Bias Alive and Well on Fox News, Part Two

I can’t get over the fact that the host of a national news show like Steve Doocy has the audacity to say that biology textbooks are “so one-sided” when it comes to the topic of evolution.  This is the type of populist nonsense that leads to the utter inability of a majority of Americans to understand science.

I’m not saying that anyone who disagrees with evolution is ignorant.  What I’m saying is that if you’re going to argue against it, at least don’t use ignorant arguments.  At least know the first tiny bit of what you’re talking about.  It doesn’t take an expert in biology or paleontology to understand that “why haven’t earthworms evolved bigger brains yet” or “there are no transitional species” are ludicrous notions completely displaced from reality.

Biology is “one-sided” about evolution because evolution is the cornerstone of biology.  To imply that teaching Darwin’s theory is unfairly one-sided is like saying that teaching Einstein’s theory in physics is unfairly one-sided.  We teach relativity because the evidence supporting it is tremendous.  It’s the same for evolution.

And what exactly is the “other side” for evolution, anyway?  That species don’t change, that everything alive (and the uncountable number of things that have gone extinct) was created by a magic spell?  How is that science?  Do these people even know what science is?

My guess is that they don’t.  They certainly have presented no alternative scientific viewpoint to evolution.  All they ever do is make their tired negative argument: “Evolution can’t explain everything, so maybe [our] God created life!” (Gee, I wonder why the scientific journals aren’t busting down the creationists’ doors, trying to get the scoop on this amazing new breakthrough.)  Again, the obvious analog: “Relativity can’t explain everything, so maybe [our] God created electrons!”

Maybe there will be another courtroom showdown in Texas over this school board issue, like the Dover trial.  I hope so.  I remember Stephen Jay Gould saying something about how even he couldn’t hope to beat the creationists in a debate, because debating is a specific skill where the object is to never present a positive case that can be attacked.  Science doesn’t come across well in an environment where people can legitimately squirm out of presenting a positive argument.  But courtrooms deal in facts, and the opposition gets to directly challenge you to present your facts.  Since the creationists have none, they continue to lose.

Bias Alive and Well on Fox News

A couple weeks ago, I thought it was a pathetic, sickening display to see that CNN reporter arguing with the tea party protester and making it clear that she was espousing a political agenda rather than reporting the news.

Then the other morning on Fox News, Steve Doocy covered a segment about evolution being taught in Texas public schools, and it was just as shameful.  The problem, Doocy puled, was that science classes are “so one-sided” when it comes to this issue.  Yes, kind of like history classes don’t teach mythology, and chemistry classes don’t teach alchemy, and French classes don’t teach German.  In that sense, I suppose science classes are guilty of being one-sided.  Damn them for daring to solely teach…science!

Doocy’s “fair and balanced” guest was a Casey Luskin, a representative from…wait for it…the Discovery Institute.  Gee, I wonder what the Discovery Institute – the Christian group who thinks courtrooms, public opinion, and sympathetic politicians are the path to legitimate science – has to say on this matter?

In the midst of Doocy and his guest giving each other verbal shoulder massages, the managed to do the same thing that anti-evolution creationists always do: Try to appear legitimate by claiming to only be interested in good, fair science.  Mr. Luskin flat-out lied and said that his group is not interested in having creationism taught in public schools.  Just good science.  What a joke.  Go to the Discovery Institute’s website and you can see the entire purpose of their existence.

Doocy and Luskin appeared to be protesting only the fact that science textbooks still use Ernst Haeckel’s infamous recapitulation drawings and Darwin’s simplistic tree of life.  Certainly there are outdated textbooks in circulation, just as there are textbooks without any mention of the latest advances in string theory and quantum mechanics.  This should be remedied.  Darwin’s tree of life was simplistic way of showing relationships.    But what modern science has discovered is that the tree is much more like a bush that is vastly more complex than anyone could have imagined.  Evolution is not a single tree trunk, as scientists continue to try to explain and people continue to get wrong.

And recapitulation…the fact is that vertebrate embryos are strikingly similar, but no scientist is claiming that they’re identical, as Luskin said.  The things that creationists never talk about are the truly powerful pieces of evidence, such as the fact that human embryos have gill slits at an early age, as well as empty yolk sacs.

This is creationist sophistry, if not outright deception.  They know very well that modern science has affirmed and reaffirmed evolution, that there is no debate on whether evolution happened and is happening in the scientific community.  The evidence supporting evolution is so powerful as to make dissent absurd.  The only “professionals” still protesting it are a handful of Christians and Luskin’s Discovery Institute pals, most of whom openly admit that scripture is the ultimate authority.  That’s fine for them, but it’s not science; it’s the exact opposite of science.

With their kid-glove handling of these pseudo-intellectual anti-evolutionists, Fox News is painfully presenting it’s bias in this matter.

Tea Party Shenanigans

I have mixed feelings about the tea parties going on around the country.  On the one hand, these are not tea parties like the Boston Tea Party.  The resemblance may be convenient, but the essence is not there.  Those revolutionaries a few centuries were protesting against true tyranny: taxation without representation.  I’m sorry to say to the people out there protesting now that you had representation.  A great majority of Americans elected a socialist-leaning president and members of Congress, and now we have to reap the whirlwind.

On the other hand, I completely agree with the message of these modern tea parties.  I heard Obama was “surprised” that these people were protesting, because they’re the same people his so-called tax cuts will benefit.  How utterly unsurprising.  Here’s a news flash, Mr. President: Maybe some people don’t want your freaking handouts – especially if they come at the cost of bankrupting America and selling out future generations.  Maybe some people are saying: “Let’s bit the bullet and deal with the big headache right now, because if we keep spending money we don’t have, the headache will morph into a brain tumor in ten years.”

It’s amazing how clueless the news media is.  I saw a clip of this wretch of a CNN reporter “interviewing” a man attending a tea party with his kid.  She was so arrogant and dismissive.  Rather than report the news, which I thought was her job, she took it upon herself to campaign against the man’s cause and get in an argument with him.  Then she ended by saying that it’s clear the general tone of these parties is anti-government, and that they are sponsored by the Fox News Channel.

First of all, these rallies aren’t anti-government, as anyone with eyes and ears can discern.  They’re anti big government, a difference this CNN propagandist can’t fathom because she’s too busy polishing Obama’s shoes.  She also apparently thinks if you’re not castigating people with whom you disagree and simply doing your job as a news network, you must be “sponsoring” what you’re covering.

Link this with the news that DHS is looking at “right-wing threats.”  We can no longer use the term “War on Terror” in Obama’s brave new world, but people who disagree with the Obama administration are labeled as possible threats.  Hell, I’d welcome the Bush wiretaps with open arms; at least Bush wasn’t brazen enough to use government against people who disagree with him.

PETA’s Propaganda

I saw a rep from PETA talking to Megyn Kelly on the news the other morning; apparently PETA’s latest ad features girls kissing.  PETA is making some statement about how vegetarians supposedly have better sexual health (and overall health) and thus have better sex.  Ms. Kelly saw it as a cheap gimmick to get attention.

She’s right, of course, but so what?  PETA is simply utilizing that common advertising axiom that sex sells, especially girl-on-girl sex (or as Howard Stern put it: Lesbians = ratings).  Maybe it’s slimy to exploit it, but surely Ms. Kelly wasn’t under the impression that PETA has high standards of decency in this regard.

What was more interesting to me were the misleading claims made by this PETA representative.  For instance, her main point that “meat clogs the arteries” (and by extension, also reduces blood flow to the penis and causes erectile dysfunction) ignores the truth.  Meat does not clog the arteries; cholesterol does (and not all cholesterol, either; only low-density lipoproteins).  There are plenty of meats that are low in LDLs, like turkey, fish, and chicken.  Furthermore, dietary cholesterol is not the main source of arterial plaque anyway; saturated fat is.  And again, one can find plenty of meats low in saturated fat.

While we’re on the claim that meat is bad for men’s sex lives, I’m sure that PETA is aware that testosterone is essential for male sexual health.  But perhaps they don’t know what testosterone is synthesized from.  That’s right, the nasty c-word; the body makes it out of cholesterol.  That’s why when men are on low-fat diets, their testosterone drops to a eunuch level and their sex drive disappears. 

Meat is not bad for you, despite what PETA may claim.  Meat contains a host of important minerals, most notably iron.  It’s difficult to get enough iron on a vegetarian diet, and it’s even more difficult to get complete proteins with all the essential amino acids in the proper proportions.  Certainly one can take supplements, but doesn’t that sort of ruin PETA’s entire argument?  If an animal-free diet is healthier, why are supplements required to get the proper nutrients a human body needs?  And if some of those supplements have to be created in labs to mirror what nature already provides, doesn’t PETA’s claim become laughable?

The ethical issue of whether or not animals should be killed and eaten is a separate argument.  Homo sapiens are omnivores.  We have canine teeth for shredding flesh.  We have enzymes specifically designed to metabolize animal proteins.  Certainly most vegetarians have better health than a glutton who sucks down butter, fatty meat, and gravy.  Practically anyone who pays attention to their diet and exhibits moderation will have better health.  Saying that animal products are the problem, however, is as simplistic and faulty as saying calories are the problem.  PETA’s stance is pure sophistry.

Obama the Very Ordinary Politician

The other day I heard the president give a speech to a roomful of Democrats about the need for this monstrous new spending bill.  After it was over, one word came to my mind: Pathetic.  And not only is this the most appropriate word for his mewling monologue, it’s the kindest.

A couple times during the speech, Obama referenced the economic experts, suggesting that this isn’t what he wants to do; it’s what the experts are telling him must be done.  Yes, the economic experts that he hand-picked.  What about all the other economic experts who say this “stimulus” bill is garbage that won’t work?  Perhaps President Obama should read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal – unless he only listens to economists who agree with Democratic social programs?

Obama also suggested that we shouldn’t listen to the “cable chatter” out there trying to convince us that this plan is wrong-headed.  A clear allusion to Fox News, as Obama has referenced many times when he’s feeling particularly pouty about Sean Hannity.  So now Obama’s telling us to stop listening to those pesky dissenting points of view?  Yes, that’s brilliant.  Let’s just accept a trillion-dollar bill without listening to its opponents.  (And by the way, I see just as many supporters of that corpulent bill on Fox News as I do opponents of it.)

There was also Obama’s witticism about how huge a deficit and national debt was waiting for him wrapped in a big bow when he came into office.  It got some laughs and applause in this Twilight Zone that we find ourselves in.  We’ve gotten to the point where Obama blasts Bush for a huge deficit, and yet his solution is to make it twice as big!

When the subject of all the unnecessary pork in this bill came up, the president let loose with the standard sniveling liberal excuse: Everyone else is doing it, so why not me?  In all seriousness, Obama justifiied the wish-list spending in this bill by saying, “Tell me what bill of this size hasn’thad extra pork.”  I’m so glad we have a president who can justify – with a straight face – spending millions of taxpayer dollars on butterfly parks and Frisbee golf courses in the middle of a recession.

But the overall tone of the president’s argument came down to a standard politician scare tactic.  Obama’s doing the same thing he so often accused the Bush administration of doing: The politics of fear.  This time, instead of terrorism, it’s the threat of economic collapse and unemployment.  Obama’s saying, “Accept this bill now or you’re hurting Americans.  Stop questioning my plan or your neighbor will lose his job.  Swallow all the Democratic pork-barrel spending and social engineering dollars now.  Why?  Because you have to.”

Obama’s saying, “You’re either with us or against us.”  Sound familiar, Mr. President?

Ann Coulter and Bernie Goldberg

The other night I saw Ann Coulter on The O’Reilly Factorpromoting her new book.  As usual, O’Reilly politely scolded her for her use of invective and accused her of saying bombastic things because they make her money.  He also brought up Bernie Goldberg’s critique of her statements about the Jersey Girls.  (Goldberg blasted her for that in his last book Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right.)

I thought Ms. Coulter’s response was kind of interesting: She said she’s in the habit of taking advice only from people who sell more books than her, not less.

Yet I’m positive Ms. Coulter subscribes to some artistic integrity.  She has principles and intellectual standards.  After all, if copies sold is the meter for intellectual quality, then Britney Spears would be a genius.  No matter Coulter’s joke about outselling Goldberg, I’m pretty sure she’d agree with Nietzsche in this: “A good writer seeks to be understood rather than admired.”

Ms. Coulter is certainly entertaining.  And I don’t knock her like the PC police on the left do.  I hardly ever hear the whiners in the news complain when celebrities say Bush is Hitler or a “fucking idiot” or things like that, but when Ann Coulter says something provocative or insulting, they’re always quick to start shrieking.  Like Bernie Goldberg, the only thing I think she was really out of line for saying was that crap about the Jersey Girls.  The point was good; the insults were among the lowest I’ve ever heard (and I’m a convict).

Her little dig at Goldberg was correct; I’m sure she’s sold a lot more books than he has.  But then again, Howard Stern has a much bigger audience than say, the History Channel show The Universe.  If you want to hear a snarky conservative invent new ways to insult people or a shock jock tell fart and lesbian jokes, you’ll be in the elite ranks of millions of fellow fans of Ann Coulter and Howard Stern.  Maybe you’ll enjoy yourself, but it doesn’t exactly stimulate any neurons, does it?

However many copies it sold, Bernie Goldberg’s book was much more interesting, more thought-provoking and – I’d go as far as to say – more useful to the conservative viewpoint than any of the clever but mostly empty rants Ann Coulter is in the habit of writing.  With Goldberg, you get the cleverness along with the substance.  Americans should do themselves a favor and pick up his book instead of Coulter’s.

Bill O’Reilly and A Double Shot at Love

On the show A Double Shot at Love, bisexual twin sisters Rikki and Vikki Ikki (that’s not a typo), are screening a houseful of straight men and gay women for MTV’s latest take on the reality dating genre.  The very premise of the show is enough to have conservatives bleating about the erosion of morals in America.  But there was a traditional guy on the show, at least for an episode or two. This genius signed up for a reality show in which the object is to woo a pair of bisexual girls, and then had the temerity to tell them to their face that he disagrees with gay marriage because it’s comparable to someone marrying a dog.

There’s no better way to get into a girl’s pants than saying that her sexual preference is akin to bestiality.  I mean Christ, what was he even doing on the show?  He might as well have worn a tee shirt saying, “Bisexual chicks are okay to fuck and watch in pornos, but they’re bad for society.”  Needless to say, his honesty didn’t impress the Ikki twins; they gave him the boot soon afterwards.

Here’s what’s funny to me: This jackass, this hypocrite who probably can’t even spell “hypocrite,” made the exact same argument against gay marriage that most every conservative I see on TV makes.  Take Bill O’Reilly (perhaps not a conservative, though certainly a guy with traditional values) for example.  The entirety  of his objection to gay marriage appears to be the slippery slope:  If we let gays get married it would open the door for people who want to marry animals and similar nonsense.

Why is it that so many people who oppose gay marriage are terrified of the slippery slope?  Do they honestly think it’s a strong argument, or is it simply all they have to cling to?  Perhaps if they live in a world of authoritative moral certainty, they can’t stomach the thought of actually making a stand.  Those of us who attempt to let reason guide us welcome the slippery slope.  We don’t mind it because we understand that morality is about choice, not about adherence to authority or tradition.

So the conservatives criticize gay marriage.  They sentence bisexuals, transgenders, and homosexuals to social isolation at best and hell at worst.  They hide their distaste for certain behavior by claiming that it’s “bad for society.”  They continuously shake their head s in disgust at shows like A Double Shot at Love.

Here’s a new reason for them to dislike that show:  It highlighted how absurd and childish their argument against gay marriage is.  A wonderfully concise indictment of their position was made by a couple of bisexual twin girls voting an idiot out of a reality show house – an idiot who is the intellectual peer of Bill O’Reilly and others who oppose gay marriage.  The Ikki twins get major cool points for showing more class and aplomb in this issue than their so-called moral critics ever have.

Megyn Kelly, Bill O’Reilly and Atheists

It’s difficult to argue with people who blur the line between what they want to be true and what is true.  Invariably, these are the same people who would rather feel than think, or be passionate rather than analytical.  You can’t find a better example on TV than Bill O’Reilly.  In dealing with this contentious atheist sign in the Washington State capitol building, O’Reilly seems to think that crossing his fingers, raising his voice, and wishing wth all his heart will change the law that allowing one religious display opens the door for every other one.

Further, as his frequent guest Megyn Kelly has pointed out, O’Reilly believes that Christine Gregiore or the government (or if all else fails, himself) should be the arbiter of what is appropriate and inappropriate to display.  Yes, apparently he can’t seem to understand that sort of the the whole point of America is that the government can never, ever make decisions like that.

But back to the original point: O’Reilly is someone who can’t separate the passionate from the analytical, and Megyn Kelly can.  Watching her shred O’Reilly’s “arguments” to pieces with just a few stated facts is like watching an instructional video on how to defeat logical fallacies.

O’Reilly: “It just isn’t decent behavior around Christmas.”  Kelly: “So what?  It’s the law.”

O’Reilly: “Governor Gregiore could have denied the atheist sign because it’s inappropriate.” Kelly: “No, the government is strictly forbidden from doing that.”

O’Reilly: “Atheism isn’t the same as a religion.”  Kelly: “The Supreme Court says otherwise.”

To be clear, I’m an atheist myself, and I also agree with O’Reilly’s point that the sign was a childish and inappropriate gesture.  But my personal opinion about the matter doesn’t change reality, it doesn’t change the law, and it doesn’t make Ms. Kelly any less correct.

Why can’t we see more discerning people like Megyn Kelly on TV?  It’s difficult to express how much I think we need more people like her, people who can cut through all the anti-intellectualism and populism of the talking heads.  The tragedy is that those like her are so rare – although I suppose that makes it more likely that we stop and listen when she speaks.

If I can try to make a larger point, it seems that most people, most of the time, would rather feel than think.  They’d rather be passionate than analytical.  And they distrust those who are more of the latter, because they equate having a soul with being passionate.  Being passionate is just as important as being analytical, but one should not be at the expense of the other.  The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive, as so many people seem to think.  There’s a time and a place for both.

Wishing and hoping are intrinsic and wonderful parts of being human.  But they don’t change reality.  Those like O’Reilly out there – the majority, as far as I can tell – should understand that shouting, emoting and being morally outraged doesn’t lend any weight to their position.  As rational beings, we should always attempt to explain objective reality, not futilely hope to change it.  Just listen to Megyn Kelly to get the hang of it.

Humanists Spoiling Christmas

The other night on The O’Reilly Factor, he had the president of a humanist organization that had paid for a Washington DC billboard ad.  It said: “Why Believe in a god?  Just Be Good for Goodness Sake” and displayed a picture of Santa Claus.  Though O’Reilly had no problem with the second part of the message, he accused the guy of being provocative on purpose to try to insult Christians “just in time for Christmas.”

Okay, fine: The ad is definitely provocative, and I’m sure the humanist organization knew that it would be.  So what?  It’s hardly insulting to ask a profound question like, “Why believe in a god?”  The whole point of the humanist view is that you don’t need a deity (and definitely not organized religion) to be a good moral person.  How can they express that point without asking a tough question like that?

People, this is without a doubt one of the most important questions in existence, one of the fundamental aspects of our lives.  A question like this has so many different layers and cuts across so many lines.  It’s central to what it means to be a human being.  And we’re not supposed to ask it for fear of insulting someone who believes?

What a joke.  I’m so tired of hearing this position that “my faith deserves special respect.”  I’m sorry, but it doesn’t.  This is America.  Your faith gets no special treatment whatsoever.  All you get is the right to worship however you wan – but that means you have to live alongside others who disagree, and even others who think your faith is wrong, ridiculous, or even immoral.

The point of the ad’s “provocative” question was that being moral because God wants you to is kind of an oxymoron.  Morality is not obedience.  You should be moral because it’s the right thing to do, not because God tells you it’s the right thing to do.  Me, I’m a bit callous.  I would put it another way that I’m sure would be incredibly insulting to some, but that I think is completely valid: “Why should I worship a god who kills babies and sanctions rape?”

I’m not trying to insult Christians with a question like that; it’s the truth.  It’s right there in the Old Testament.  I’d like an answer.  The old standby of “those things are okay if God does them” is – in my view – pathetically inadequate.

In my experience, most religious people are quite proud to admit why they believe in their god.  If you can’t even answer a basic question like that about your faith, perhaps the problem is yours.  Maybe Christians should stop being insulted by a provocative question like “Why believe in a god?” and instead try to answer it.

Joe the American

I was watching Hannity & Colmes when their guest was “Joe the Plumber,” and he said something that almost brought tears to my eyes.  Something that Obama and his socialist-leaning friends and colleagues could never understand.  Something the snivelers of the left-wing media will probably ridicule. 

Alan Colmes said that Obama’s tax cut to middle-class Americans would essentially put another thousand bucks in Joe’s pocket.  So, Colmes asked, wouldn’t you want to support the candidate who is going to give you that break and make it easier on your home budget?

I thought Joe’s response was inspirational.  He sad that he wouldn’t, in fact, want that extra thousand bucks.  Why?  Because it would come from the pockets of those who had worked harder than he had or caught a better break.  I was agog.  I swear I wanted to plug in my guitar and play “The Star-Spangled Banner” at top volume. 

It was about values for Joe, not about whether he thinks he deserves more money.  Being a leftist, Alan Colmes didn’t know how to respond.  I suppose that in his America , the politician that buys the most votes by telling middle-class Americans how pathetic they are should be the one seen as more “in touch” with the people. 

As is typical with Colmes, he brought out the old tactic of rushing to the bottom.  He pointed out that America has always had a progressive tax system, that we’ve always expected the wealthy to foot more of the bill, that even Reagan and Bush taxed the rich more, that even McCain is leaning toward a socialist move like buying up bad mortgages. 

Guess what, Mr. Colmes?  Saying that “everyone else does it” does not excuse it.  And neither does it make it a good policy.  The progressive tax system is wrong.  McCain is wrong.  Reagan and Bush were wrong.  We should get rid of the IRS and institute a flat or fair tax.  And here’s a big surprise for you: The wealthy would still be footing most of the bill even if they paid the same percentage as everyone else!

What Joe the Plumber said was one of the most refreshingly American things I’ve heard on TV in a long time.  No wonder everyone’s paying attention to him.  No wonder the left-wing media is ridiculing the man.  Imagine that: The choice is between a free check for a thousand dollars, and adhering to your belief that social welfare and wealth redistribution is wrong.  This country would be in a lot better shape if everyone would choose like Joe the American did.