Media Shows Their Bias by Labeling (BIAS)

Great study via NEWSBUSTERS:

MRC analysts reviewed all 141 stories on the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network evening and morning shows that mentioned the efforts of the House Freedom Caucus and their Senate counterparts during the ObamaCare repeal/replacement debate, and discovered that while congressional conservatives were overwhelmingly given ideological labels, those that opposed them were rarely, if ever, labeled by journalists.   

CBS provided the most coverage (54 stories) that mentioned House and Senate conservative efforts on the health care bill. NBC was next (49 stories) followed by ABC, which aired (38 stories) on its morning and evening newscasts during this period. 

In these stories, MRC analysts documented how network reporters assigned a whopping 223 ideological labels to House and Senate Republicans — either to individual members of Congress, or factions like the House Freedom Caucus within the GOP.

Overwhelmingly, the networks used “conservative” tags to talk about Republicans. Fully 80 percent of these labels (179) talked about “conservatives” or those on the “right;” just 20 percent (44) referred to “moderate” Republicans.

Eleven percent of the labels (20) painted conservatives as extremists: “far right,” “hardline,” “very conservative” or “ultra-conservative.” Such deliberate labeling is designed to stigmatize conservatives, casting them as outside-of-the-mainstream ideologues, as compared to their (usually unlabeled) adversaries.

Democrats were never labeled as “liberal” or “progressive.” Twice Democrats were referred to as “moderate,” both times on CBS.  

CBS led the way with 61 uses of the “conservative” label to just 17 “moderate” tags. ABC was second with 60 “conservative” labels and 15 uses of the word “moderate.” NBC had 58 “conservative” labels to just 12 “moderate” uses. 

(read it all)

An older study shows much the same… but it seems to be getting worse. POLITICO is now warning that the media bubble is worse than many think. Here are just a few of the graphs I have saved over the years… I wonder is something analogouse can be pointed out to me by a Leftist?


 photo positive-negative-100-days.png
 photo Gun Control_1.jpg
 photo AZChartNew.jpg
 photo ABCNBCCBSguncontrol.gif
 photo smith khan chart.jpg

Bill Nye, The Not-So-Scientific-Guy

Language warning on some of the below content. Oh, and what is seen cannot be unseen:


Bill Nye (The Not-A-Real-Science-Guy) fancies himself an expert and repeatedly scoffs at anyone who’s skeptical of his particular brand of science….which ironically often lacks actual science. We give you exhibit D from his new Netflix show ‘Bill Nye Saves The World’ on the topic of the “gender spectrum”…

Here is some commentary by RED PILL PHILOSOPHY:


The following excerpt is from THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER:

The following is excerpted from McGuire’s new book, “Sex Scandal: The Drive to Abolish Male and Female

Feminists in the 1960s and 70s argued that men and women are not inherently different. The many apparent differences between the sexes — beyond the undeniable anatomical ones — are simply the result of gender roles people are taught to fulfill, not of their natures as men or women. This was the era when parents were told that their daughters would be just as happy playing with toy trucks as with dolls and that making the switch would help end sexism and liberate girls for a better future. Women sought to detach themselves from the aspects of womanhood they found limiting, especially their fertility.

For decades, gender theory gained steam, seeking the complete abolition of gender distinctions in any way tied to the two biological sexes.

In 1992, family therapist John Gray published Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. The book’s premise was simple: men and women are different, and understanding those differences, not living in denial of them, is the key to relationship success. The book’s popularity exploded. It became not just a bestselling book of its decade, but one of the bestselling books of all time.

It was pop psychology, but it hit a social nerve. The book hit shelves amid a growing effort to build a gender-neutral society. It seemed people were still desperate to understand their differences. Paradoxically, the dawn of gender theory was also the period when social scientists and doctors began to make the most progress in understanding the sexual difference and the delicate physiological interplay between men and women.

Major advances in neurobiology, for example, unveiled just how differently men and women respond physically to intimacy. During intercourse, the female releases more oxytocin than the male. Oxytocin is the hormone that facilitates bonding between human beings, in particular between mothers and new babies and between heterosexual partners. It’s colloquially referred to as “the love hormone,” “the hug hormone,” the “cuddle chemical,” the “moral molecule,” and the “bliss hormone,” and is especially noted for the different roles it plays in female reproduction.

According to the American Psychological Association, “New studies are adding to a body of literature that shows oxytocin plays a key role in maternal bonding and social affiliation — what [social psychologist Shelley] Taylor has labeled the ‘tend and befriend’ response, as opposed to the ‘fight or flight’ response.”

Oxytocin, researchers discovered, makes a woman more vulnerable and attached to the man with whom she is having sex. Men release a small amount of oxytocin during intercourse, too, but they release an even bigger amount of testosterone, which has the effect of suppressing the oxytocin.

So science has a basic explanation for why women will stare at their phone after casual sex, hoping their partner will contact them, while men do not. As one woman wrote in a piece for Elite Daily, “The Truth Behind Why Women Find It Harder to Have Casual Sex than Men Do,” the phenomenon of oxytocin offers “a scientific explanation as to why after sex, women are left wondering if and when she will hear from a guy. All the while, guys are scrolling through Tinder on their couch, wondering if that chicken parm they ordered an hour ago is actually on its way.” “Women,” she writes, “are programmed to become emotionally attached” in a way that men are not.

There is a seemingly unending litany of ways that men and women are different, many of them still unexplained.

As Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield notes in Manliness, his treatise on manhood, data show that women are friendlier. Two-thirds of people who are more inclined toward smiling are women.

[….]

Medical phenomena continue to point to stark differences between the male and female brains.

Men, for instance, are significantly more likely to have reading disorders, something that has been attributed to, among other things, “differences in brain functioning.” And reading disorders may arise differently in men and women. According to a Georgetown University Medical Center study, “Brain anatomy of dyslexia is not the same in men and women, boys and girls.”

The study’s lead author explained, “There is sex-specific variance in brain anatomy and females tend to use both hemispheres for language tasks, while males just the left. It is also known that sex hormones are related to brain anatomy and that female sex hormones such as estrogen can be protective after brain injury, suggesting another avenue that might lead to the sex-specific findings reported in this study.”

The world of science and medicine is trending toward greater, not lesser, understanding of the importance of what makes us different.

Does great variety exist within the sexes? Of course. Some men are poets, some men are soldiers. Some women are trial lawyers, while others write books. Some men vacuum. Some women don’t cook.

And yet, despite historical changes in fashion preferences, domestic arrangements, professional inclinations, and so much more, certain aspects of nature stubbornly persist. Shifts in who wears pink have not changed the fact that women, and only women, can conceive, gestate, and give birth to a new member of the human species. Men are, on the whole, the physically stronger sex. Culture may imbue gender with certain random characteristics, but science is not walking away from sex as a key feature of humanity.

Culture may change, but reality doesn’t…..

Slavery Made the South Poor, Not Rich

This is the article Larry Elder was referencing: “INDUSTRY AND ECONOMY DURING THE CIVIL WAR” (Also see “The Truth Behind ’40 Acres and a Mule’) —  here is the excerpt from chapter 22 of MY BONDAGE AND MY FREEDOM:

…The reader will be amused at my ignorance, when I tell the notions I had of the state of northern wealth, enterprise, and civilization. Of wealth and refinement, I supposed the north had none. My Columbian Orator, which was almost my only book, had not done much to enlighten me concerning northern society. The impressions I had received were all wide of the truth. New Bedford, especially, took me by surprise, in the solid wealth and grandeur there exhibited. I had formed my notions respecting the social condition of the free states, by what I had seen and known of free, white, non-slaveholding people in the slave states. Regarding slavery as the basis of wealth, I fancied that no people could become very wealthy without slavery. A free white man, holding no slaves, in the country, I had known to be the most ignorant and poverty-stricken of men, and the laughing stock even of slaves themselves—called generally by them, in derision, “poor white trash.” Like the non-slaveholders at the south, in holding no slaves, I suppose the northern people like them, also, in poverty and degradation. Judge, then, of my amazement and joy, when I found—as I did find—the very laboring population of New Bedford living in better houses, more elegantly furnished—surrounded by more comfort and refinement—than a majority of the slaveholders on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. There was my friend, Mr. Johnson, himself a colored man (who at the south would have been regarded as a proper marketable commodity), who lived in a better house—dined at a richer board—was the owner of more books—the reader of more newspapers—was more conversant with the political and social condition of this nation and the world—than nine-tenths of all the slaveholders of Talbot county, Maryland. Yet Mr. Johnson was a working man, and his hands were hardened by honest toil. Here, then, was something for observation and study. Whence the difference? The explanation was soon furnished, in the superiority of mind over simple brute force. Many pages might be given to the contrast, and in explanation of its causes. But an incident or two will suffice to show the reader as to how the mystery gradually vanished before me.

My first afternoon, on reaching New Bedford, was spent in visiting the wharves and viewing the shipping. The sight of the broad brim and the plain, Quaker dress, which met me at every turn, greatly increased my sense of freedom and security. “I am among the Quakers,” thought I, “and am safe.” Lying at the wharves and riding in the stream, were full-rigged ships of finest model, ready to start on whaling voyages. Upon the right and the left, I was walled in by large granite-fronted warehouses, crowded with the good things of this world. On the wharves, I saw industry without bustle, labor without noise, and heavy toil without the whip. There was no loud singing, as in southern ports, where ships are loading or unloading—no loud cursing or swearing—but everything went on as smoothly as the works of a well adjusted machine. How different was all this from the nosily fierce and clumsily absurd manner of labor-life in Baltimore and St. Michael’s! One of the first incidents which illustrated the superior mental character of northern labor over that of the south, was the manner of unloading a ship’s cargo of oil. In a southern port, twenty or thirty hands would have been employed to do what five or six did here, with the aid of a single ox attached to the end of a fall. Main strength, unassisted by skill, is slavery’s method of labor. An old ox, worth eighty dollars, was doing, in New Bedford, what would have required fifteen thousand dollars worth of human bones and muscles to have performed in a southern port. I found that everything was done here with a scrupulous regard to economy, both in regard to men and things, time and strength. The maid servant, instead of spending at least a tenth part of her time in bringing and carrying water, as in Baltimore, had the pump at her elbow. The wood was dry, and snugly piled away for winter. Woodhouses, in-door pumps, sinks, drains, self-shutting gates, washing machines, pounding barrels, were all new things, and told me that I was among a thoughtful and sensible people. To the ship-repairing dock I went, and saw the same wise prudence. The carpenters struck where they aimed, and the calkers wasted no blows in idle flourishes of the mallet. I learned that men went from New Bedford to Baltimore, and bought old ships, and brought them here to repair, and made them better and more valuable than they ever were before. Men talked here of going whaling on a four years’ voyage with more coolness than sailors where I came from talked of going a four months’ voyage…

The French Election Explained

I grabbed this whole interview, partly because I think it is important to better know who these candidates are that I had some misconceptions about myself. Dennis Prager interviews Philippe Karsenty (TWITTER) about the French elections that took place and are coming up.

Recently, I came across these two sentences that made me rethink my thoughts on the two main characters:

  • “…Macron’s pledges of gradual deregulation in France and cuts in state expenditure and the civil service are the kind of talk global financial markets like to hear. Le Pen wants to print money to finance expanded welfare payments and tax cuts, ditch the euro currency and possibly pull out of the EU, all of which raise huge uncertainties….” (REUTERS)

In conversation between some friends, one mentioned Marine Le Pen’s connection to racist ideologies via her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, who founded the National Front Party in 1972. HEAVY has 5-facts on him that make me wary of Marine, including his apparent denials of the Holocaust.

At any rate, I am thank to Philippe for bringing more clarity to the issue.

Earth Day Failures (AEI Edition)

(Above audio) Dennis Prager comments on and reads from an AEI’s report about past failed predictions of Earth Day type “scientists” and environmentalists:

See my previous critique of PRINCE EA’s propaganda video (2015): EARTH-DAY FAILS! PRINCE EA’S VIDEO IS FULL OF HOT AIR

The following comes from BREITBART’S article entitled, “5 Scientific Facts The ‘Science March’ Has Yet to Acknowledge

1) THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS

This fact is particularly popular amongst people who question the “science march’s” commitment to, well, science.

The idea that there are only two genders, male or female, and that you have to be born either one or the other is a basic truth acknowledged by most people. Biologically, it is irrefutable: humans are a sexually dimorphic species. The only exceptions are the tiny minority of intersex people, who in very rare cases are born with chromosomal types that do not align with regular male-female patterns.

That’s the only exception. If you are not intersex, you are a man or a woman. You certainly aren’t one of Facebook’s 58 gender options, which extend to “lesboflexible,” “agender” and “pansexual.”

[…..]

[Editor’s note for #2: we are one race, the human race. “Ethnicity” is a better word to use rather than race.]

2) RACE IS NOT A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

Sorry Rachel Dolezal, you’re white. The case for a biological basis for race, and all the differences of skin color, height, weight and physical characteristics that come with it, is overwhelming. Indeed, the biology of race is so real that you can trace it with a DNA test. 

[…..]

3) GREEN ENERGY IS INEFFICIENT

Climate change and renewable energy is one of the chief causes of the Science March, championed by Bill Nye and others. The march was deliberately scheduled to take place on Earth Day, when people are supposed to demonstrate their support for the environment by turning all their lights on (MILO recognizes Earth Day by turning all his electronic devices up to max).

Yet many of the fossil fuel alternatives championed by the eco-warriors are woefully inefficient. Wind farms in particular are a poster child for wastefulness, operating at 90 percent capacity or above for just 17 hours a year. Solar energy is another shocker – according to electrical engineering professor Petr Beckmann, it would take 1,000 hours of pure sunshine for a 15-square inch solar panel to generate the same amount of energy as a single lump of coal.

In the U.K., vast sums of money have been poured into green energy schemes, only to disappear after the companies that took advantage of government spending either went into administration or failed to deliver.

[…..]

4) INEQUALITY IS NOT (PREDOMINANTLY) SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED

One of the most troubling scientific facts for the left concerns the heritability of intelligence and behaviour. In the 1960s and 70s, the consensus in the fields of psychology and sociology argued that both intelligence and behaviour are wholly or mostly shaped by our external environment. In other words, if we grow up surrounded by books, with smart parents and good teachers, we become smart ourselves. Alternatively, if we grow up surrounded by poverty and crime, we’re more likely to fall into poverty and crime ourselves. Unequal environment, unequal outcomes.

This theory is central to the thinking of the left. It’s also long past its sell-by date. Known as the “Standard Social Science Model,” it has been undermined by a growing body of research which highlights the innate, genetic factors that drive human behaviour and achievement.

The research from geneticist Robert Plomin is particularly difficult to argue with. Plomin has used studies of twins raised in separate households to determine the heritability of character traits. He has found that even when a twin is raised in isolation from their biological parents, they still end up far more similar to their sibling – and to their biological parents – than they do to their foster parents. Plomin has estimated that 58 percent of variation in school test scores can be accounted for by inherited ability.

[…..]

5) MEN AND WOMEN ARE BORN DIFFERENT

The Science March has made a big deal out of the lack of diversity in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math). “The lack of inclusivity and diversity in STEM thwarts scientific advancements,” says an official statement on the march’s website.

But diversity in STEM, particularly gender diversity, is not something that can be solved by policy. Feminists insist that the lack of women in some STEM fields, like physics, is caused by entrenched sexism. However, these accounts consistently fail to explain why this alleged sexism is nowhere to be found in biology, where 58 percent of doctorates, bachelor’s, and master’s degrees are awarded to women. Or in zoology, psychology, and veterinary science — all scientific fields, all dominated by women. So why do women choose the latter, but not the former? It it just sexism?

The answer can again be found by looking at studies that trace the innate differences, and preferences, of men and women. Autism expert Simon Baron-Cohen has been studying the differences between men and women for over a decade, ever since he discovered that boys were far more likely than girls to develop autism. His research has found that boys (on average) are born with brains oriented towards understanding systems rather than people, emotions, and living things.

This is backed up by research on newborns, which show clear differences between male and female newborns in their preferences. Before they are nine months old, infants show gendered preferences with regards to toys, with male infants gravitating towards trucks and mechanical objects, and girls gravitating towards dolls. The study on newborns in particular helps rule out the the theory that sexist influences from a child’s social environment are the cause of gender differences.


PLACES TO GO ON MY SITE FOR MORE INFO


#1 – Transgender
#2 – Transracial
#3 – Climate Links (Various Topics)
#4 – Wealth Inequality in America ~ Critiques On Inequality
#5 – Male/Female Differences

Educational Indoctrination | Dennis Prager Interviews Lee Habeeb

Dennis Prager had Lee Habeeb on to discuss his article entitled, “Are All White People Racists? One Leftist School Is Teaching This.” In it Lee makes crystal clear the goals of organizations like this that make school principles and superintendents “feel good” about themselves – as if they are participating in fighting evil, thus, putting on the moniker of “social justice warrior.” A great interview!

4-Historical Facts That Prove Jesus Rose From The Dead (SS)

A SERIOUS SATURDAY post:

Video Description:

Easter 2017 – Did Jesus rise from the dead? We will deal with the question, “Did Jesus rise from the dead?” We will share 4 historical facts accepted by the majority of New Testament scholarship today. They include the honorable burial of Jesus, His empty tomb, His post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in God. Related:

Proof of the Resurrection of Jesus (by Mike Licona); 10 Myths About the Resurrection of Jesus (by Mike Licona); Q&A on the Resurrection of Jesus (by Gary Habermas); Resurrection Debate (between Gary Habermas and Antony Flew); Refuting the Jesus Seminar (by Gary Habermas); Refuting Terrible Books on Jesus (by Gary Habermas and Craig Evans); In Defense of Jesus (by Lee Strobel); Jesus of Testimony (Documentary); A Lawyer Defends Christianity (by John Warwick Montgomery); In Defense of Christianity (by John Warwick Montgomery); John Warwick Montgomery Critiquest Bart HermanAnswering Bart Ehrman (by William Lane Craig); 10 Common Objections to the Resurrection of Jesus (by Daniel Janosik); Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (by Doug Potter); Is Jesus a Legend? (by Phil Fernandes); The Christ Myth Theory (by Phil Fernandes); Jesus and the New Testament (by J. P. Holding).

Just some SeanG ruminations on my pastor’s Easter sermon:

“…and if the Messiah has not been raised, then our message means nothing and your faith means nothing. In addition, we are found to be false witnesses about God because we testified on God’s behalf that he raised the Messiah—whom he did not raise if in fact it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then the Messiah has not been raised, and if the Messiah has not been raised, your faith is worthless and you are still imprisoned by your sins. Yes, even those who have died believing in the Messiah are lost. If we have set our hopes on the Messiah in this life only, we deserve more pity than any other people. But at this moment the Messiah stands risen from the dead, the first one offered in the harvest of those who have died.” (1 Corinthians 15 : 14-20, ISV)

The Christian faith IS an historical faith… and history is where a vast majority of our knowledge comes from. NOT the scientific method.CS Lewis points out that there is no way to scientifically prove…

  • “…what Napoleon did at the battle of Austerlitz by asking Mr. Bonaparte to come and fight it again in a ‘laboratory with the same combatants, the same terrain, the same weather, and in the same age….’ You have to go to the records. We have not, in fact, proved that science excludes miracles: we have only proved that the question of miracles, like the innumerable other questions, excludes laboratory treatment” ~ C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1970), 134.

We know historical events to be true by way of testimony… this is our (mankinds) main avenue of past events:

“What are the distinctive sources for our beliefs about the past? Most of the beliefs we have about the past come to us by the testimony of other people. I wasn’t present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. I didn’t see my father fight in the [S]econd [W]orld [W]ar. I have been told about these events by sources that I take to be reliable. The testimony of others is generally the main source of our beliefs about the past…. So all our beliefs about the past depend on testimony, or memory, or both.” ~ Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies (Foster City, CA: IDG Books; 1999), 57-58.

“In advanced societies specialization in the gathering and production of knowledge and its wider dissemination through spoken and written testimony is a fundamental socio-epistemic fact, and a very large part of each persons body of knowledge and belief stems from testimony.” ~ Robert Audi, ed. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edition (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 1999), 909.

“But it is clear that most of what any given individual knows comes from others; palpably with knowledge of history, geography, or science, more subtly with knowledge about every day facts such as when we were born..” ~ Ted Honderich, ed., The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995), 869.

In fact… as Pastor Steve noted in the sermon, our FAITH* is indeed a historic one. Need I say that out of all the worlds religions and various break-away beliefs (cults and the like), Christianity is the only falsifiable religion.

In a wonderful post over at MAKING THEOLOGY ACCESSIBLE, these two drawings go a long way to simply show the idea the the Apostle Paul talked of:

HOW OTHER RELIGIONS STARTED

HOW CHRISTIANITY STARTED

So why not spend some time getting to know the Scripture’s supporting the many evidences for our Historic worldview? Take 1 Peter 3:15 (<< ISV link) to heart when it says: “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (<< KJV).

Dr. Henry Morris notes this about 1 Peter 3:15 (<< HCSB link):

🔥 3:15 ANSWER – “Answer” is the Greek apologia, from which we get our word – apologetics, meaning the careful, logical defense of the Christian faith against the attacks of its adversaries and showing its validity as the true saving gospel of God, our Creator and Savior. In effect, Peter is admonishing believers to be always prepared to give an apologetic for the faith, especially when confronted by those who deny it and would destroy it if they could. This surely means that there is an effective apologetic that can be given, and it is each Christian’s responsibility to study (2 Tim 2:15) and be ready to give it when needed. In contrast, the unbeliever is “without excuse” (Rom 1:20), “without an apologetic.” His faith is strictly based on credulity and wishful thinking, not historical and scientific evidence like that for the Christian faith.

🔥 3:15 A REASON – “Reason” is the Greek logos, from which we derive our word, logical. We do, indeed, have logical, factual reasons for our hope in Christ …


RECOMMENDED RESOURCES

…to help the believer know how to defend well our historic faith.


* FAITH:

  • “Certain words can mean very different things to different people. For instance, if I say to an atheist, ‘I have faith in God,’ the atheist assumes I mean that my belief in God has nothing to do with evidence. But this isn’t what I mean by faith at all. When I say that I have faith in God, I mean that I place my trust in God based on what I know about him.”

William A. Dembski and Michael R. Licona, Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2010), 38.

More Cow Bell – Talking With A Satanist At P.P.

WARNING: VULGAR LANGUAGE. This is actual footage outside of a Planned Parenthood. Pastor Jeff Durbin was attempting to reach the women walking in for a scheduled abortion. Apologia Church has witnessed God saving over 70-babies from death at the local mills (one just this week!). The woman in the video is a Planned Parenthood “escort”. She helps the women and men to go in and to be comfortable. She came over with a cowbell in an attempt to drown out Jeff’s voice (she not successful). What you will see is the conversation Jeff attempted to have with her.