Personally, I think there is such a thing. I don't think that humans have the capacity to fully encompass it, but I think it does exist.

Despite the impossibility of the task, I also think it's worthwhile to try.

Toward that end, I think "conditional truth" can more often be established to reasonably standards of reliability.

It is undeniable that this is easier to do under some circumstances than others.

Conditional truths get established from facts. Simple factual existence tends to be much easier to establish with a reasonable degree of certitude than "truth."

For instance, the objective existence of the affidavit I linked in my message previous to the last one is a "fact."

The claims made in the affidavit are more contestable- although they're quite a bit more detailed than simple assertions made with no evidence offered in support.

Not only are the contestable, they will be contested- in a court of law, an institution established to apply some standards to enable the ideal of determining the truth.

(And if you don't think the law courts can be trusted to do that in this case, that I'd like to know what institution you favor as an alternative, or whether you'd simply prefer to do without law courts at all. Note that the track record of judicial review of political protests in theis country has more than once found in favor of the protesters, and issued monetary damage rewards as compensation.

For the benefit of those unclear on the concept: that's something that never, ever occurs in an actual "police state." )

The writer and philosopher Robert Anton Wilson once stated that in all of the political demonstrations and mass protests that he had ever participated in or witnessed, never once did his own personal experience ever accord with the media reports or broadcasts that he reviewed later on.

Beyond the ever-present possibility of politicized "media bias", Wilson also realized that events that sprawling and chaotic were simply beyond the experiential purview of any one observer to encompass. The "objective truth" of a mass protest is one of the most elusive social phenomena out there. Humans don't do the panoramic view very well. They lack the perceptive faculties for that sort of scope, even when they have the vantage point- and when they attempt it, the close-up view is sacrificed in the process.

Determining "objective truth" in the panoramic sprawl of such an inherently chaotic situation is beyond even the combined efforts of several disparate observers, in fact- although a composite picture can eventually emerge to provide some general outlines and shadings to provide a relatively accurate portrayal of the character or the event, and the actions of the participants.

That's one reason why I haven't offered any comments on who's in the wrong, or who's in the right, etc., as far as the demonstrations and the police response to them. That picture is still developing.

Robert Anton Wilson also once said "My God. The Left Wing is as robotic as the Right." And then he apologized to his readers, for having taken more than 30 years to figure that out.

Beyerstein, I stand corrected.

Thank you very much for your great and infinite wisdom, the countless wounds and advanced degrees, and your dismissal of my miniscule and groveling knowledge and temperament. I realize I am unworthy. My emotions ran riot and I apologize, oh wise one, I watched someone pretty much die, and didn't feel that great, I know I should have asked you for advice on how to be cynical about it, but forgot. Please forgive me. Over and out.

The spirit of comments like "nothing to see here, move along, ain't that America," epitimizes why it isn't enough to criticize the political class and media if we want our democracy back. If we the people think it's okay to have police, secret service and the FBI, some of whom were in riot gear, as a response to largely peaceful protests, at the very least the state's punitive apparatus has learned nothing from the 1960s. And at the most, it is insisting that if the feds order it we can have a police state, including police actions that are illegal. First, even from a law enforcement perspective standing back would have been the smart thing to do. The police and secret service with help from the FBI has merely created a situation that will cost St. Paul lots of money--to hold people in jail, to charge them, to take them to court, to deal with possible law suits against the police, etc. The point seems to have been to intimidate protestors and those media covering them. But that wasn't possible since it is no longer possible for all the reasons Jane Hamsher mentions. We don't need the mass media to "report" on events that they choose to ignore; we can do it ourselves with contemporary technology.

I sent CNN a note yesterday saying something to the effect of "you're lack of coverage of what happened to journalists at the RNC is a disgusting reminder as to why the US public according to all polls has lost faith in the press."

Thanks very much to Glenn for being there, this incredible post with all of the links, and for keeping my faith in American democracy alive.

I agree with you. (LWM, no need to comment)

"We don't need the mass media to "report" on events that they choose to ignore; we can do it ourselves with contemporary technology."

Don't confuse grassroots media with unbiased media. Not the same thing.

i think we need members like you!

This is really fun. More dirt on Palin, this time, she slashed funding for Covenant House, an aid org for teen preggers...

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/09/03/palin_slashed_teen_mom_funding/index.html

LWM, you need a time out.

Since you refuse to read or look at a video or in any way concern yourself with actual knowledge of what has been going on in St. Paul vis a vis the various protests and the gross overreaction of the militarized police forces to them, your credibility on the topic is nonexistent.