Have you heard about the latest controversial article by CNN? No, I am not suggesting all of their articles are controversial but this one really got my blood boiling. CNN has reported a study that says if you are liberal, atheist, or a sexual exclusive man, you smarter than the rest of society. This is absurd! While I am somewhere between an agnostic and Richard Dawkin’s definition of a Deist, I consider myself to be quite conservative. While I do not consider myself to be smart, I do think I am smarter than the average bear – I mean human. I devote WAY too much time to my studies and have to consistently turn down my friends’ offers for lunch, dinner, drinks, etc. I even turned down tickets to a Lakers/Celtics game! I would not put this time in if I did not think it was going to get me somewhere in life, and make me more intelligent. But does it not matter how much I learn, or how hard I study, I can never be smarter than a liberal, right? Although I may not be a religious individual, that does not mean that I am smarter than those who are Christian, Muslim, Bhuddist, etc. etc. In fact, one of the smartest individuals I know is a devout Christian.
These claims, however scientifically proven, seems fishy to me. How were people tested? What are these correlations based on? Would this have been published on CNN if the results were different? Most research is conducted at universities which tend to be liberal, does that have any effect on this study?
Personally I think it is hogwash. I have met some pretty hard-nosed, close minded, liberals in my day. They think they are smart but they really are not. I too, have met many stupid conservatives. The same thing can be said for both sides of the religious spectrum with regards to this article as well. I really believe that this study is just generalizing. There are smart and stupid people in every categorical division anyone can make. Smarts really comes down to the individual, not the majority. There are things that can be generalized but intelligence is, in itself, a very personal thing. For anyone to generalize to this extent probably has an axe to grind, and that is exactly what I expect.
I hope none of my readers will actually read into this study and come away thinking they have undeniable truth. I also wonder how many days until I am in a debate with a liberal, or an atheist, and they will try to throw this “study” in my face as proof that their argument is correct.
I don’t have much to say on this issue, but I felt it was still necessary to comment on. The article that has unveiled this information is by Martin Crutsinger, an AP economics writer, that has been sponsored on yahoo.com. According to Crutsinger, this will expand the national budget deficet to a “record 1.56 trillion dollars.”
This is insane! Why does the U.S. Government insist on spending so much money? I understand we are still fighting two wars and some spending will take place for our soldiers’ equipment, and that is fine with me. Again the article cites that the deficit could grow by about 8 trillion more dollars over the next decade. It is my belief that we should not go further into debt to fix our countries monetary problems. Then again, I am a history major, not a econ major, but doesn’t common sense say we should save money by spending less to get out of this deficit?
As a man, it is hard to admit that I sat through an entire hour of Oprah’s television show. Worse yet, I had to DVR it! The sole reason for me to watch yesterday’s particular airing was because the former Governor of Alaska, and GOP running mate to John McCain was on. She was interviewed on everything from Katie Couric, to her family, and her time running as the vice president under the McCain ticket to the 2008 election. To say the least, the interview was intriguing.
For starters, Sarah Palin was her usual self. Palin was mainly on the defensive of every issue. Some of Oprah’s questions could have been more clearly answered too. The only section where I felt Palin did a great job on defending herself was in regards to the campaign, which she blamed mainly on the McCain staff and bias “fringe” media. I think she failed in her explanation of why she stepped down as Governor of Alaska, and why she could not answer simple questions which Couric posed to her. Palin was also quick to attack others, sometimes rightfully so. Overall, she seemed like her old self though, but to a different degree. She came off as enthusiastic, confusing, and long winded. One could easily forget the question which Oprah posed because of the way Palin answered some questions. For example, Oprah asked Palin about Couric’s questioning of the items that Palin reads, where Palin embarrassingly seemed to stumble for a proper explanation and never did say what newspapers or magazines she reads. I do not doubt her word that she probably does read a lot. Palin could have answered some of the questions better. That seems to always be her case with interviews. She did make it feel that she was speaking the truth in some regards, and although she was long winded, she did answer most of the questions. I will give her the doubt for Oprah’s questioning about the possible 2012 presidential campaign.
Oprah is not without due criticism either. Her body language gave away a lot during the hour long interview. She never seemed comfortable in the interview, until the end. She almost consistently had this odd look on her face, that was close to disgust. If Oprah did not want to do the interview, she should not have had Palin on her show. Oprah did ask good questions though, and she had to push the issue a couple times. I don’t know if Oprah did that out of spite, because Palin had mentioned that is what annoyed her about Couric’s line of questioning, or if Oprah really wanted the answer. I think both parties on the show could have done a better job. Simply, I was expecting more.
Sarah Palin, like many other political, historical, and modern figures are quite interesting characters. I truly believe that Sarah Palin loves the United States, cares about where the country is going, and she wants to be an active member in making it a better place. Her problem is that, despite her impressive and assertive persona, she can seem elusive. This leads many to feel like there is something missing to Palin’s answers, and that when she tries to answer a question it often sounds like she is trying to side step it to a degree. Although I was hoping for a heightened context from Palin, and Oprah, I will be getting more of Palin in the days to come, as Palin is releasing her book today Going Rogue: An American Life.
I will be getting Palin’s book, and I will read it. My semester ends in mid-December so I may not have time until then, but I will read and comment on this blog. At this current time for the GOP, it could be a influential book as members of the party try to compete for the leading role among the party; that mostly means there are a lot of bad contenders trying to become the face of the Republican Party but that is another post for another day.
I am not sure if you have heard of this guy, most people probably do not watch Fox News so I am on the assumption you don’t. He is a realitvley new analyst with fox news, however, he has become one of their most controversial hosts. I do not want to talk about Fox News in general, it is my belief that they get too much criticism from other media outlets who don’t receive just criticism themselves. I do think the Fox News channel leans quite a bit to the right. Glenn Beck on the other hand takes things to an entire different level.
Many have said that Glenn Beck is one of the new voices of American Conservatism. I for one, hope that is not the case. I have found him to be a bit crazy. I chose that term, crazy, on purpose. Why? Recently, a man who I often disagree with, James Carville, called him just that. Now, I am not saying that Beck doesn’t mean well, or even once in a while makes a good point, but he seems to represent the radical side of Fox News. I do not have a source, but I have seen Beck sitting down on a Fox News program where it also included other common Fox personalities. Just who those other anchors were, I can not remember. However, I do remember seeing two to three other individuals. Beck had said something so outlandish that the other three common Fox News personalities paused and looked at Beck in disbelief. I can remember one saying something to the effect of “I don’t think that is true.”
I honestly think, that deep down inside of Glenn Beck that he doesn’t believe what comes out of his own mouth. However, he does things for ratings. He seems to be emerging as one of the greater Fox News personalities and thus he must remain controversial. Whether that calls for pretending to throw a live frog into boiling water, screaming at radio callers, or fake crying mulitple times, there is a large portion of the show which is an act. It is pure entertainment value.
I don’t mean to target only conservative shows, as I think all news stations, whether they are local or national, are biased and do not represent the entire truth, no matter how objective they try to be. It is impossible to completely objective no matter what side you take. But Beck is definitively one of the more flamboyant, theatrical, and biased individuals in the world of national news, the conservative Al Franken if you will.
I consider myself to be quite conservative, however I think some of the things Beck has said is just overly exaggerated. The items he talks about may contain a hint of truth, but he does not represent my views as a conservative. I for one do not believe Obama is going to kill me, pour gasoline on me, or that anyone should act militarily upon our own country. I don’t agree with the new administration’s policies, so I have written emails to officials expressing my concerns. I do not want Beck in any shape or form stating the he represents the political views of right-minded. But Beck, and his producers, understand one thing, and that is entertainment. They will do anything to get a few more viewers from a show. Since that is the case, he will only keep adding fuel to the fire, sort to speak.
Man, oh man, where to start? Barack Obama, the President of the United States was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday October 9, 2009. Yes, you read that correctly, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Yes, I know you are curious as well as baffled. So someone explain to me what President Barack Obama has done to be worthy of such a prize? This man is the President of the United States, and is the head of the U.S. Military. A military often is not in existence for duties of peace. At least they are not known for that. They might ensure peace, but their actions are most famous for killing. But does war and peace have the same ideals? I do not think so. Not in the way people like to think anyway. According to the Los Angeles Times the award was given as for a few reasons. Janet Hook and Mark Silva of the LA Times writes:
The award committee cited Obama for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” and said that he had given the world “hope for a better future.”
The committee commended Obama’s push for nuclear disarmament, his outreach to the Muslim world and his turn from the unilateralism that guided George W. Bush, although the former president was not named.
How has he done any of this? I don’t see Iran backing down from their nuclear ambitions. I don’t see Russia doing it either. Least of all, do I see a better tomorrow on the horizon. I see one that is economically unclear, and terrifying to think about. The Washington Post is quick to point out that the award is often given with criticism from others. People such as Theodore Roosevelt and Yasser Arifat have also won the award.
If that isn’t a knee slapper, then the following should be. As I eluded to earlier, you do know that the President is in charge of the US military, so is it fitting that President Obama had a meeting with his war council after he accepted the award!? They were discussing the troop levels in Afghanistan and whether the US should give more soldiers to the cause. Don’t believe it? Check out this Kansas City Star article on it!
I think this is really a shame. I mean there are people who are quite peaceful individuals, and they deserve such a title. There are people who roam this Earth looking at the bigger picture and how they can help humanity. They do not dwell upon how the military has to fight to ensure peace, or how people sometimes have to do violent things to survive. They are the ones who deserve it. In fact, I’ve got an idea! How about giving one postmoderumly to Mahatma Ghandi? Seriously, he never won one. I don’t care if the award was only supposed to go to a living person or not, he would have been a better choice that Obama.
Then again, it is interesting to note that Alfred Nobel, the man which the award is named after did invent dynamite, which isn’t a very peaceful thing in itself. I just think the whole idea of awarding this title to our President is a bit insane. He is not deserving of it. He hasn’t done anything to acquire it, other than fascinating media beings around the world. They treat him as some sort of messiah, and personally, I just don’t get it.
