I run very hot and cold on that one. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 02/09/2012 06:30:24 PM
Put some skin in the game and then you get a voice.
The odd thing is I know no liberal who would support, would not strongly condemn, the approach most appealing to me: Reinstate the draft, letting folks opt out at the cost of voting rights. Curiously, neither side debating "European style socialisms" merits ever mentions that conscription (at least of men) is the European norm.
We took the wrong lesson from Vietnam: Not that the prospect of EVERYONES kid being sent to war means we should carefully consider every potential war and only accept it as a last resort, but that we should have a volunteer military so the nation cheers on every war for any reason or none, because combat is reserved for "those who want to be there." As you surely know, many who volunteered to defend our country with their lives consider the Iraq invasion as pointless as I do, but American soldiers fight where they are told and win where they fight, even when they feel the whole exercise a tremendous waste of time, money, equipment and lives.
There is nothing wrong with being well read and everyone should learn as much as they can the problem comes with thinking someone is an expert on an issue simply because they know a lot of facts about it. It isn't just the intelligencia look at ESPN, they have a lot of "experts" who can name ever starter in the NFL which school they went to and how they ranked on fantasy football points but they have about the same odds as you or I of picking the next Super Bowl champion so their opinion really doesn't have any more value. The over selling of their value and the idea that their self appointed expertise somehow trumps any argument simply because they are experts.
Being informed does not ensure one is right, but is usually a prerequisite, because being uninformed often makes one wrong. Within sports and other media in the age of infotainment, it is important to remember the role of sensationalism for ratings; if Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith never disagreed their show would be quite boring.
More importantly, controversial statements viscerally engage audiences and encourage them to tune in and watch the fallout. Fox does not bring Alan Colmes on to inform viewers or disseminate liberal perspectives, but to be Sean Hannitys whipping boy and, vicariously, their audiences.Within academia, it comes down to whether one believes universities mere paper mills or institutions that take credibility (and thus marketability) seriously enough not to rubber stamp every idiot who can pay for a diploma. The first is debatable within liberal arts, but absurd for technical disciplines. Aircraft/buildings do not regularly crash/collapse due to design by unqualified engineers/architects. Once again, fact is not subjective. Speaking of which...
Look at your argument about fact checkers as an example, you thought your arguments won regardless of the actual fact simply because some journalist who had been sprinkled with magic factchecker fairy dust agreed with you.
I know my argument won because the plant closing before Obama took office is incontrovertible fact, and the proof is Walker stated it just as unambiguously (more so, actually) as did the fact checker I cited. It does not matter whom we ask unless they just lie about the factual record: The plant was gone before Obama arrived, and the jobs lost thus independent of his in/actions. He can be blamed for another of the fantastic impossible promises that typified his 2008 campaign, but nothing else. Blaming him for the jobs lost requires Republicans advocate the very thing they caustically (but falsely) accused him of: Nationalizing and running GM.