Here is an important article from a local paper. Some youths labelled as ‘students’ began the largest fight that this city has seen in a long time. There were hundreds of these dangerous youth who lined up facing eachother and then the fight began. I knew the gangs were invading this once peaceful town, but now they’re even pretending to be ‘students’. When will this crime wave end!?!
Survey finds complexity in U.S. religious beliefs. That isn’t surprising to me. It shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who has been paying attention shifting attitudes on religion in recent years… and recent decades.
This is representive of a new cultural movement that is more inclusive. The U.S. and the world is becoming more intercultural because increasing globalization, but also because people travel more and immigration has increased in many countries. There is a lot more mixing of people and their beliefs. This is why, ultimately, the liberal attitude of accepting multi-culturalism (what the conservative calls cultural relativism) will win out in the end. It’s an unstoppable force unless you want to try to isolate you and your kind in a walled commune.
Christians believing in astrology and reincarnation. Americans converting to Buddhism. Muslims moving to the U.S. Whites marrying blacks. Catholics marrying Protestants. It’s the end of the world I tell ya! lol
As far as loud-mouthed pundits go, O’Reilly can come off fairly rational and intelligent… especially in comparison to Beck. O’Reilly is capable of being thoughtful and when he isn’t ranting or yelling he can sound quite reasonable.
But his analysis is always extremely biased and it doesn’t tend to look at the bigger picture… meaning he doesn’t tend to look at views outside his own. It’s not that he doesn’t make a decent argument here, but he doesn’t back it up with much evidence nor does he offer much new insight.
Here is something that sounds reasonable in the way it’s presented:
But I am not here to run down the global warming industry, I am here to explain it. My take is that only the deity knows for sure if the planet is in danger from warming, but the cleaner the earth is, the better. I feel that position encourages positive environmental behavior without going into hysteria land.
We don’t know everything, but O’Reilly makes it sound like we don’t know anything. We do know it’s an extremely serious (dire even) situation. We do know that climate changes have toppled major civilizations in the past. And we do know that humans are contributing to the present climate change. That still leaves many questions open and allows plenty of room for criticism, but we should at least be honest about we do and don’t know.
The commenter Steve pointeed another issue with O’Reilly’s analysis;
“The recent scandal involving British warming researchers burying facts that challenge climate change is disturbing.”
Bill — This sentence conveys the impression that you have accepted, as true, the allegation that British warming researchers have buried facts challenging their viewpoints on climate change.
My question is, why would you repeat, or give any credence to, this “burying facts” allegation, when there is absolutely nothing to support it?
Among the climategate emails, there was one email that spoke of a “trick” to “hide the decline”. But if we read that particular email in entirety and in context, we see that it was in reference to “hiding” (removing entirely) tree-ring data obtained from a particular kind of tree that has shown a decline in sensitivity from 1960. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the recent decline in average global temperatures.
You are doing your audience a terrible disservice by repeating this and other such bogus allegations against a group of people (scientists) who are simply trying to do their job.
Regarding William Gray’s conspiracy theory — may I suggest not repeating and giving credence to these kinds of theories without first subjecting them to the same level of skepticism and scrutiny that you would subject any other dubious or unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
A sort of interesting article about the far right political movements such as the Teabaggers. The strangest factor is a shrinking minority of people still identify with the GOP, but these independent and/or libertarian movements are growing. They even attack Republicans who aren’t far right enough and somehow they expect to have more than a mere disruptive influence on politics. Even Republican politicians have largely become obstructionists rather than promoting their own alternative positive vision.
The demographics are shifting away from “traditional Christian values” and “white culture” which are at the very core of these movements. If the core itself is shrinking, does it really matter that these movements are becoming louder? Well, there is always the fear that they’ll increasingly turn violent as we have seen examples of that already happening.
I don’t really care what a morally corrupt individual like Karl Rove has to say about anything, but he asked a good question: Can the Republicans retake the Senate in 2010? I think the disruptive and obstructionist political tactics could help win some victories in the short-term. There is, however, another question Republicans should be asking themselves. Are they willing to try to boost their flagging pride by gaining short-term victories at the cost of long-term viability? What good does it do to align an entire party with the far religious right and white supremacist movements which are shrinking demographics?
In case anyone wants to know Palin’s view on climate change, here it is.
Anyone interested in criticism of climate change doubters such as Palin, then here it is. I thought the author made a useful comparison with what happened when research came out showing the health risks and addictive quality of smoking.
I saved the best for last.
Ancient Assyrian tablets have been decoded. This is the type of news I wish would make it to the front page of all newspapers. It’s just fascinating getting a glimpse at an ancient culture. Also, I’m of the opinion that studying the past can help us to understand the present.
Scientists have been attacked by the anti-scientific recently. But here is an example of worthy science that I hope even the anti-scientific are willing to accept. However, the Creationists will complain that no civilization could’ve existed 9,000 yrs ago as the earth was created 4,000 yrs ago.