Tuesday, June 15, 2010

The Opinionator

If the Report only makes observations, why does it write about (so-called) opinions?

The fundamental purpose of this Report is to produce objective, non-personal observations. When it comes to “opinions” that's rather hard to do in a society of Opinionators that are unable to distinguish between unsubstantiated conjecture and who they are as a person. By the way, the definition of an Opinionator is: “n. An opinionated person; one given to conjecture.” The definition of “conjecture” is: “n. The formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof; guess; speculation.”

We can easily define an Opinionator as someone that is without any substantive legitimacy. They are essentially psychotic; devoid of reality. As such they are deluded and prone to hallucinations. Put another way they are or become their own dreams; unable to distinguish between the dark from the light. Unfortunately, Opinionators are one of the main tools or means used for dispensing propaganda in the main stream media today. While these 'opinion's may contain some facts or be loosely based upon a fact, these Opinionator's unsubstantiated conjecture is all about disrespecting the reader. The Opinionator's main goal is to get the reader to agree that he or she speaks truth, not guess-work crap, thus becoming legitimate individuals. Respect for the reader requires substantiated facts in sufficient proportion pro and con that allows the reader to decide for themselves what is and what is not.

That is why the Report looks at 'opinion' pieces and sometimes makes observations, to expose the fraud, misinformation, conjecture and mostly outright lies. Opinionators are revealed for what they are, illegitimate and mostly purveyors of knee-jerk stupidity. Consequently, they are essentially irrelevant to this Report. Whatever good service they provide is questionable and probably should be considered as such. Locally, when it comes to serious blogs of substance, there are a few. There are even some serious commentators.

What prompted this article was listening to the interview of Johan Galtung on the War in Afghanistan and How to Get Out with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now today. He said: “I Love the US Republic, and I Hate the US Empire – drawing a clear distinction between the two that's well worth considering. In fact his whole interview is a thinking person's gift. Drawing the distinction between the Republic and Empire, he says America will only become whole when it gets rid of its “exceptionalism” and getting away from the belief that the US has a “separate mandate from God, even a mandate to kill.” This interview was based on his latest book called The Fall of the US Empire, "in which he predicts the collapse of the American empire in ten years, by 2020."

To start he said:
Now let’s look at it from a Washington point of view: pursuing a victory which will never happen. I’ll say why: 1.56 billion Muslims are dedicated to the idea of defending Islam when trampled upon. Some of them are traveling to Afghanistan. Some of them are doing it somewhere else in other ways. Those ways can become quite disagreeable, as you know.

Point two, there is no capitulation in Islam to infidels. It doesn’t exist. To fight against Christians and Jews—you take the mini-empire of Israel, the regional empire—is not an invitation to a violent confrontation that will end with a capitulation. In other words, the time perspective of the Muslim community is unlimited. I don’t think the time perspective of Washington is unlimited. So you can say, of course, who has the longer time perspective will win. (Emphasis added)
Commenting on how Israel, the mini-empire fits into this is an interesting read from by Alexander Cockburn on Jun 11th, 2010, is the “Pariah Nation” in The AVA. He concludes with the following quote for an Israeli Journalist Gordon Levy that sounds like Levy is talking about America:

Israel is plunging into deeper darkness. As the Israeli journalist Gideon Levy recently told one interviewer: “In the last year there have been real cracks in the democratic system of Israel.… It’s systematic — it’s not here and there. Things are becoming much harder.” And Levy also wrote in Ha’aretz, “When Israel closes its gates to anyone who doesn’t fall in line with our official positions, we are quickly becoming similar to North Korea. When right-wing parties increase their number of anti-democratic bills, and from all sides there are calls to make certain groups illegal, we must worry, of course. But when all this is engulfed in silence, and when even academia is increasingly falling in line with dangerous and dark views… the situation is apparently far beyond desperate.”
Then there is Glenn Greenwalds: “The media's understanding of its role” published Tuesday, June 15, 2010, in Salon.com. He concludes by saying:

“UPDATE II: One other point: what Axelrod tried to explain to Gregory about accountability -- "trust" and attempts to understand someone's character are irrelevant; what matters is evidence and "mak[ing] sure that they do what they're required to do" -- is also a good guide for how citizens should think of political leaders, even (especially) their favorite ones.”
Did you decide for yourself?                                                                                          -- [source]

No comments:

Post a Comment