"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

I apologize for the bait and switch, but this rant is not about sincere ignorance nor conscientious stupidity. While both are worthy of lengthy reflection, I want to discuss a third category…unfortunately, I don’t have a snappy catchphrase for it. Basically, it’s when someone believes in the right thing for the wrong reasons. Something about a broken clock or sun shining on a dog’s ass, perhaps?

Whatever the word is that I’m looking for, there is no better example of “it” than Howard Stern. Without getting into a political debate, Howard has pulled a complete 180 in politics (from evil and towards good), but has done so for the wrong reasons. His personal battles with the FCC have “changed” him. In other words, his extreme selfishness has led him to embrace an ideology based in having an objective, world view. A bit counter-intuitive, no?

So why should we care whether someone has a broken-clock ideology? On one hand, he’s spreading the correct message to a large audience that is now more likely to also embrace the belief. Taken to its logical conclusion, with more people believing the right thing, the world is a better place. However, there can be unforeseen consequences of the broken-clock syndrome. For instance, if someone points out that the clock is broken, then the message becomes dismissed as incorrect.

On an even more abstract level, what are we to think of Stern for just stumbling upon the correct answer? Is he commended for finally getting it right, scorned for still being driven by poor motives, or should we feel indifference? Because, truth be told, I don’t know how I feel, other than it is NOT indifference. I’m angered when I hear him talking about politics because I can see through him. I know why he believes what he believes, despite his claims. In essence, I can see that the clock is broken.

So where do we go from here? While “sincere ignorance” is in fact a dangerous evil, it’s not as all encompassing as I originally believed. Ignorance implies a lack of knowledge; to say Stern lacks knowledge is incorrect. Instead, it seems as though knowledge has no relevance in his decision. He comes to his conclusions first, and then stumbles into the knowledge after the fact.

I have no conclusion to this rant.