Liberal Bias
The recent endorsement of Hillary Clinton by Carole Simpson, formally of ABC News, has one again fanned the seemingly eternal embers of debate about press bias. For conservatives there was hardly anything new or surprising that a former reporter, now college president would endorse Clinton. That is about as dog-bites-man as you can get. The only surprise would have been if she had endorsed a conservative, but given the bias of her past reporting, that was not going to happen.
But, while this was yet another piece of evidence for the liberal bias of the mainstream media, as if any more was actually needed, the utter denial of bias by liberals is yet another example of their near complete refusal or inability to deal with any facts that do not fit their view of reality. Now we all do this to some degree, and in fact we are trained to do so. We all have a mental picture of the reality around us. As we encounter something new it either fits our mental framework or is simply ignored as irrelevant. This is how we form our perception of the world around us.
But perception is not always reality. When I would train teachers on how to teach critical thinking, one of the things I would do is ask questions about some slides I would show. The teachers knew we were talking about perception, and they knew the slides were to show how they missed things. So they were on their guard. And yet almost all still failed to see what was obvious once it was pointed out and were puzzled as to how they could have missed it.
So that Liberals miss the overwhelmingly liberal bias of the news is not all that surprising. What is surprising is their steadfast denials; denials that are nearly complete immunity to contrary evidence no matter how much or how clear. In the example above, while the teachers were amazed at what they had overlooked, none tried to maintain that it did not exist once it was pointed out. And yet liberals continue to maintain the objectivity of the press despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
This is because not only does liberal bias conflict with their world view, in many respects so does the evidence for it. Liberalism is a form of existential narcissism. It is existential in that it is primarily concerned with the here and now. Previous failures are in the past, and thus do not matter. Any consequences are in the future, and thus do not exist. The only thing that matter is the here and now. It is narcissistic in that it focuses on the self and in particular one’s feelings.
Thus for global warming, the fact that such environmental scares have been a consistent feature of the left for the last 50 years and have all turned out to be wrong is not relevant to the current scare, that ‘s the past. That the future consequences of their proposed actions would cause tremendous suffering and harm without actually do much to solve the problem, is not a factor. We can’t really know the future. The only thing that matters is the current threat, and what “I” can do about it. “I” can change my light-blubs; “I” can drive a hybrid; “I” can by carbon credits; “I” can support environmental groups and candidates. Even if this actually doesn’t really help the problem, “I” am at least trying to do something, and “I” can feel good about that.
The narcissistic nature of liberalism also explains the emphasis on intentions for liberal. What actually happened is not really under their control, but what they can control is their intentions. For many intentions become primary, such as in hate-crime legislation.
This emphasis on intentions, combined with the general narcissistic nature of liberalism, means that everything is judged by the self. “I” want what is good, and if you do not want what “I” want, then you must not be good. This is why, while most conservatives tend to think that liberals are mistaken in their policies and ideas, liberals tend to think that conservatives are bad people, greedy, selfish, etc. In its extreme form this is currently expressed as Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Since everything is judged by the self, how could a liberal be biased? Their views just are. They are not really even liberal, they are just expression of reality. Thus were conservatives see tremendous bias in the major news media, liberals see simply reporting that agrees with their view, and since their view is not really liberal, but rather an expression of reality, the reporting is therefore just reporting reality, and how can that be biased? Reporting that differs from their view of reality, does not correct their view, but is dismissed as bias. Thus Fox news is bias because it presents both sides.
This also explains the very strange belief among reporters that they are objective as long as they don’t tell you what they support. Bias is saying you biased. If “I” don’t tell you, then you cannot know “I” have bias and therefore it does not exist. The idea that bias might actually exist in the way they write the story, regardless of what they say, does not seem to even be within the realm of possibility. After all they are just reporting reality.
So that Simpson now is publically supporting Clinton, for the liberals, says nothing about her past reporting. In fact, it would seem that her biggest crime was that she said it. But even here there is no big problem, for as one Liberal said in Simpson’s defense, supporting Clinton is not really an expression of liberalism. I guess not, after all isn’t that what any objective person not tainted by greed or selfishness would do?
Problem Solvers
There is a common perception, particularly among those who see themselves as independent thinkers, that the so called ideologues on both sides are the real problem because they put their ideology ahead of the good of the country. Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly recently expressed a version of this perception when he said that he didn’t care which side won, he just wanted people who would be “problem solvers” who would come in and fix things.
There are a couple of things wrong with such a view. One problem is that it is uncritically self-serving. It tends to be uncritical in that it dismisses those on the right and the left as biased towards their ideology while it sees the “independent thinker” as better because they are above the fray. The independent thinker does not get involved in fights between the various sides as they see this as little more than partisan bickering aimed more at winning than at getting things done.
Now there is certainly some truth in all this, as there are those on both sides of the spectrum for whom winning trumps all. But I do not believe this is an accurate generalization for this perception fails to realize is that there is in reality no such thing as just solving a problem. To solve a problem one must,
1) Realize that there is a problem.
2) Understand the scope and reasons for the problem.
3) Come up with a basic approach for a solution.
4) Work out the details of the solution to be implemented.
5) Implement the solution
6) Test the solution to see if it works.
Only if the last step gives a positive result can there said to be a solution. The problem is that many independent thinkers tend to act as if they are the only ones interested in reaching a solution, while the Ideologues are just too busy with defeating the other side.
In reality most people, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum want a positive result to step 6. For the most part, what the independent thinkers regards as partisan bickering are really disagreements over steps 1-4, and as a result of these disagreements, we never reach steps 5 or 6 on a whole range of issues.
One good example of this can be seen in the debate over Social Security. Now there is general agreement among most that there is a problem particularly the farther into the future you go. However this is not universal. When we come to point two, there is a major difference between Right and Left, for the Left sees Social Security as basically a sound programs that has a funding problem, whereas the Right sees it as inherently structurally flawed. This leads to little agreement over step 3, the basic approach to a solution, which means that we never even get to the rest of the steps required for a solution.
The Left wants to basically keep Social Security as it is, and change the benefits and/or taxes to bring it back into balance. The Right wants to fundamentally change how the program works so as to be closer to individual retirement accounts. These basic approaches for a solution are mutually exclusive. You cannot keep Social Security basically as it is, and radically change it at the same time. The reason neither side has solved this problem is that there is not enough of a consensus on either side to pass a bill.
Asking for a “problems solver” in this case makes little sense and it is counterproductive. It does not make sense because the basic dispute is not over should we solve the problem, with the independent thinkers coming down decisively on the side of solving it, but rather the dispute is over the scope and nature of the problem, a dispute which then leads the respective sides to propose fundamentally different approaches.
Nor can the independent thinker realistically say that it does not make a difference, either way is fine, because proposals of each side are mutually exclusive. If the Left is correct, and the basic system is sound, then the Right’s proposals could end up causing more problems, by replacing a sound system with one that is unsound. On the other hand, if the Right is correct, and the basic system is unsound, then the Left’s proposals would at best only delay fixing the problem. The time lost to discover this error would only allow the problem to get worst and even harder to solve.
While many bills can be passed by splitting the difference, for such a difference there is really no such thing, you either keep the basic system or you change it. To sort of change it is akin to being sort of pregnant, there really is no middle ground, and political compromises that allow politicians to claim a solution for the next election tend to result in the worst of both world rather than any solution.
Thus asking for a “problem solver” is counterproductive as it not only diverts attention away from the real problem, but it diverts it onto the very people that are at least actively trying to solve it. Thus we are currently at a stalemate, not only on Social Security reform, but on a whole range of other issues, such as Public education, Health Care, etc. The only way to break the stalemate is if enough of a consensus forms around one of the options so that effective legislation can become law. Yet this requires that the independent thinker pick a side. While to do so would make them a partisan, at least it would be for the good of the country.
Zeitgeist – The Responses II
Listen to the MP3
Nov 16, 2007, Wausau, Wi — Interest and discussion concerning Zeitgeist, The Movie and my three part review continues to grow, so this week I thought I would address a point that recently came up in a couple of relies to my review. These replies started out by agreeing with my review. One began, “this movie is based on incorrect facts.” Another said, “I am a Christian and I realize Zeitgeist part one was a complete total lie.”
But after agreeing, they went on to claim other grand conspiracies. The first writer went on to claim that while Zeitgeist was based on incorrect facts, the same could be said for the Bible, and religion was simply a means to control the masses and enslave them. The other writer said, “I believe the rest of the movie is true and that the US government had everything to do with [911]” and that “most Christians now believe 911 was an inside job, Satan is in control of our government.”
Both of these replies demonstrate in their own way the persistence of these grand conspiracy theories. Part of this is simply the flawed and often dishonest way in which they presented. We have a general, and somewhat necessary, view that people are honest. Even people who claim not to trust anyone still do a lot of trusting in their day to day lives. So when we hear someone telling something, there is a tendency to accept it unless we have a reason not to.
For example, one of the reasons the Christian writer gave that Parts II and III of Zeitgeist should believed even though part one was flawed is that there is a “video of Larry Silverstein admitting he demoed building 7.” Now a video of the building’s owner admitting that he was the one responsible for bringing down the building, rather than the terrorist would be pretty powerful evidence. But the actual situation is a good example of how these grand conspiracy theories work.
Now there is video of the owner, but what he says is “pull it.” The conspiracy theorists claim “pull it” is jargon which refers to bringing down a building by explosives, and thus their claim that the owner ordered the building brought down. So even when those who do check out this claim see the video, they will see just what the theorist have led them to see, Silverstein given the command to “pull it.” While this is conclusive evidence for the conspiracy theorists, and at first blush seems at least plausible, the problem is that there are other, and better, understandings of Silverstein’s statement.
Frankly given that he was talking to the Fire Department commander and his stated purpose in the video was to not to risk further loss of life, I find Silverstein’s own explanation that this referred to stopping the effort to put out the fires to be far more likely. After all if the building were to be demolished by explosives, it is extremely unlikely that the NYFD would have been in on any such conspiracy, given the number of firefighters who heroically gave their lives that day.
This is just one piece of evidence, and conspiracy theories are built upon a seaming endless stream of such claims. When people do take the time to refute them, they are often simply rejected, a part of the conspiracy. Thus when I pointed out some of refutations of the 911 conspiracy to the Christian writer defending them I was told that they were done by organizations that were “all run by a secret society called FREE MASONS.” Not only do these theory slant evidence to support them, they have a built in way of rejecting any evidence against them as part of the conspiracy.
Paul tells us that in the last days, people “will gather around them a great number of teachers, to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (2 tim 4:3-4)
There is a very simply principle, that truth cannot be grounded in error. As we try to reach the world with the truth of the Gospel, we must be doubly careful not mix it with error. This is not a new problem. There is always a great temptation to having secret knowledge, to know what others do not; to be in on the secret. During the time of the early church, this desire expressed itself in the form of Gnosticism, a religious movement based on secret knowledge that competed with Christianity in the second century.
The conspiracy theorists of today are the modern Gnostics. Laura Curtis summarized this nicely in her blog Suspending Disbelief, when she wrote “Like Gnostics, they are the Chosen Ones, privy to information the rest of us can’t comprehend. They’re special. Part of an elite few. We can’t handle the truth! They are the messiah, here to save us from our own dangerous ignorance.”
One of the worst aspects of these conspiracy theories is that there is real evil in the world and these theories only divert our attention away from it. One does not need to be a Bush supporter to believe that Islamic terrorism is both real and evil. It existed long before Bush, and will exist long after he is out of office.
As Paul said, “test everything. Hold on to the good.” (1 Thess 5:21-22)
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
Liberal Dominance
Other than on talk radio, liberalism dominates most aspects of our culture, such as the news and entertainment media and academia. This domination gives liberals five huge advantages that allow them to perpetuate their dominance even though the policies that they support have been demonstrated time and time again to have failed, while conservative policies have been show to have worked.
The first and most obvious is simply their ability to filter and control what people hear. As I heard a Democratic Senator say shortly after the 2000 elections, the problem with Fox News was that they let the Republicans “get their message out.”
Similar to this is the ability to shape perceptions. The view presented of most Republican leaders is that they are either out of touch, dumb, heartless, corrupt, or some combination of the above. Ronald Regan was a dumb actor who was reading his lines. George Bush 41 was out of touch. Dan Quayle was dumb. Newt Gingrich was heartless, and the current president is just a dumb cowboy. That these perceptions are untrue does not seem to matter. The current president, for example, is not only a reader, but a serious one at that, going through over 100 books a year, and with such depth, as to impress at least one author with his thoughtful analysis of the author’s book. One wonders just how many books those critical of Bush have read in the last year? But such facts are irrelevant, and the perception left by the media is that Bush is just a dumb cowboy.
In addition to the ability to slant the debate, and shape perception, the liberal dominance also allows them to effectively rewrite history, at least to some extent, even recent history. This is because memories get hazy with the passage of time, and eventually the only thing most “remember” is the liberal view that is repeated over and over.
For example, many people remember how the anti-war movement forced us out of Vietnam and the pictures of the last helicopter lifting off from our embassy. What they don’t remember is that Nixon negotiated a peace agreement 1972 that ended the war, removed our troops and brought home our PO; this in 1973. It was only later, that the anti-war movement in Congress, ensured our defeat of South Vietnam, by among other things drastically cutting the aid we had promised. So in reality the antiwar movement did not end the war, as the war was already over, they did ensure that the peace became a defeat.
Another example would be the conformation of Clarence Thomas. In polls taken immediately following a debate that was far too controversial for the liberal media to control, the majority of the American people believed Thomas, and for good reason, as there were simply too many holes in the charges against him. But in the years since the confirmation, the media has kept at it and as memories faded, and the assaults on Thomas continued, they slowly reversed public opinion.
The last two benefits of the liberal dominance come from their control of academia. The first and clearest is that it provides a source of “experts” who can be counted on to make the case for liberalism, or to counter the argument of conservatives. Given the liberal dominance of the news media, these liberal “experts” are often presented as objective and unbiased.
Finally academia can be counted upon to provide a steady stream of new studies to support the claims of liberals. This is extremely important as the newer studies are always given precedence over older studies. Thus it does not matter, how much of liberalism is refuted, for liberalism is an ever moving target. Once DDT was the big problem requiring government action; by the time it had been refuted, it had already been replaced by a new scare overpopulation. Before overpopulation could be refuted, it was replaced by global cooling, before global cooling could be refuted, it was global warming. This concept of a moving target occurs even within these large debates. Most of the earlier studies warning of Global warming have long since called into serious question or even refuted. But no matter there is a steady stream of new studies to bolster the case.
To make matters worse it is not limited to a single issue, but the same tactics are used on a whole range of topics from global warming, anti-smoking, schools, health care, the economy, virtually everything liberals are interested in. All used new studies to claim there is a crisis which only government can solve. By the time the studies are analyzed and the problems pointed out, it no longer matters, because more recent studies will have “confirm” the crisis or raised some new crisis requiring government intervention.
In short the failures, mistakes, and errors of liberals are never really examined. In fact the successes of conservatives are often attributed to liberals. For example, if you look at the economic data, it is pretty clear that Clinton inherited from Bush 41 a growing economy which stagnated when Clinton increased taxes. Then when the Republican won control of Congress in 1994 and push through tax cuts, the economy took off for the remained of the decade, allowing to Republicans to push through a balanced budget over Clintons objections. Yet this is now presented in the media, as Clinton inherited failing economy from Bush 41 and by raising taxes, caused the economic boom of 1990s and balanced the budget.
Given their ability to filter information, shape perceptions, rewrite history, combined with their liberal experts, and the constant source of supporting studies, it is a wonder that conservatives ever win. But they do. And as the importance of alternative media grows, the effectiveness of the liberal dominance will decline until like the old Soviet Union, it will implode. And like the Soviet Union, that implosion may happen much quicker and sooner than anyone expects.
A Review of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion Part XI
Listen to the MP3
Nov 9, 2007, Wausau, Wi — Last time in my review of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion” I looked at the flaws in the first three point of what Dawkins calls “the central argument of my book.” Again, he summarizes this argument in the following six points:
1 – The appearance of design is one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect.
2 – The temptation is to attribute design to a designer.
3 – The designer hypothesis is false because it does not explain who designed the designer.
4 – Evolution, the best explanation so far, shows that design at least for biology is an illusion.
5 – Since in evolution, apparent design is an illusion, it could be an illusion in other areas such as physics.
6 – We should not give up hope of finding better explanations elsewhere and the weak explanations we do have are better than the explanations that rely on God.
When we come to point four, that evolution shows that design in biology is an illusion; this of course assumes that not only is evolution a valid theory for the origin of new life forms and biological structures, but that it is a completely explanation.
Space here does not permit a discussion of all the problems with evolutionary theory, and in any event, these are well discussed elsewhere. So I will just mention two points that cast serious doubt on Dawkins argument. The first is that the problems with evolutionary theory have not decreased over the years, as our understanding has grown, but rather have increased to the point that, as I discuss in my book Evidence for the Bible, even the definition of evolution itself is now unclear, as supporters keep shifting the definition to avoid these problems, frequently in contradictory ways.
The second is that, contrary to the claims of evolutionists like Dawkins, evolution is not questioned simply for theological reasons, and not are all of those who question it are even theists. In fact, evolutionists have increasingly had to resort to the suppression of differing views, in order to maintain their dominance, as the evidence contrary to evolution and in support of intelligent design has grown. In short, the claim that evolution has shown design to be false is simply untrue despite how much evolutionist like Dawkins might want to believe in it.
Point five, which claims that the apparent design in areas other than biology might also be an illusion, correspondingly falls apart. Yet even if this was not the case, point 5 would still have a huge problem as it is fallacious. It simply does not follow that even if evolution shows design to be an illusion in biology, that it was therefore an illusion elsewhere. This would be like claiming that just because some apparent suicides turn out to be murder, all apparent suicides could be murder, and therefore we can reject the concept of suicide itself.
This brings us to last point. It can hardly be called a conclusion. Rather it is a plea to “not give up hope.”(158) I must commend Dawkins for his honesty. Most atheists strongly deny that hope, and it counterpart faith, play any role in their thinking, and in fact are highly critical of theists when they express hope or faith. But at least theists do not confuse expressions of hope, with logical arguments that make opposing views untenable.
Dawkins’ does acknowledges that there are problems in the view he defends, but see hope in an old argument frequently employed by atheists. Chance + enough tries = certainty. Such reasoning has another name: The Gambler’s fallacy, and the error of such reasoning can be clearly seen in the lavish displays of wealth in such places as Las Vegas.
Based on Dawkins estimates, where concerning the number of planets he even knocks off a few zeros “for reasons of ordinary prudence”, and where he assumes that life is a one in a billion chance, there would still be billion planet with life, and ours would only be one of them.
This is at least better that Carl Sagan’s famous estimate of billons and billons of planets. Yet like Sagan’s it is seriously flawed. Sagan only considered a few of the factors needed for life. Far more rigorous looks at these numbers have shown that if all of them are considered the chance of having even one planet in the entire universe that would support life, are less than 1 in 100, odds that even Dawkins says are to be laughed at. And this is just for a planet that could support life. It does not begin explain how life itself could start. The odds against life starting by chance are so incredibly huge that they are truly beyond comprehension, odds so large that even other atheists have compared them to a miracle. (For a more complete discussion of these odds, see chapter four in Evidence for the Bible)
So Dawkins’ hope is based on an off the cuff estimate that are not even close. Where he estimate billions of planets with life, serious estimates of all the relevant factors show that there should not even be one planet that could support life, much less actually have life.
So Dawkins argument has serious problems with each of his six points. It ends with a hope that could only reasonably be called misplaced. Rather than showing that God is untenable, the evidence points to the existence of God, and this conclusion as grown stronger over the years, not weaker, as we have learned more about life.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
