Cognitive Dissonance

This fellow, Tom Guarriello, is a liberal from Connecticut. When it comes to the American political scene, he & I rarely agree. But he's also a smart man and one of my favourite vloggers. In this video he openly admits that he has biases and is reticent to hear other points of views that challenge his own. News Flash to everyone: Just like every other human being on the planet!
This is quite a contrast to this arrogant man I wrote about recently. Ditto for this pretty female vlogger who is probably the most close-minded person I've ever encountered on YouTube. The sad thing for her is that she is convinced that she's actually open minded. Perhaps when she's a bit older she'll learn that being "open minded" means that one must actually listen to other points of view with the possibility that they may change one's own views. That's clearly not the case right now.

The Downright Nastiness of "Progressives"

Amy Alkon has an interesting blog posting about the nastiness of the Extreme Left vs. the Extreme Right. I didn't know it until now, but it turns out that her political views are very similar to my own: A fiscal conservative but a pragmatic libertarian. And her observations about which groups get the most nasty when you dare to disagree with them very much parallels my own experiences.

We're not the only ones. Dennis Miller, a well known comedian, TV personality, and radio talkshow host, has frequently commented on the differences. When his views were mostly left of center he was mildly rebuked by some conservatives. But now that some (repeat, some) of his views are right of center, the vitriolic scorn and hate he has received by so many on the left is nothing short of shameful for the so-called "progressive" movement. Note: I always put "progressive" in quotes because it's a false label. On many issues, left of center views are not progressive (read "positive") whatsoever. I will forever remember one caller saying, "You know Dennis, for several decades I always thought you were a bright, clever guy but now, after you've sided with Bush on the Iraq War, I think you're a complete idiot." Miller calmly responded: "So for a long time you thought I was quite a smart guy but now, just because I disagree with you on one issue, you've completely reversed your entire thinking about me? Such wise reflection there."

I have also read comments from several gay men, such as this one. While some family & friends had some difficulty accepting these men when they came out of the closet, it compared not a whit to the scorn they suffered when they came out of the closet, so to speak, with their political views. Is it very progressive of a "progressive" to ostracize all those who don't follow the group think of the sheep herd?

I know for a fact that I've been ostracized by many so-called friends for my political views. My ongoing support for Stephen Harper and my continued support for the longterm goals of the Iraq War (though I detest Bush's refusal to curtail the growth of the public sector) has left me outside the herd for years. Many felt that they could make me switch my views through ridicule. How wrong they were. All I ever wanted to do was discuss the issues, using facts. When it became clear to them that their facts were minimal and their rhetorical talking points could not be backed up, they got angry. Now they've just stopped talking with me. C'est la vie!

Another point of contention has been the issue of Global Warming. For some time the likes of Al Gore and David Suzuki got away with preposterous statements like "the debate is over" and "there are those like us who love the planet and then there are the global warming deniers". What's become crystal clear is that no scientific debate is ever over. In fact, I heard a commentator say the other day that Gore and Suzuki have about 2 more years left. Then it'll become patently clear that the earth is not in a warming trend but rather in a cooling one. As for the "denier" label, I can think of nothing more horrific and insulting to the survivors of the Nazi Holocaust than using this word. A writer in Vancouver expands on this. Anyone who has ever uttered the phrase "global warming denier" to silence someone they're arguing with owes a profound apology to the 6 Millions Jews and others who lives were extinguished by Hitler & Co.

"Progressives" who meet me anew don't know what to make of my views on global warming et al. When I say that I'm against carbon taxes, am against carbon credits, and am in support of initiatives like twinning the Port Mann Bridge, their natural inclination is to start throwing nasty pejoratives at me about how I'm not helping the environment. That's when the fun begins. I ask them what kind of vehicle they drive, how much they drive to work, and what sort of home they live in. In every situation to date, my carbon footprint is exceedingly less than theirs!

My most recent "effort" to keep myself outside of the herd are my views on Barack Obama. Up until early February I was optimistic that he was a positive force for change on the American political scene. But then I started listening to him. Yikes! Not only is he more left wing than even Jimmy Carter (and that's saying a lot!) but he changes his views more quickly than a skier on a slalom course. He's just a politician like any other and even more of a politician than most. What irks and saddens me though is how so many of his supporters instantly call anyone a racist who dares to criticize him or his policies. Very convenient but very, very lazy. And intellectually weak to the extreme.

I fear that the next few months are going to be very nasty ones in the history of the United States. Which brings us back full circle to what Amy Alkon said about where most nastiness comes from in her experiences. She's not alone.

Does Journalistic Integrity Exist at NPR?

One of my resolutions for 2007 is to minimize the amount of time I spend listening to talk radio. But I was driving this morning and couldn't resist sampling the local NPR station. I heard something so preposterous that I felt compelled to send them this e-mail:

I'm a Canadian on an extended visit to Miami. Around 8:10am on Monday, March 12th I listened to your senior correspondent, Juan Williams, present the case of why Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel will be a strong threat against the other Republican presidential candidates.

Mr. Williams argued that if 60% of Americans are now against the Iraq War then this will provide Hagel with tremendous support in his campaign because he's the only one on the slate who was adamantly against the war.

The obvious question has to be asked: Are there any basic math skills required to work at NPR? For if 60% are against Bush's efforts in Iraq then 40% are not. And of those 40%, what percentage of them do you think might be Republicans? 90%? 95%? 99%? Whatever the exact amount, it doesn't speak very well for Hagel's chances.

I'm not much of a betting man but I am willing to bet Juan Williams $10,000 that Chuck Hagel will get absolutely nowhere with his campaign. And I'm willing to give him any odds he wishes.

Either Juan Williams never got past Grade 3 math or he feels his own political biases are more important than his journalistic integrity. In my country, our public CBC Radio has become a huge joke for its exceedingly blatant bias against anything right of centre. I would have expected something better from NPR.