Why burn books? Just stop reading...

Orwell warned of this as had other writers
when they wove cautionary tales of the right and left spectrums of political
extremism that allowed no minority opinion. 
First come the lies, then comes the burning of books.  Then the lies begin anew.  Today, such ideas revive dark visions of
German fascist building bonfires with classics written by Jews and other
non-desirables.  But, what if the public
simply collectively stopped reading because they simply enjoy the
ignorance?  

Today the results of an
Associated Press-Ipsos poll were released to the press that says people who
define themselves as politically liberal or progressive are more likely to read
books than conservatives.  The study
showed that conservatives were “not very interested” in reading.  The poll also revealed that 22 percent of
liberals and moderates said they had not read a book within the past year,
compared with 34 percent of conservatives.

The lop-sided statistics
prompted Pat Schroeder, president of the American Association of Publishers, to
opine in a recent discussion. "It's pretty hard to write a book saying,
'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page." White House
spokesman Tony Fratto hit back with a hint that Ms. Schroeder was
"confusing volume with quality" in her interpretation.  He clarified his interpretation with a
discourtesy of his own…"Obfuscation usually requires a lot more words than
if you simply focus on fundamental principles, so I'm not at all surprised by
the loquaciousness of liberals," said Mr. Fratto in retort.

It's been said that The
Decider reads five books a week.  I sincerely doubt that is true as does
most, if not all, of the crack White House press corps.  Especially since he has duly admitted to the
world press that he doesn't read newspapers at all or any reports by his own
cabinet preferring to trust in his 'closest advisers' to relay to him a daily
summary of current events.  If the C.E.O. of Bush, Cheney and bin-Laden
Ltd. doesn’t read the liberal, damn-near communistic lefty dominated press, why
should they, eh?

This also goes a long way
in elucidation towards understanding why neo-conservatives prefer to debate on
talking points, oversimplifications and outright bullying rather than the
presentation of empirical facts and logical conclusions.  Either they simply do not take the time to
read much on the very subjects they wish to argue about, or they take for
granted that their equally illiterate supporters need not facts but emotive
fuel to ignite and exacerbate their existing fears and prejudices.  Thereby “winning” debates through the dubious
virtues of incessant vitriol and association fallacy rather than facts. 

Conservatives will accuse
this writer of partisanship and as an exemplar of liberalism run amok.  However, the proof as they say is in the
pudding.  Aside from the more popular news
items such as Don Imus’ firing and then contractual jackpot for calling several
female basketball players “Nappy-headed Ho’s” and the media’s non-handling of
the lesser-known case of the Jena Six in Louisiana, the only perspectives
allowed in media is that of the conservatives who own the media apparatus
itself.  From “Hot Ghetto Mess” on BET to
CNN’s coverage of Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton unsightly fall from celebrity
grace, nothing of intrinsic cerebral value passes through the filters of the
establishment media.  Nothing that is
short of material benefit to the money makers. 
And an educated populace is not likely to acquiesce their dollars if
they knew, or knew enough to care, where they were going and under what
conditions.

The contemporary propaganda
model uses to great effect masters in the art of “bait and condemn” across the
mainstream news media.  Professional
shills such as Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs and Bill O’Reilly execute this shtick over
the televised media while right-wing Am radio is dominated by the likes of Rush
Limbaugh and his like-minded and equally confrontational doppelgangers.  Organizations such as Fairness and Accuracy
in Reporting (FAIR) and Media Matters routinely expose establishment media for
what it is.  A nefariously simple yet
highly effective system that aims to steer public opinion where the elitist
factions accorded authority over civil society wishes it to reside.  

This is far from a
conspiracy hypothesis.  Psychologists
such as Edward Bernays and political philosophers most notably writer Walter
Lippmann recognised early on that media was more efficient a device than the
threat of sheer state terror.  Especially
in a republic that claimed to be democratic. 
While erroneously associated with political analyst Noam Chomsky, the
term “necessary illusions” was a literal expression of Lippmann’s theories in
regards to mass population control as he outlined when speaking of the American
press, "The mass of the reading public is not interested in
learning and assimilating the results of accurate investigation.”  So give Joe Public just a little useful
information, because the general public is basically just too stupid to
understand the bigger issues.

This also gives explanation as to why many
civilian supporters of Bush team absolutism and its command core of newspeak
commissars in corporate media appear so belligerent; it apparently stems from
the frustration of not knowing what they are talking about.  The invective,
intolerance, ad hominem assault and unscientific rejections of reality non-conservatives
face when voicing dissent are par for the course when conservatives are
challenged on their views and cannot dominate the discussion with solid
evidence.

It is a psychological fact that individuals
and social groups will often resort to various forms of intimidation or
outright violence in an effort of force their will on others they might deem
“wrong” or ill-advised.  In debates centred
on factual evidence, conservatives find the terrain in such situations problematical
and often engage in wildly unsubstantiated assertions and blatant charges of
bias and discrimination to divert intellectual  attention from the issue at hand to lesser emotive
subjects they feel accord them a moral upper-hand.  Hence the repetitive and Europocentric assumptions
of an imaginary religious/ethnic/political superiority that emphasizes American
Exceptionalism rather than the practical American history such revisionism
represents.       

It stands to reason that if one has a valid
and objective position on an issue, facts and reason should suffice in the
practise of civilised discourse. 
However, when the basis of an opinion, perspective or policy is
fundamentally grounded in bias, bigotry and fear-mongering of “the other,”
fact, reason and diplomacy cannot operate by the specious character of the
dissonance within the argument.  Again, many
conservatives would not agree with any of the above.  Yet the evidence of the media market speaks
for itself.

For conservatives as well
as many libertarians, ignorance is indeed strength.  And such ignorance is indispensable to allow
for such unjust self-convictions of an unapologetic ethical superiority.  The fact that conservatives do not read as
much as the eternally evil oncoming hordes of rabid liberals and activists only
serves to provide proof to the rumour that most conservatives are little more
than ignorant, closed-minded bigots.

This leaves only the last two
to be argued out scientifically by yet another poll. - The Angryindian