Idiot Nation

This article made me thinkhttp://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0207GREETINGS# In Britain we have similar problems. In short the vast bulk of the population will trust the opinions if idiot blowhards and opinionated columnists over respected scientists provided

1. They say things that the average numbnut agrees with.
2. They have their own newspaper column/radio programme
3. They portray the world as a black and white, right and wrong affair which is far simpler than the shades of grey reality

its become quite frustrating, why the hell do people put more faith in Richard Littlejohn (As an example, a really odious example) than Scientists, behavioural experts and people who have studied or have had years of experience of the subjects he mouths off on.This would be because in idiot Britain we don't like hearing opinions that differ from our own, particularly if they can be backed up with :HORROR: FACT! (And I mean actual facts rather than saying FACT! at the end of a sentence, generally meaning, I have no evidence to support this but saying FACT! means I don't have to defend my untenable position, its fact)

Some may argue that this is what I'm doing, and I'd agree, except for the fact that I'm doing this for free (Or rather when I should be being paid to work) and in a forum that no-one actually reads bar a few oddballs I know and some poor unfortunate who decided to read a random blog. In fact I am about as qualified to comment on such matters as Law and Order, Global warming and Immigration as any of these newspaper columnists, the difference is I'm not paid to do so, and no-one will say "That pie_man70, he knows what he's talking about, unlike all those so called experts who just study the subject matter, conduct scientifically sound experiments and have firsthand experience of how these things actually work"

Take, for example, the argument of Law & order. Your litteljohns will say that the country is on a downhill spiral, and its all due to those namby-pamby and wringing liberals with their human rights act. Why can't we suspend this piece of legislation which in no way protects all our rights, so we can properly punish criminals, instead of sending them to "Holiday camp" prisons we should beat them dawn to dusk for 50 years. That’s a proper deterrent; they won't want to go back after that. Now I can argue the pros and cons of brutal prison regimes till I'm blue in the face, quoting studies that show that brutal prisons churn out more brutal criminals, that the goal of prison is to rehabilitate while keeping a danger to society out of circulation for public safety. I can ask at which point "Punishment" becomes "Revenge" but that doesn't matter a jot when you consider a statement by a great author Christopher brookmyre. Talking about how people are sure that draconian prisons would cut re-offending rates and act as a deterrent, he points out that there is no deterrent because "No b***er expects to be caught"

Simple, succinct, ignored by pundits, and that’s an author not an expert, but its common sense, its logical.But yet those who trounce off opinion as fact get paid handsomely for their role in turning the nation into a pack of rabid lynch mobs, burning paedophiles as they are accused, beating up hoodies and breaking the legs of anyone who enquires about human rights.

Take another bugbear, regarding the band of idiots that makes up most of the public of this "great" land.Next to the opinion monger is the one scientist who disagrees with the general body of science. Now, I'm all for theories being properly tested, and all for dissent showing the weakness of firmly held beliefs, hells I welcome it. The problem is when you have a massive body of evidence for one side, say that climate change not only exists (Just about 100% proven) and that man is in some way an influence (About 90%+ of studies say this is the case) there are people who will latch on to that 10% of scientists, 10% often backed by interest groups to present data in a way more beneficial to, say oil companies, or airlines, because if you believe the 10% of often disproved science saying this is all sunspots, you can drive your 4X4 and fly to Malaga every year firm in the knowledge that the tonnes of CO2 you pump out has nothing to do with climate change.

Yes, we, as a nation will believe the bad, disproven science, particularly if it has a big name supporter (Michael Crichton, I'm looking at you) because, well frankly we're lazy (I know lazy, I can smell my own) we don't want to recycle, its hard. We don't want to switch everything off standby because when we get in from work it’s nice to turn the telly on by remote control, and we don't want to take public transport because it’s filled with all the idiots I posted about in my previous public transport rant. The worst example of this was while listening to TalkSport, some guy regarding the protests for Heathrow’s 3rd runway. He started by saying that the science on global warming was 50-50, specifically that you get some reports saying it is man made followed by some saying it isn't. As previously stated it’s closer to 90-10. The second statement was the worst, he said, if flying, and driving 4X4 cars was so harmful to the environment was so bad, surely it would be banned.Now really, taking the very large, well funded Oil lobby, the vehicle manufacturers and the airlines, not to mention all companies involved in aviation and the jobs produced, if I were to stand for power saying I was banning any car journey that couldn't be either walked in 20mins or covered by public transport, and that I was banning all short haul air travel, it would be election suicide, because the great British public is unwilling to give up these luxuries. And no know it all experts will tell them otherwise.