Sigh…

Where to start?

Two years ago, before the last election, I believed that many bloggers who I read were reasonable despite their differing political views.

Since then, however, despite their own protestations, the Partisan Derangement Syndrome (or PDS, formerly known as the Bush Derangement Syndrome among those who are not able to recognize the universal nature of this malady) has taken hold, and unreasoning support of “their own side” in the face of all evidence to the contrary still takes hold. Perhaps not all the time, but often enough where the rationality and clear vision of those involved comes to question.

I will present two examples, and if those involved choose to take offense, I offer my apologies, but I am merely trying to illustrate a point. If you do not want your opinions discussed publicly, then do not post them on weblogs.

The first example is one of conversion, the Commissar of The Poliburo Diktat, who is now asking the same questions I have been asking for the past three years, but only after evidence beyond even an unreasonable doubt of the incompetence of those he formerly supported:

An agonizing gotcha moment

The other day, I posted a long piece questioning the widely-blogged report of sharply decreasing Iraqi casualties in August. When I saw a new, corrective report today, being human, I felt quite vindicated. While there was a slight drop-off in August, the 2/3 decrease was just was not credible. It never happened. But does this put me in the position of rooting for more deaths of Iraqi civilians? I certainly hope not. Do I want to say smugly, Ha! Eat sh1t, Powerline boys! … um .. only for a moment.

But that is one of the challenges of the debate that this country is having about the Iraq war. The administration (perhaps understandably) puts out a relentlessly positive, upbeat party line. Conservative bloggers (also understandably) jump on any favorable fragment of news and give it great prominence. Political opponents adopt the same tactics, with bad news.

Simply trying to bring facts and reality into that atmosphere is difficult. And when the news from Iraq is mostly bad, one ends up sounding like a moonbat. *sigh*

Well, gee, Commissar, it would have been nice to have you in the reality-based community (not to be confused with the Democrats) back BEFORE the current set of idiots were elected or re-elected back in 2004.

Somehow, even in his repentence of following the party-line, and despite facing overwhelming evidence to the contrary, acknowledging reality is “sounding like a moonbat.”

It is a sad archetype when pursuing rationality is perceived as completely irrational by the wing currently in power…

Then there is the sniping from one of whom I expected a bit more of a balanced view. In one of his “H&I Fires” posts, John Donovan of Castle Arhgghhh!!! writes:

Oh, my. I may be getting free books, but I’m not getting free review copies of TV stuff. But this is delicious: Senate Dems are threatening ABC’s broadcast license over the 9/11 mini-series. Which indicates *just* how much they fear it. Wow. Talk about “Soviet-style chills” oh, wait, that’s the NYT when Rethuglicans are talking trash about television… One wonders what the Grey Lady’s tortured thoughts will be this time ’round.

Update: While we haven’t heard from the NYT Editorial Board, we have heard from their critic who saw the show.

NEW YORK The film-makers and network responsible for the upcoming miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” which is now under assault for its alleged conservative bias, received critical support from a perhaps unexpected quarter on Friday — The New York Times.

The paper’s TV critic, Alessandra Stanley, declares the film “fictionalized” but still evenhanded.

Others cited in the same Editor and Publisher article didn’t necessarily agree…

Chicago Sun-Times TV critic Doug Elfman calls the movie a total “bore” and “amateurish.” John Podhoretz, conservative columnist for the New York Post, labels it a “stiff” and attacks the film’s depiction of Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger. USA Today’s Robert Bianco writes that the movie “has enough trouble just following history. Rewriting history is an ambition it should have left at the door.”

Hey, fair and balanced, that’s us!

Hey, John, this isn’t your original comment of “What are they afraid of?” in reference to the Democrats, and that particular snark was unworthy of you despite the apparent subsequent edits, for they are not much better.

I am forced to wonder, is the bias evident in only showing preview copies to conservative commentators and right-wing polititicians bothering your conscience, or did your sense of “fair and balanced” get reawakened by the protests from conservatives regarding the “docudrama” about President Ronald Reagan that was to be shown around a decade ago, which orgininally showed him having total indifference to the effects of the AIDS epidemic on the homosexual community but was alterered in the face of partisan protests?

Or are you fully supportive of a film presenting distortions and outright fictionalized scenes as history? One must wonder…

Or was the current imbroglio too close to the Dan Rather standard of “fabricated but balanced” for you?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Perhaps, John, you might want to read a few other posts on the matter, starting with what Joe Gandelman had to say, especially when it comes to the partisan nature of the pre-release DVDs issued.

Am I angry?

Yes.

I am sick of the unthinking, non-rational nature of what we call political “discourse” in the nation today.

Excuse the fuck out of me for asking for reasons and full discussions of options when it comes to sending Americans (including our soldiers) into harm’s way.