Only one point of view is unbiased

Apparently, Moveon.org is trying to shut down Fox News because "MoveOn.org is campaigning against FOX because it says the network characterizes itself as a fair news network when it consistently favors a conservative point of view, said Adam Green, the organization's spokesman."

read the full story here.

Hello? What news network is not biased? Should CNN, NBC etc shut down because they say they are fair, yet are biased in a liberal direction? Mr. Green is apparently under the assumption that a conservative viewpoint trying to be fair is biased and a liberal one is unbiased (because it is true of course).

This is hypocrisy at its worst. Of course Fox News is biased (and CNN and NBC and CBS and the Washington Post and on and on). Do you know why? Because people are biased. If you ever find a person without a viewpoint, a person who is completely and perfectly fair, you have found a dead person. All living humans have biases. It is impossible not to have a bias. Some are better than others at trying to be fair, but we all have the lens of a worldview through which we analyze the data that comes into our world.

Perhaps Mr. Green is honest in that he is too un-selfanalytical enough to realize that he himself is biased and too self-absorbed to realize all the people around him are - or perhaps he has an agenda to get rid of one of the only news outlets that has a conservative viewpoint so that only those news outlets that plug his liberal bias into their reporting can inform the public (thereby becoming propaganda machines because there is no counterweight).

Mr. Green, you have two choices: Are you stupid or fascist?

Also, as a side note, does anyone else find it humorous and more than a little silly that an article on Fox News reports "Representatives for FOX News Channel did not immediately return calls for comment." ? I mean, I know it was the Associated Press that did the article, and not Fox News, but still. It jiggles my funny bone.

It's not that I like sarcasm, it's that some targets are so easy...

No wait, I do like sarcasm.

Disclaimer: I love having discussion about differing cultures/worldviews/religions/beliefs, but this writer just makes herself an easy target. Plus, she has an obvious agenda she's trying to hide.

Today I clicked on a link with the snappy title 'Dating Someone Who Challenges Your Faith' to read a romantic advice article on msn. Never a good idea if you actually want advice, but usually good for a hoot or a soapbox.

For instance, I once read an article on whether a woman having sex on the first date would cause a man to not to commit to her. The guys were mainly saying "no, I'd still consider it." All the guys were still single at relatively old ages or divorced. Yeah, great advice from a bunch of men who can't commit or stay commited. Also, I don't think that their answers were self-interested at all. "Hey baby, you wanna have sex on our first date? SURE I'll still think about committing." *snicker* [Yeah maybe if by commit he means to a second date where he'd get some too.]

But getting back to today's delightful romance advice designed to prepare us for romantic bliss....After reading the following paragraph, I had a few questions:

"If you are going to try to talk about your differing viewpoints, try to put your feelings aside for a second and have the talk, says Kathryn Alice, a religious science practitioner at the Agape Spiritual Center in Culver City, CA. "Putting another first is a basic tenet of every major religion, and by setting aside your own agenda for your date's, you are engaging in a highly spiritual practice. A spirit of ecumenism is something that most faiths honor, and you can exhibit your ecumenical side in this way."

First, what the heck is a 'religious science practitioner' and where can I go to the school for making-up-fake-credentials-to-get-paid-and-quoted-on-msn.com? However, I should probably give Ms. Alice the benefit of the doubt and look into it on that old mainstay of scholastic studies: yahoo.com. Interestingly enough, what I discovered is that while the main website I found stressed that they are licensed (licensing means "professional expert" of course!) 'licensed' apparently means not by any entity one would normally trust to license an individual like say the state, or the federal government, or a professional association, but by the 'United Church of Religious Science.' Yup, just what I thought: made-up credentials, masquerading as licensing! (I wonder if you can sue for that?)

So, this brings a new question: how can a person who is proclaimed 'licensed' by an entity without any legal jurisdiction to license individuals, from a religion that most people have probably never even heard of, get to be an 'expert' on world religions and what they would consider appropriate? Did the msn freelance reporter actually think she was doing good research into the topic? I mean, I got suspicious as soon as they mentioned her source's title.

Then come the next questionable area of this article: apparently dating is a great way to "exhibit your ecumenical side"? Did this actually get into what is purporting to be a serious article?

First, the writer gives a story from her own personal life:

"I woke up one morning in college to find a priest at my dorm room door. He'd driven two-and-a-half hours to ask me to stop trying to lure away a member of his flock. I won't go into the details, but suffice it to say, my friend Dave (the sheep in question) and I had spent many evenings discussing his Catholicism. As I respectfully challenged his views, he began questioning his faith. No wonder his priest was worried."

However, you will remember from the earlier quote that one of her sources suggests "Putting another first is a basic tenet of every major religion, and by setting aside your own agenda for your date's"

This is an interesting angle when the very reason the freelance writer wrote this article was not because she was challenged to confront her own views, but she confronted her date's about HIS. And the actual name of her article? "Love and Losing Your Religion" I think it becomes clear that she's not really interested in individuals without religious views to put their dates first and be challenged in their own concepts; no, apparently it only goes the other way. And to show how correct she is to religious people who might be reading this article? She quotes a 'religious expert' who encases all this in terms of 'putting others first' and 'ecumenism.' Remember - if you are religious (any religion) - you are supposed to date people who have different (non-religious) beliefs and then let them challenge your faith - but it isn't supposed to go the other way. In the end this article is not about respecting others' beliefs, which is what it is trying to masquerage as, it's about what the title said - getting you to 'lose your religion.' And her handy tool? Dating and the influence of a person you are attracted to (apparently without using your brain to pre-determine whether this individual is compatible with you or would be a good person for you to date.)

We know what you are up to msn freelance writer, but please, at least be honest about it.

Maybe some of my business ideas would work...

Bling H2O