Here is a Supreme Court case where the dissenting opinion shows that the majority’s argument ignore the facts of the case in an analysis of whether or not the defendant’s counsel had been negligent in his explanation for granting the guilty, and the key word here is guilty, defendant a lighter sentence for his crimes. When arguing for their decision the court completely ignores the facts that made the man guilty and, after having read the case, there is no way of knowing the extent of what the appellant had plead guilty to until the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia.

Here is an analysis of two news stories about the same event. One article effectively glorifies the proliferation of government involvement in wall street, but ignores the vast majority of the facts; the other article solemnly unveils a bleak picture about the transformation of the economic system solely by laying a foundation of facts and building upon it with more facts.

Even more disconcerting is the realization that very few people actually care about the facts and instead rely on saccharine sentiments that are induced by eloquent oration: an inducement completely disconnected from right and wrong.