To The Daily Sun,
Apparently Bernedette Loesch is not aware or what the rest of the world knows, that our mass media is run by left-leaning editors, programmers, writers, and broadcasters. I should do my homework, she says. Seems because these things are corporations, she thinks they can have no political agendas. So okay Bernadette how's this for homework?
1. Dan Sutter of the University of Oklahoma says, "A systemic liberal bias in the U.S. media could depend on the fact that owners and or journalists typically lean to the left."
2. Of the 20 top newspapers in the country, based on readership distribution, 15 are noted liberal-leaning, three are conservative-leaning and two are considered neutral.
3. On TV, we see ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS and BBC all leaning left, while only Fox is leaning right.
4. James A. Kuypers did a study of 116 mainstream papers and found the mainstream print press operates in a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who express points of view further to the left are generally ignored whereas those who express moderate or conservative points of view were often actively demeaned or labeled as holding minority points of view. In short, if a potential leader regardless of party were to speak within this narrow accepted range of discourse he or she would receive positive press coverage. If however a person of either party spoke outside the accepted range of discourses he or she would receive negative press coverage.
5. Even David Baron of Stanford University provided a theoretic model showing the mass media behavior in which a pool of journalists systemically lean left or right to maximize profits by providing content based on their consumer orientation.
If you care to check the Internet, Bernedette, you too can find hundreds of studies on the subject. Dig hard and you can even find a few that will support your version of reality.
Last Updated on Thursday, 24 April 2014 09:30
To The Daily Sun,
Are many of the halls of academia filled with cowards and appeasers? Brandeis University appears to be exhibit one. Perhaps Brandeis University is too stuck on the Sandra Fluke, "War on Women," "give me free contraceptives" saga to understand how unconscionable their act of cowardice and appeasement is to most Americans.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somalian woman, born into a Muslim family, now teaches at Harvard. She is a courageous woman and perhaps the most fearless and outspoken advocate for women in the Islamic world. While growing up as a Muslim girl in Somalia, she suffered genital mutilation, horrible "honor" crimes and had to flee from a forced marriage. One of Brandeis's founding principles mentions their belief in the "spirit of free expression." That principle is now on life support as a result of their rescinding of the invitation of Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree at their graduation ceremony. CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) marched in, frothing at the mouth while screaming "Islamophobia" until the President of Brandeis, cowering in politically correct fear, meekly acquiesced.
Ali was also involved the the documentary, "Honor Diaries." A moving tribute to nine brave Muslim women who have come forward to tell their stories of savage brutality brought upon them and other females, including girls as young as nine forced to marry men — a coercion called rape in civilized societies. The documentary also praises moderate Muslims. Nevertheless, CAIR again reared its ugly head and screamed "Islamophobia." The universities of Michigan and Illinois, trembling in apparent fear, have canceled their showing of this award-winning documentary.
Though Ali is also an advocate for gay rights and is pro-choice, the feminists have viciously attacked her and tried to de-legitimize her, reports Kirsten Powers, a liberal columnist for USA Today and the Daily Beast. She goes on to say that Anne Rice can quit Christianity and call the Catholic Church hostile and immoral, which is her right in a country so enamored with freedom of speech. Yet a former Muslim is somehow not accorded that same right. How does this juxtaposition grab you?
The leaders of Islam are all men and so according to the Koran, women must acquiesce to their every desires and have no rights. Thus Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who suffered intense abuse at the hands of male Muslims, is not allowed to criticize the Muslim faith, even in this country. So who does liberal academia and the feminists go after? Why Ali of course, while seemingly agreeing and enforcing the misogyny of the male Muslim leaders. Is that not progressive paradox-ism at it's most disgraceful? It is certainly incongruous, hateful, feckless and absurd in the extreme.
I will conclude this shameful moment in the history of an increasingly intolerant and less enlightened college scene with a quote from Jeffrey Herf, history professor at the University of Maryland, who received his Ph.D. from Brandeis in 1981. "That the president of a university that was founded by Jews in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, should have rescinded an honor to a woman who has had the courage to attack the most important source of Jew hatred in the world today is a disgraceful act and a failure of leadership. Instead of appeasing intolerance in your faculty, you should have taken this moment to reaffirm the values for which Brandeis has stood for so long and reconfirm the place of universities as models of tolerance and enlightenment in our troubled society".
It would be nice if this was just an aberration within our hallowed halls of academia. What will it take to get our universities to return to their position as beacons of free speech and honest debate? That would be the core aspects of college life that have been their hallmarks for so long. It would be so great if Professors Maloof and Cracraft could agree with me on this one critical point, by expressing their shock and dismay at this apparent loss of moral and intellectual integrity at Brandeis and other universities.
Last Updated on Thursday, 24 April 2014 09:25
To The Daily Sun,
Remember Benghazi? I am asking because I have not heard anything new lately in the news, yet a report just came out saying it could have been prevented.
Prevented how? The Citizens Commission on Benghazi is a group of people who think Benghazi should have been investigated. They are concerned citizens, in which some have held high positions in the CIA and military.
Their report stated that the U.S., which had a blockade around Libya, allowed a shipment of arms into Libya. The arms were supposed to be delivered to Gaddafi but instead went to the rebels. The U.S. was supporting the rebels.
In the report, it stated that Gaddafi volunteered to step down, but the U.S. declined. Gaddafi was a brutal dictator, but he did all that he could to suppress Islamic extremists, which also happens to be in the interest of the U.S.
One member of the group thought that Benghazi was supposed to be a kidnapping. Instead, our ambassador and three other citizens were murdered. Murdered by these weapons?
Where are these weapons now? With Syrian rebels, which are predominately extremists?
Who cares about Benghazi? I do. For a time, other countries feared us, and our citizens were safe overseas, or the wrath of the U.S. government would be on them. Now we want to be friends ... and our citizens are not safe.
Who cares about Benghazi? I do. Do you?
Last Updated on Thursday, 24 April 2014 08:47
To The Daily Sun,
Why are the Town of Tilton taxpayers paying for officer Matt Dawson's services, while he is not working? He has cost the Tilton Police X amount of dollars on house searches that have been totally meaningless. Also, pleading the 5th Amendment on a case that involves himself makes him not fully cooperating with the investigation, yet he is getting a free ride on our tax paying expense, while others struggle to get by!
John W. Sanborn
Last Updated on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 10:24
To The Daily Sun,
In response to E. Scott Cracraft's letter of April 8, "Biblical stories belong in Humanities class," Scott finds it hard to believe there are people who still oppose the teaching of biological evolution in our public schools. On the contrary, I find it appalling that every Christian is not up at arms about it.
The rule observed in science, that you cannot consider God's supernatural activity when studying science is neutral and works fine when you are examining nature in the present. It has the effect of focusing the scientist on nature and learning of nature so he does not get sidetracked to giving supernatural explanations of a thing, when he has the thing in front of him and it's his job to find out how it works. This is the reason it was instituted.
It takes on a whole new meaning and has a much different effect when it is applied to a theory that projects back into time and tries to tell us how things got to be as they are. In this case it is not neutral toward God. It is in outright opposition to Him. For if God is anything He is the creator. If God is our creator, then He did supernaturally create all things. Then it is appalling to use a methodology that excludes the consideration of the creator in a discipline that seeks to tell us how we got here.
To call macro evolution science is to say we are dealing with an actuality here, this is real and that biblical stories are myths, we all know that myths are merely fanciful stories that contain perhaps a grain of truth. To agree with Scott on this point, that evolution should be taught in science class and creation in humanities is to say, ya, evolution is fact and well God is mythological. Or that evolution is true and God, ya, well we don't know.
Now if this were just a matter of saying, "You know, we believe in God we just don't know that the Hebrew account is true," then why is there a refusal in the scientific community to acknowledge intelligent design? I'm a Christian and a Creationist, but it is my understanding that proponents of intelligent design are from many different faiths and most do not hold to the biblical creation account. But they see in the complexity of nature and of life the need for an intelligent designer. If this is not a rebellion against God, then why are proponents of intelligent design not received by the scientific community and the method of not considering God, even when trying to explain our origins, held to rigidly, stubbornly, and beyond reason?
Scott says creationists deny plate tectonics. I can't speak for other creationist's, but I am a firm believer in plate tectonics. I don't believe in the millions of years that scientists subscribe to, for the continents to have separated; yet plate tectonics is an observable scientific phenomenon that does happen and I believe it is a necessary fact in explaining how the Earth was repopulated after the flood. Also ring species could provide a solution to evolutionist objection to how Noah fitted all known species of animals on the ark. The answer is there weren't that many species back then.
Six thousand years or millions of years who was there except for God, to know?
If I choose to believe an account transcribed by men who had a peculiar inclination to meticulously transcribe an account given to them letter for letter stroke for stroke rather than scientists who will not admit that in this endeavor they have moved out of the area in which their method can be applied and are clearly in rebellion to and are running away from God; how is that not reasonable? Any time I've challenged a so-called evolutionist with the unobservableness of macro evolution, the conversation ends like this: It takes millions of years and you can't see it. They don't know. They're just believing what they were taught. It's not about if your view is reasonable or not. It's about peer pressure. They will laugh and snicker at you if you don't believe what they do.
Scott says, "It seems that a fundamentalist religious minority is trying to force its beliefs on our students and on the American public as 'science.'" Please, who is in authority in education in America today? And who is forcing whose children to be taught as truth a doctrine they do not believe and calling it science?
Scott commented on many other things, most of which are baloney, and because this letter has already gotten quite long I will not comment on them, but will end with this. Jesus said in Matthew Chapter 24:9, of His followers, "Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of my name."
This is coming to a neighborhood near you. Yet those who hold fast their faith to the end will be vindicated when Jesus wins in the end, in a comeback that would make sports fans green with envy. Yes, Jesus is the answer.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 10:21