Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Who Do You Trust, and Why?

When publishing a blog you have to decide whom to trust.  You talk to people, read newspaper stories, read other blogs, and form your own ideas from that.  We all have people that we point others to that we believe epitomize our own beliefs and further lead to a level of integrity and gravitas that friends can understand.  Over the years I have turned to Andrew Sullivan for reasonable, intellectual, and balanced opinion.  Therefore I fall on his side to trust his insights regarding Palin.  His money quote today:
"This really isn't about Palin. Or about Johnston. It's about our democracy's apparent lack of interest any more in what is true and what is false. It's about the mainstream media's willful decision not to tackle a story that was integral to a major candidate's core integrity; it's about the Republican party elite's cynicism and condescension to millions of voters; it's about the decision of Harper Collins, Adam Bellow and Jonathan Burnham to publish a book so riddled with untruth without even a gesture toward ensuring its accuracy; and it's about the recklessness of John McCain, a man hollowed out by careerism and cynicism, selling out every scruple or principle he may have had to make his way in the modern GOP; and it's about the power of fundamentalist religion to blind everyone to the banal but vital details of secular politics.
In other words, it's about the core reasons this country has gone off the rails these past few years. That matters to the Daily Dish. If it doesn't matter to you, or if you think it involves details that really should not be aired in public, then take your blame to McCain, not me. Because he didn't do his job, I'm doing mine."
So why do I write about Sarah Palin?  Because like Sullivan above I think it's more than just an issue of picking a light-weight from Alaska.  It's about how one party really has lost its way, how this country is coming apart because of that party, and because it's time to decide rationally, scientifically, and honestly, what is true and what is false.


  1. The Huffington Post & Nat'l Review Online did stories about the AP 'fact check' results. NRO said only 6 errors were uncovered, HP had more, but some of the 'errors' reported by HP seem more to be a difference of opinion, eg the so-called 'error' of the cap & trade issue Palin addressed in her book. No online blog is absolutely free from political bias. Sometimes I look at what the BBC is reporting before I make up my mind about which side in the U.S. is closer to the truth.

  2. I like the "beebs" also. I read the Huffington Post every day mostly because of it's layout. It's easy to click on a story you're interested in. I don't like the slant of some of the writers there. If you've ever read the comments that people leave after the stories you know there a whole bunch of complete idiots reading there. But it does not change the fact that you get a pretty wide selection of coverage with a semblence (sp?) of impartiality. They do like to blast Obama and other dems usually for not being progressive enough for their likes. I also like The Daily Beast for some of their articles, but they have some writers that perhaps could not get a job at The National Enquirer. Very gossipy. On the other hand, I like to read Meagan McCain and some accomplished writers. For all the attention that The Daily Kos site gets, I can't stand it because to me it is almost unnavigatable. I'm sure there are a lot of errors here not because I do it on purpose, but because I was misinformed. I do try to change or respond when I find one!