|
In the course of addressing several ideas promoted by Ron Paul's official campaign website, I recently posted links to several articles which undermined the standard "NAFTA Superhighway" conspiracy theory, which Dr. Paul had been promoting. Apparently, one of the big reasons people believe the most extreme parts of that theory, despite the apparent complete lack of supporting evidence, is that Lou Dobbs reported it on CNN. And, as we all know, if something appears on CNN, there's no possible way it could be wrong. So imagine my complete lack of amazement when it turns out that Lou Dobbs is apparently an irresponsible nut-job, and even the New York Times has noticed.
To make a long story short, that "three years" turns out to be thirty years, and and his respected "medical lawyer" was neither, but was, in fact, a dead white supremacist who accused Mexicans of being child molestors. (One wonders how Lou came in contact with her writings.)
He knows what he said originally, he knows "three years" was the wrong part, not the number 7,000, -- yet he refused to admit error or correct himself on air, insisting (deceptively) the number 7,000 was indeed correct. I ask you, gentle reader, to consider what kind of regard for truth Lou Dobbs has. Whatever he was originally, this is not a man who is now honestly mistaken or misguided: Lou Dobbs is what we must be forced to call -- a term I try to use extremely rarely -- a liar. Dobbs has also been pushing the same North American Union conspiracy theory that Ron Paul promotes. (They sound so similar, I wonder if one influenced the other.) And more recently, Lou has even suggested the current immigration bill is a first step towards creating the dreaded "NAU". Now, I'm completely against the current immigration bill, but what Dobbs is saying isn't backed up by the evidence. The immigration bill is bad for quite a number of reasons, but that's simply not one of them. (And why criticise it for imaginary problems when it has so many real ones?) These are strange, strange times, friends. In the previous post, Michael Zappe, our resident Media History Studies expert, commented: Also, this issue of citing "experts" has been around on the news for a while, citing people like english professors as "terrorism experts." A few neanderthals, of course, might question whether he has the proper credentials to make such a pronouncment. But according to experts (namely, he and I), he has a long and impressive track record of accurate predictions of this nature. So it doesn't surprise me at all that CNN would use a medieval studies professor turned activist as a "legitimate expert." Wasn't CNN per se so much as Lou Dobbs. Not that CNN didn't somewhat share in mistakes by not clarifying, but it wasn't their idea. ... she was a follower of Mrs. Rand... Ayn is another person who said many large-scale things I agreed with, but who just went so far off the rails in certain areas. Notice the refrence to Tom Tancredo, who has been aligned with Mr. Paul on alot of issues... Although I sometimes differ with Tom Tancredo, I think he makes sense on a large number of issues as well. If I were in Congress, I'd probably myself tactically aligned with Dr. Paul in no small number of areas. Unfortunately I think this is just a side effect of the sensationalism... It sounds like the going theory on Lou Dobbs is that he himself doesn't buy most of what he peddles, but that he's doing it to suck up to a certain contingent. The real news is actually pretty boring... I disagree: the real news is often completely fascinating. For example here's an American Thinker article about the re-opening of a "racial-terror torture-murder" in Mississippi. That's somewhat interesting. But it's even more interesting when you realize that the state's Democratic government "threw out all charges and released the suspects without further ado" -- and then sat on the case for several decades. Now that's really interesting, and would be quite a ratings-generator, given the man-bites-dog* aspect of the story. (* To those who are used to thinking of the Democratic Party as, well, what the Republican Party actually usually was.) But do you think that angle will see the light of day? Is it because there's no "sensationalist" angle? Or is it because -- contrary to what many of my friends typically insist -- leftism (as a religion) almost always tops greed and ratings? Posted by: Tim (Random Observations) on May 31, 2007 10:11 PM In the Jim Crow era, Southern states were controlled by Democrats. A higher percentage of national Republican congressmen/senators voted for civil rights than Democrats. The National realignment of white southerners into the Republican party happened in the seventies - Nixon's southern strategy. People who studied history in high school know this. It isn't "man bites dog" except in the face of the current journalistic amnesia. If the Republicans wanted to make an impression, they should set up black history month ads showing "Democrat Bull Connor" and "Democrat George Wallace" and all the other wonderful Democrats in black history. Posted by: Twill00 on June 2, 2007 04:41 AM Add your two cents...
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once. |
I do have to agree with that last part, Comrade.
So, just to add to the strangeness, I was looking at this woman and her legacy.
Here's her obit.
Notice the refrence to Tom Tancredo, who has been aligned with Mr. Paul on alot of issues.
Here you find out that she was a follower of Mrs. Rand, and had a penchant for exaageration:
link
link
Then, you can contrast the NY Times obituary for her.
Also, this issue of citing "experts" has been around on the news for a while, citing people like english professors as "terrorism experts." Or when the dilligent fact checking team over at CNN didn't catch a ticker that said that "Columbia was traveling at over 10 times the speed of light" during the coverage of the accident. So it doesn't surprise me at all that CNN would use a medieval studies professor turned activist as a "legitimate expert."
Unfortunately I think this is just a side effect of the sensationalism used to keep the publics attention driving the media. The real news is actually pretty boring. Hence the fauxtography and staged photographs, conspiracy theories, exaggerated reports and hyperbole.
Posted by: Michael Zappe on May 31, 2007 11:49 AM