American Republic Online

MSNBC has a list of reporters who gave to political campaigns. Of the 144 listed, 18 gave to Republicans/conservative causes. 126 gave to Democrats/liberal causes (2 gave to both). The so-called “mainstream media” has a liberal bias. Really? Maybe they should all disclose their biases when reporting on issues. The BBC has done it. Instead of pretending they are “objective” just tell the truth. I think this would give them more credibility, and would most likely drive them to make sure that everything is presented “fairly,” since they will obviously be under a lot more scrutiny.

The same problem exists in science. Scientists present their findings (and we accept them) as unbiased, objective. But the problem remains that they are people. And everyone has a unique perspective, and brings a measure of bias to everything (no matter how small). We are certainly not allowed to get away with saying we are objective. Try going up to a stranger on the street and telling them that you can be perfectly objective. What if someone told you that? Would you believe them? Why do certain professions get a free pass?

It would not take much: simply putting a paragraph or so on the web.  It would be unreasonable and unfortunate to have to do some sort of disclaimer during broadcasts or printed stories.  But making the information available to those who would find it useful would go a long way.  As pointed out above, disclosure would lead to more credibility.  And, it would provoke more scrutiny, and thus more thoroughness by those that we place so much trust in.  This would, in turn, lead to, hopefully, more understanding all around.

This article is quite simply: GREAT. The much vaunted by eco-snobs Toyota Prius, apparently pollutes enough to give a tree-hugger nightmares. If you know someone with a Prius, you really owe it to yourself to print out this article, give it to them, and say “HAHAHAHAHA!”.

A serious laugh really is deserved here. While the average Prius purchaser’s intent was to be better than other people and save the planet, they in fact wasted money and energy while helping to kill helpless animals in Canada.

The best part? Guess which car soundly spanks the hybrid in eco-friendliness when you also consider construction and lifespan in addition to fuel economy…. That’s right: The Hummer.

Below are snippets, check the link for the full text. Read the rest of this entry »

John Kasich, a guest host for O’Reilley, proved himself to be a blithering idiot while holding down the fort yesterday. Here’s the setup: A new creation museum opened on Monday and “Fair & Balanced” Fox wanted to show both sides. So they got Ken Ham head of the museum and Lawrence Krauss an evolutionary scientist against the museum to “debate”.

Each man opened with their positions basically: a 4.5 Billion year old Earth & Genesis is a just a story verses a 6 Thousand year old Earth & the Bible account is literally true. It could have been a good debate, unfortunately John Kasich didn’t like either position and set out to bring BOTH men over to HIS view.

Now while most school children could point out how these two men held diametrically opposed views, Kasich asked Ham “Why is it not acceptable that evolution and creationism can be compatible?” Ham responded that while many people held Kasich’s theistic evolution view, “Evolution and a literal Genesis are not compatible…”

Kasich then interrupts and says “But maybe a literal Genesis is not the deal here.” I have to stress here that John is saying this to the man that just opened a 27 million dollar museum dedicated to the view that scientific evidence supports a literal six day creation. I mean, does John Kasich have ANY knowledge of the people he’s interviewing?

Read the rest of this entry »

Al Gore was booed while giving his world-famous Inconvenient Truth speech to a Canadian university. “Liar” and “villain” were yelled at Gore, as well as “What about your swimming pools?”

To which Gore offered this come-back: “I don’t even know if you guys are left- or right-wing.”

ARO is now a big-time blog. ARO recently posted a bit about a short article at the Scientific American. Here’s the cerfuffle: Mims at Scientific American defends his use of a recent Yale survey (he used the American public as his majority, not scientists): “My intent in posting that story was not to comment on the science of global warming–it was to point out that, whatever your opinion of the subject, an overwhelming majority of Americans are pretty freaked out about it.”

However, if you look closely, at the bottom, Mims refers to our very own ARO. He also throws around nasty words like “plagiarism.” Apparently Mims is not aware of linking as a way of referencing sources, and a convention of italicizing words instead of using quotation marks. And to be fair, in hindsight, we should have probably indented everything one more time to make the citation more apparent.

The story is reproduced below, for your review. We have since added an additional citation for the -uhm- link-handicapped. We meant no harm; We repent of our sins: forgive us our cavalier posts. But thanks for the traffic!

Reality Check (Link to OpinionJournal.com)

Read the rest of this entry »

Some thoughts on balancing the environment and profits from the Instapundit.  A good read.

There is another (!) skeptic of Earth-consuming global warming.  Climatologist Legates expresses doubts regarding the recent alarmism regarding global warming, calling the science inconclusive.  

Notice how he is presented by global catastrophe apostles: as "a favorite scientist of the global warming denial machine."  As Walter Williams recently pointed out, many compare skeptics to "holocaust deniers."  Some even say they should be tried for war crimes, a "climate Nuremberg."  It always comes back to Nazis doesn't it?  Why is it that when someone threatens your belief system, and you cannot answer the skepticism, it is ok to yell "Nazi!" and dismiss their criticism?  What happened to open debate, and individual opinion?  Thomas Sowell has commented on this very thing:

"It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic."

When we resort to name-calling, no real progress occurs.  If that is our best defense for your position, perhaps you should stop making sure your voice is the loudest in the room.  Or, better yet, form your own conclusion.  OR, better still, when you have nothing backing your opinion besides your own conviction, be honest and say "it's just what I believe."  This will end the conversation as effectively as calling someone a Nazi, and demonstrates to the other party the exact same thing: that your beliefs are based on emotion and not logic.  As anyone with a modicum of insight could see this, at least you're being honest with yourself.

Read the rest of this entry »

The verdict is in.  A new report coming out says we have 10 years left before the world is on an "irreversible" course towards destruction.  What does that mean?  Florida falling into the sea, cities spontaneous starting on fire…?  Who knows.

Well, I hate to burst their bubble, but Al Gore predicted that we only had 10 years left a year ago.  For those interested, Rush Limbaugh has a countdown to Doomsday on his webpage.  As you can see, we already have less than 9 years left…

Read the rest of this entry »

The UN has a new report out (assign whatever value you deem worthy here).  Apparently, they view the emissions from the world's cattle population as the most dangerous source of greenhouse gases.  In fact, 18% of greenhouse gases are derived from this population.  That's more than all forms of human transportation put together.  Clearly this menace must be controlled before they introduce the "alien species" the UN talks of.