Vice-President Picks

Remove all ads!

I really don't get this bias nonsense. Treat your information independent from the source. We're all more or less grown up and can more or less think for ourselves, no?

I read National Review and the Weekly Standard when I feel like it. They are thoroughly biased. Worse, they're bad magazines. But in some sense they can be highly illuminating and accurate - because they are biased. Remarkable blog post on how that can be so on the example of Bonkers Bolton, and how he, although an utter nutter, is an astute observer when it comes to realists: John Bolton’s correlation of forces

 

Ragusa gets a tip of the hat...

 

Please, Ragusa. Where was this "treat your information independent from the source" durring our global warming debates? All in all, I agree. Once we get all the facts (which a bias source is unlikely to report) we can come to our own conclusions, but could you apply the standard evenly?

 

Pot, meet kettle? Maybe. If you're going to dredge up old threads in an effort to attack Rags for having the temerity to say something you agree with, the very least you can do is provide quotes or link to statements made by Rags that show him arguing that the facts coming from a source can't be trusted because the source is "biased". Those threads may be fresh in your mind, but they certainly aren't fresh in mine.

 

Drew, you made the same arguments -- how can you possibly not remember writing them. Besides, the search tool is quite good on the boards (tip of the hat to Tal on that one) ... you should try it out.

I have always considered the source as quite critical in any debate. Chandos didn't even link the actual source, but rather someone who "copied" the argument from Mother Jones. How accurate was the copy -- you know the old saying... "a copy of a copy is never as sharp as the original." Things always get lost in translation and editing.

 

I believe I sat out of the last climate change thread and made but a few posts in the one before that, so no, it's hardly fresh in my mind. I know what I would have said, but we aren't talking about my posts. We are talking about posts Ragusa made, and I haven't even the foggiest recollection of any of his posts in any climate change threads, nor do I know which threads to look in, since Rags doesn't weigh in on every climate change slug-fest, either.

That said, Gramm's role in the de-regulation of the banking industry isn't debatable, nor is the fact that some of that de-regulation helped to enable the sub-prime mortgage debacle. To be fair, Cliton does share some of the blame for it, too, which is a point I recently alluded to in another thread. Take what facts you can, and take the portions that admittedly may stem from bias with a grain of salt. It isn't that hard to do.

 

Tal, this point confuses me. Big Oil wasn't the original source (as far as I know) of any of the scientific research that was being discussed. It may have provided some of the funding, but the research was always done by scientists, frequently internationally recognized scientists with years of experience in the relevant fields (as Big Oil has the money to back the best). That being said, patrons don't usually have that much influence on the final product even in modern art (it was something different when they could have the artist beheaded), but especially not in science.

Basically, my point is that it is always Big Oil that is called as being biassed, when it is the scientists that we really need to consider. I guess that doesn't really bear an exact comparison to the issue here... Sorry for rambling.

 

@NOG

No, you have a perfect understanding of how bias works. If it is funded by an oil company it is biased. If it is funded by Greenpeace or some other environitwit group it isn't biased. The same logic applies to political bias. Once you understand the rules, it is far easier to read some posts.

 

Well, if you are of that opinion that sword cuts both ways. Human beings tend to not see bias with stuff they agree with so if Big Oil say something you would see it as unbiased truth while I may not and instead put more stock in the long haired Greenpeace hippies.

 

But the point is, it is the scientists, with long reputations of unbiassed work in that field (for Big Oil), that you are actually trying to say are biassed. Either that, or you are saying Big Oil is blatantly lying about the research on their pages and the internationally recognized scientists are too stupid to do anything about it.

My point is that what you are actually claiming is the scientists are biassed, but you do it by painting the messenger as biassed. Claim the scientists are biassed and we can get into a debate on them, but claiming Big Oil is baissing the results is ridiculous.

Sorry, this has gotten a little off-topic I think.

 

If you are speaking of those scientists who are on the payroll of Big Oil, they are not the independent, unbiassed workers that you have everyone believe. Their work isn't done for the public good, as public servants, but as employees of a profit making business. In other words, they work for the oil companies, not you. If you are referring to scientists who work independently and their work is used by the oil companies to support their claims, that's something different.

 

Unfortunately Chandos, the definition of "on the payroll" has become "if you've ever accepted a grant from." Which is simply a smear campaign.

 

Okay, work with me one this, if Al Gore was a VP pick and he was talking about climate control, then the issue of bias....

 

It looks like it will be Palin.

Fox News

She looks like she may be the conservative McCain needs. I like her fiscal sense and support of the second amendment. I'm not too crazy about the Pro-Life stand, but I'm sure it will make a lot of others happy.

I'm curious how this will play out. Will Biden and Obama have the nerve to attack a mother of five (one who is special needs)? How will the Hillary supporters react to the Republicans being more "female friendly" then the Democrats? It will be interesting to watch.

 

I have to say, I don't see the logic in this one. McCain, in a contest against what he says is a too-telegenic, too-young, too-inexperienced and too-unknown politician, picks as his running mate...a telegenic, young, inexperienced unknown politician.

To me this says several things. One, McCain will never play the "inexperience" card on Obama again, he can't. Two, in picking a beautiful former Miss Alaska, the "celebrity" and Paris Hilton nonsense is gone, too. Three, considering his health problems, picking someone with ZERO foreign policy experience and only 2 years under her belt as Governor of a sparcly-populated state means he really isn't very serious about continued prosecution of the war, since she needs to be prepared at a moments notice to take over should something happen to him. Four, he must have concluded that since he can't make an affirmative case for his presidency on policy, his only realistic shot at winning this thing is wooing disgruntled Hillary supporters and women who are more interested in seeing a woman take office than in either party. *Five, she's pro-choice and pro-environment IIRC, two big deal-breakers for the base.

In other words, I think McCain just conceded. Unless there's some big brilliant angle that I'm missing here...

* Ope, wait - I had it wrong. She's pro-life and her landmark issue is drilling in ANWAR, so so much for environmentalism. McCain seems to be making his case on women voters and oil.

EDIT 2: And bible-thumpers. Evidently she's a staunch creationist. It's starting to make a little more sense now...but still, a surprisingly weak choice.

 

Do you think she can bring the rifle to the VP debate?