Your prior participations in elections is a total waste. After all, you've never been able to make a 'conscious' decision on politics, because you've never been told the full-truth. Yet at the same time, you have bold statements about Iraq's pre-war WMD controversy.
People are fully capable of forming conscious decisions based on the information that is given to them. Even with all the body of information at your fingertips, I doubt you would change your main ideologies. Most people are already biased towards a generic political position and selectively choose what information they perceive as credible and real, and what they perceive as lies and political jargon. Looking at both sides of an issue seems like a pretty obvious thing in making a strong decision about an issue. Still, I'm not sure if you do such a good job of this, because it seems pretty obvious you're a liberal. I apologize if this is not true or you are offended by this. It is just my observation, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
In this particular example, you yearn for the full-truth of an entertainer's opinion. Not an underlying conspiracy behind a criminal investigation, not an element of war/pre-war/post-war politics, not a terrorism or counterterrorism operation. I bet if Kanye was praising Bush, you wouldn't be here talking about it. You know, I've said things that are analogous to Kanye's remarks before, in passing, with friends, at parties, etc. However, I would never take advantage of a nationwide media outlet and make an unintelligent extremist remark like he did, especially in a nonpolitical climate, trying to raise money for a good cause.
In terms of the full-truth behind major current event issues, most of the "full-truths" are available to you. They are selectively and editorially presented by any given media outlet. Just like how the audience will selectively choose what they want to hear and believe. But, most of the information pertaining to hot topic current event issues like the Bush administrations domestic and foreign policy, Iraq history and culture, WMD and terrorism fact sheets, al Qaeda, Hurricane Katrina, etc. are all widely available in literature, the Internet, etc. Enough info for you or anyone else to disect and pick apart what you will consciously believe and take on as your own platforms.
Taking a break from things, I get personally attacked by bigoted closet-case racists on a daily basis, not by intelligent political back-n-forths on a music message board.
In terms of your last paragraph, no you cannot believe the paper tidbit because you are not presented enough information. That doesn't sound tactical, it just sounds like bad journalism. It has no significance, you can still make a political opinion of the disaster itself. This happened on 9/11, the use of fuel as an instrument of chemical terrorism. There's a lot of half-truths with that event. This would have been a better example for you to use. However, there is enough information presented in literature to know what happened, why it happened, and what can be done in the future. That is all. No matter how politicized it is, the 9/11 commission reports is a good source for such information, enough at least to make a 'conscious decision'. If you wanna know about every detail as to what piece of paper went missing that day, or how many people were stuck in the bathroom on the 57th floor, then you're asking for a body of information that is physically impossible and ideologically irrelevant.
|