Political Radicals

Let's face it folks, every one of our parties has these nutboxes out there making all sorts of allegations about both the government and opposition political parties. The problem we the uninformed masses have is that we have no way of knowing when these loons actually have something important imbedded within their poisonous rhetoric. It is not my intention to either slam nor praise any of them but to give you the casual visitor to their sites and/or talk shows a way of sorting out the excrement from the useful information. Places like Daily KOS, Salon, MoveOn.org generally have little info of use because they are so heavily tied to the funding of George Sauros and his ilk. Talk shows like Air America, Imos, and Michael Savage are generally hosted by folks that are so full of hate for one party or other that you usually cannot depend on anything they say to be based in fact. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, etc. are more content oriented and actually provide enough information for you to double-check their claims. All have an agenda though so you are cautioned to listen to them with a grain of salt and be sure to check their data sources to get the full story before accepting or rejecting their claims.

You should follow these rules when deciding whether any information you are getting is legitimate, only half true, or completely bogus.

• Does the person, site, or other reporting source have something to gain by making these claims?
• Are the sources of the information legitimate or from other nutboxes. You can generally determine this by checking to see if the source is a disinterested third party with no axe to grind or other agenda at stake. Legitimate sources are generally places like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for info on hurricane preparedness (Katrina), U.S. Intelligence Reports from the various intelligence agencies within the federal government, official government documents, etc. Reports from the mainstream media are generally not reliable any longer because they all have a stake in the outcome, they have a need to be a part of the news now instead of just reporting it.
• Are there other legitimate sources that take an opposing view and if so what evidence do they present to make their case?
• Is the evidence being presented for whatever allegation or claim being presented in full form or just out of context (bits and pieces of statements that can be strung together to make it seem like the person/entity is saying one thing when they are actually taking an entirely different position). This is a classic journalist trick to create a story where otherwise there is none.
• If it isn't documented then it doesn't exist.
• Disregard any statement, claim, or allegation that is not supported by legitimate documented evidence.
• Just because something is on a website on the Internet does not make it true or factual.
• Check the credentials of the person claiming to be an expert on the issue and supporting the claim. Michael Moore would not be a legitimate expert on the events on 9/11 nor would Al Gore be one for Global Warming because both have an axe to grind and an agenda on these subjects. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Dept. of Homeland Security would be legitimate sources of expert info on the 9/11 issue. The U.S. Meteriological Dept., NASA Reports (not individual statements by single scientists within NASA), U.S. Geological Survey Dept. would be legitimate sources of expert info on global warming. Daily KOS, Salon.com, and MoveOn.org would never be considered legitimate sources of information for most any topic as they have little or no credibility outside of their own kook base.

There you have it, if you follow these simple rules you should be able to sort out the real deal from the wild eyed fanatics when they make their claims.