(no subject)

[kodalai]

Well, since it is apparently so easy to educate oneself in these matters, tonight I set out to learn 1) what's up with Iraq, 2) what's up with U.S. foreign policy, 3) what's up with North Korea, 4) what's up with France, and 5) what's up with chili dogs.

I found lots of information on it. Lots and lots and lots. Many different sources. Many different people saying many different things. Many different newscasts and articles and op-ed columns and history books. None of them, unfortunately, agree with one another. With a little checking into possible bias, I have determined that all of them are about equivalently valid. I have been advised that I should listen to them all and draw my own conclusions, which I have reached as being: it's a whole lot more complicated than it appears on the surface, which, damn it, I already knew!

I think I'll grow up and be a plumber.

Comments

[kracken.livejournal.com]

History books are very reliable in being able to see the consequences of actions taken or not taken in many different scenarios. It's a much better yardstick to what should or should not be done than to listen or read the mindless diatribe of people who's motives you can't trust.

[kodalai.livejournal.com]

This is, for the most part, so. However, there are always things left out of any history book, for the simple reason that not everything can be fit into a single volume -- and that some things are ommitted with greater regularity than others. The closer the text comes to modern day, the more hesitant they are to illuminate potential dark spots in our history.

I do not, unfortunately, have the resources to peruse several dozen different volumes of history books looking for the one with the right bias. Assuming there is a right bias, anyway, which returns me to my earlier problem.