Why There Can Be No Honest Debate

A couple days ago, I touched on how you could tell when a person was spouting pure ideology and was not to be trusted. I would like to dig a little deeper into that subject because I came across a comment today that is a perfect illustration. The article itself concerned universal healthcare, but that is not of particular interest to this discussion. It could have been about almost anything and this same comment might have occurred.
A commentor who described himself as a dissatisfied Democrat (he in fact described modern Democrats as "a bunch of venal money-grubbers") went on to explain that he voted for Democrats because of what they used to stand for: "Be nice to one's mom and your friends, help the poor, educate the children ..." In the very next paragraph, however, he calls up "memories" of the Republicans: "instigate wars for profit, shut out the middle class and below with proven-to-have failed fallacies ... Vilify non-Christians ..." Does anyone else see a discrepancy here?
Please don't think that I am singling out a Democrat here. If I went hunting, I have no doubt that I could find identical themed comments from Republicans and I will gladly stipulate that the problem is rampant on both sides. I am quoting this one because I was not hunting and yet there it was, in plain sight.
Keep in mind that the person who made this comment was presenting himself as the voice of reason and claimed to be trying to engage a Republican in an honest and open discussion. If this was reasonable, honest, or open I would hate to see how this person conceived of the opposite.
What bothers me even more, though, is that, in eight pages of additional comments, not one person (including, unfortunately, the Republican to whom the comment was addressed) challenged this commenter on this blatant mischaracterization. Such hyperbolic distortions are taken as a matter of course these days and that is why it is so difficult (if not impossible) to have an honest debate or discussion.
So long as both sides continue to insist on maintaining such slander about the other, there can be no improvement in the ways our country operates. The status quo will remain the same and We The People will continue to be the losers. It doesn't hurt the politicians in the least. The status quo maintains their pay checks and their control. So long as there is no honest discussion there can be no honest solutions and politicians will continue to push dishonest solutions while blaming the other side for not being able to do better. Both sides are guilty and neither side is more guilty than the other. If you are not aware of that, you are not paying attention. Or you are buying into the dishonesty and are directly a part of the problem.

The Name Game

How do you know if you're listening to a demagogue who probably doesn't have much that is useful or rational to say? Here's a hint: If you see or hear someone say something along the lines of "Democrats are lying, evil socialists who just want to give the country away to illegal aliens and unwed mothers," run away. By the same token, if you hear or see someone say something along the lines of, "Republicans are lying, evil fascists who just want to give the country away to the rich and big corporations," you should run just as fast. It is unfortunately true that these are two of the loudest groups on the internet, but they are both ridiculously wrong and, quite possibly, irredeemably stupid.
There are those on the right who champion ideas that are dangerously close (if not completely over the edge) to fascism, theocracy, aristocracy, or some other form of totalitarianism or near-totalitarianism. There are those on the left who champion ideas that are dangerously close (if not completely over the edge) to socialism, communism, enforced utopianism, or some other form of totalitarianism or near-totalitarianism. Most of even these people, however, do not believe or realize that they are promoting totalitarian ideas. They honestly believe that their particular approach will promote the best good while steering clear of the potential pitfalls. Does this mean that should not be opposed? Absolutely not! The best intentions can lead to the absolute worst results precisely because the person or people following them believed he, she, or they were doing good and were thus blinded to the actual results. If without blindness, there is always the danger of "We're too close to turn away now." Besides, the best reason to oppose people who are doing harm while truly believing they are doing good is because those are exactly the people who might come to see their own error. If their goal is to achieve a certain result and they can see that their actions are going in a different direction (and if they are truly motivated by their claimed goal) then a rational dialogue may cause them to change their actions. Demonizing them without that rational dialogue, however, is not likely to achieve this.
There are also those on either end whose goals are the very things that would and must lead to some form of totalitarianism. More often than not, this is because these people are actually arrogant enough to believe that their form of totalitarianism is for the good of humanity. Obviously these people must be opposed, but rational dialogue won't usually accomplish much. All we can do with them is fight and prevent them from gaining the power they so desperately crave.
Neither of these conditions, however, describe the Republican or Democratic parties, nor do they automatically describe voters who identify themselves as Democrat or Republican. It is certainly possible for voters in either of these parties to fall into one or the other of these camps and it is equally possible for politicians of either party to do so as well. It is not, though, a defining aspect of either party. It is just as possible for members (whether voter or politician) from almost any of the various independent parties to favor (intentionally or not) policies that lead toward some form of totalitarianism.
I, an independent, know many people who label themselves either Republican or Democrat. Not one of these people knowingly favors any policy or plan that would lead to totalitarianism and not one of these people would be opposed to removing his or her support of a policy or plan upon seeing evidence that it would do so. We may (and often do) disagree on many particular points, but not that one. That one, to me, is not negotiable. I would not knowingly or willingly associate with someone who favored any form of totalitarianism or who refused to remove support from a plan or policy after seeing that it would do so.
Republicans are not inherently fascists and Democrats are not inherently socialists. If you see someone claiming otherwise then that person is the one spreading hate and lies, and should be treated as such.

Truth In Advertising

I listen to the radio all day at work and, like most people, I find commercials to be mostly annoying. They're rarely amusing anymore and they are often completely ridiculous. There is one thing that really gets me, though. Didn't we used to have such a thing as truth in advertising laws?
One commercial I hear often is from something called Clean PC Nation. It is a web-based anti-viral and computer optimization source. Being web-based, I assume it is at least national, so you may have heard the commercials as well. Part of the commercial mentions that such things as pop-ups and spam are "tell-tale signs of a virus". Huh? Speaking as an A+ certified IT Technician who deals with anti-viral and optimization situations all the time, this claim is not just misleading, it is a bald faced lie. The only things that pop-ups and spam are "tell-tale sign[s] of" are that you spend time on the internet and have an email address.
It is true that pop-ups and spam can be symptoms of a virus, but no self-respecting computer security specialist would go that route first based on those two criteria. Pop-ups and spam are so common a component of online activity, they are practically an integral component of the internet as it currently exists. Personally, I'd be more inclined to worry if you were not seeing pop-ups or spam.
Pop-ups might be indicative of a virus if they are behaving in an unusual manner. For example, if they will not close, if they take you to a location other than what they advertise (Though, why are you clicking on a pop-up in the first place? Don't reward that behavior!), if they are popping up when you do not have a web browser running. These are all possibly troubling behavior. If you have a good pop-up blocker (and for that matter, the one that comes built in to most browsers is usually just as good as or better than any after-market blocker) and are still seeing a high number of pop-ups (keeping in mind that no blocker is 100% reliable) then you might have a problem. Aside from possibilities like these, pop-ups are just pop-ups and they are coded into most websites out there.
Spam is a little more tricky because spam can contain a virus, but that is not the same thing as being a symptom of a virus. If spam is resulting from a virus, the person with the virus will probably not see the spam. Spam's usual connection to viral activity is that a virus takes over a computer (or parts of a computer) and uses it to send spam elsewhere. It is unlikely that a virus would advertise its presence by flooding the infected account with spam. Aside from this, the vast majority of people today use web-based email (I have several email addresses and everyone of them is web-based) and a virus on your computer will hardly ever have any effect on an email account that is actually located on a different computer, probably even in a different state. The virus might prevent you from getting to your web-based email account, but it is not very likely to spam that account.
One statement this commercial makes that actually is completely true and that not enough people realize is the fact that, even if you have anti-viral software on your computer, you are still at risk for a virus. Let me amplify that by pointing out that the risk exists no matter how good an anti-viral program you have is. A good anti-viral program decreases the risk (and safe behavior online decreases it even further) but nothing can remove it completely. The bad guys are putting out new code and trying new tricks constantly and it is just not possible for even the best defense to stay completely ahead of the game. You do the best you can and you don't take foolish risks.
I have not personally checked out Clean PC Nation and I do not make any claims as to their service. According to reviews I have seen, they do get good marks for the work they do. Their method of advertising, however, both offends and concerns me. The company behind this commercial knows perfectly well that their claims are false and also knows that the average computer consumer does not know this. That is offensive. What concerns me, though, is a simple question: If they will commit this kind of deception to get your business, how far will they go to keep or increase your business?

Fact Vs. Fiction

Like most people, I receive quite a few email forwards from family and friends, with politically flavored forwards being far from uncommon. In fact, since most of my friends and family are quite aware of my interests and activities, forwards of a political type may actually be more common for me than is average. Such is the life of a politically oriented blogger.
I was discussing the nature of some of those forwards earlier today and decided that I should expand on a concept here. That concept is simple: Dishonesty has no place in a political discussion no matter whose side you take nor whose side is made to look bad by the false claims. While the concept is simple, the practice is, apparently, something else entirely.
Setting aside the moral aspects (Most of us have been told repeatedly that telling a lie is bad but how many people actually listen to this lesson on a consistant basis?) there are really very practical reasons for taking this concept to heart. Perhaps more important, there is a very practical loss for all of us when this concept is forgotten.
We who wish to live in a free society must make decisions on a regular basis in order to keep our society free. Those decisions must be grounded in reality if they are to have any practical value and, in order to ground decisions in reality, we must have information untainted by falsehood. Faulty information, whether the fault arises from honest mistakes or intentional deception, results in faulty decisions. Faulty decisions, in a society such as ours, can be fatal.
Of course, those who have an axe to grind won't always have the same idea of what "free society" means as I have. In fact, it is safe to assume that they will often have different ideas. They may honestly believe that, so long as the faulty information shifts things toward their desired outcome, things will work out well in the end regardless of the bumpy road used to reach the goal. To those people I offer a small reminder: The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
In this age of easy information, the possibility of keeping a lie unchecked gets smaller and smaller. Sooner or later, the odds are definitely in favor of people discovering the truth and, once that happens, the credibility of the liar takes a nosedive. For those with political goals, this can result in even greater consequences than one discredited person. For right or wrong, people often associate a movement with those who speak for that movement. When a person is discovered to be falsifying information to push a political agenda, the entire agenda can be painted with the same brush of dishonesty. That thought, alone, should be enough to keep true believers in check. If only this were so.
True believers tend to leap first and think about the consequences later, if at all. If only they knew how much harm they were doing to their own movements, maybe this would be different. If you are a true believer - of any cause - if this applies to you, you would do well to slow down and look at that forward before sending it along.
At the beginning of this post we set aside the moral aspects of the argument, but there is one more point that should be addressed and it does hinge on the moral aspect. If you are using dishonesty to support your agenda - or if you are supporting those who do so - you completely lose any possibility of moral high ground in condemning your opponents for doing the same. If you do not stand opposed to dishonesty in political discussion, even when that dishonesty favors your cause, there is no reason for anyone to believe anything else you say. I would even take that a step further. If you really want credibility, be the first to step foward condemning a lie that favors your cause. Let your opponents try to discredit you then.
Sometimes the simplest lessons, the ones we were supposed to learn in our childhood playgrounds, are the most important. A lie makes you look bad. Honesty makes you look good. Lies will be found out more often than not. Personally, I would like to see honesty in political discussion because we all truly want the best outcome we can achieve and we all know we need honest information to achieve that. However, I'm a realist. If I cannot appeal to the best in people, at least I can point out that honesty really is in your own best interest.