Journal benhocking's Journal: What liberal media? 46
Head over to ABC News Politics Index and you'll find 4 stories (all posted today) on the Political Radar sidebar about John Kerry's "botched joke". The pre-released text (as in released prior to him making the gaffe) makes it quite clear that it was, indeed, a botched joke. What I find odd, however, is that there are 4 stories in a row about it. If this was George W. Bush, Cheney, or some other prominent Republican, I'm certain a number of people would be making comments about the liberal mainstream media. I just bring this up to help lift the selective perception bias of those who really believe in the myth of a liberal mainstream media. (Yes, I'm familiar with the study that found that the mainstream media tends to cite "liberal" think tanks more than "conservative" think tanks. That study did not take into account, however, that the "liberal" think tanks might just have more validity than the "conservative" ("We call it life") think tanks.)
Moo (Score:1)
B) One incident does not break a trend.
C) It is not an ad hominem attack, saying "therefore" he must be an idiot.
CounterMoo (whatever that means) (Score:2)
B) True, nor is this the "exception" that proves the rule. However, let's examine the conjecture that Fox News has a conservative bias. Can you find a similar contra-example where they've repeatedly rehashed a story that shines a negative light on conservatives? (Not counting, of course, conservatives that are "not conservative enough".) I just don't buy that the media has any more o
Re: (Score:1)
Kerry.
Who is saying they're good?
A story about a bocthed joked can be good humor about someone we all love. Or another rip against someone we all hate.
However, let's examine the conjecture that Fox News has a conservative bias.
I do not believe that to be true. They are neutral newswise, conservative in opinions, and liberal in features.
I just don't buy that the media has any more of a liberal bias than reality does.
The studies have shown that it is true. Media reporters vote liberal, at a hig
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. Even if I liked Kerry, I'd have no problem laughing at his gaffe. It's when 4 stories in a row were about the topic that it clearly became overboard. Not that the media doesn't do this with a lot of stories (e.g., OJ, Jon Benet Ramsey, etc.). My point is that if this were about a Republican candidate, numerous people would be blaming it on the media being liberal instead of just
Re: (Score:1)
It's when 4 stories in a row were about the topic that it clearly became overboard.
Could be. Then again, some news sites post the same story more than once until they compile everything together. If that was the only point, i'd overlook it if it wasn't a trend.
I don't watch them very often (for one thing, I don't have cable)
I never watch. I don't have a TV.
there was a story about the ACLU <snip> So, I did a little research of my own
Ad hominem attacks (Score:2)
All of these have been said in the last few years, and a few of them by both parties. But which party does
Re: (Score:1)
racist D
hates America R
misogynist D
womanizer R
flip-flopper R
liberal R
opponent did drugs R/D
evaded military service R/D
These are ads, not fights over issues. Both R and Ds are horrid here. Dole was proven to be a hypocrite on this one too.
Many of these (if not all), of course, could be considered relevant to one's performance in office, but I think that's the point of ad hominem attacks, isn't it? Feel free to add your own, as well.
Political races are different. It's a popularity contest. They
Ads vs. issues (Score:2)
Fair enough. My other post addresses issues. However, it doesn't necessarily address politicians per se, but the general populace. I'm afraid I've never watched C-SPAN having never had cable, and it never being on when I'm at a friend's house who does have cable. However, speaking for myself, I often use my judgment of someone's credibility as a useful guideline for whether or not to take too much time trying to wade through their arguments. There are far too many arg
Re: (Score:1)
And wow, you post a lot.
Logic vs. emotion (Score:2)
My first reaction when I read this was a "wha??", and it took me a while to get over the shock before I could come up with a proper response. First of all, I think it's fairly well accepted (and let me know if you disagree) that most Americans (and, more generally, most people) are more influenced by emotional arguments than logical arguments. Karl Rove has figured this
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. The Meyers/Brigg's numbers for T/F were mostly
T/F (Logic/Values)
Men: 60/40
Women: 70/30
Add that to more women, and we get that most people vote on emotions. Of course, given the subset of people who vote, this is not as true. Logical people tend to vote more, so Democrats always want more people to vote.
Perhaps the limit of our debates? (Score:2)
True, it's a nice theory and it has never been proven, just like general relativity, quantum mechanics, and every other theory in science. False, it is not just like Creationism. Creationism:
That you would equate Evolution and Creationism suggests that perhaps we're more different than I would have thought. (This is not meant to be an in
Re: (Score:1)
Except, general relativity explains what everyone already agrees on, quantum mechanics is more a hypothesis than a theory, and other theories may or may not have detractors. Evolution is different in that the theory came before the facts (which were never found, so the theory as reorded to fot the then found facts) and it has many detractors, for a variety of reasons.
Plus. other theories explain what is, evolution explains wh
Devil's advocate (Score:2)
I'm assuming you're playing devil's advocate (pardon the expression here), but I'll go along.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not. I'm challenging your assumptions, which you then use as a basis for other beliefs.
I'm going to be terse here, for lack of time. Please excuse me, if something needs more details, i shall try to provide it over the weekend.
general relativity does more than just explain what everyone agrees on
But that is where it starts. And that sound basis makes it less challenging to people.
With respect to quantum mechanic
Explanation vs. prediction (Score:2)
Perhaps you're thinking of string theory? QM is just as mainstream as GR. I am not aware of *any* detractors (let alone *many*) - except to
Re: (Score:1)
I simply do not know. Like most things, i must rely on heresay until greater evidense is produced.
QM is the basis for many wonderful tools in everyday use around us. The computer you're typing on wouldn't be possible without a solid understanding of QM. (Earlier computers didn't depend on QM, but moder
History of evolution et al. (Score:2)
Prior to Einstein's paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" [fourmilab.ch], the world had Galileo's theory of rela
Re: (Score:1)
But the idea was there. Plus, he was explaining everyday things. Yes, his explanation was new, but
As for evolution, prior to Darwin, Lucretius wrote a poem describing his version of evolution in 60 BC, and he didn't exactly invent the idea himself.
What, that
Dawkins (Score:2)
As I said, I don't think you would have approved of it... Evidently, religion is a mental illness! (His words, not mine!) Although to be fair, I'm certain he would not want to make it illegal, if that's any consolation
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like he is runing away from himself. A mature person has no need for such statements.
You two would be very much in agreement over most (if not all) tenets of libertarianism.
To me, first and foremost, is respect for others as people. That means, they can believe whatever they want, even if they are wrong, and we respect their choice (not the choice itself, but they're making of the choice). If he doesn't have that, i don't care to listen to him even if we agreed
Where we agree (Score:2)
For the most part, I agree with you. However, the tricky part is deciding whether or not you want to respect others' beliefs that it is OK not to respect others' beliefs. (Key word here (x2) is "r
Re: (Score:1)
Not respect their beliefs. Respect them in their right to believe whatever they want. And not just "allow" them their beliefs. *Respect* their right to belive anything they choose to believe. To me, that is the essence of respecting another. Respecting them even when they are different, and diffe
Re: (Score:1)
* Is not falsifiable.
BTW, i'd just like to add that Creationism is falsiable. If time travel is possible, and we go back in time, we can watch whether it did or did not happen.
Evolution is similar, though harder to prove or disprove, being it does not depend on a specific event happening at a specific time, we'd have to watch all of time pretty much and be able to claim no pivotal events for disproof, or a mutation and proliferation for proof.
Perhaps with your statem
Falsifiability (Score:2)
Well, given the causality principle [time-loops.net] (forgive the cheesy link), I'd argue that makes Creationism not falsifiable.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, shoots. I thought for sure you'd entertain time travel.
The differnce here is that evolution makes predictions about future observations we're likely to see.
Not really. Firstly, evolution is an explanation of things past. The future part is secondary, and not essential to the ultimate theory. Secondly, even if fossils were not found, they would simply b
Re: (Score:2)
My first thought was that such an act might result in the 7 generations prior to your birth being smited or smoten, or whatever. Then, I decided to actually read the Bible to refresh my memory on the whole thing, and I got this:
"Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold."
In my memory that was seven
Re: (Score:1)
The Midrash teaches us that he was killed in the seventh generation by Lamech (by accident). That is what lamech is saying in 4:23, and how 4:24 has any relevence.
back in the Old Testament eye-for-an-eye legal system?
The Oral Law explains eye-for-an-eye means monetary equivalence.
Midrash (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Usually, however, there are just a small number of major Midrashic works, two prime ones being the Midrash Rabbah and Midrash Tanchuma. The Tanchuma was written by Rabbi Tonchuma, also mentioned in the Talmud. The Midrash Rabbah was written throught the ages. The one for Genesis was written by Rabbi Oshaya Rabbah, a sage of t
Actually, I find it quite interesting (Score:2)
I don't have enough of a background to completely appreciate everything you've told me, but I have read quite a bit of the Bible (I've tried to read it straight through, but haven't succeeded). My Jewish history is quite limited, however. Still, I do find it interesting.
Re: (Score:1)
The Bible on its own, can be very hard to understand, especially if not read in Hebrew. The idiosynchrasies of certain phrases or words mean too much and do not carry over into another language very well. Together with a terse verse added/missing letters, reading it outside of Hebrew is missing half the story.
Then aga
Global warming (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Don't forget, that CO2, also helps forests grow, as the pores on the leaves can now open less.
There are debates as to whether this will be a serious problem in 20 years or 200 years.
And pointers that these high levels have happened before.
By the way, I assume you're old enough to remember when the deniers liked to deny that global warming was happening at all. Now they like to pretend that global warming is undeniable, but the caus
We call it life?!? (Score:2)
Have you been watching CEI's propaganda? ("CO2: they call it pollution, we call it life") Actually, there's been some recent research that suggests that too much CO2 is bad for most flora that's in existence today.
But never as rapidly as it has now, and never wit
CO2 and plants (Score:2)
You might be interested in this link [sciencedaily.com], btw. (Let me know if you don't have access to it. Being at a university, I'm never quite sure whether other people will be able to access my links.)
Re: (Score:1)
Search google for "israel forest co2" [google.com]. That is what i based the statement on.
Another thing I've never understood about the "has happened before" argument is this: if Bob said he was going to kill Alice, would it comfort Alice to know that people had died before? Just because there have been mass exctinctions in the past, should we not be concerned that we're going to be mainly responsi
Re: (Score:1)
So, we can either control CO2, and keep everything the same, or make sure we don't increase water, heat and nitrogen and get more.
The study title is misleading though. It blames it on CO2. That isn't true. CO2 ups the ante, it is the other factors that either raise or lower it.
Thanx for the link!
Academia vs. the "real world" (Score:2)
I'm guessing you haven't spent a significant amount of time in academia, and are using things you've heard to draw false conclusions. Specifically, with respect to the comment "School provides, research is paid for and public, etc)", how is that any different than "[the company] provides, research is paid for and public, etc)"? If you're a prof
Re: (Score:1)
I spent very little time there, but i have a few friends who spent a good amount of time there.
"School provides, research is paid for and public, etc)", how is that any different than "[the company] provides, research is paid for and public, etc)"?
Because when a school provides, the researcher choses what to research, researches with much less constraints, as he just has to sh
Redefining "conservative"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I guess things are different here. Liberals want to control people's lives with restrictions. They are against marriage, so they demand the government take care of it (and then destroy it). Most conservatives i know would rather the giovernment keeps its hands out of religious matters.
you'll find out just how
Not a college study (Score:2)
It was an exit poll study [cnn.com]. They asked people who they voted for (Kerry or Bush) and how much education they had. So, that includes that vast majority of people w
Re: (Score:1)
BTW, note the first "VOTE BY AGE" section how at one's thirties the number changes. That's the point i was making. And "VOTE BY INCOME", assuming that a Ph.D. hold with a non-collegic job will get more than 50k a year.
"VOTE BY IDEOLOGY" is best. 45% consider themselves moderate, and they voted nearly down the middle (relative to the other two).
Nitpicking (Score:2)
I say "nitpicking" because I'm not disagreeing with your basic premise; however, this is a cross-sectional study [wikipedia.org] and not a longitudinal study [wikipedia.org], so it does not necessarily support your claim. (There's enough other evidence out there, I'd imagine, that does support your claim, however.)
Exit poll link (Score:2)