my connection with the tea party

[Jester]

It appears the official history so far has been the opposite, falsely uplifting a murderous brute into a romantic hero. I'm willing to listen to those who are interested in setting the record straight, even when the evidence is third-party, such as the "he was often heard to say, " type of anecdotal testimony.

But this is exactly the point about confirmation bias. It's not the bias in the sources that worries me so much as bias in the reader; your bias, my bias. You've got your idea about what's true and false, what's "setting the record straight," and what's just "official" lies. You are willing to listen to sketchy evidence when it lies in your preferred direction, when it justifies the "emerging picture."

Down that road lies partisan madness. Even if something new comes to light that would ordinarily cause us to reinterpret our facts, we no longer can, because we've got our "picture" which feels true to us, not because the facts support it, but because we've allowed ourselves to be persuaded.

-Jester