The [BushCo] aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Global warming is killing the conifers of the Sierra. The US Geological Survey, after tracking tree mortality over two decades in Sequoia and Yosemite national parks, concluded that Sierra forests are “sensitive to temperature-driven increases in drought, making them vulnerable to extensive die-back during otherwise normal periods of reduced precipitation.”
Of course, that’s just the view of reputable scientists. A screeching mercury monkey like His Holiness The Right
Reverend Anthony W. T. F. Watts would no doubt furiously fling alternative explanations. Sunspots. “Natural cyclical die-off.” God’s wrath. Liberals. Frisbee damage.
It is amusing that anti-global-warming hysterics routinely couple their denials of climate change with tantrums against “liberalism.” For without the tolerance fostered by liberalism, goofballs like the Right Reverend would be cooling their bastinadoed heels in a musty dungeon somewhere. Prior to the Enlightenment, heretics were not permitted to ceaselessly spout foolishness. Those who denied reality—defined then rigidly and dogmatically by the church—were silenced, tortured, killed.
Today, however, and thanks to liberalism, just about anybody, no matter how ignorant, ill-informed, mendacious, or even downright dangerous, is entitled to an opinion . . . and a vote. Which is why millions upon millions of people, who believe that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church, were twice able to elevate to the US presidency a missing link who believes, in re evolution, that “the jury is out.”
And why the titanically dumb blog of that Dudley Do-Right retrovert Anthony W.T.F. Watts could, in 2008, be voted the “Best Science Blog” on all the intertubes.
And why Sarah Palin, an illaqueate fraud who, as recently set forth in a piece in Vanity Fair, cabins “on-the-record statements about herself to a litany of untruths and half-truths,” and whose own child has said to her “you’re just putting on a show; you’re so fake,” is afforded the sort of treatment due a serious person, instead of that appropriate for a hollow knave, which is what she is.
Anti-Enlightenment crusaders have learned to use the organs of liberalism to their advantage. And reality is rendered helpless because of it.
The media is an inherently liberal Enlightenment institution, soberly devoted to presenting “both sides” of public issues. Thus, some guy who just reads a thermometer, like the Right Reverend, is allowed to prance through the press with as much authority as someone with a PhD in climatology and biogeography, i.e., someone who actually knows what s/he’s talking about.
Or a shameless quack like Bill Frist can team with an attack-dog propagandist like
Sean Klannity—the sort of person aptly described by George Orwell as “an enor-mous mouth bellowing the same lie over and over again”—to pronounce Terri Schiavo “alert and respon-sive,” and be treated as seriously as the doctors who actually examined her, and determined that her skull, as the autopsy later definitively demonstrated, was a hollowed-out gourd.
Or, more recently, an ignorant yahoo like Glenn Beck can rely solely on his sphincter to declaim that “more than 500,000 people” attended his “Piss On The Dream” rally at the Lincoln Memorial, when professionals whose job it is to scientifically estimate crowd-sizes placed the true number at 87,000.
Doesn’t matter. Within 24 hours of the rally, syndicated hate-show host and vicious racist Bill Cunningham was crowing that Beck’s rally “drew more people to the Lincoln Memorial than Martin Luther King,” dismissing any assertion to the contrary as the factless fumblings of “liberals” who “hate our country.” Cunningham’s line was promptly adopted by The Eggman, and from there spread throughout the right-wing noise machine. As a consequence, more people today believe the lie, than accept the truth.
In his essay “Looking Back On The Spanish War,” George Orwell wrote:
I remember saying once to Arthur Koestler, “History stopped in 1936,” at which he nodded in immediate understanding. We were both thinking of totalitarianism in general, but more particularly of the Spanish civil war. Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various “party lines.”
This kind of thing is frightening to me, because it often gives me the feeling that the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world.
The subsequent story of Private Lynch—”a petite blond supply clerk [who] fearlessly mows down Fedayeen terrorists with herM16 until she runs out of ammo, whereupon she is shot, stabbed, cap-tured, tortured and raped”—was con-cocted by Jim Wil-kinson, a Bush loyalist who was pulling double-duty as the director of the Office of Strategic Communications for Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of U.S. forces in the Iraq-Afghanistan theater. Wilkinson fed the story to the Washington Post among others and [then] “sat back, and watched his fabulation go viral.”
It would take many months before the true story of Lynch’s ordeal became public, but by then it didn’t matter. War fever had been stoked. Operation Iraqi Freedom had rolled on.
Within hours of Tillman’s death on April 22, 2004, the propaganda apparatus of the Pentagon and Bush White House swung into high gear. According to [author Jon] Krakauer, “approximately 200″ e-mails raced among staffers, some discussing the political leverage to be gained in the Tillman affair. The next day, the White House released a sober tribute to the fallen hero.By April 25, the Army Chief of Staff’s Office of Public Affairs was gloating about the “extremely positive” stories in the national media, noting that interest in the Army was higher than it had been “since the end of active combat last year.”Meanwhile, the 2nd Ranger Battalion was expediting the paperwork to award Tillman a Silver Star—the nation’s third highest award for valor—using two falsified eyewitness accounts of the incident.The fact that Tillman had been killed by his own comrades shooting in a wild panic, and that everyone up and down the chain of command knew it,scarcely mattered. Washington was set upon a “G.I. Joe” narrative: Tillman died while charging uphill toward the enemy, attempting to lay down covering fire for men caught in a Taliban ambush . . . .
The lessons learned in the Lynch affair—the initial bogus story carries vastly more weight in public opinion than the eventual corrective—was applied to the Tillman case with a vengeance . . . .It would take three years for a semblance of the truth to come out and even then the Army allowed only that Tillman was “probably” killed by friendly fire. “No one has found evidence of a conspiracy by the Army to fabricate a hero, deceive the public or mislead the Tillman family about the circumstances of Corporal Tillman’s death,” Secretary of the Army Pete Geren told the media in 2007.Geren’s statement [is] a lie, plain and simple. And yet as Aeschylus said, “In war, Truth is the first casualty.”
mining experience, we know this was an earthquake,” said Murray.
political website on the intertubes; or Runt Limprod, both the most powerful and most influential political com-mentator on radio.
This comforts, not threatens, them. That is truly the sort of person they want running their lives.Whoever lives two or three generations, feels like the spectator who, during the fair, sees the performances of all kinds of jugglers and, if he remains seated in the booth, sees them repeated two or three times. As the tricks were meant only for one performance, they no longer make any impression after the illusion and novelty have vanished.
“They talk down to us. Especially here in the heartland. Oh, man. They think that, if we were just smart enough, we’d be able to understand their policies. And I so want to tell ’em, and I do tell ’em, Oh, we’re plenty smart, oh yeah—we know what’s goin’ on. And we don’t like what’s goin’ on. And we’re not gonna let them tell us to sit down and shut up.”
The root of the Wallace magic was a cynical, showbiz instinct for howling down from the podium that he had an instant, overnight cure for all their worst afflictions: Taxes? Nigras? Army worms killing the turnip crop? Whatever it was, Wallace assured his supporters that the solution was actually real simple, and that the only reason they had any hassle with the government at all was because those greedy bloodsuckers in Washington didn’t want the problems solved, so they wouldn’t be put out of work . . . .[Wallace] has the same smile as his great-grandfather—a thrice-convicted pig thief from somewhere near Nottingham[.]
Indeed. With a bit of imagination you can almost hear the cranky little bastard haranguing his fellow prisoners in London’s infamous Hardcase jail, urging them on to revolt:“Lissen here, you poor fools! There’s not much time! Even now—up there in the tower—they’re cookin’ up some kind of cruel new punishment for us! How much longer will we stand for it?“How much more of this misery can we stand, boys? I know you’re fed up right to here with it. I can see it in your eyes—pure misery! And I’m tellin’ you, we don’t have to stand for it! We can send the king a message and tell him how we feel! I’ll write it up myself, and all you boys can sign it . . . or better still, I’ll go talk to the king personally! All you boys have to do is dig me a little tunnel under the wall over there behind the gallows, and I’ll . . . “Right. That bottom line never changes: “You folks be sure and come to see me in the White House, you hear? There’ll be plenty of room for my friends, after I clean house . . . but first I need your vote, folks, and after that I’ll . . . “
“We might get our country back,” said the construction man, stirred. “I feel like I lost it. I feel like I been lost in it all this time.”“I’ve been lost too,” said the gas-station operator. “I’ve been trying to find somebodyI can understand to vote for.”
“One thing puzzling the press is why there weren’t more Wallace stickers on cars,” the auto dealer told me. “It’s fear. Fear of retaliation from blacks. Of getting bricks thrown at your car.”“You didn’t have any problems down in that black section did you?” asked the construction man.“A few. Just a few,” said the auto dealer.“I think it’s just a small group of black revolutionaries cause the trouble,” the construction man said.
invested in portraying Barack Obama as a mendacious turncoat and/or bumbling failure.Wenner: “Is there a marker you would lay down at the end of your first term where you say, ‘If this has happened or not happened, I would consider it a negative mark on my governance’?”Obama: “If I haven’t gotten combat troops out of Iraq, passed universal health care and created a new energy policy that speaks to our dependence on foreign oil and deals seriously with global warming, then we’ve missed the boat.”
ineffably complex workings of our world, the gentle stirring of the wings of a butterfly can ul-timately generate a hurricane, thousands of miles away. That is not a world amenable to simple solutions.Well, you know, I’ve heard a lot of people talk about violent revolution over the past 45 or so years. They make a good case that we are poorly represented and that the fatcats or oligarchs or whatever you want to call them control us to our detriment. But not a single one of them has given me reason to believe that they know how to actually bring about that revolution or that they would exercise political power responsibly were they to succeed.






Wow!! Just WOW! For all the time I have been reading what you write I do not believe any other piece so grabbed my attention and drew me right in to your thinking. This one is what persuasive writing is all about.
The start was illaqueate. That one sent me to the dictionary which is a not so common event in my life these days. New words are wonderful. The ones that are so succinct in their meanings are the best of all.
“The great appeal of Sarah Palin is that bone-ignorant people recognize that she is every bit as bone-ignorant as they are. This comforts, not threatens, them. That is truly the sort of person they want running their lives.(snip)People fear what they don’t understand. It has always been such. And the greatest wrong that the anti-Enlightenment crusaders against objective truth commit, in my view, is that they play to that ignorance, seeding the fear, and thus birth and nurture the hate.”
What more need be said? In about 50 words you said it all.
Thank you, possum. “Illaqueate” is indeed a great word—too bad it’s fallen out of the language; I don’t think I’ve used it in 20 years. But it’s quite fitting for Aunt Sarah, eh? ; /
Fitting indeed. That one is a perfect trap. Ensaring the thoughtless. And endangering the thoughtful ones among us with her useless pap.
Nature has noted the assault of Runt Limprod & Co. on objective truth, and other poisons brought to us by the new populism. Following is the text of an editorial in the September 9 edition:
“The four corners of deceit: government, academia, science and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit. That’s how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.” It is tempting to laugh off this and other rhetoric broadcast by Rush Limbaugh, a conservative US radio host, but Limbaugh and similar voices are no laughing matter.
There is a growing anti-science streak on the American right that could have tangible societal and political impacts on many fronts—including regulation of environmental and other issues and stem-cell research. Take the surprise ousting last week of Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent Republican senator for Alaska, by political unknown Joe Miller in the Republican primary for the 2 November midterm congressional elections. Miller, who is backed by the conservative ‘Tea Party movement’, called his opponent’s acknowledgement of the reality of global warming “exhibit ‘A’ for why she needs to go”.
The right-wing populism that is flourishing in the current climate of economic insecurity echoes many traditional conservative themes, such as opposition to taxes, regulation and immigration. But the Tea Party and its cheerleaders, who include Limbaugh, Fox News television host Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who famously decried fruitfly research as a waste of public money), are also tapping an age-old US political impulse—a suspicion of elites and expertise.
Denialism over global warming has become a scientific cause célèbre within the movement. Limbaugh, for instance, who has told his listeners that “science has become a home for displaced socialists and communists”, has called climate-change science “the biggest scam in the history of the world”. The Tea Party’s leanings encompass religious opposition to Darwinian evolution and to stem-cell and embryo research—which Beck has equated with eugenics. The movement is also averse to science-based regulation, which it sees as an excuse for intrusive government. Under the administration of George W. Bush, science in policy had already taken knocks from both neglect and ideology. Yet President Barack Obama’s promise to “restore science to its rightful place” seems to have linked science to liberal politics, making it even more of a target of the right.
US citizens face economic problems that are all too real, and the country’s future crucially depends on education, science and technology as it faces increasing competition from China and other emerging science powers. Last month’s recall of hundreds of millions of US eggs because of the risk of salmonella poisoning, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, are timely reminders of why the US government needs to serve the people better by developing and enforcing improved science-based regulations. Yet the public often buys into anti-science, anti-regulation agendas that are orchestrated by business interests and their sponsored think tanks and front groups.
In the current poisoned political atmosphere, the defenders of science have few easy remedies. Reassuringly, polls continue to show that the overwhelming majority of the US public sees science as a force for good, and the anti-science rumblings may be ephemeral. As educators, scientists should redouble their efforts to promote rationalism, scholarship and critical thought among the young, and engage with both the media and politicians to help illuminate the pressing science-based issues of our time.