|
someaquarist
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Zach
Country: United States
State: Oklahoma
Metro: Norman
Birthday: 11/2/1982
Gender: Male
Interests: my wife, Christie; music; books; plants; fish, aquariums and aquarium plants; weather; and Christianity
Occupation: Meteorologist / Developer
Industry: Weather
Message: message meEmail: email me
Website: visit my website
Member Since:
1/12/2005
|
|
| There has been a lot of talk about media bias in the last year. The conversation has kind of turned into a shouting match this week. A new Pew research poll found that there was nearly twice the positive media coverage of Barack Obama as compared to John McCain. Naturally, there are a number of people unhappy about this and a number of people saying "I told you so." I even read an article by a reporter today saying that he was ashamed of his profession, in light of the recent poll.
Before I go on, let me be clear. I do not believe that Barack Obama is the Messiah. I am also not ready to say that the media has not been biased. I am ready to say that using the Pew research poll doesn't make sense. Plain and simple: It is not a measurement of media bias.
I was thinking about the results of this recent poll and actually trying to decide what it means, rather than allow other people to tell me what it means. To me, it doesn't necessarily reveal a bias. Now, if there was a bias, you would expect this poll to show the bias. However, if there was absolutely no bias, would you expect the ratio of positive/negative stories to be identical for both candidates? I wouldn't.
Take for example the unlikely scenario that Hitler came back from the dead and decided to run for President of the United States. Now, in this scenario, I can imagine approximately 99.98% of Hitler's press coverage would be negative. [Wait a second, did you just call McCain Hitler? No, no I didn't. I'm just trying to make a point.] Obviously, we have to admit that the number of negative and positive news reports about a candidate do not describe bias.
Here's another point I'd like to make. By saying that the ratios should be the same for each candidate, people are implying that a media source should not release a story about a candidate unless they have another story about the other candidate that is also positive or negative. This is absurd! If Hitler did come back from the dead and had the gall to run for US President, I would hope that FOX News and MSNBC alike would report about his past, as well as any new mischief he had wreaked since his rise from ashes. And I would not expect those news agencies to spend countless hours trying to find a comparable number of positive stories to balance the negative ones they had about Hitler. I would simply expect those news agencies to report news they discover - whether that news be important (Hitler plans to bomb Iran his first day in office) or off-topic (Hitler has been working out 3 times a week at the gym; Hitler spent $20 grand on a new tuxedo).
Do you know of any ways to logically measure the media bias in America?
Here are 2 very unscientific measurements of media bias. Ascribing to the way bias is being defined today, I am being 'unbiased,' giving one example for each party  .
1. FOX News has continually used Barack Obama's middle name - Hussein - when referring to the Democratic Candidate. Why is this bias? It's NOT because other media outlets have not used Obama's middle name, but because FOX News has not once used John McCain's middle name - which is Sidney, by the way. Can you believe that? Sidney. Who would vote for a guy with that middle name!?!
2. The LA Times is reportedly "sitting on" a video of Barack Obama speaking at a dinner. According to other news outlets, the footage includes Obama praising a University of Chicago professor who had previously been "a mouthpiece" of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. This professor and Sen. Obama served together at the U. of Chicago for several years. If the reports are true, the LA Times should definitely release the video - or else they are clearly showing their bias to the world.
| | |
| Many people are defined by the things they collect. Maybe not defined, but collections can tell a
lot about a person – what is important to the person, what is interesting to
the person, or what is unique to (or about) the person.
I have had collections throughout my life of a number of
things. When I was younger I had a
number of toy collections: matchbox cars, Ninja turtles and G.I. Joes. I also had some more traditional collections,
like stamps and coins. My toy
collections showed how I liked to spend my time. And I guess you could say that my traditional
collections showed how I was carrying on traditions in my family, since both of
those collections were started by my dad.
As I grew older I became very interested in music, both
listening and playing. So it’s not any
surprise that I collected music albums (cassette tapes and CDs). I also collected musical instruments (2
acoustic guitars, 1 electric, 1 bass, 2 saxophones and a bunch of odds and
ends).
About 10 years ago, while vacationing in Washington D.C.,
I decided to start a new collection to keep track of my trips. I bought my first floating pen at the
Smithsonian Air and Space museum. Before
I had left DC, I think I already had 5 or 6 pens in my collection. Today I have around 120, about 15 of which
are from out of the country. It’s an
eccentric thing to collect, but I really like my pens. I built a display case for them about 5 years
ago and they proudly hang on my wall in the living room. It’s a pretty good discussion piece.
The past couple of years my hobbies have centered around
aquariums, plants and reading. I have
written quite a bit on my xanga about books and what I am reading. I have acquired a bit of a collection of
books – unintentionally – over the years.
I have also collected – quite intentionally – a number of plants. These 2 new collections can tell quite a lot
about me.
Not only does my book collection state that I love
books. It also says that I value
knowledge and states what topics appeal to me.
Two weeks ago I ventured out to my first Bibliophiles of Oklahoma
meeting. Some of the members of this
small group of book lovers are serious, committed book collectors. One of them collects books about early
American archaeology. I admitted to the
others that I am not much of a collector, just someone who likes books and
likes to read. They asked what books I
own and I immediately started categorizing.
“I like dystopian novels and I like books on Christian thought –
especially C.S. Lewis.” They pointed out
to me that I have some pretty distinct collections myself, owning about 10
Lewis books and at least 5 dystopians.
Alas, I am a bibliophile. Just
because I don’t have a strong desire to collect first editions of books,
doesn’t mean that I’m not a book collector.
My plant collecting was spurred on a little more last week,
when I received an email from a plant collector in Florida who saw a post on my plant blog about Aglaonemas. I really like this genus of plant and started
collecting them whenever I run across a different species or variety. I probably have about 5 different Ags. Anyway, my fellow Ag collector has decided to
help me in my collecting and will be sending me a couple of boxes of plants
that he has been raising for years and had propagated. He has also sent me tons of information on
growing Ags and other aroid plants.
I guess I can’t deny my affinity for these plants, since I
am pretty excited to get home each day to see if there are any boxes on my
porch. | | |
| When I was in 7th grade I read the book 1984 by
George Orwell. Since then I have been
hooked on the sub-genre of fiction called “dystopian.” Yesterday I got the book “We” by Yevgeny
Zamyatin from the library. A couple of
sentences into the book I knew that I had found another great dystopian
novel. Dystopian novels are really a
subset of science-fiction. Dystopian
books are those that paint a bleak picture of the future – the opposite of
utopia. “Wow! How exciting!” you say, sarcastically. “Why wouldn’t everyone want to read about bleak
futures for our world!?!”
Since my first reading of 1984 I have read several other
books that can be characterized as dystopian:
Anthem by Ayn Rand, The Giver by Lois Lowry, Brave New World by Aldous
Huxley, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, The Minority Report by Philip K. Dick,
the Left Behind series by LaHaye and Jenkins, the Circle trilogy by Ted Dekker,
Killing Time by Caleb Carr, Animal Farm by George Orwell, Lord of the Flies by
William Golding, and Ringworld by Larry Niven.
I’ve also seen several dystopian movies: Children of Men, Minority
Report, I Robot, Clockwork Orange, I am Legend, Gattaca, Aeon Flux, Blade
Runner, Code 46, Equilibrium, The Island, A Scanner Darkly, V for Vendetta, THX
1138, The Matrix trilogy, Waterworld, the Truman Show, Terminator series and
Twelve Monkeys. Those 2 lists contain
many of my favorite books and movies, although there are a couple of books in
movies in that list that I don’t really care for.
You might still be wondering why this type of novel is so
intriguing to me. To me, these books are
statements. Each one of them is written
by an author who sees something in our current society – a trend or a school of
thought, maybe – that they feel is disruptive/unhealthy/detrimental – has some
sort of negative impact. They then write
about a future world – sometimes very similar to our own, sometimes very
different – in which the principle idea or set of ideas has been enacted on a
large scale and has resulted in a nightmarish world. Many times the focus is on a type of
government (i.e., 1984 and We). In others the focus is on a
specific technology or the advancement of technology in general (i.e., Gattaca and The Island).
These stories are precautionary tales. In a world where most human interventions are
described as “advancements,” it is interesting to take note of the (often
unintended) negative impacts of our actions – as the adage goes – before it is
too late. I like to think about what
consequences we might face in the future based on the decisions that our civilization
makes today. I like to think about how
future problems can be avoided if we are wise and consider all of our
options. I like to think about how
following one set of extreme views have led down very dark paths in the past
and that a healthy future is one in which all people are allowed to express
their ideas – not a society in which the individual is dead (see Equilibrium
for a great example).
While almost every one of these stories openly reveals the
author’s bias, collectively the stories are not one sided. They have been written by many different
authors from many different viewpoints.
These stories are thought experiments. In a way, they allow us to “learn from the
past” without having to experience it.
That may sound funny, but these stories can lay out powerful visions of
what our world could look like if we yield to one way of thinking. | | |
| This is a notice to all of the states in the union, and all of the citizens of those United States -
In recent
decades the presidential primaries and caucuses have become
increasingly important. States are either viewed as red states, blue
states or swing states. Other labels, such as "must-wins", are tossed
around constantly. In our current society, travel is easy for
candidates who can raise millions of dollars. States that have early
primaries are likely to host all of the candidates and draw a lot of
national attention. It is the early primaries that are most noted
because the nominee has not yet been decided. [Of course, this year, we
are about to finish the primaries without a nominee.] Some states have
moved their primaries earlier in order to draw more attention to their
state and to be a stronger voice in the deciding of the nominee. With
the surge of early primary schedules, the Democratic National Committee
and GOP put in place some rules about the schedule. If a state breaks the rules, their votes will be ignored. Apparently this wasn't understood by some (2 of 50) states. No one is sure why they didn't understand, but there will be no excuses the next time around, so play by the rules.
Some are
arguing that we call ourselves a democracy and yet we don't listen to
the popular opinion of our citizens. Well, the truth is we live in a
democratic republic. Our elected officials make all of the decisions.
We get to elect them (that's the democratic part) and then they (the republic) get to
make all the decisions for us. That's how it is. We
get to show our approval/disapproval by reelecting the incumbents or
electing someone new. We can even run for their position, if we feel so inclined.
Floridians and Michiganders-
Stop whining about the injustice of not being seated at the Democratic Convention. You (meaning, your representatives) broke the rules and you were told you would be punished. 48 other states followed the rules and 48 other states will be seated. I feel bad for your individual citizens, who would like to have their votes counted. Unfortunately, the state leaders chose to move their primaries to impermissible dates and no one squawked until it was much too late. Those state leaders are to blame.
My state (Oklahoma) played by the rules and scheduled our primary for February 5. Because we were scheduled on a date with 20 other primaries (and we are not a large state), we weren't visited by any of the candidates. We were considered of little importance. So, do we need to make some changes to our rules? Maybe. But we can't change the rules for 2008. It's too late.
We'll find out Saturday if the DNC will stick with its word, or if they will make a statement that states can ignore the rules and appeal them later when it doesn't suit them.
| | |
| I just thought I would write a little update on the progress of my reading quest. Last year I only read 16 books all year long. I am happy to report that today, not even half way through the year, I have already completed 13 books. And there have only been 20.5 weeks in the year, so I am not even that far behind the book-a-week mark. I expect that I will finish year 2008 somewhere around 30 books. That would be pretty good, and beat my previous best of 25 in 2006.
Here are the books I have read so far:
Hominids - Sawyer
The Catcher in the Rye - Salinger
Humans - Sawyer
Hybrids - Sawyer
Lolita - Nabokov
Screwtape Letters - Lewis
Christ the Lord: The Road to Cana - Rice
The World Without Us - Weisman
The Secret Message of Jesus - McLaren
The Pleasure of My Company - Martin
The Creation - E.O. Wilson
The Metamorphosis - Kafka
If I Did It - O.J. Simpson
Next on the list to read:
Blessed Unrest - Hawken
The Irresistible Revolution - Claiborne
Serve God, Save the Planet - Matthew
We - Zamyatin
The Handmaid's Tale - Atwood
| | |
|
