Replies

One of the most prominent philosophies of the "science" of modern history is "post modernism." I’ve been struck by how this philosophy has tinted the view of the conflict in Iraq and now the elections have been viewed by the rest of the world.

It has been a depressing time for liberals and post modernists in general.

On the issue of Press coverage in Iraq, yes, American journalists could be expected to emphasize different things about Iraq than say a newspaper in Jordan....but both stories should be based on the same "facts." Like the fact that American forces went into Iraq at a certain date, that a certain battle happen at a particular place or a certain number of people were killed or injured. The reasons for what is happening can be debated but the "facts" should not be.

Postmodernists in general, would suggest that the American and Jordan newspapers should not even be able to agree on things like places and the times of events in Iraq. I think this is a position that verges on anarchism. There are things that both sides can agree are "facts."

But the story of another Jordan....Eason Jordan would suggest that post modernism complicates the issue of the debate over "facts" even more than that between Arab and American. His are unsubstantiated allegations about crimes allegedly committed by members of the American military against journalists.

One of the cardinal tenets of post modernism is its claim of “moral relativity.” That in fact there is no moral standard. From my perspective, one of the prime motivations for Jordan’s allegations at the Davos conference was to “knock” the U.S. morality down a notch or two…and who really needs “facts” to do this when one is a post modernist.