That was interesting. I'd never actually read anything about Washington before - other than knowing he was your first president.
Thanks for one of the funniest takes on why a blue collar worker should know how to lead a nation, navigate foreign affairs etc, that I have ever seen. Because if he doesn't have all those skills, the country will become a fascist state
A democratic republic has to be a society of equals. If blue collar workers don't have ideas about how to do what government does, how can they weigh in on government policy or even vote?
Maybe there should be a return to poll exams to prevent mindless sheeple from going to the polls to elect authoritarian leaders who will validate their will to shirk liberty.
Some people look at words, and think that words:
- stand alone, without context.
- disagreeing with a position, means agreeing with the opposite.
- that apply to a portion of something must apply to the rest of the whole
Usually, people only engage in/focus on/utilise this sort of nonsense behaviour when they have a position they value, and don't want to consider anything else. It's an easy way for them to distract the conversation. Oddly, they think that if they can do this (distract the conversation) 'they've won'...when all they've done is avoided / wilfully ignored the problems.
terrific listen (but long - you need an hour where you have time to really listen)
Ideas always has interesting/sometimes controversial programming.
While the idea that we're living in a post-truth era is still highly contested, there is greater agreement that facts themselves have also become contestable. Belief and feeling have sideswiped facts, especially when it comes to news stories about politics. IDEAS producer Naheed Mustafa examines the increasingly elastic and unsettling relationship between facts and truth.
In the old days of broadcast news, information would arrive promptly at the supper hour. Each evening, families would tune into their channel of choice and take in the day's news as a list of trustworthy facts.
Twenty-four hours later, those facts would be updated or corrected as need be. It was a simpler time to navigate the world and be confident in what you knew.
Contrast that scenario with today's constant and unending digital churn of news and opinion that updates minute to minute.
Reporting and editorializing bleed into each other, sometimes bolstering each other, sometimes cancelling each other out. Original sources of information are often hard to figure out. It makes for a loud, chaotic, and often stupefying landscape.
"The Truth" has always been contested territory. We know that one person's version of the same event will differ from another's. There's perspective, and bias, and slant.
But what about the other kind of truth – the verifiable kind we call facts? Even the notion of verifiability has become slippery.
In all of this, journalists are still trying to do what they've always done: report the facts. But how does one do that in a time when the relationship between fact and truth is stretched so thinly that even a gentle pull could rupture it all together?
Guests in this episode:
Daniel Dale is the Washington bureau chief for The Toronto Star, and the author of the Trump Fact Check project.
Carlin Romano is professor of philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania.
Lindsay Fitzgerald is a documentary filmmaker.
Amanda Rogers is a visiting assistant professor of humanities at Colgate University.
there are some short listening clips at the link - hopefully it will tempt you to listen to the full piece