How certain words in the title of articles can be used to create false assumptions about the target group, creating a straw man which the writer then attacks

The latest example of distortion comes from Relevant Magazine. The following article exposes the false dilemma set up by the magazine's post:

-----------------

"A recent post that I read, written by John Pavlovitz called, “5 Things I Wish Christians Would Admit About the Bible” is a great example of my frustration with this magazine.

“Admit”

To “admit” something is to confess something reluctantly, something that you previously did not wish to acknowledge. Therefore, the title of the blog implies that Christians are generally reluctant to acknowledge the truth of five specific propositions about the Bible.

The purpose of using the word “admit” is to create the false assumption that all Christians are thuper scared of being “authentic,” “real,” and “messy,” that all Christians promote a false image of themselves as “having everything figured out” and “having it all together,” so to speak. In opposition to this faux dilemma, here comes Pavlovitz to save the day! He will tell us everything wrong with our actions! He will expose our shallowness! He will save us from the crippling fear that all of us experience! He will courageously say what no one else has the guts to say! And…Well, what does he say? Not only does he start with this baseless assumption that Christians will not “admit” certain things about the Bible, his five examples are hilariously vacuous."

Read more... What we will not "admit" about the Bible

Creating Monsters of Your Opponents to Avoid Debating With Them

One way to avoid a debate or discussion of the merits of an issue is to paint one's opponent as evil and therefore dismissible. Leftist media and politicians do this with conservatives on a number of issues so that there cannot even be a debate. The article below illustrates some of these issues.

---

LIBERALS VS. IMAGINARY MONSTERS

By: David Harsanyi
7/3/2013 08:56 PM

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently informed us that a national movement is afoot “to punish the unemployed.” Remarkably, he went on to write, conservatives think the world is far too easy on those who can’t find work, so they’re on a mission to make it worse. The right, you see, is not just perpetuating flawed ideas or misguided policies or dumb economics but driven by an inexplicable desire to inflict pain on the innocent.

Now, as it happens, I am acquainted with a few conservatives. And though it’s hardly a scientific sampling, I’ve yet to hear any of them express a desire to punish the unemployed — or minorities or women, for that matter. They may not want to offer the unemployed exactly what Krugman might. They may believe, as Krugman once did, that promising infinite relief isn’t feasible or constructive. But by assigning a fiendish objective to a conservative policy, Krugman, as he often does, takes a deceitful shortcut to play on your emotions.

Demonizing your political opponents is nothing new, and it’s certainly not unique to modern liberals, but sometimes it seems as if there isn’t any contemporary debate that doesn’t feature some fabricated moral clash between good and evil.

You may, for instance, be under the impression that anyone who believes immigration laws should be enforced — laws that allow thousands of guest workers and a million new immigrants into the country every year — is only a fear-stricken nativist. Some refuse to accept that anyone could be driven by a genuine anxiety over assimilation or a worry about wage depression or a belief that there are destructive consequences to offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. For some, there can be no other explanation than xenophobia.

Or take abortion. Texas legislator Wendy Davis, as most of you have no doubt heard, waged a heroic battle against some crusty old white men who have it in for all women — because, evidently, crusty old white men in Texas are incapable of being genuinely troubled by the dismemberment of nearly viable and viable fetuses. Creating cartoon misogynists is an effective way to circumvent any prickly discussions about the moral implications of a late-term abortion. It also allows the enlightened to sneer at all those hick reactionaries without ever having to confront their arguments.

And when Catholics and others who still believe traditional marriage is a public good worth defending can’t be browbeaten by Twitter hashtag campaigns into abandoning a few thousand years of tradition, it can only be chalked up to homophobia.

read more: Human Events

Wisdom:

‎-- Obama-Pelosi-Reid's mermaid siren song ---
"Without they wear the lambskin, within they are wolves;
Their actions are not in accord with their utterance;
these two-nature creatures will swear by the cross,
by the sun and the moon, to steer you astray;
with the sweetest of speeches they swindle their fellows;
they will steal both your substance and soul with their falsehood.
(Attributed to Cynewulf c. 900 A.D. translated by Richard Wilbur.)


C.S. Lewis warned us about people like Hersman, saying: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Pulitzer Prize Winning Journalist's Bias Exposed

Pro-Obama, pro-Democrat Bias Exposed

The more Obama copies FDR, the more likely he will cause a Great Depression

Big government intervention by Hoover and FDR was the main cause of the Great Depression. Now Obama is embracing the same big government intervention.

Obama and media continue to push a cap-n-trade when all climate evidence against CO2-caused climate problem

"Cap and Trade" is really "Restrict and Tax"
"Tax and Spend" is really "Tax and Steal" -- or to put it another way -- "Extort and Bribe".

Yahoo News pushing biased stories in support of Obama

Yahoo News is running stories in support of Obama's agenda as well as stories that downplay any opposition and portray it as a fringe minority. Headlining September 14 and 15 newslinks were articles like "GOP 'cranks' dominating debate." Such articles which try to connect the "GOP" with words like "wince", "gasp", "worried", "crackpots" etc. One must not treat Yahoo as a neutral source. Of all the news reports out there, the ones that are given a visible prominence in the www.yahoo.com website invariably include many pro-Obama spinned ones and anti-Republican ones. Another article highlighted in the 14th spoke of healthcare-debate devolving to "rehashing" supposedly already discussed and dismissed as useless ideas like tort reform or other items that the Republicans are supporting.

In contrast to the spin Yahoo News' choice of article headlines presents, look at recent polls. Many key provisions of the Obama health care plan are opposed by over 70 percent of Americans polled. The supposedly old worn-out idea items (according to Yahoo linked articles) are actually strongly supported by the American public if the polls are accurate.

the cost of environmentalism

2008 Experiencing Cooler Temperatures -- Despite Continued CO2 increases ---

Here is some hard data -- about cooler temperatures.

Notice how the accu weather meteorologist has to be extremely careful in how he frames things lest his report and its implications cause him to get into trouble because the data point away from the politically correct accepted ideas about alleged man-made climate change.

Notice also how in a separate article in the New York Times, since the data does not confirm "global warming" people hold on to their agenda but try to change the language used to describe it. It is spin.

More from the Vancouver Sun

Cap and Trade...

On the House Cap and Trade bill that passed in the dead of night.

Yahoo's news link title with subtle unfounded accusations of racism

Yahoo today (June 1, 2009) has a link to an article about Obama Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor. The title of the Associated Press Article is "GOP senators sidestep harsh criticism of Sotomayor". But the link title from the front page of Yahoo, the link title everyone will see who visits Yahoo, is "GOP senators tone down racially charged criticism of Sotomayor." Notice that the link title implies that the GOP senators are being racially prejudiced towards Sotomayor who is Hispanic. Yahoo has deliberately created the association -- GOP senators = bad racists; Sotomayor = victim of racism. But the reality is just the opposite. Criticism of Sotomayor emerged because of her seemingly racist comments. If yahoo had left the AP title in their link, or simply rewritten their own title to be "GOP senators tone down criticism of Sotomayor's perceived racial prejudice," it would have been more accurate. But the editors at Yahoo News show their bias and score a major propaganda victory against the GOP in the minds of unwary readers.

International Distortions in News Reports about Taiwan

Here is an excellent analysis by Michael Turton, a blogger in Taiwan, on how the international Western media distorted their reports on the large May 17th protest in Taiwan.

Obama -- not "science first" as he claimed

Obama's campaign promise was "science first" in a thinly veiled dig at his predecessor's consideration of religious communities. But now that he is in power, we begin to see evidence that his policies are politics over science. Progressives routinely characterize themselves as environmentalists as compared with conservatives supposed pro-oil, pro-war, anti-environment positions. But it seems clear that the Democrats in power are now pro-political power at the expense of anything else -- whether the environment or the economy.

Note what the Obama administration has done against plans for sustainable fish populations in the North Atlantic.

A so-called "Equitable" and "Balanced" Obama tax code

[Obama's] Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner argued that the Obama proposal would reduce taxes for most Americans. Any increases, he said, wouldn't occur until 2011, when the economy is "safely into recovery."

Geithner said Obama's plan would cut income taxes for 95 percent of families and 97 percent of small businesses. Raising taxes on couples that make more than $250,000 would make the tax system more equitable, restoring the balance that existed before a series of tax cuts were enacted under former President George W. Bush, he said. -- AP 2009-3-4

"Restoring the balance" is completely deceitful rhetoric. He actually means restoring an unfair inequitable system. Even if there were a flat tax of 10 percent, that would mean rich people pay more taxes since 10 percent of $250,000 is $25,000 whereas 10 percent of $30,000 is $3000. Who is paying more taxes with a flat 10 percent tax rate? One pays $25,000; another pays $3000.

The Bush tax cuts do not even go to a flat tax. Our tax system is unfair in that the more income you earn, the greater percentage of that income in taxes you have to pay. For instance if you were a person who made $100,000 per year, and then were offered a job with higher stress, but higher compensation of $250,000 per year, you might not take it. If taxes are raised on the rich, and they have to pay 40 or 50 percent of their income, then that person making $250,000 per year will only be allowed to keep $125,000 or $150,000 of his $250,000 earnings and the government would be confiscating the rest. That kind of thing is considered "fair," "balanced," and "equitable" in the Obama administration.

In a communist system, no matter how hard you work, or what intellectual property you have put into things, your money will be taken away and given to someone else so everyone makes the same amount. Perhaps this is more of what Geithner really means by "equitable."

The reason communist systems fail is that they are truly not fair. People will not work hard anymore -- what is the point? There is no reward for innovation or hard work.

When taxes are raised unfairly on the rich (the ones with capital), they invariable have a disincentive to work. Why invest in starting a new company that would provide a lot of jobs when any extra money you make will be confiscated by the government? The rich then simply begin sitting back and collecting art, etc. No new companies are started. No new jobs are created. The skills and abilities that helped make that high-income earner able to earn money stagnate and that person does not any longer contribute to the GDP of the nation.

What is more, as the economy is harmed by a tax penalty on success and hard work, actual government revenue falls. There are fewer people working at their maximum potential; there is less money earned; there is less productivity; there is less capital being invested in new technology and fewer pushes into new and uncharted industries which carry a higher risk and potential of failure; there are fewer jobs.

Levels of genetic defects: support Intelligent Design or Evolutionary Theories?

A leading American scholar of biology, Prof Francisco Ayala, plans to tell the conference that the so-called theory of intelligent design, proposed by Creationists, is flawed.
"The design of organisms is not what would be expected from an intelligent engineer, but imperfect and worse," he said.
"Defects, dysfunctions, oddities, waste and cruelty pervade the living world". -- BBC 3/3/2009

Here is another example of begging the question. If you asked Intelligent Design theorists, they would have a perfectly reasonable answer as to how their theory fits the current level of "defects, dysfunctions [sic], oddities, waste and cruelty". An original design that has degraded over time is compatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or put another way about 1800 years before the Second Law of Thermodynamics was formulated by Rudolf Clausius in 1850: in Romans 8:20-21 Paul writes "the creation was subject to bondage to decay"; or as was written down by Moses over 3000 years before Clausius, "dying you shall die... cursed is the ground because of you."

So to the contrary of what Francisco Ayala asserts, Intelligent Design theory accounts for that evidence that Darwinian and modern evolutionary theory cannot account for: information rich systems. Add to that the Biblical account of both Creation and the Fall where the universe is under a curse because of sin, the ensuing genetic defects and entropy, and the defects are perfectly accounted for.

For evolutionary theory, random mutation plus natural selection must be able to account for a gain of useful genetic information, but it statistically cannot. Mutations are almost always detrimental; these do not create new genetic information, but instead degraded information, that is, information loss. The robustness of the original design means that the creature can still function even with the degraded level of their genetic information.

The evidence in the world shows original designs that have degenerated, not a gradual development of new species. For example, even on a micro-evolutionary scale, different types of dogs are due to a loss of genetic information among distinct population groups rather than a gain by those isolated groups. The same can be said for Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands.

Yet again -- bald assertion on "climate change" proves unsubstantiated

Yahoo Headline: "Climate Change Even worse than predicted" in the article: regarding increased CO₂. Not one bit of evidence present specifically related to actual climate change -- just an increase in CO₂. This is a logic fallacy called begging the question. The underlying assumption is that CO₂ causes climate change. But then to point to an increase in CO₂ and say climate change is worse begs the question -- what about actual evidence of climate change. Also, it is circular reasoning -- to say CO₂ causes climate change, and then say Climate change is getting worse based solely on the evidence that CO₂ emission has increased has not really proved any point. Does CO₂ actually have any measurable impact on climate? What about the sun in comparison? Actually it should make them doubt CO₂ as a cause of climate change because the increased CO₂ is not having any noticeable effect. There is evidence for either cooling or a stabilizing of temperature. But people will read the headline, and simply believe with not one piece of solid climate evidence presented in the article.

In contrast, note the prevalence of information about actual climate in the following article in Newsmax.

Stimulus/Recovery/Bailout, Global Warming/Climate Change

Developing Story --- the "Stimulus" Bill was at one time a "Recovery" Bill that was at one time a "Bailout" Bill. Get the picture. At any other time in the nation, the same bill would have been called simply a "Spending" bill that would increase the deficit and increase government intrusion into people's lives. But because the current situation is framed as a national or even global emergency, people are asked to look the other way -- just trust us. A similar argument on a smaller scale has come from the claimed global emergence of what used to be called "global warming" but now is called "Climate change."

Here is an article that reviews the historical reality of the failures in the use of government "stimulus" in faltering economies. Either willful ignorance or a thinly veiled power-grab motivation could bring an administration to push this kind of bill.

Here is an example of the power grab and government encroachment from the excuse of the latter - climate issue.


People need to realize that freedom is not a means to an end. When it is treated as such, it will be lost.

Here is a comment from writer Camille Paglia, in Salon.Com, a liberal online magazine. Rather than being swept up in the spin of the moment, she seems to be standing on her principles -- whether you agree with her or not, it is good to have clearly defined principles for the world to see and debate with instead of just having the "will to power."

"Surely common sense would dictate that when Congress is doling out fat dollops of taxpayers' money, due time should be delegated for sober consideration and debate. The administration's coercive rush toward instant action, accompanied by apocalyptic pronouncements of imminent catastrophe, has put its own credibility on the line."

More from the same writer --

"Speaking of talk radio (which I listen to constantly), I remain incredulous that any Democrat who professes liberal values would give a moment's thought to supporting a return of the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle conservative shows. (My latest manifesto on this subject appeared in my last column.) The failure of liberals to master the vibrant medium of talk radio remains puzzling. To reach the radio audience (whether the topic is sports, politics or car repair), a host must have populist instincts and use the robust common voice. Too many Democrats have become arrogant elitists, speaking down in snide, condescending tones toward tradition-minded middle Americans whom they stereotype as rubes and buffoons. But the bottom line is that government surveillance of the ideological content of talk radio is a shocking first step toward totalitarianism."

More on the "Fairness" Doctrine...
============

Also with regard to the "Fairness Doctrine" issue, Democrats in elected office need to realize that even in floating trial balloons and talking about these kinds of policies will have an impact around the world. Right now in Taiwan, perhaps emboldened or in imitation of the talk in the United States, the KMT government of Ma Ying-jeou and the Legislature that the party controls has begun moving swiftly to silence political dissent by using similar language to excuse suppression of any opposition voices on television talk shows. Last week, they used the same words -- that these shows are not "balanced" or "fair" and so should be fined or eliminated from television. The only shows they singled out were the ones critical of the current government policy.

Of Pickpockets and Con Artists

In a recent press conference, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stood in a dignified-looking pose next to ranks of America flags in front of a portrait of one of America's founders and beside a Hollywood-size check that supposedly means that every America will receive "free of charge" over US$1800 of money. Excellent theater.

The reality? It is like a pick pocket's accomplice distracting you in the front while someone takes your wallet out of your back pocket.

Americans do on the whole seem to be so mesmerized by the historicity of Obama's presidency that they are not looking to their own wallets.



This piece of satire by Fred Thompson illustrates the absurdity of what the "stimulus" package that Obama and the Democrats are pushing represents.

Two Ways to Spin Physical Fitness

Here is an article exposing the hypocrisy of the mainstream media's negative treatment of President George W. Bush's focus on physical fitness compared to the way they are responding to President-elect Barack Obama's equally strident diligence in his own exercise regimen.

Bald Assertion Reported as Scientific Finding

At first it was called human-induced fossil-fuel burning CO2 produced "global warming." Al Gore got a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar. Draconian laws to limit industry and fossil fuel usage as well as a punitive tax on the raising of cattle began to become the forced policy directives of many countries. [Update: Since this article was posted, we have learned that some in the U.S. government are trying to do the same thing!]

But then the facts began to fall apart. Glaciers began to grow faster in one year than anyone thought possible. The world began to cool or at least hold steady both in global averages and also to the personal experience of millions of people in different areas. But CO2 emissions still saw an increase. Surely CO2 was not causing the global cooling! Then the Goddard Institute of Space Studies left in its climate models bogus data from Siberia (summer numbers transmuted to fall figures) that vastly increased the purported global temperature averages. Anyone with common sense could tell you that Siberia would be much hotter in the summer than in October. And over the year the phrase changed from "global warming" to human-induced "climate change."

But even that turn-of-phrase could not help the defense of climate-alarmists' perspective. Not only the present, but also historical evidence began to mount that pre-industrial age temperature -- the era before any fossil fuel industry -- had fluctuated significantly from temperatures as warm or warmer than the 1990's, to very cold "little ice age" type climates. And so how could it be cause by human-induced fossil fuel emissions? Evidence of a balmy Greenland around 1000 A.D. suddenly gave a concrete reason for the Vikings' choice of name. No matter; advocates are so sure it must be human-induced. There is an often unspoken (and also unshakeable) belief that our great civilizations have always overused resources and raped environments -- not merely on a local level but on a global scale.

And so now we begin to observe in the media the push to produce evidence that historical climate fluctuations were also human-induced. Witness the Discovery article "Falls of Empires Hastened Little Ice Age." People who see the title of the article without reading closely will be bolstered in their beliefs about global warming. At the very least Discover News should have put the word "claimed" in there because the article is merely assertion occasioned by the weakest situation of a possible correlation.

But note the end of the article: "Nevle and Bird admit that volcanic activity and a decrease in the sun's intensity probably both played roles in triggering the Little Ice Age. Still, Bird said, human activity was undeniably important."

"Human activity was undeniable important." Bird's statement is simply bald assertion with no evidence. Indeed in the same breathe he is forced to admit that volcanic activity and solar cycles probably played roles. These two natural causes have proven causal connections to climate change. But to claim that empires falling must have caused an increase in the rain forest and that must have been so huge that global temperatures fell ignores perhaps hundreds of confounding variables. Could it be that falling temperatures actually influenced the failing of empires? Perhaps the anarchy that result meant more forest fires? Do we really know whether there was a net increase in rainforest coverage? What of the evidence that many rain-forest civilizations did not depend on clear-cutting but rather used forest management strategies? [see 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus by Charles C. Mann.] Could whatever increase in rain forest in one area have been offset by the destruction of trees in another area of the world? The list of other explanations and variables could go on.

These authors pretend objective science when they -- as if with religious fervor -- actually merely assert something founded on nothing but assertion and a few vague possible correlations. Speculation is not science and should not be reported as such. When policies are made on the basis of speculative pronouncement, governments could unjustly destroy people's ways of life, take away their freedom, and cause economic depression.

With regard to The Little Ice Age, there is already evidence for a pattern of cooling caused by natural forces: Along with the bubonic plague mentioned in the article, instead of a reduction in population which somehow caused cooling, the evidence for one major outbreak in the 6th Century is that a major volcanic eruption in 535 A.D. then led to a climate change that then led to movement in wild rodent host populations that led to cross species infection that ultimately led to the human associated rodents carrying plague across the trade routes. For more information, see: Catastrophe: An Investigation into the Origins of Modern Civilization Indeed the decline of the Teotihuacan Mayan civilation correlates to the same time.

So you have strong evidence that in the 6th Century global cooling (or climate change) induced plague in Asia and Europe as well as major droughts and collapse of civilizations in Central America was very probably caused by non-human volcanic activity of an enormous eruption from a region in Indonesia.

Then despite this evidence in the 6th century that should at least have some weight in understanding the 16th century, the writers brazenly assert that somehow in the situation in the 1500's had to be caused by the reduction of human activity instead of natural non-human causes.

-- Joel Linton
[more...]

================
Links --
Catalogue of things for which some prominent media have blamed global warming

Thoughts by John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel

Manhattan Declaration of the International Climate Science Coalition