|
Saturday, January 24, 2009
|
|
Left Bashing, Right Trashing
|
Go straight past the checkout counter, turn right and go further down the aisle. This takes one to my favorite corner in my library - the audio books. The first thing I do is get my iPod Touch sniffing through Amazon for bestsellers while I browse for those titles. This time my eyes fell on "An Inconvenient Book". I took it out of the shelf and decided to borrow it as it sounded funny.
Though I liked "An Inconvenient Truth" by our buddy Al, I don't really agree with him on quite a few things. I agree we are contributing towards global warming but if someone says we are "responsible" for it, nope! Hey I don't mind making millions selling green underwear saying "we gotta go green". I believe in capitalism my friend. I know the conservatives are loving me for this. But before it gets too far, let me make it clear, I'm not a blind supporter of either of them but guess I can call myself center-left. Let's go back to the book.
I didn't pay much attention to the author of the book and hence had no idea what to expect except for some Al Gore ass kicking. The first chapter was funny with a lot of stats rebutting Gore's data and analysis. I could easily tell this guy was way on to the other extreme but was a welcome change from the stereotypical green mania everywhere nowadays. The second chapter was about life and I was really lost. As I heard more and more of the book, I knew there was something wrong with this guy. Not only did he sound demented but I could also see the poor dude getting abused when he was a kid - a disturbed childhood, that's what some people call it. While some of his statements/allegations sounded like nonsense, some were ridiculous and the reset were absolute bullshit. Clinton's name (both Bill and Hillary) would pop up out of nowhere and he would go behind them. Then came Edwards at random intervals. Finally came the point when I could not bear it anymore. Glad that I returned the CD to the library before I broke it. Now, the author of the book is none other than Glenn Beck - total jackass. There's also another author, Kevin I Don't Care Who.
After all this left bashing, now I had to go get a right trashing book that would compensate for the damage done. "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" by Al Franken. With more than 3000 reviews on Amazon and 4/5 starts, this was the obvious pick. Two CDs into it, no regrets. Obviously this is an extreme left leaning liberal dose but nonetheless funny. Don't get me wrong, I ain't saying what Franken says is right or it makes sense. Though he may be showing only one side of the story, at least it is not total nonsense like the Beck dude. It's just ass kicking Ann Coulter followed by Rupert Murdoch followed by Bill Oreilly followed by Hannity followed by...Labels: al franken, ann coulter, bill oreilly, book, colmes, conservatives, democrats, glenn beck, global warming, gore, hannity, inconvenient, liberals, liers, lies, lying, murdoch, republicans, truth |
|
posted by bachi
11:41
 
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
|
|
In "Dependent" Study!
|
"A new study links cell phone use to cancer"
"Danish study finds no link between cell phone use and cancer"
"Hyperactivity in young linked to smoking during pregnancy"
"Smoking in first four months of pregnancy 'does not harm the baby'"
"Study: Drinking Coffee Has Health Benefits"
"Coffee can kill your unborn child: Study"
Don't these studies drive you crazy sometimes? These are supposed to be 'independent' studies but I strongly feel they are very much 'dependent' on who conducts them and who backs them up. Even when someone conducting such a study tries to be fairness personified, the circumstances may result in a totally misleading outcome. Who to believe and who not to? What to believe and what not to?
Pretty much anything and everything can be interpreted and presented in different ways conveying different meaning without a need to distort the truth. Unfortunately this is what leads to multiple studies on the same subject conveying varied messages. It is not that fair and simple though. There definitely have been situations where the outcome of research was tailored to the advantage of the researcher / sponsor. One of the best examples, I know of, is the drug ecstacy. I got this information from one of the Discovery Channel's episodes on ecstacy. I won't be surprised if your immediate question is "why should we trust Discovery's study?". Well, first of all I don't think it was a study. Instead, they took the facts associated with the drug and presented them as a documentary. Assuming whatever Discovery Channel presented was true, there were a million contradictory statements about the drug. While one group finds it non-addictive and wanted to use as a genuine drug for patients, another group wanted to ban it. Eventually the drug was banned from legal use based on a 'study' that linked the drug use to cause neurotoxic damage to the central nervous system. According to the program, there was no substantial scientific proof for this though. So, who sponsored this research? Eventually a million other researches proved this wrong.
Without going that far back into history, one can look at the recent exposure of tobacco companies influencing the studies on smoking. All I want to say is that most of these independent studies may not really be 'independent'. Even if they are, they might not be self-sufficient. I mean, they might cover a very tiny portion of the big picture and hence can not be depended upon on their own.Labels: cancer, cell phone, cellphone, coffee, conservatives, democrats, ecstacy, health, independent, liberals, politics, polls, pregnancy, republicans, research, smoking, study, teenagers |
|
|
posted by bachi
05:35
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
myprofile |
previouspost |
myarchives |
mylinks |
bloginfo |
|
