Saturday, May 07, 2005

The Truth Finally Comes Out

In a column in the Daily's final issue of this semester, Libby George has revealed that the Minnesota Daily, has, in fact, been discriminating against conservative students who apply for positions there, resulting in an overly liberal editorial board.

My two cents:

1). It is interesting to note that she says she has known about this since "earlier this year," but chose not to write about it until the very last issue of the school year, when the debate will be slowed to (at most) one issue per week, and most students will be leaving for the summer.

2). It appears that Tim Burnett's claim that there aren't enough conservative students applying at the Daily was completely bogus, and he knew as much when he was feeding me (and many others) that line. I suppose it would be naive to think that, when I talked to Tim about my findings of a liberal bias, he would have said, "Well, that's probably because we work real hard at keeping conservative students out."

Anyway, I'm not going to say I told you so, but... I told you so.

This is What a Daily Supporter Sounds Like

I got this letter from Ivan Rosales, an IT student at the University, and I was so amused at his vain attempt to defend what the Daily is doing, I thought I'd publish it here, just so everyone can see how pathetic the left's argument is. (A nice picture of the author is included.) My editorial comments are in bold.

"I saw your website claiming that the Minnesota Daily has a liberal bias. I certainly hope it does. After all, young people have a liberal bias, as much as 3 in 4 young people consider themselves liberal.

Also, 87% of people use bogus statistics to support their poor argument. Only 54% of people ages 18-29 voted for Kerry in 2005. Additionally, the Daily does not serve only the young; it represents the entire University, including all alumni.

Then, I have no problem with the Daily representing this. The “conservative bias” is currently characterized by fear, intolerance and/or greed, so, I certainly would hope those at the Daily renounce such ideologies.

He's really got the blinders on, hasn't he?

I am unconcerned whether the Daily is liberal, your argument of if the daily is liberal or not could be much more convincing if you can establish the detrimental effects of a liberal bias. After all, liberalism is historically the onset of great, beneficial social change.

Yes, great social changes like filibustering the Senate in the 60s to stop passage of civil rights laws and seceding from the Union to keep their slaves.

It’s also a fallacy to assume that the Daily should be balanced, because the discourse itself is certainly not balanced. i.e. It is actually a disservice for a media outlet to report in a “fair” fashion when it propagates misinformation: “The republicans claim today that gravity does not exist and that the fingers of god are the force of we understand as god, democrats disagree”, this is a disservice to simply “report” what each side says is true. Or a practical example in Kansas: “Christian conservatives want creationism taught in science class, democrats do not.” The “liberal bias” in the latter example could be due to the factual error in the conservative argument, namely that creationism is not science, it’s simply factually incorrect to claim it is and therefore should be taught in science courses. So, when someone reports this for what it is, nonsense, it may appear to be a liberal bias. There just happens to be a lot of factual inaccuracies and/or ideological inconsistencies in the current conservative discourse.

It seems that Ivan here is a shining example of an ignorant liberal. He doesn't understand that describing the religious beliefs of the majority of Americans as nonsense falls under the umbrella of liberal bias.

I don’t belong to either party, but I consider myself very liberal. I would like the same ideological inconsistencies attacked on the liberal side, it just happens that these glaring inconsistencies don’t surface. See, the inconsistencies
of “Compassionate Conservativism”, the “Culture of Life”, etc; it wasn’t liberals who made up that rhetoric.


It appears that Ivan can't tell the difference between a convicted murderer and an unborn child. (When people call the "Culture of Life" inconsistent, they are referencing the fact that many who label themselves as part of said culture are against abortion but in favor of the death penalty.) It is interesting that Ivan has managed to make it this far without being able to distinguish between guilty and innocent.

Sunday, May 01, 2005

So What's Their Plan?

Why does it seem that each time an out-of-state congressman writes a piece for the Daily, it's all liberal FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt)? Wasn't the last occurrence when Sen. Harkin wrote that ridiculous piece of draft fearmongering shortly before the election?

Here's my response to a "Republicans will kill Social Security piece" that the Daily printed today from Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D, obviously - Wisconsin) .

Rep. Tammy Baldwin made a good point that everyone needs to get involved in the fixing of Social Security. However, her claim that the "two wars" we're financing (Afghanistan must be the second one, although no one talks about it anymore due to its success) are affecting the solvency of Social Security is way off. I'm going to set this next sentence apart so it's easier to read:

Social Security's problem is that it will be paying out more money than it will be taking in.

That's right, it's not because of Iraq or Afghanistan. Social Security's problem is its own success. More people are retiring than there are workers to support them.

Baldwin said, "Social Security can be fixed without drastic benefit cuts and without creating huge deficits if Republicans drop their preoccupation with private accounts and join with Democrats to forge a bipartisan solution." However, if you read her entire article carefully, you'll notice one glaring omission: the Democrats' plan. Democrats want Republicans to drop their ideas and form a "bipartisan solution," but in order for something to be bipartisan, you'd need two parts. The Democrats have no plan other than obstructing Republican progress.