whoops. i mean...uh

faux pas!

Fox news was creating an alternative reality? I had no idea.

I notice this problem over almost every crucial debate in this country that neither side uses the same set of facts. It isn't merely enough to debate what to do about these, all debates become a war over acceptance of a data set first. When the basic reality that underlies a problem cannot be agreed upon, social gridlock is the inherent result. We see this where abortion is concerned because social conservatives stress the a factual set that includes a beginning of life at a point far before scientists and social liberals have set theirs. We see this with drug controls because social conservatives have a firm belief that any narcotic substance is inherently dangerous and addictive, while doctors tend to describe addiction as an inherent medical problem of a few people (rather inherent to the substance/activity of their choice, be it alcohol, cocaine, or pornography). We see this with civil rights for gays because social conservatives rely on a data set that claims homosexuality is a choice, while many biologists tend to recognize this as a natural "abnormality" that cannot be willed aside with some sort of treatment or faith, similar to the problem that a person does not choose their skin colour, or, for the most part, sex, and that we grant equal rights on these provisions because they have very little to do with a human being's underlying character and potential, why not those of homosexuals? So the idea that a news organization that feeds these alternative realities with reinforcing and non-threatening data sets is popular with a large percentage of the population is hardly a news flash. It can certainly be argued over many issues the validity of a data set or a proposed theory and its implications on policy choices (such as in the arena of economics). And we may certainly find reasons to argue over public policy (and private) decisions regarding our preferences in this manner (health care vs retirement funding for example). I don't think that requires an alternative reality to have healthy and structured debates. There are plenty of peculiar political persuasions based primarily on different preference sets; security versus freedom, tolerance "versus" free speech, and so on, that do not require the use of any alternate facts in order to persuade or disagree. To me, when you have to invent a new set of facts to support your argument, there is a problem with the underlying argument. It may be an entirely justified perspective from your emotional and visceral reaction, but if there are no facts, facts based on rational investigation of a matter, to support a course of action on my part (or that of any shared authorities), I am not moved by your plea. This includes the irrational bleating of many economic "conservatives" over budget deficits, national debt, taxation, regulation, and so on. There are factual arguments and sensible economic theoretical concerns to each of these debates. Make them. Stop using talking points and do some research. It is getting most tedious to have to explain to these conservatives every time that their supposed problems are not new, and that some of the most blatant offenders are their supposed heroes. If they lived in a reality that acknowledged this instead of in a world of unquestioning worship free of doubt, we might get along better, and we'd certainly have something like an actual cohesive opposition party to "big government", instead of a party with no ideas and no alternatives because it apparently lives in an alternate reality.

Until then, enjoy your dose of Limbaugh, Cheney, Rove, and Gingrich. You're not going anywhere with that.