How do you know what to believe?

At this point, where we are now, after 2000, 9*11, anthrax letters, oddly timed terror alerts, 2002, Iraq war lies, 2004, the kneepad media, the thwarted investigations, the Specters and the zells and the liebermans (liebermen?), and the war is going well and the war is an oil-theft scam and the clear skies pollution programs and the talk-tough Dems who fold in the end and the pictures and facts and official claims that don't fit, and the outright lies and the war-happy, blood-thirsty so-called "Christian" movements and the hate of freedom while claiming to spread freedom and the good cop/bad cop and the reality that the rich are only getting richer and the poor are only getting poorer....is he or she on my side, does this person or group really work for what it says it does, and are we already over the edge - a hidden agenda well underway while an ever more absurd charade is presented for our placation and distraction....

When you watch the news or read a blog or hear of the latest posting by the evil terrorists on some mysterious aq website, or even hear seemingly good news about corruption on the verge of succumbing to justice - how do you know what to believe?

I wonder sometimes, especially since 9*11, where the "tinfoil hat" line is, and was, and how far its moved, and how many things once considered tinfoil hat cts are now widely suspected, if not accepted, to be true. It was beyond belief then, but now....? The anthrax letter attacks, on media and Dems, promised to be investigated, perps brought to justice, now just a foggy memory.

So where are we now? Who do we really trust? What, of what we are exposed to daily, or frequently, or even intermittently, is to be believed, and what is subject to suspicion?

And is there a grand deciet, and how long has it been going on going on, and who is involved?

And is our side (at least some of the Dem establishment) just playing a part in that great deception?

Follow the money, straight to the few at the top, while more and more drift into poverty. Oh, I ramble.

Are we just watching theater?

How do you know what to believe?

as a surprise.

who said the anthrax mystery would be thoroughly investigated, the people who sent our military on a wild goose chase, and the people who are tapping your phone line and monitoring your internet use. They are the the people you pay to protect your privacy, the integrity of your military, your rights, your freedom. They have gone into rogue mode and they need to stop it asap.

While I have little patience for big, mastermind-style conspiracy theories, nevertheless I can recognize events and developments that trend toward a certain result, even if there is no overarching plot behind it all. It's possible, for instance, that numerous independent entities work toward similar ends, and their actions may at times occur more or less in concert. I would hesitate to conclude that (most) Democrats are actively and willingily striving for that same Conservative goal, but I will allow that their ability to steer the course of events is so limp and ineffectual as to be all but deliberately complicit.

But one thing that shines from all the separate events that you identify is the "assault" on verifiable reality. One might suppose that, at some level, the intent is not to attain any single goal that you've listed, but rather to make it seem impossible (or at least very difficult) to speak of any of them from a position of knowledge or reliability. Iraq, anthrax, EPA coverups, etc. combine to make us question our ability to question.

How many times have we seen a "news" report on, say, global warming that features a learned but non-charismatic scientist forced into a "debate" with an aggressive, experienced, media-savvy, and well-compensated shill for corporate interests? The media have done a great job of making each position seem equally valid, when in fact one is valid and one is bullshit. But the casual viewer (that is, 99.99% of the viewership) comes away thinking that the matter is still under debate, so that they believe that there's no way for the layperson to form an opinion.

This is a meta-tactic, conceived to undermine the very process of debate, rather than to refute any argument or to discredit any advocate. There is no way to combat it short of regaining control of the terms of the debate, but the bad news is that conservatives have several decades' worth of head start, and they've got the sluggish inertia of the public on their side.

So IMO the first question is not: How do we know what to believe?

Instead, the first question should be: Who controls the debate, and what is the effect of that control?

This point has been argued before by men and women far more eloquent than I, but it needs to be made again and again.

For now I'll give you these links, and will try to write something in the morning:

The Four Nobel Truths.
<http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm>

And if that's too much to ponder, read this, or better yet download an mp3 copy of it and read along with the music.

Baz Luhrmann - Everybody's Free (To Wear Sunscreen)
<http://www.anysonglyrics.com/lyrics/b/bazluhrmann/everybodys.htm>