Posted on 10/06/2024 6:55:27 AM PDT by MtnClimber
These leftists don’t even seem to care that their bias is so clearly displayed. Maybe it comes from living in a leftist bubble.
Manhattan Contrarian ping
When the topic comes to the alleged “child care crisis”, I think it would be beneficial to point out that due to the uncontrolled spending of the government that is fueling inflation, both parents have to work.
If spending, hence inflation, were brought under control, there would be no “child care crisis”.
Of course, it would also require families to drive older vehicles and not buy a new boat every year.
Great piece. Thx for posting it.
Debates should solely be moderated by individuals not associated with the media with a mute button and timer who have a list of questions they ask both candidates. No set up statements before the question. The moderator is not allowed to speak after the question is asked. Only candidates can rebut each other, not moderators. All cable stations and networks may cover it if they so wish
I was shouting obscenities at the TV when the “moderator” used Hurrican Helene as a segway into a question about climate change. These leftwing propagandists are disgusting and shameless.
O’Donnell is an America-hating skank. If you don’t think like her, you’re evil. Celebrities are such ahos.
Still, they nailed Timmy on Tianenmen Square
“These leftists don’t even seem to care that their bias is so clearly displayed. Maybe it comes from living in a leftist bubble.”
They no longer have to pretend to be unbiased because the public expects it, and in many cases, applauds it.
For the record, I’m not anti-science.
But I abhor Authority Bias.
In addition… SCIENCE ISN'T MATH.
It never was.
And it sure isn't now.
The history of science is littered with "no wait....that's wrong...THIS is right..." going through the rinse and repeat cycle endlessly.
And that's ok. Inquiry and challenge and "being a science heretic" is, in many ways, how mankind learns more and can fix more problems.
One of my favorite sagas regarding "accuracy" and "settled science" is ulcers.
In 1981 Barry Marshall began working with Robin Warren, the Royal Perth Hospital pathologist who, two years earlier, discovered the gut could be overrun by hardy, corkscrew-shaped bacteria called Helicobacter pylori. Biopsying ulcer patients and culturing the organisms in the lab, Marshall traced not just ulcers but also stomach cancer to this gut infection. The cure, he realized, was readily available: antibiotics. But mainstream gastroenterologists were dismissive, holding on to the old idea that ulcers were caused by stress.
Unable to make his case in studies with lab mice (because H. pylori affects only primates) and prohibited from experimenting on people, Marshall... ran an experiment on ...himself. He took some H. pylori from the gut of an ailing patient, stirred it into a broth, and drank it....Back in the lab, he biopsied his own gut, culturing H. pylori and proving unequivocally that bacteria were the underlying cause of ulcers.
For their work on H. pylori, Marshall and Warren shared a 2005 Nobel Prize. Today the standard of care for an ulcer is treatment with an antibiotic.
But science isn't math. Your checking account balance is the sum of deposits less sum of withdrawals. Always. Forever.
The problem arises when people try to equate science with math...usually they call it "settled science." And, to be sure, robust inquiry and disciplined application of the scientific method usually gives you clear and distinct results. Then, science is settled...until we get new data or better techniques, and then we get "wait a minute..".
For example, there was a most excellent article posted on how "settled science" wasn't so settled, wherein:
seems that Earth has been misplaced. According to a new map of the Milky Way galaxy, the Solar System's position isn't where we thought it was. Not only is it closer to the galactic centre - and the supermassive hole therein, Sagittarius A* - it's orbiting at a faster clip.
It further noted other "errors" in SCIENCE:
A good recent example of this is the red giant star Betelgeuse, which turned out to be closer to Earth than previous measurements suggested. This means that it's neither as large nor as bright as we thought. Another is the object CK Vulpeculae, a star that exploded 350 years ago. It's actually much farther away, which means that the explosion was brighter and more energetic, and requires a new explanation, since previous analyses were performed under the assumption it was relatively low energy
The other problem arises when Certain Powers work overtime to suppress assiduous inquiry. Which, is what we have today as well. It's a bad double whammy.
In the interest of full disclosure, my "science isn't math" quote came from a recent post on social sciences, that featured this brilliant give and take involving a Harvard faculty member critical of Charles Murray from the original article, that is worth reprinting - it is with regard to the "certainty of SCIENCE":
"so why should we let someone teach social science that we know to be wrong in our social science courses?"
Because it is possible that you are wrong.
Science is not mathematics. Newtonian physics was wrong. And social science is a further three rungs down in certainty from science.
Your level of certainty and arrogance about what can be said, and probably thought, smacks of religion, and not science. This is a political religion that permeates academia at the moment. And which I am fairly sure you will swear does not infect you, while the rest of us can see the symptoms quite plainly.
Only religions ban heretics from speaking because of the wrong-think they might cause. Real science loves a good heretic. In fact, honestly, the entire goal of science is to be a heretic. To have an idea that no other person ever had. Science is the pretty much the antithesis of your thought-police approach.
And most of academia used to be the antithesis of your thought police approach as well, until the religion of leftism took it over, with the direct help of people like you.
The last time I can remember a debate was moderated by people who weren’t totally far left, was when Fox held that debate between Trump and Satans daughter Hillary666 where Megyn Kelly decided to destroy her career and immediately attack Trump about women, and Trump gave the “Only Rosie O’Donnell” response. That was back in 2016 I believe.
Since then every debate has been moderated by far leftists with probably product of nepotism Chris Wallace being the worst who kept interupting Trump, “correcting” Trump, even demanded Trump denounce white supremacy right in front of segregationist Joe Biden who wasn’t asked the same question.
WHY does this keep happening? Do Republicans have a problem with saying “We will do a debate on CBS if you agree to a debate with Mark Levin moderating”?
“These leftists don’t even seem to care that their bias is so clearly displayed. Maybe it comes from living in a leftist bubble.”
*************
Some of their bias certainly comes from being in the self-reinforcing bubble they live and work in. Everyone they associate with shares the same progressive ideology and tribal fear of those with different views.
But a lot of it has to do with self-interest. The Leftist media has a symbiotic relationship with the political elites. The media gives them favorable coverage and in return it gets ready access to decision makers, inside scoops and ready-made copy from their well-placed sources inside the government — its a highly effective propaganda machine for the Leftists in power. Its also highly corrupt and unethical.
When the Right is in power (such as that is) the state affiliated media loses some of its access to highly placed sources. This in turn drives them to attack the Right even more in hopes of returning their friends back into power.
Since this symbiotic arrangement is never going to change, the best Republicans can do is refuse to subject themselves to the media’s traps and fake debates.
“WHY does this keep happening? Do Republicans have a problem with saying “We will do a debate on CBS if you agree to a debate with Mark Levin moderating”?”
**************
I was hoping that after the departure of Rona McDaniel the R’s might stop walking into the media’s traps, but alas such was not the case. If anything, it actually got worse AFTER she left! The debate moderators this cycle were more hostile than ever.
“They no longer have to pretend to be unbiased because the public expects it, and in many cases, applauds it.”
************
That’s a good point. If it wasn’t working for them they wouldn’t do it. But its also true that the media relentlessly demonizes Republicans and so conditions the Sheeple to accept the unfairness of one-sided attacks and the endless drone of anti-conservative propaganda.
I agree with that analysis and conclusion. Just call them “Fake News” and laugh at them. Don’t participate in their game.
“But its also true that the media relentlessly demonizes Republicans and so conditions the Sheeple to accept the unfairness of one-sided attacks and the endless drone of anti-conservative propaganda.”
The left has successfully characterized conservatives as being modern day Nazis. Given that, nothing you do to or against conservatives is too much.
BINGO!
I would have also but there were children present. That witch then gave a confident, cold-hearted stare, as if she got final vindication through her stupid appeals to authority. A truly evil woman.
Thank you for the details.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.