In the past, electioneering and the concomittant stretching and destroying of truth that goes on during electioneering, has left many of us feeling dirty, disgusted, and often disenchanted with the political process. The political process rides deeply on our knowledge that truth is easily buried by repeating a lie often enough that people simply believe it. So electioneering has always depended on marketing to make lies real, to make them stick in people's minds so they vote according to the lie, not according to their best interest or the truth.
With the coming of blogs, so many lies can be told so fast, and so often, that it is challenging to not be sucked into the maelstrom of malfeasance that the blogosphere echo-chamber creates. When you read of the tenacity with which the lies are still believed that Iraq was tied to 9/11, or that Obama is Muslim and tied to Muslim extremists, you can get an idea of why lying and politics is so closely tied. The object isn't to build a better nation, because how can you when you lie to lead so often, but rather, it is simply to gain access to power and its concomitant control over the surplus we call 'taxes.' It is access to policy making and contract granting. But it isn't about a better nation.
And in the echo-chamber of the blogosphere, people would have you believe in boogiemen, and how evil they are and what they will do the country. These boogiemen they want you to believe in are your neighbors, work mates, fellow religious believers and friends, and they want you to distrust them and despise them as they do, yet...these are the same people with whom you must work to build a better nation. In no situation do I know of do reconciliation commissions start out in nations torn apart by conflict, by lifting the rhetoric of boogiemen and celebrating it as useful, healing or empowering. They lift it for what it is, divisive, paranoid, not grounded in reality, and to be disassembled and left behind.
Something that web offers to us to help lessen the use of the repeated lies which always include boogiemen, is FactCheck.Org. It takes the claims made by our chest-thumping simian friends, and lays them out for our perusal to determine how much we want to lend support to this liar of that distorter. If we were children, we might want to believe that such lies and distortion are accidents, but they are not. They are purposeful and intended to make you feeeeeeeeel something...like fear...so that your desire to vote for X is overwhelmed by gut feelings fed by lies and distortions, so you vote for Y instead. You don't have to believe the lie, really...you just have to develop a visceral response to it that repels you from voting for X.
Factcheck.org takes each claim, and gives it truth tests. It doesn't simply ask for how many times a lie has been told to determine if its true...it checks the sources that can give credibility to the lie or not. They don't just make an assessment, and leave you feeling like you just read one more blog where someone tells you their interpretation of reality without giving you sources to that reality to read and assess for yourself. They instead provide you link after link that gives validity to their conclusions regarding truth, lies and distortions.
I'm sure there are other sites on the web where this is done, but I find this one, so far in my experience, the best thus far. Seemingly even-handed, seemingly rigorous, I find it extremely refreshing, and I always leave the site smiling and shaking my head and wondering how the hell we build a nation that can endure when those who wish to lead think lying and distortion is somehow useful to a path forward and they find it so easy to find millions who want to follow them off that cliff?  .
Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)
|
|
read more blogs!
Blogs by observed50:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Now Better Than Ever! FACTCHECK.ORG! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionman154
|
Sep 8 @ 2:38PM
|
|
You put fear in the people and you can lead them down any road you wish.
After 911 people were willing to give up their basic rights for a promise of security.
Don't know who said it but I sure as hell agree with it " those willing to give up their rights for instant security deserve neither."
|
|
imlost2
|
Sep 8 @ 2:43PM
|
|
|
I noticed that factcheck didn't post the latest video where Obama himself made the most recent slip up where he was interviewed in saying he was of Muslim faith and then stood corrected and said, oh yeah, I mean "Christian". It's all over U-tube, Have you seen the interview? How can that be a lie when it came out of his own lips? Just wondering? take care Lost
|
|
SallyF
|
Sep 8 @ 2:52PM
|
|
Thanks, M~ That link now 'lives' on the desktop.
imlost2---please watch the interview and see how out of context that clip is.
|
|
PullMyFinger
|
Sep 8 @ 4:17PM
|
|
Factcheck.org has also had its problems with truth, sometimes misleading, sometimes putting their own special spin on things. This opinion is shared by both parties too. Both republicans and democrats have been the object of misleading information brought forth by Factcheck.org.
It's been called the wikipedia of fact finding and isn't personally a site that I'd put my faith in. It's also described as amateurish and biased...I'd disagree with the biased part since they use their spin to INFORM people on what they consider misleading statements by both parties.
But ya know, you'll always hear what you want to hear, regardless of the facts.
YMMV
|
|
missliss78
|
Sep 8 @ 5:24PM
|
|
|
please watch the interview and see how out of context that clip is. Thank you, Sally.
It ceases to amaze me the things out there that people see & repeat as truth without even really considering it....all I can do is shake my head in disbelief.
Thanks for this information, observed, though I will keep in mind PMF's comment, as well.
|
|
Gman762
|
Sep 8 @ 5:30PM
|
|
factcheck is hardly the definitive answer on most any subject. Better to just research something yourself if you want the real skinny without any possibility of error. factcheck tends to distort things a bit toward "Liberal" causes 
|
|
Exsecratus_Sicarius
|
Sep 8 @ 5:38PM
|
|
|
It ceases to amaze me the things out there that people see & repeat as truth without even really considering it....all I can do is shake my head in disbelief.
I believed [Hussein] Obama when he said he was NOT present at TUCC (you know, that church that supports HAMAS) when reV. Wright preached anti-Americanism.
I ALSO believed [Hussein] Obama when he said he WAS present at TUCC (you know, that church that supports HAMAS) when reV. Wright preached anti-Americanism.
.
(who do I sound like?...take a wild guess, miss.)
.
.
|
|
thenewguy295
|
Sep 8 @ 6:36PM
|
|
|
In the past, electioneering and the concomittant stretching and destroying of truth that goes on during electioneering, has left many of us feeling dirty, ...
I'll say, we are all getting it up the rear with the same unwashed probe.  I for one demand that it be sanitized for my protection! 
|
|
chatillion
|
Sep 8 @ 7:29PM
|
|
imlost2 said:
I noticed that factcheck didn't post the latest video where Obama himself made the most recent slip up where he was interviewed in saying he was of Muslim faith and then stood corrected and said, oh yeah, I mean "Christian". It's all over U-tube, Have you seen the interview? How can that be a lie when it came out of his own lips? Just wondering? take care Lost
Lost... This political stuff is a bit much... isn't it? You surprised me. Really.
There are probably a few million videos on YouTube, I find the statement "It's all over U-tube" somewhat exaggerated, especially since videos are sorted by names and topic. I searched Ford Ranger, Led Zeppelin, Japanese female mud wrestling and couldn't find a single thing about Obama. It did however come up when I typed Obama + Muslim. Amazing!
There were 2 videos worth watching. The first is an 11 second snippet of an interview. Listening to only that ELEVEN SECOND CLIP, you would think it's an admission he is Muslim. But... listening to the 5 minute version it was clear (to me) he explained it in a way that it was McCain's belief that he is Muslim.
Since you already have formulated an opinion, I don't expect you to see it differently. I won't bother to post the links.
|
|
vinnytmd
|
Sep 8 @ 7:39PM
|
|
factcheck is a liberal hack web site. It is run by the Annenberg foundation, a liberal group that is funded by the liberal GodFather and international criminal George Soros.
What a bunch of bull this is.
|
|
observed50
|
Sep 9 @ 1:17AM
|
|
Vinny > Per usual, it would benefit you to fill in holes in your understanding of things because you again have it soooooooo very wrong.
The Annenberg Foundation was founded by Walter and Lenore Annenberg. Big supporters of Nixon, huge supporters of Reagan, they introduced Reagan to Thatcher. He received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Reagan, and you can bet Reagan didn't stride around giving wealthy liberals, medals. Reagan would spend significant amounts of time just visiting with Walter and Lenore at their Sunnylands 400 acre estate in Rancho Mirage, CA.
Annenberg Foundation money needs no help from Soros because it is funded by the wealth the Annenbergs created through the TV Guide, Seventeen, and the Philadelphia Inquirer. He sold Seventeen and TV Guide to Rupert Murdoch for $3B, and retired to commit his life's energy to philanthropy.
The Foundation "...exists to advance the public well-being through improved communication. As the principal means of achieving its goal, the Foundation encourages the development of more effective ways to share ideas and knowledge." And improving the transparency of the political claims is one such effort at making communication more effective.
Soros has a series of foundations that are birthed from his effort to support the growth of democracy globally through supporting the training and education of peoples around the world in basic democratic infrastrucure. A teacher-friend of mine is preparing to teach debate in Korea, after teaching it this summer in Turkey. Another friend works to transcribe scientific journal articles to native tongues to insure the access of scientific research in developing nations schools and universities. He spends over $500M a year on such infrastructure development. Very radical...or liberal...or whatever the boogieman label was...
If, when you said 'what a bunch a bull this is', you were referring to your comment, I think you're right. And one more fine example of how truth isn't what is important. The dissing of anything that might make visible the tears in the ideological fabric...that is all that is important when truth is so trampled by unnecessarily inaccurate claims.
|
|
observed50
|
Sep 9 @ 1:30AM
|
|
Union> I think the quote you were reaching for reads like this.."People who are willing to give up freedom for the sake of short term security, deserve neither freedom nor security." ~ Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790). And what Franklin failed to address is that people willing to do so do not see themselves as doing so. They don't think they are giving up freedom, and think the adjustments being made are for longterm security issues. It is those not willing to sacrifice freedoms who see the others as one's willing to give-up freedoms.
Lost> I think there are two responses to your point here down below your comment. It sounds as if a blip was lifted out of context, another common ploy amongst politicians to have us believe half truths, or misstatements. I haven't checked yet.
Finger> If what you say is true, then is it possible to post links to such assertions against FactCheck? Anytime one makes an empirical claim about something that was said, or written, then it seems important to me for said author to also provide how does one check on these things understood by some.
Gman> I think one of the things powerful about how FactCheck works is that it provides links for you to go do the research for yourself. In other words, as opposed to my questions to Finger above, in which he asserts, but nothing provided to back-up an empirical assertion, FactCheck provides all the resource sources.
|
|
observed50
|
Sep 9 @ 1:31AM
|
|
Union> I think the quote you were reaching for reads like this.."People who are willing to give up freedom for the sake of short term security, deserve neither freedom nor security." ~ Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790). And what Franklin failed to address is that people willing to do so do not see themselves as doing so. They don't think they are giving up freedom, and think the adjustments being made are for longterm security issues. It is those not willing to sacrifice freedoms who see the others as one's willing to give-up freedoms.
Lost> I think there are two responses to your point here down below your comment. It sounds as if a blip was lifted out of context, another common ploy amongst politicians to have us believe half truths, or misstatements. I haven't checked yet.
Finger> If what you say is true, then is it possible to post links to such assertions against FactCheck? Anytime one makes an empirical claim about something that was said, or written, then it seems important to me for said author to also provide how does one check on these things understood by some.
Gman> I think one of the things powerful about how FactCheck works is that it provides links for you to go do the research for yourself. In other words, as opposed to my questions to Finger above, in which he asserts, but nothing provided to back-up an empirical assertion, FactCheck provides all the resource sources.
|
|
|