A simple credibility test

The next time you are exposed to widely differing stories about anything, take a hard look at which side is trying hardest to shut off the debate by force or by legal threats. That side of the issue is hiding something that cannot stand scrutiny.

If an idea is worth defending, it should be defended openly with an exchange of facts as well as opinions.

Shutting off debate using paid goons to interrupt speakers is as old as civilization. "Spontaneous" demonstrations staged by professional agitators provide eye catching news photos for journalists especially when these demonstrations disrupt an ongoing event..

Suppressing dissent takes different forms. PR professionals craft action campaigns where callers jam radio station lines to create the effect of mass disapproval in hopes of forcing the show to shut down.

Lawyers are sent to threaten media outlets with suits for running ads unfavorable to a particular cause or candidate.

This is not limited to politics. One can see this "stamping out dissent" activity around the subjects of global warming, construction of power plants, harvesting of trees, etc.

Using force or legal threats to shut off discussion of important matters is a sign that something is being hidden from view. Any group using this technique should be considered unworthy of trust. It becomes very important in these situations to see who is making money on each side of the controversy.

How can one apply this?

Take a subject like global warming which has passionate adherents and reputable critics in the scientific community. The ad hominum attacks on those who question the measurements and computer models suggests that critical inquiry is heresy of the worst sort. When we can no longer ask questions, we enter the province of religious belief. Climate change is a matter for science, not zealotry and faith.

I have no particular insight on this matter even after extensive historical studies, so I see the efforts to shut down critics of the current global warming debate as a sign of a cover up of some magnitude. As a result, I have a healthy distrust of the whole global warming movement. There may be some merit to the arguments, but the actions of the proponents makes me think it is a money making scam.

What is there to cover up? Perhaps the sale of carbon offsets by the oracle of global warming. Perhaps a "green washing" of polluting businesses through the purchase of "dispensations". Perhaps the creation of government grants to "study" the problem and guarantee employment to those who are properly aligned.

Until there is continued open and intelligent discussion of the situation, I will not believe those who cry wolf and attempt to use our tax money to line their pockets.

The next time you find yourself unable to make up your mind about an important situation, take a look at how the parties involved are handling their critics. That may tell you more about their intentions than what they are actually saying.

Deeds are more important than words in determining what to expect from someone or some group.

A politician will run on promises to "throw the bums out", but you should take careful note who is contributing to him and whether they are under indictment or investigation.

This entry was posted in Possibly Helpful Advice and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to A simple credibility test

  1. Jim says:

    David,

    I enjoy your posts as they add a degree of realism in the Floyd blogosphere. You are right about a candidates sponsors. I know Obama is heavily sponsored by ACORN, an activist group convicted and indicted on many charges ranging from voter fraud to embezzlement.

    Thanks for your poignant posts.

  2. Gerry Riggs says:

    David,
    This post is spot on. Always watch out for those suppressing commentary.

    FYI, earlier today I posted an intelligent, factual and pointed rebuttal to Doug Thompson’s inflammatory post on Blue Ridge Muse that people who don’t vote for Obama are (de facto) racists.

    Bottom-line is that most people could care less about the color of Obama’s skin. What concerns them are his associations with radicals, his notable self-aggrandizement (who would write 2 autobiographies by the time they are 45?!), and his empty track record of accomplishing anything noteworthy.

    My rebuttal was deleted without explanation.

    Is there any wonder that he was suppressing opinions of people who differ with him? Is this what we can expect from people who support Obama? What happens in a world in which Obama has power, and Democrats control Congress?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

three × two =