NOT AS OTHER MEN ARE

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

Tom Ehrich, writer, church consultant, Episcopal priest and pompous baboon, believes that the Internet sucks royally:

The United States has always had its share of nutcases and shady characters in public life. In other words, Donald Trump is nothing new, and his presidential campaign package of absurd claims isn’t without precedent.

In an all-wired, let’s-go-viral world of non-information posing as information, these outliers can gain traction. In a saner era, somebody would have told Trump to go back to building unprofitable casinos. No newspaper with sense would dignify today’s bigotry with 24/7 coverage. No network claiming authority would employ people whose wild-eyed extremism makes a mockery of the Fourth Estate.

Actually, Tom, the Fourth Estate made a mockery of itself a long time ago. But let me translate. What’s got Tom’s panties in a wad is the fact that people are not simply taking the news media’s word for it anymore because the Internet allows people to investigate matters for themselves and express views that are at odds with the official narrative that Professional Journalism^TM has carefully crafted.

Thanks to Rupert Murdoch, they even have their own television network to legitimize streams of vitriol, conspiracy theories, fears, rages, and suspicion. In the brave new world of leveling-by-Internet, anybody can say anything and claim to be an authority.

Am I good or what? Tom can’t grasp the fact that there are people in the world who disagree with him. Theymust be driven by “streams of vitriol, conspiracy theories, fears, rages and suspicion” because to limited intellects like Ehrich’s, they’re comprehensible no other way.

Tom? If you want to see some real vitriol, fear and rage, click here. Those aren’t Tea Partiers, big smacker. (WARNING: if you click on that link, MAKE SURE that your children aren’t around and can’t hear it. Because it is that vile).

Who’s to say a website is packed with lies or useful information? For example, I followed the thread of a comment by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., criticizing Tea Party folks for threatening other people’s free speech. By the time his original words had fanned out to two dozen right-wing websites, they had morphed into a preference for terrorists over Tea Partiers.

Tom? Leaving aside the libel that the Tea Party is threatening anyone’s free speech, before you start talking about other people’s “lies,” you might want to, oh, I don’t know, attribute that quote. Tell us what Sen. Lautenberg actually said and when and where the Lout actually said it.

Clifford, down at Red Stick Rant, did a little digging and thinks this is what you’re referring to. Speaking at a Murder Inc. rally, Sen. Lautenberg said of Tea Partiers, “These people don’t deserve the freedoms in the Constitution.” When pressed as to whether he was serious, the Lout added, “But we’ll give it to them anyway.”

And as Clifford points out, the Lout did vote to grant constitutional rights to Guantanamo detainees. So all those “right-wing websites” didn’t jump to an unreasonable conclusion.

When search goes social and truth becomes whatever your network of friends says it is, accurate information loses out to “crowd-sourcing.” With some deft packaging of keywords, video links and photos, you can game the algorithms and seduce throngs into believing whatever you post.

Really? So if I take my Flip camcorder to an event, record what someone actually says and then post it here, I’m gaming the algorithms and seducing the uncountable throngs who visit this site into believing whatever I want them to believe? I wish someone had told me that sooner. I might have been able to get a date or something.

Legions of bloggers and website editors comb the news — real and phony — for snippets that can be lifted out, distorted, repackaged and then sent to partisans as if their worst fears had just been realized.

MSNBC would like a word with you, Tom.

I doubt that leaders of partisan causes will be motivated to disseminate accurate information. Those who fund them want more cheapening of media and public discourse, not less. Officeholders who won by deceit won’t suddenly embrace honesty.

So would Barack Obama.

First, not everyone will be cowed or wooed by faux information. Some will follow the actual thread, see what the speaker actually did say, what the legislation’s language actually specifies, what real statistics show, what untainted documents indicate, and they will continue to expose distortions. Big lies only prevail if truth-seekers go silent. Truth-seekers, I expect, will fight back.

That’s kind of what we’re doing now, Tom. And kind of why you’re so pissed off about it.

I’ve said several times and still believe that the current Anglican controversy was Internet-driven. Without the Web, Gene Robinson could have been spun as just another liberal Episcopal goofball bishop, no different than John Shelby Spong.

But the Internet short-circuited the process. Instantly, the whole world knew that the Episcopalians had elected(and later confirmed) an unrepentant sinner to the highest office in the Episcopal Organization.

And Anglicans the world over had to instantly react to it.

Tom Ehrich’s thinly-veiled contempt for traditionalist Anglicanism is obvious, as is his scorn for anyone who dissents from the official line, whether in politics or any other area of life. But Tom’s a hopeful guy.

In the end, vindictive partisans won’t prevail against common sense and a free people’s determination to remain free.

Tru dat. It’s just that Tom’s really not going to like the conclusion to which quite a few Americans will come when they figure that out