Tag Archives: media

The National Grief

Posted on by
8

Shut Up - Political Correctness Tells Us So

Here’s my suggestion for the quote of the week:

“In war, uncertainty gets you killed. It just did” said Daniel Henninger, (WSJ 11/12/2009, p. A23) when he talked about the Fort Hood attack last week.

Jack Gamble in his article here, Media Refuses to call Fort Hood Shooting a terror attack, points to the same direction. You can’t blink around suspected terrorists. Hasan (please stop calling him Major) wasn’t born a lunatic. He acted in a mission as directed by an Islamic terrorist group. The bad news is that they might be still operating on American soil.

If the U.S. people, media or leadership, would not react now and investigate any spiritual leaders, cultural groups, or any organization that calls for the destruction or killing of U.S. civilians, attacks will follow. Take Israel for instance, the country has suffered many attacks from terrorist organizations that fight in the name of Islam. These groups tried in the past (with no success) to establish cells within the Israeli cities. One thing would always be a great help for this plan: Ignorance

Countries that fighting this blood war are subject to wide criticism, mainly by educated UN policy makers and former judges in the form of numberless reports and sanction votes. Among the latest one is the famous Goldstone report for Israel’s actions in Gaza. The report is a pure criticism on Israeli diplomacy and its actions in Gaza last year. Nobody remembers, however, that more than 30,000 Israeli citizens were in danger of rocket attacks before the Operation Cast in Gaza. Today, they can sleep better. Israel’s government did what it was supposed to do and no one can judge them for that.

Here in the U.S., the government is bound to “political correctness” when treating these organizations and their members.  For years, policy makers try to define the enemy, the enemies rights and the legal status and scope of method if you want to fight the enemy, says Henninger. By doing this, you avoid the main question: how did Hasan grow among us?

And one last thing, don’t let the “national grief” and sad feelings go over your head. For 13 families, life won’t be normal ever again and we might be able to feel just a bit. But excessive grief might lead your actions and that is very dangerous.

Image Used in this Post

Shut up courtesy of Flickr user Tiago Rïbeiro published under the CC license.

Russian Submarine Did Not Have Nuclear Accident

Posted on by
1

On November 8, 2008, there was an accident aboard a Russian Submarine that killed 20 people. The accident was caused by a Freon leak in the fire protection system that killed 20 people aboard the sub.

The sub happened to be powered by a nuclear reactor. The accident had nothing to do with the power plant aboard the vessel. There was no radiation, contamination, Plutonium, or Uranium involved in the accident.

So why then, does every single headline across the globe have the word “Nuclear” in the title?

Fear sells, that’s why.

I am waiting for all the loonies out there to come out of the woodwork and seize the opportunity to take a cheap shot at nuclear power claiming it is unsafe and it’s killing our oceans.

I just can’t understand why the media insists on scaring people with headlines. This was an unfortunate accident and I feel for the men on board and their families but why must it be used to frighten people?

The reactor on board had nothing to do with the accident and the media needs to knock off these cheap scare tactics and start telling the stories for what they are.

How about a headline like:

“Fire Suppression System on Submarine Kills 20” or “Material Once Used in Your Air Conditioner Poisons Sailors.”

Either of these would be more representative of the event. Instead we get “Russia Probes Pacific Nuclear Submarine Accident That Killed 20”

~Man Overboard

Babeled Gets Some Street Cred

Posted on by
2

…and Exemplifies the Ongoing Collapse of the Mainstream Media

This past Monday, oil evangelist Jason Morgan wrote a salient piece highlighting the heavy taxation that accounts for the lionshare of European fuel costs.  Well apparently someone was paying attention as the article earned some serious recognition in the Europe Insight blog section of BusinessWeek.  The article, The Surprising Truth About Gas Prices, relies heavily on Mogul Morgan’s analysis – and the its author, Mark Scott, agrees fully with the information Jay offered to the great (albeit few) readers of Babeled.

And now for the moment of truth (you may begin laughing now) … this excerpt was taken from the second paragraph of the BusinessWeek article:

Yet do Europeans really fork out more for gas? In a telling piece, the guys over at Babeled lay out the true costs of gas prices on both sides of the Atlantic. Their conclusion — Europeans in fact pay 95 cents less than Americans before taxes are levied. In the U.S., for example, they reckon about 11% of the final cost per gallon goes to Uncle Sam, compared to 70% of gas prices being pocketed by European governments.

Not bad – not only did Jason earn us a quality back link, we also got a nice little name drop too.  Well done Jay and God help the state of the media.

The Great Divide

Posted on by
14

I am certainly not alone in thinking that the past decade has seen a heightened sense of awareness around whether your fellow Americans are political conservatives or liberals. There are entire “news networks” (it pains me to even call them that, the label alone lends some credence to organizations that I wish had none) dedicated to only one political spin on the news. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, the list goes on and on of news networks that no longer will report the news at face value, but instead force upon their audiences stories discolored by the generic bias that particular network embodies.In the media you hear about “the liberals” and “the conservatives” as though they were analogous to the Civil War era “North” and “South”. One would be led to believe that these two groups of people are radical political activists who thirst for each other’s blood. The question I pose is: Is the political divide between conservatives and liberals actual or perceived?

The answer (from my personal observation and no other expert opinion at all): it depends on whether or not you strongly identify yourself with one of these two groups. If you strongly associate yourself with either being a liberal or a conservative, then this divide is more than likely very real to you; and you are, in fact, fighting a “politcal war” against the opposing ideology. Should you be an individual that does not necessarily associate yourself with either ideology with any real gusto or spirit, but may share opinions or views similarly to either group, then the divide may not be real to you.For those individuals who do strongly subscribe to one ideology or the other, then the divide is very real and very important.

It is important at all costs to do the following to those people who “belong” to the opposing camp:

  • Tell everyone you know that (insert “Conservatives” or “Liberals” here, depending on which group you DO NOT belong to) are evil and will precipitate the demise of this great nation
  • Use gross generalizations and misperceptions to describe the most basic characteristics of the opposing view while ensuring that they are cast in the least flattering light possible (this is a fine art form only seasoned fanatics can achieve with any cohesion)
  • Never allow yourself to slip and actually research and ponder the opposition’s stance on an issue lest you be led astray from your brainwashing
  • Espouse your unwavering support for all things, places and people that are (insert your affiliation of “Conservative” or “Liberal” here)
  • Never deviate the from the views personified by the label under which you categorize yourself no matter how illogical, impractical or unintelligent those views may be, or else how could you ever obtain any street credit from your peeps?

[ad#babeled-ad-medium-square]

The divide that exists in the schizo-paranoid minds of political radicals who allow their senses of logic, duty and patriotism to be over ridden by dogmatic views of a political ideology are a cancer to the principles of free will and thought upon which this country was founded. The moment you allow a personified political party to dictate your opinions and actions, you have done your country a great disservice. Perhaps a greater understanding of the opposing view point would, at the very least, promote a deeper knowledge and a more eloquent rebuttal to their positions rather than falling back on name-calling derived from the individual’s perceived political affiliation.

Yes, this was a rant-based blog based on the frustrations of being inundated with Conservative and Liberal bashing alike, by people who seem normal at first glance. One thing is for sure, if you hear (or are) a person who walks around talking about how either Conservatives or Liberals are the problem with this country, or something of the like, you should promptly place a mirror in this person’s face and kindly state, “Actually, what you see here is the problem.” Then smugly walk away, confident in the fact that the less evolved brethren you just had this little chat with will never quite grasp the underlying irony, but will probably ponder it for at least the amount of time they spend at a traffic light.

Global Warming: The Wrong Name for the Right Debate

Posted on by
12

In modern environmental discussions, nary 5 seconds goes by before someone brings up the issue of “Global Warming”. I’ll spare you the definition and the details, but I’ll look at a few common arguments on both sides:

“Global warming caused by humans”

  1. Carbon dioxide levels are higher than they’ve ever been, causing the earth to warm much in the same way Venus does.
  2. The CO2 output of humans is vast.
  3. The earth is getting measurably warmer.
  4. Ice caps are melting.
  5. No, seriously, the earth is heating up.

“Global Warming Not Caused By Humans (also Global Warming Doesn’t Exist)”

  1. The earth has a long history of heating and cooling on its own.
  2. The scientific consensus in the 1960s was that the earth was cooling.
  3. Solar activity varies.
  4. The data itself is invalid.
  5. We’re not the only producers of carbon dioxide.

Both of these sides might actually be right. From the uninformed standpoint, it might as well be a coin-toss. Unfortunately, it seems that many people settle the decision much in this very manner.

How did people come across their opinions? Where did they get the information for it?

All articles on global warming are required by law to have a picture of a polar bear. Image courtesy Flickr user mape_s published under CC license.

Media White Lies

Most people get all of their information on scientific research from the news media. The goal of the media is to explain issues for the lowest common denominator in society. If the average 14 year old can’t understand the news, it still needs to be simplified.

Like a parent explaining science to a toddler, the media can’t directly report the full text and results of environmental studies. So they do what the parent does: they tell little white lies and simplify the matter. For the most part, that’s fine. For most scientific results, people don’t need to know the methodology, the exact data, or the statistics that were used to come to a conclusion. The only thing that they need to be aware of is the result of the study. When I hear of a diplomatic summit, I don’t need to hear about the seating chart, the day-by-day discussions, or various faux pas. All I need to know about is what happened.

What complicates this matter is the fact that this is an issue where people are taking very strong, very opinionated sides. The worst part of it is that they aren’t even taking the sides based on the information: they are taking sides based on media reporting of the information. This is made worse when curious people find out extra information on their own (“You mean to tell me the earth heats and cools on its own?”).

I don’t know about you, but my only understanding of the global warming debate comes from media reports, An Inconvenient Truth, and a small sampling of scientific papers on the subject. I am not an environmental scientist, and environmental scientists aren’t interpreting the data for me. The only explanation I am getting is from the media, which is giving me a simplified version of global warming research.

So Where Do You Stand?

What position do I have on the “Global Warming Debate”? I don’t have a position! I clearly don’t have the right information to make an informed decision on the subject, and fortunately, that’s enough to stop me from forming an opinion.

Your opinions should be formed as a conclusion from sound premises. The average citizen is not informed enough to make a sound decision on global warming, so they should not. As wonderful as it’d be for you to be able to hold your own in a discussion against climate scientists, I’d bet that it isn’t very likely.

So what issue should we be debating?

Humans have a long and provable negative effect on our local environment. Countless animal species have gone extinct. We create gigantic landfills of non-decomposable waste. We’ve spilled oil over vast swaths of land. Our cars create smog. We cause acid rain. Factory emissions travel and land on citizens downwind. We caught a damned river on fire. Rivers are made of water and are therefore supposedly inflammable, but human ingenuity knows no bounds!

So What Should I Think?

[ad#babeled-ad-medium-square]

It doesn’t particularly matter what your side is, so long as you’re basing it on what you know to be fact. If you think that it’s OK for other humans to suck on your exhaust pipe because you’re not morally responsible for the well-being of others, great. If you think that factories should minimize their exhaust output so that it doesn’t go into your lungs, awesome. If you think that humans should conserve as much as possible so that the species could potentially last indefinitely, scream it from the mountaintops.

The environment is more complicated than what happens on the global level. The average American is probably better informed on the effects of humans on local and regional levels, so that is the level at which they should try to form opinions.

If you feel the need to frame the debate in a simple name, call it “The pollution debate”. It even has less syllables, and gets straight to one of the roots of the issue.

For Fun

The next time you see somebody say they don’t believe global warming is human-caused, say “Which isn’t to say we should try to pollute or destroy our environment”. Sometimes you find that the person is strongly on the pro-pollution side, but every now and then you catch someone in a priceless moral quandary.