Americans; best entertained, least informed...proved true again.

[LynnTheDem]

Half of Americans Link Hussein and al-Qaeda

Ignorance;

32 per cent of respondents think Iraq gave substantial support to al-Qaeda, and 18 per cent think the Iraqi government was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Reality;

-Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people. In June 2004, the federal commission that investigated the events of 9/11 stated that there had been "no collaborative relationship" between the deposed Iraqi regime and the terrorist network in the planning and carrying out of the attacks.

-In August 2006, U.S. president George W. Bush referred to the situation, saying, "Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case."

-In September 2006, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report which concludes that, although the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had evidence of "instances of contacts" between Iraqi authorities and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s, these did not amount to a "formal relationship." Democratic Michigan senator Carl Levin said the document was a "devastating indictment" of the Bush administration’s attempts to link Hussein and al-Qaeda.

Ignorance;

51 per cent of respondents think Iraq either had actual weapons of mass destruction or a major program for developing them before the Iraq war started.

Reality;

The final report of the Iraq Survey Group—presented to the U.S. Congress on Sept. 30, 2004—concluded that Hussein’s regime did not possess chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, and had not implemented a significant program for their development.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/14319

WAKE UP, America. This is damned embarrassing.

[Journeyman]

1. So what can, or should be done, to rectify this situation? . . .

n/t

[silverojo]

2. Though I agree with you 100%

The subject of your post actually proves how uninformed Americans are about everything, even grammar. The proper word in this case is "proven", not "proved", and there should have been a colon instead of a semi-colon. :)

As for the rest, it's just the natural result of KKKarl Rove's propaganda machine. Tell a lie often enough, and eventually people will believe it...as the Nazis knew too well when they rose to power. :mad:

[tblue37]

6. Actually, you are only partly right.

Both “proved" and “proven” are acceptable past participles for "prove." "Proven” is the older form. “Prove” is an irregular verb, but some irregular verbs have moved in the direction of regularizing their past tense and past participle by adding a dental suffix (usually the -ed, although sometimes it is a -t, or it is dropped altogether if the verb stem already ends with a dental sound). For a time both forms will be used, but eventually the regularized form is likely to win out.

British and American English sometimes prefer different forms. For example, an English friend of mine once told me that when Americans use “gotten” rather than “got” as the past participle for “get,” we sound childish to her, yet “gotten” is actually the preferred form in America.

You are correct about the semicolon, though. I help my students to understand the use of the semicolon by telling them to treat it as a weak period, not as a strong comma. There are a few cases where it can be used as if it were a strong comma, but those are rare. In almost all cases, it should be treated as an end-stop. I have an article on my Grammar and Usage for the Non-Expert site explaining how to use colons and semicolons:

“Colons, and Semicolons, and Bears!”
http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/colons.html

On the other hand, I can’t help wondering why on earth you would attack Lynn on a point of grammar when it is so irrelevant to the subject of her post!

[trumad]

13. Grammar police

We have them in every forum. Funny thing is...9 out of 10 times, in their own posts correcting others grammar, they usually make mistakes themselves.

That always cracks me up.

[tblue37]

15. Yes, but I wasn't really trying to be a grammar cop--just trying to

correct someone else who took it on himself/herself to be one. If he/she had not gone after Lynn that way, I would never have said a word.

[Toots]

14. Try using spell check and see what it shows about proven

Not saying spell check is right though either..:shrug:

[tblue37]

16. Spell-Check is an idiot savant.

It is often ridiculously wrong. For example, if you have a singular subject modified by a prepositional phrase with a plural object, Spell-Check will usually try to get you to switch to a plural subject.

Often the grammar and usage errors I find in my students' papers are "corrections" they made because Spell-Check prompted them to change something that was actually correct in its original form.

The fact that Spell-Check doesn't mind "proven" won't do much to justify that form. But the form is perfectly fine nevertheless, as most major dictionaries and usage handbooks will attest.

[EFerrari]

3. These are the same 33 percenters that didn't want to impeach Nixon.

i think we have to just let go of these people and hope they have the sense to close their mouths in the rain and not drown like turkeys.

[LynnTheDem]

7. LOL!!!

:hug:

[tavalon]

10. Never were truer words spoken

These people have proven themselves wholly stupid and totally ineducable. They are truly the children left behind - the ones who isn't learning, much like their stupid chimpster God. Darn near too stupid to live. Sad.

[tblue37]

11. Why would we hope that? (eom)

[EFerrari]

17. Because some of them are our blood relatives.

lol

:hi:

[Jcrowley]

4. And that's the least of it

As Edward Edinger says, Hubris is the human arrogance that appropriates to man what belongs to the gods. The modern form of hubris, as exhibited by Americans, is fused with a kind of implacable ignorance. The trust of Americans in their own strength is, of course, an illusion. I've not met a weaker or more fearful people than modern Americans. Such is the world of appearances....of illusion. Universities simply, or rarely, ask people to think. Criticism has come to seem almost subversive.....that is, criticism of any kind (the "theory" debates in academia point this up) and with the likes of Bill Bennet one sees how conservatives have made this push for anti-intellectualism. This is the age of information and as such, a trust in facts and data is pervasive. Institutions systemically are going to avoid a process that might eventually endanger them. Teaching of anything creative is usually a process of setting limits, tacitly, so that the young artist fall in line, be groomed as a professional in his field, and then get a job at, yeah, another University. Same with philosophy. We don't have departments dedicated to original thinking, to big questions and ontological questions....except in the narrowest most predetermined ways. Many have written about cultural studies and "lit-crit." I am hardly the only one making these observations. Paul Bove wrote on it and even Adorno back in the sixties, toward the end of his life, saw the trends coming. This is too complex a subject for this context; but clearly real autonomy in thought and creative life is discouraged. Couple this to the hubris mentioned above and you have a self-satisfied arrogant and ignorant people, intolerant of change and intolerant of anything threatening their place in the great spectacle. Bourgeoisie art is over, as we understand it, I suspect. The gallery owners and museum curators and University professors have all ceded authority (as Anna Kuros put it). That elitism allowed for rigor and in its place we have the wrong kind of democratization of cultural output. The politics of culture is a huge subject, and a much neglected one I believe, but today, cultural product serves little purpose beyond killing time.

[seabeyond]

5. this is much better than what i heard not too long ago. looks like the #

is going down

[Disturbed]

8. It is directly attributed to TV.

Most Americans watch a lot of TV. Most TV is not about reality of World Politics. Most TV is pure Entertainment. Most people can rattle off names of movie and musical stars but don't even know who members of Congress or SC members are. That is but one example of the ignorance. The Oscars, MTV Awards and Emmys are more important to most Americans than the Nobel or Pulizer. Anyone who has watched Leno's street interviews can readily see how ignorant and uneducated millions of Americans are. The importance placed upon other info aside from Entertainment is extremely high.

[bumblebee1]

9. I can also add something, Disturbed.

You could say there are Americans who could't name the state capitals, world capitals or find Texas on the US map. These folks could probably name every starting QB in the NFL or every driver in NASCAR. They could probably tell you more about the Manning family or the Earnhardt family than they ever could about their own families. One day a couple of years ago, I attended a party. My nephew's then girlfriend's mother was on the back patio talking about Rusty Wallace. She was talking like Rusty was her kin or neighbor.

[Vinca]

12. The numbers are actually better than I might have thought.

Listening to some of the yahoos who call Washington Journal "supportin' our prezeedent," you'd think half the country couldn't find a newspaper if their lives depended on it.