Saturday, October 21, 2006

Do You Believe In Media Bias? What about Scientific error?

Bias from Fox or CNN?

If you say both - congratulations. If you picked just one I know what party you back - go away, you bore me.

You know I'm not democrat or republican. I was e-mailed a historical foot note taken from material provided by the NY Times for teachers.

I went to the archive for these historical notes and glanced down the daily selection. There is obviously a bias, review it yourself. The media strives to monopolize your ears so that you will not open your eyes.

This is a try to tie together Bush & Nixon and make it seem just a historical note - it is politicking in a blatant way by a source that would claim to be neutral.

Do you see any negatives in the selected columns about Democrats? What about the years of protests and violence about the Vietnam war that Kennedy started with military advisers, and Johnson escalated with great vigor -against strident protests. There is no mention of the anti-war riots and police violence at the
Democratic National convention in Chicago.

The parallels to today's growing anti-war protests would seem newsworthy. You need to maintain your disbelief but may need broaden it to contain your current opinions.

You have often seen a major media outlet pointing out the parallels of the Mideast and Vietnam. Did they ever mention that the Vietnam war was started by democrats - and ended by a republican - Nixon?

Politics is dirty - and newspapers are still used to carry out the trash.

Both parties are very dirty, both do not care about people - only the power and money they can suck out of them. Neither one will fix the problems facing our nation. We know this - why debate if one might cause a little different type of pain as they destroy the country?

To paraphrase myself:

Most political news reports, and blogs, are insidious invidious invective seemingly written by scheming fourth graders hoping to influence gullible third graders. -- Allan Wallace

In fact Geo. Washington may have been the last ethical president. George Washington held a unique political qualification, he did not want the job.

On a different note.

I was reading about Franklin's Autobiography edited by a decedent of Franklin when I remembered that Franklin had fought inoculations. I doubt the related editor spent much time on Franklin's errors - his many truly wonderful accomplishments would be much better fare. I can't complain, as a Wallace I enjoyed the movie Braveheart.

Franklin fighting small pox inoculations reminded me that Washington might have died from over bleeding - they took something like three pints of his blood trying to heal him of his fever. It is amazing that germ theory was such a recent development.

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out." - Max Planck, pioneer of quantum theory

And I would add - the opponents might have been right - and it will take generations to reverse scientific errors introduced.

We are still in the dark ages, at least I expect future historians to view us as such.


Bastiat Free University
self-directed learning
for visionaries

Web Fiction:
Complicit Simplicity
Hacktivism End Game



Can hackers win the war
for peace and freedom?

Build your own one page lens like:

Building A Successful Business