It has been some time since I have posted anything. It is not because there hasn't been anything happening that deserved comment but rather because I have been concentrating on reading and listening to other views. A favourite of late is Mark Steyn, a Canadian journalist and author who now resides in a small town in New Hampshire. Not only does he do his research but he makes sense and often adds a humorous twist. As a result I check out his web site on a regular basis: https://www.steynonline.com .
Another source of very insightful conversation is that of Dave Rubin and his Rubin Report (http://www.rubinreport.com). He has on a range of guests and typically talks about free speech, religion and politics in a very easy going but still interesting manner. Guests have included Milo Yiannopolous, Guy Benson, Katie Hopkins, Andrew Klavan, Thaddeus Russell, Tommy Sotomayor, Ben Shapiro, Larry Elder and many others. My favourite though of his videos is his "Direct Message" video "The Left in No Longer Liberal" as he explained his angst as a person who considers himself a believer in liberal ideals and how they no longer correlate with those of the Democratic Party and its shift to the left.
Of the guests that I mentioned and have watched his interviews with them, two of my favourites, and Rubin himself, are gay; Milo Yiannopolous and Guy Benson. Just goes to show you that sexual orientation has nothing to do with expressing opinions based on sound arguments and good research or that you automatically must be a liberal or leftist. Milo can be quite over the top both with his language and sexuality but it is so obvious that he does it more for dramatic effect and I think he does it well. Another guest who also is British, but not gay, yet with similar technique and style is Katie Hopkins. Again, very entertaining to listen to and is very thought provoking with sound arguments.
The common thread amongst them all, except for Dave who is a liberal, is that they are labelled as "Conservatives" and that still puzzles me. Why is it only the "conservatives" that a) are willing to not only talk but listen, b) say things that make perfect sense due to well reasoned arguments and c) agree that free speech, including the ability to express a view contrary to your own, is a good thing?
But my favourite medium is the written word and unfortunately there isn't too much in that form worth reading. I did subscribe to "Commentary Magazine" (https://www.commentarymagazine.com/) for a while as they in general did have writers who made good arguments for their case with sound reasoning and excellent research. But I cancelled after about 6 months as I got tired of a) too much about Israel and anti-Semitism and b) some of their more frequent writers play the leftist game of insulting Trump and those who voted for him as their sole justification for their thesis. For the first point I fully support the existence of the state of Israel and wholly disagree with even the concept of anti-Semitism and the last thing I want is to be hammered with the same message to someone who already agrees. As for the second point a sure sign of poor journalism is to slag someone you don't like and use that as the basis for your arguments. If, after citing good reasons you conclude someone is unlikable, fine, but don't start with that nonsense.
So of late I read either Canada's National Post even though it is becoming less and less recognizable as a source of good journalism, or American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/). The latter obviously is about American issues but it does expose and discuss issues that are pertinent to us Canadians. Two issues are "the swamp" or "deep state" whereby the bureaucracy are dominated by leftists and do as much as they can to disrupt the activities of a duly elected government that does not share their political beliefs, and the other is something I have talked about many times before on this blog and that is the leftist media we are saddled with. In order to come to the right conclusions one must have the ability to view any subject from many directions. The media, when it comes to reporting, should be giving us the facts and only the facts and then letting us draw our own conclusions. Similarly when they provide "opinion" such as in the op/ed section they should have a range of divergent views again so that each and every one of us can see who carries an argument best with supporting evidence that not only supports their argument but actually makes sense.
To close this brings me to one final observation due to the reading and listening I have been doing the past few months and that is subject of "fake news" and the related "alternate facts". Being a trained scientist with knowledge and expertise in chemistry, physics, computer science and mathematics, including statistics, plus extensive experience in computer modelling as well as sampling theory and practice some topics are obvious as being just that; fake news. As is obvious from a number of my previous posts the main topic these days that fits that description is "Global Warming" or it's alter ego, "Climate Change". If a writer or media source cite human caused global warming or climate change as a "fact" it obviously is false and therefore anything else they have to say is suspect and they are not to be trusted. The only Main Stream Media source I have found that does not provide fake news, believe it or not is Fox, in the States! And we have all been led to believe by our leftist fake news media in Canada that they were ultra right conservative with biased views. Turns out that to is FAKE NEWS!
No comments:
Post a Comment
I don't want to live in a bubble so if you have a different take or can suggest a different source of information go for it!