news the once brilliant mind that I have was made into mush. (If any one's interested, I will be taking handouts, donations and other forms of charities to pay off my ridiculously large loan.)
Now on to my real column.
This column that you are reading is the first in my new series of columns "Why Everyone Is Wrong But Me." Whenever the mood hits me I will take a look at what the other writers on this 411 poli-zone have written and explain to you, my readers why they are wrong. This first week, I will discuss Joe Rivett and Dan Martin. (As a side note, I'm waiting for the chance to write about Mr. Everett Palmer. Since his arrival at 411 he has been good...a little too good. I'm waiting Mr. Palmer. I'm waiting.)
In his last news report Joe's theme was "stupid news." Apparently, Joe was amazed at how many dumb Americans there are out there. Initially, I agreed with what he said. I think that there are plenty of dumb Americans out there. However, after reading his entire column it became clear to me that it was all Americans that are dumb. It is only the Americans that disagree with him that are dumb.
Joe's first news report that made him question the intelligence of the average American was "Despite the facts, 50% believe Iraq had WMD." It seems that in the past year the percentage of Americans that believe that Iraq had WMDs when the United States invades in 2003 has risen from 36% to 50%. Joe has a problem believing that this number is so high despite the fact that he gives reason to believe that Iraq had WMDs . If you don't know what Joe and I are talking about check out the story here and don't forget to see the actual document.
Now, this document that we're discussing isn't undeniable proof that Saddam (yes, we're on a first name basis) was still making WMDs when we stormed in their, but this certainly some good evidence that he had some. And that is exactly what the question asked.
Here's some more evidence for you: It looks like a roadside bomb was built with some sarin gas. Again, this is not proving the point exactly, but it is giving us some reason to believe that Saddam did have some WMDs.
So, it isn't crazy to suspect that Saddam had weapons when American marched into Iraq.
I do agree with Joe on one point here. If this is true, and I don't see any reason to think that it isn't, why hasn't the press been all over this. Like Joe hinted at, Hannity mentions it from time to time, but what about the real news media? What about Bush? Why hasn't he said anything about this? If the whole pretext to this silly war was WMDs and Saddam's plan to use them against us, don't you think that if Bush had any evidence to support this, then he would use it? Here is the evidence! What the heck?
My second real disagreement with Joe is his lack of belief that watching wrestling can affect younger viewers negatively. Jjjjoe says:
The study also showed that teens who watched pro wrestling on TV like Raw and Smackdown were more likely to behave violently than other kids, and girls seemed to be more influenced than boys.
Now, this seems pretty reasonable to me. Teens are very influenced by those around him, by what they see, etc. Why would it be so hard to think that wrestling, a form of entertainment that is by nature violent, would affect these kids?
Let me give you a personal example. I really became a fan of wrestling when I was a freshman in college. I was 19 at the time and even I was influenced by the actions I've seen on tv. I can distinctly remember rock-bottoming a friend on to his roommate's bed. That was fine and dandy. It was when he rock-bottomed me, a man literally twice his size, onto the same bed that there was trouble. BOOM! The bed practically exploded underneath my girth. This was just two college buddies messing around. I'm sure that many of you out there have had some of the same experiences. I think that this type of occurrence has probably increased since Mick Foley has become famous. He became famous by jumping off a house. His videotape has been shown all over the Internet and WWE programming. Now, with how easy it is see and be seen on the Internet added to how cool it is to be big, tough, and physical, why is it so hard to believe that this sort of exposure to impressionable youths?
Joe's response? Is it possible that parents who allow their pre-teen children to watch programming like RAW are the reason why their children are fighting?
Sure, the parents play a role. They are allowing their kids to watch a show that has been shown to influence kids to be more violent. Why deny the study that the was done by (presumably) trained professionals? Why deny what we all feel is very plausible. I understand that we all want to defend something that we like so much. But to deny that there are no bad aspects of our interest is to lie to ourselves. It is the same as saying that there are no negative consequences to eating our beloved food, the Big Mac. And to agree with the writers of this study is not stupid. To me, it seems to be justified.
Finally, I would like to briefly comment on Dan Martin's most recent column. In this column Dan gives many reasons that he doesn't particularly care for most talk radio. Before I get into my commentary I want to make a minor point about the purpose of NPR's Talk of the Nation and what we think of as talk radio (i.e. Rush, Hannity, etc.). Talk of the Nation usually focuses on interesting topics that will inform the viewer about something they may not know (this is especially true with Science Friday). But talk radio usually has a stated bias. They admit that they are conservative, liberal, etc.
This is where I disagree with Dan. I don't think that there is anything wrong with discussing the topics from one side. And I certainly don't' think that they are hampering democracy by hindering dialogue. Talk radio, and specifically Hannity and Rush, gives us something that "mainstream media" (whatever that is) and NPR can't. They can spend minutes and minutes on the smallest point of an argument. They can spend more time on very specific aspects and pieces of information that these other media outlets can't. ABC news can't spend 4 minutes on a single fact like Rush can when they only have 22 minutes to do a day's worth of news. Talk radio, while admittedly biased, can give us information that would be very difficult for the average watcher of news to find. So what if they don't give ample time to the liberal? Sure it's annoying. I, as someone who leans more right than left, get annoyed with it. But I see that as a flaw with the radio host and not the medium.
Another reason that talk radio can be useful or beneficial is that it can solidity your beliefs. If you think that you lean a certain way about a particular topic, then listening to someone talk about it and discuss it can help you to make it concrete in your mind. Again, I grant that it is biased. But if the listener only hears one side, that is the fault of the listener not of the host. Imagine if we were to look at the writings of one of our country's founders. He probably wasn't fair and impartial to both democracy and that of one ruled by a king. So what? It is up to the reader to find the other view. It is up to the writers to defend his thoughts adequately.
That is about all for now my friends and loyal readers.
Time to Advertise
Like I said earlier, I'm liking the words coming from Everett Palmer. Moreover, I think that he has the funniest line of the week in his most recent column. (Since not everyone has the same sense of humor as me, I'll quote the line that I like now: "Didn't enjoy my column? Than try checking out these guys. When you're done with that go screw yourself." Followers, THAT is funny.)
While he doesn't need any advertisements, I liked what Mr. Easley says here about Hillary Clinton's likeability. I don't know about likeability, but I know that her voice ain't going to get her far.
Until next time…believe nothing unless you read it here.
STAY CURRENT