A quick review of the long and illustrious career of Facts reveals some of the world’s most cherished absolutes: Gravity makes things fall down; 2 + 2 = 4; the sky is blue.
But for many, Facts’ most memorable moments came in simple day-to-day realities, from a child’s certainty of its mother’s love to the comforting knowledge that a favorite television show would start promptly at 8 p.m.
Over the centuries, Facts became such a prevalent part of most people’s lives that Irish philosopher Edmund Burke once said: “Facts are to the mind what food is to the body.”
To the shock of most sentient beings, Facts died Wednesday, April 18, after a long battle for relevancy with the 24-hour news cycle, blogs and the Internet. Though few expected Facts to pull out of its years-long downward spiral, the official cause of death was from injuries suffered last week when Florida Republican Rep. Allen West steadfastly declared that as many as 81 of his fellow members of theU.S. House of Representatives are communists.
People unable to understand how science works began to question Facts. And at the same time there was a rise in political partisanship and a growth in the number of media outlets that would disseminate information, rarely relying on feedback from Facts.
“There was an erosion of any kind of collective sense of what’s true or how you would go about verifying any truth claims,” Poovey said. “Opinion has become the new truth. And many people who already have opinions see in the ‘news’ an affirmation of the opinion they already had, and that confirms their opinion as fact.”
Though weakened, Facts managed to persevere through the last two decades, despite historic setbacks that included President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, the justification for President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and the debate over President Barack Obama’s American citizenship.
I wouldn’t be surprised if information turned up showing that Alan West is a member of the Aryan Brothers who volunteered to have all his body tattooed dark brown to simulate an African American so he could make insane statements.
I often read pieces that are well written and make me think. Two or three times per year I read something and wish I had written it. This is one of those times. Social satire at its best. Funny because it is true. This essay needs wider circulation.
Rep. West says “as many as” 81 Democrats in Congress are communists. That means that the actual number is on a range from 0 to 81. Who has a problem with that? Could there be more than 81?
Rep. West says “as many as” 81 Democrats in Congress are communists. That means that the actual number is on a range from 0 to 81. Who has a problem with that? Could there be more than 81?
He said “as many as 79 to 81” which tends to move the meaning quite a distance from the 0 to 81 Bryan suggests. I suggest that West should be challenged to name each of the members he claims are communists and to present his evidence for his claims so they can be examined and possibly refuted by the members and other investigators.
He said “as many as 79 to 81” which tends to move the meaning quite a distance from the 0 to 81 Bryan suggests.
Explain? What does that do except increase the doubt that the cap is as high as 81?
I suggest that West should be challenged to name each of the members he claims are communists and to present his evidence for his claims so they can be examined and possibly refuted by the members and other investigators.
Occam
West was asked about that, if I remember correctly. But he didn’t claim to know who they were, iirc. He remembered hearing the number from a different source.
See, if “Facts” had died it would have been more likely to accompany a statement like this one:
“Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
Apparently the Supreme Court has heretofore only struck down laws passed by a minority of a democratically elected Congress.
To quote West, “I believe there’s about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party. It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.”
He didn’t say or imply zero to 81, and he didn’t, in that quote, say he heard it from a different source.
Occam
To quote West, “I believe there’s about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party. It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.”
That’s funny. I assumed when you used quotation marks around West’s statement in your previous post you were quoting him. So you’re changing the quotation you’re using.
He didn’t say or imply zero to 81, and he didn’t, in that quote, say he heard it from a different source.
Occam
It should be assumed that my question applied to the quotation you were using when I first asked you the question.
Does it turn out that that “Facts” died in the original post in this thread from a fabricated quotation? That would magnify the irony, if anything.
He said “as many as 79 to 81” which tends to move the meaning quite a distance from the 0 to 81 Bryan suggests.
Explain? What does that do except increase the doubt that the cap is as high as 81?
I suggest that West should be challenged to name each of the members he claims are communists and to present his evidence for his claims so they can be examined and possibly refuted by the members and other investigators.
Occam
West was asked about that, if I remember correctly. But he didn’t claim to know who they were, iirc. He remembered hearing the number from a different source.
See, if “Facts” had died it would have been more likely to accompany a statement like this one:
“Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
Apparently the Supreme Court has heretofore only struck down laws passed by a minority of a democratically elected Congress.
I saw him being interviewed on CNN. He said the entire Democratic Progressive Caucus when he was pressured to give names. Then the interviewer pulled out the list of the Democratic Progressive Caucus and started asking him directly about those names. He was evasive. Naturally. Typical communist baiting. Look at his audience when he said those remarks- all a bunch of geriatrics. Old timers with 2 marbles left…harkening back to the good ol’ days.
He said “as many as 79 to 81” which tends to move the meaning quite a distance from the 0 to 81 Bryan suggests.
Explain? What does that do except increase the doubt that the cap is as high as 81?
I suggest that West should be challenged to name each of the members he claims are communists and to present his evidence for his claims so they can be examined and possibly refuted by the members and other investigators.
Occam
West was asked about that, if I remember correctly. But he didn’t claim to know who they were, iirc. He remembered hearing the number from a different source.
See, if “Facts” had died it would have been more likely to accompany a statement like this one:
“Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
Apparently the Supreme Court has heretofore only struck down laws passed by a minority of a democratically elected Congress.
I saw him being interviewed on CNN. He said the entire Democratic Progressive Caucus when he was pressured to give names. Then the interviewer pulled out the list of the Democratic Progressive Caucus and started asking him directly about those names. He was evasive. Naturally. Typical communist baiting. Look at his audience when he said those remarks- all a bunch of geriatrics. Old timers with 2 marbles left…harkening back to the good ol’ days.
West answered as I would have thought, based on the assessment in a related thread. He was comparing the “progressive” ideology and agenda to that of communists, as the progressives historically grew out of a totalitarian ideology parallel to that taking root in Russia in the early 20th century. West gives that answer and Soledad Obrien (is she a news anchor or an opinion show host?) tries to make the news by trying to oversimplify and trying to get West to simply name specific progressives as communists—effectively ignoring West’s answer. Bad journalism. Good demonization technique, though. Did everyone enjoy the way the clip of West speaking was pared down to get rid of the context?
