Archive for the ‘Government’ Category

Here’s a great article on Federal funding-induced bias in science.

I’ve been harping on this for years.  Any scientific study that is funded by the government will be biased in their results to make the “customer” happy and continue to get the funding needed to continue their studies, regardless of the science involved, there will be a bias that leans towards the answer that the policy makers in question are looking for.

A prime example of this is global warming.  The pile on mentality, and the bias needed to continue to receive funding from the government cannot be denied.

Is the Government Buying Science or Support?
A Framework Analysis of Federal Funding-induced Biases

The purpose of this report is to provide a framework for doing research on the problem of bias in science, especially bias induced by Federal funding of research. In recent years the issue of bias in science has come under increasing scrutiny, including within the scientific community. Much of this scrutiny is focused on the potential for bias induced by the commercial funding of research. However, relatively little attention has been given to the potential role of Federal funding in fostering bias. The research question is clear: does biased funding skew research in a preferred direction, one that supports an agency mission, policy or paradigm?

Federal agencies spend many billion dollars a year on scientific research. Most of this is directly tied to the funding agency mission and existing policies. The issue is whether these financial ties lead to bias in favor of the existing policies, as well as to promoting new policies. Is the government buying science or support?

Our working definition of “funding-induced bias” is any scientific activity where the prospect of funding influences the result in a way that benefits the funder.

While the basic concept of funding-induced bias is simple, the potential forms that this bias might take are far from simple. Science is a complex social system and funding is a major driver. In order to facilitate research into Federal funding and bias it is necessary to isolate specific kinds of bias. Thus the framework presented here is a taxonomy of funding-induced bias.

Read the report here: Is The Government Buying Science or Support? A Framework Analysis of Federal Funding-Induced Biases

This is a good read. Pay attention people. We are at a dangerous crossroad in America. Freedom is at stake.

Nationalized Police?

I have two posts today. The one that follows this one is a re-post from 2008. When I wrote it, I got a lot of conspiracy theory like snarky comments for my effort.

Recently, there has been turmoil in our city streets. Businesses destroyed, property destroyed and police officers and National Guard told to stand down. Each and every one of these events is manufactured. They are built upon a false narrative from the media using one of our most precious rights to further an ideology and doing it with full knowledge that they are telling outright lies to the American people. Events such as these manufactured riots are not without purpose.

When added to the false narrative put out across the media people who are equivalent to black turban wearing Imams whip mobs of functional illiterates into destructive frenzy. Then, they begin to demand social justice. The very people who would cry lynch mob themselves become a destructive lynch mob. These mobs have been so worked up and the police in the cities so demonized that now police officers are being shot. The latest one just yesterday.

Then, in rides a politicized justice system whose professed purpose is to solve the manufactured problem. In other words, to deliver justice in the name of the wronged citizen. Never mind the wronged citizen robbed a store, assaulted a policeman and was returning to finish the job when he was justifiably shot. But, is that their real purpose? Or have they whipped illiterate mobs into rage to further a greater aim. A purpose even those in the mob believing someone is looking out for them and expecting favor will regret if it is ever realized. Their lives most certainly transformed – fundamentally so.

via Nationalized Police? | J. D. Pendry.

Arm yourself with the knowledge that you are being lied to constantly from the media, the Democrats and anyone with a collectivist mindset.
Wake up people.

How To Untangle Orwellian Doublethink: 4 Secrets To Help You Spot BS

Even very smart people can be tricked by some of these terrible techniques…

In order to control millions of people, totalitarian or proto-totalitarian governments find it necessary to somehow prod their subjects into accepting that which is not true. Intelligent people will naturally see the truth and thereby comprehend when government lies to them – and so that’s the rub – how does totalitarian government deal with intelligent people when they must be lied to?

George Orwell provides the answer: intelligent people must be conditioned to reject self-evident truth, to reject the sanity of common sense, to accept the insanity of Orwellian Doublethink, to accept the lie and the truth in their minds simultaneously: “with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”

How do Dictatorships lie to intelligent people and get away with it?

1. In the early stages of totalitarianism the use of Orwellian Newspeak is preferred to blatant, in-your-face lies because Newspeak (otherwise known as Doublespeak) is the clever manipulation of words which mean one thing to the speaker and something very different or its opposite to the listener, thus one may plant a false idea into another’s head by lying to them directly, or by using the tricky technique of Doublespeak.

via How To Untangle Orwellian Doublethink: 4 Secrets To Help You Spot BS | PJ Lifestyle.

Good article.
Political correctness liberal stupidity that is swallowed hook, line and sinker at your local university.

Political Correctness: The Progressive Political Strategy

By Norman Rogers

Is there a bigger collection conformist drones than the tenured professorate of American universities? Tenured professors have lifetime guarantees of employment granted for the specific reason of protecting them from retaliation when they speak out on controversial subjects. Yet they are, by and large, terrified of even minor transgressions of progressive orthodoxy, otherwise known as political correctness. Granted, they do have reason to be afraid of stepping over politically correct lines. They won’t be paraded through the campus with a dunce cap while being pelted with rotten eggs, but they can be shunned, tried in a kangaroo court or fired. Universities may have totalitarian impulses, but they don’t have the enforcement tools that real totalitarians have. Harvard doesn’t have a forced labor camp in the forests of Maine. If a small percentage of professors stood up against political correctness it would melt away very quickly.

Political correctness is defined by dictionary.com as “marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or ecology.” For example, if you want to be politically correct, you cannot use ethnic or gender stereotypes, or suggest that gay marriage is a bad idea. When Larry Summers, then the president of Harvard University, timidly suggested as a hypothesis to explain the underrepresentation of women at the highest levels of mathematics that women may perform less well in math than men, he was quickly out of a job. Suggesting that men and woman are emotionally or intellectually different is prohibited by political correctness. If a mob of young blacks attack pedestrians, or robs a store, in the politically correct media they become unruly teenagers of no particular race. If you criticize the computer models that predict a global warming disaster you are depicted as an ignorant climate denier.

via Articles: Political Correctness: The Progressive Political Strategy.

…Gutting the First Amendment

What will it take to wake Americans up to the fact that the idiots in the Senate are trying to take away their freedoms just as fast as they can get away with it.

It’s high time that Harry Reid is sent packing back to his little whore house in Searchlight, NV.

When the Senate reconvenes today, the No.1 legislative priority of Democrats is to pass a resolution that would gut the First Amendment, one of the few times in American history an amendment has been proposed to cut back on part of the Bill of Rights.

It’s probably no surprise they want to restrict political speech that could threaten their incumbency, but it is a bit ironic coming just a little more than one week before Constitution Day on Sept. 17.

So, the Senate and the House of Representatives return from a month-long recess and, with everything happening in the world at the moment, the legislative schedule set by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., for Sept. 8, available here on the website of the “Democrats in the U.S. Senate,” includes consideration of a few nominations but lists only one legislative item: a motion to invoke cloture end debate on S.J.Res. 19.

This resolution, sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and 47 other senators (without a single Republican member), would amend the First Amendment to give Congress the power to limit fundraising and spending on political speech and political activity. The relevant language says that “Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.”

via Senate Democrats No. 1 Priority After the Recess?.

…all over it.

Truer words were never spoken…

TO WHOM DOES THE LAND OF ISRAEL BELONG??
An Israeli Sense of Humor at the United Nations sets the record straight.

An ingenious example of speech and politics occurred recently in the United Nations Assembly and made the world community smile.

A representative from Israel began:
‘Before beginning my talk I want to tell you something about Moses:

When he struck the rock and it brought forth water, he thought,
“What a good opportunity to have a bath!”
Moses removed his clothes, put them aside on the rock and entered the water.
When he got out and wanted to dress, his clothes had vanished.
A Palestinian had stolen them!

The Palestinian representative at the UN jumped up furiously and
shouted, “What are you talking about? The Palestinians weren’t there then.”

The Israeli representative smiled and said,
“And now that we have made that clear, I will begin my speech.”