We **do **inform creationists until the cows come home, they continue to deny the evidence, but science and policy makers then continue to fund research that accepts and takes evolution as a fact, what creationists and IDers continue to peddle has to be eventually ignored.
In the global warming front this process of active dismissal of the ones that have no leg to stand on is taking place in locations like Western Europe, Australia and even California. Like Creationists, climate change contrarians do not have good support were it counts, so the bottom line is clear, responsible policy makers have to follow the best current advice of the experts, not the blogessors.
Speaking of real people and the meaning of ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’, check outthis video (at the bottom of the link) by Alexandra Pelosi (yes, that Pelosi) in which she presents real-world examples of the worst stereotypes about both conservatives and liberals. The conservatives are sometimes dumber than stumps, vote against their own interest, often missing teeth, think Obama is a Muslim, are racist, religious fanatics, and/or don’t recognize that the food stamps they receive amount to government aid.
The liberals (4:30 in the video, though the discussion is interesting too) are able-bodied black guys in New York who are out to collect whatever government aid they can. They won’t get jobs. They are trying to get laid and have kids with multiple women. They are drinking and smoking, they are ex-criminals and behaving in a vaguely criminal way. They will vote Obama because he is black and because he keeps the government money coming.
The really interesting thing to me, and the commonality between both sets, is that they are all basically losers. They’re all poor and mostly uneducated. White southerners are losers one way, black New Yorkers another way. Smart, articulate people on either side of the coin tend to display less vice and attract more respect, but they aren’t scandalous and attention-grabbing so you don’t hear about them so much. Plus, smart people will affirm the reality of rising CO2 levels, and the oil companies really don’t like that message in our public discourse.
While I don’t think there is a organized conspiracy for the media to frame issues with a liberal slant, I think it does result from some degree with attention grabbing shock reporting. Putting a human face on suffering is a pandering technique for news programs, which can become kneejerk public outcry and frantic demands the government do something.
“Next up, find out just which soup brand has the least amount of rat feces.”
The right has their own sources of absurd uninformed outrage, it just isn’t coming from legitimate media.
The modern American right is a narrow, extreme, irrational and generally factually incorrect movement. And to them, everything that isn’t part of their narrow extremism is liberal. So by their definition the media is liberal, because by their definitions virtually everything and everyone in the world is liberal. Both the facts and the vast majority of possible human political positions are “liberal” by their standards, much as “the South” is the entire planet when you are at the North Pole.
There ARE no “reasonable conservatives”; it’s a contradiction in terms. At least, as the term “conservative” is presently used in modern America. Both being unreasonable and a denial of the value of reason are hallmarks of modern American conservatism.
Accusations about someone using a “no true Scotsman” argument work better when the group in question isn’t a bunch of fanatics focused on purging themselves of ideological impurity. The conservatives themselves are looking to exclude anyone who isn’t a “True Scotsman”; surely you’ve seen the term “RINO”?
Allright, using ‘losers’ in my last post was excessively harsh and judgmental. Sorry about that. The people in the video mostly seem unsuccessful. The New Yorkers come across as healthier yet unethical in a certain way while the Southerners are into religious morality but opposed to accepting help. Yet the Southerners are racist which spoils their supposed virtue.
Anyway, the unsuccessful left and right tend to be opponents of each other. It has been that way since Colonial times at least, by the design of the people at the top. Personally, I want to know what the issue is, and what are the facts etc. But I suspect ‘high-information voters’ confound the plans of the most powerful, and so they try to obfuscate everything for everyone, playing up the dumbest drama as much as possible. Our country would do better if everyone quit watching television.
I think there is more of a corporate or ‘money’ bias in the media, which you find everywhere elsewhere in the world. This boils down to a ‘power’ bias- the powerful get their way more often. I don’t think influence and/or power are inherently ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’.
David Frum, Bruce Bartlett and Martin Feldstein show signs of being reasonable. There is surely a reasonable debate to be had about having somewhat more or less military spending, somewhat more or less rent vouchers or somewhat higher or lower taxes. The problem is the maniacs have driven out the sensible conservatives, who are dismissed as RINOs. There are actuarial problems as well: the late Milton Friedman and the aging George Schultz and Henry Kissinger come to mind. All these men are very conservative, but they also have respect for empiricism, scholarship and reason.
Heck, even Barbara Bush was shaking her head at the antics during the Republican primary: I think she called it the worst election ever.
Right, practically in the same breath as stating that the government doesn’t do anything for him, and presumably in agreement with the others that hand-outs are a big no-no. At least no one can accuse low-success conservatives of suffering from a ‘foolish consistency’ :rolleyes:
You don’t have to respect him. You don’t have to agree with him. You don’t have to like him.
There is no conflict between your quote and my quote, because they make different non-overlapping arguments. I’m drawing a contrast between contemporary and elderly (and recently departed) conservatives. They are different.
True that, I misinterpreted your post. Why should we hold him as reasonable though, given his doctrine’s effects?
You know, I far prefer Rush Limbaugh. He may be a vile man, but the most he has done is helped get despicable people elected and hurt people’s feelings or reputations. He didn’t help set a policy that led to human deaths.
In this country we have what’s called a “secret ballot”, in which whom you vote for is not revealed. Last time I checked the rule was applicable to journalists as well as any other profession.
And of course someone has to come in and provide the conservatives with a tu quoque. You know we lost that election, right? In 2001, several different organizations conducted a recount, and Bush won. Had the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, the decision would have been made by the Florida legislature, and Bush would have won the state just like Rutherford Hayes did.
Anyway, the reason that conservatives think there’s a liberal bias in the media is that literally any fact or opinion that contradicts what appears to be an actual party line is described as “liberal.” You can see this with David Frum, the Bush speechwriter who is denounced as a liberal for trying to prevent a demographic disaster for his chosen party. You can see it with Conor Freidersdorf, accused of being a liberal shill because of his criticisms of various Republican Presidential contenders and vice-presidential nominees.
In other words, conservatives have been crying wolf for a long time on this issue. In some cases, especially back in the 80s when this started, there was a wolf. In many cases it was an angry malamute. But at this point they’ve cried wolf over sheepdogs, beagles, pigs, cats and mailboxes, and it’s just not possible to believe them any more.