The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

It matters not in either instance, really.

Agreed, and this was probably the weakest example of conservative media bias I could have chosen from the ocean of examples. Here's a better look at the "more fair and balanced" Fox News.

[wendybeth]

Great link, MBC.

[mousepod]

I know I'm probably one of two Howard Stern listeners here at the LoT, so I figured I'd share an interesting recording from last week's show. It's a 20 minute conversation between Howard and Scott, who is the director of HowardTV, his pay-per-view channel. Scott is a devoted listener of Rush Limbaugh, and a fan of Fox News.

Be aware that this if NOT SAFE FOR WORK.

Howard Clip

[scaeagles]

Various things....

Scientists who believe that global warming is not caused by man, but natural things such as cycles of sunspots, based on historical warming and cooling periods of the earth over the last several millenia, are being silenced and accused of misconduct. Sounds a lot like the treatment of those who thought the earth was round or not the center of the universe. In Oregon, or so I've read, a state climatologist could be fired simply for his view on it.

New York wants to pass a law banning talking on cell phones or listening to Ipods (or similar) while walking. Because a couple people weren't paying attention and got killed crossing the street. Over reaction is amazing.

The Snickers commercial was pulled because it promotes anti gay sentiment? What? I realize there is another thread on this, but it's ridiculous.

Hillary and Obama may not participate in the first democrat debates. Front runners have no guts. This goes for both parties, not just them.

I have more thoughts, but not the time. Perhaps later.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Scientists who believe that global warming is not caused by man ... are being silenced and accused of misconduct.

Wow ... that's very, um, selective of you ... during the week of Congressional hearings highlighting the 7 years of censorship by the current administation of scientists who attribute global warming to human activity.

Oh, I don't doubt your veracity .... but what's your point, exactly? Will you concede that scientific censorship is bad, no matter which views are censored?

Originally Posted by scaeagles

The Snickers commercial was pulled because it promotes anti gay sentiment? What? ... it's ridiculous.

Well, perhaps it's simply that the ad was NOT going to sell any snickers bars. And while I didn't think it "promoted" anti-gay sentiment (or snickers), I found it mildly insulting. Not that I'd boycott snickers or anything ... but

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Hillary and Obama may not participate in the first democrat debates. Front runners have no guts.

Oh, I didn't realize Obama was a "front runner." Since when? imo, if this is true, he's gutless without the absurd rationale.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

In Oregon, or so I've read, a state climatologist could be fired simply for his view on it.

He is not a state climatologist.

Although Taylor is often referred to as the state climatologist for Oregon, that job was dissolved by the 1989 Legislature.

Taylor runs the Oregon State-based Oregon Climate Service, which performs many of the same duties that the state climatologist once did. But Gov. Ted Kulongoski is careful to point out that Taylor is not a state official.

Taylor is listed as a scientific adviser for a group that receives money from ExxonMobil and says on its Web site that escalating greenhouse gases are good for the Earth, promoting plant life and bringing "growth and prosperity to man and nature alike."

[Gemini Cricket]

The Republicans want to filibuster Iraq debate. Weren't they the ones saying that we should get rid of filibustering altogether?

[wendybeth]

Quite a few of them also wanted term limits- until their own terms were up.

[JWBear]

Taylor is listed as a scientific adviser for a group that receives money from ExxonMobil and says on its Web site that escalating greenhouse gases are good for the Earth, promoting plant life and bringing "growth and prosperity to man and nature alike.

Which makes him completely impartial and unbiased….

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

The Republicans want to filibuster Iraq debate. Weren't they the ones saying that we should get rid of filibustering altogether.

They only want to get rid of it when they are in power.

[Alex]

GC: No they weren't.


SCA:

Sounds a lot like the treatment of those who thought the earth was round or not the center of the universe.

It also sounds a lot like the treatment of those who, despite massive evidence to the contrary continue to believe that the world is flat and the earth is the center of the universe.

I would hope that a state paleontologist who believes that dinosaur bones are a joke played by god to trick us would be fired (and would find it difficult to get a job). I would hope that a doctor who literally (and always) believes that laughter is the best medicine would find tenure difficult to acquire. A USDA agricultural biologist proposing Lamarckian genetics shouldn't be allowed within a mile of a corn field (see Lysenko, Trofim).

Like it or not, a view that the earth is not warming is way outside the mainstream. And while less so, disputing its anthrogenic nature is still pretty far outside the mainstream and in a very small minority.

Academic freedom is important in a university setting when it comes to direct state employees, the state should have people squarely in the mainstream.

I say that with absolutely no knowledge of the specific case in question.

ETA: It is also worth noting just for future examples that really no educated person has been persecuted for believing the world is round. Considering this was known to be true since ancient times it has never really been questioned except by the uneducated peons in little position to persecute anybody. The only significant debate was in how big a sphere we're on.