Tag Archives: Dissent

News

Owner of the last anti-Chavez TV station arrested in communist Venezuela

Leave a comment

Hugo Chavez is arresting anyone who disagrees with him. (H/T Ace of Spades)

Excerpt:

The owner of Venezuela’s only remaining TV channel that takes a critical line against President Hugo Chavez was arrested Thursday, raising concerns the government is carrying out a widening crackdown aimed at silencing opponents.

Guillermo Zuloaga, owner of Globovision, was arrested on a warrant for remarks that were deemed “offensive” to the president, Attorney General Luisa Ortega said…

The Attorney General’s Office said in a statement that prosecutors are investigating Zuloaga for allegedly violating a law prohibiting Venezuelans from spreading “false information through any medium,” including newspapers, radio, television, e-mails or leaflets, “that cause public panic.”

Hugo Chavez has his own version of the Democrats’ “Fairness Doctrine”. I really don’t think there is much difference between Chavez and Obama, either. This will happen here too, in time. When you look at the way that Democrats attack and censor their opponents in the media and on university campuses, it’s not unexpected. They’re fascists. It’s not an insult, it’s just reality. That’s the worldview of the secular left.

Are Obama and Chavez really so different?

Here’s a picture of Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez.

Hey, Chavez! Good work arresting dissenters!
Hey, Chavez! Good work arresting dissenters!

They seem to get along well. Perhaps because they share the same views?

Related posts

Commentary

Michelle Malkin explains how the left regularly fakes hate crimes

3 Comments
Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin

Her latest column is here. (And yes, I do admire her! Duh!)

Excerpt:

If you can’t stand the heat, manufacture a hate crime epidemic.

After years of covering racial hoaxes on college campuses and victim sob stories in the public arena, I’ve encountered countless opportunists who live by that demented mindset. At best, the fakers are desperately seeking 15 minutes of infamy. At worst, their aim is the criminalization of political dissent.

Upon decimating the deliberative process to hand President Obama a health care “reform” victory, unpopular Beltway Democrats and their media water-carriers now claim there’s a Tea Party epidemic of racism, harassment, and violence against them. On Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a tepid, obligatory statement against smearing all conservatives as national security threats. But her lieutenants had already emptied their tar buckets. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Chris Van Hollen blamed Republican leaders of “stoking the flames.” Democrat House Whip James Clyburn accused the GOP of “aiding and abetting” what he called “terrorism.”

Here’s an example:

In November 2009, Kentucky Census worker Bill Sparkman was found dead in a secluded rural cemetery with the word “Fed” scrawled on his chest with a rope around his neck. The Atlantic Monthly, the Huffington Post, and liberal media hosts stampeded over themselves to blame Fox News, conservative blogs, Republicans, and right-wing radio. Federal, state, and local authorities discovered that Sparkman had killed himself and deliberately concocted a hate crime hoax as part of an insurance scam to benefit his surviving son.

The article contains many more faked hate crimes conducted by the left to smear conservatives. A substantial portion of people on the left thinks that anyone who disagrees with them is a terrorist. And if evidence is not available to substantiate that claim, then it just has to be manufactured. By the left.

The mainstream news media is more than willing to run with the lies. After all, CNN thinks that a tea party rally of thousands of people actually drew a few dozen people, (check the photos – is that “a few dozen people” like the CNN woman said?). It’s not like the lamestream media is there to tell the truth – they’re leftists. And they ignore real hate crimes committed against conservatives. All the news that fits… they print.

By the way, ECM sent me this article from the American Spectator a few days ago. It talks about Jewish Republican Eric Cantor’s campaign headquarters getting shot up (with real guns and real bullets). The point of the article is that the religious left had nothing to say about attacks on the wrong kinds of victims. If you’re a Jewish conservative, then hate crimes just don’t happen to you! They can’t, because only secular leftists can be victims of hate, see? So just keep in mind that reports of hate crimes have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Commentary

Jay Richards explains when you should doubt “scientific consensus”

2 Comments

Jay Richards writing in The American, a publication of the American Enterprise Institute. (H/T Evolution News via Apologetics 315)

This short article summarizes 10 things to look for that hint that “scientific consensus” as a substitute for arguments and evidence.

Excerpt:

How is the ordinary citizen to distinguish, as Andrew Coyne puts it, “between genuine authority and mere received wisdom? Conversely, how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?” Are we obligated to trust whatever we’re told is based on a scientific consensus unless we can study the science ourselves? When can you doubt a consensus? When should you doubt it?

Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, maintains, and communicates the ostensible consensus. I don’t know of any exhaustive list of signs of suspicion, but, using climate change as a test study, I propose this checklist as a rough-and-ready list of signs for when to consider doubting a scientific “consensus,” whatever the subject. One of these signs may be enough to give pause. If they start to pile up, then it’s wise to be suspicious.

Here are the 10 points he discusses:

  • Bundling well-evidenced claims together with speculative claims
  • The use of ad hominem attacks against dissenters
  • The use of coercion to force scientists to join the consensus
  • Publishing and peer review that is cliquish
  • Unwarranted exclusion of dissenters from peer-reviewed literature
  • Misrepresentation of peer-reviewed literature
  • A rush to declare a consensus before it even exists
  • When the subject matter is not easily testable (e.g. – simulations)
  • When defenders resort to phrases like “Scientists say…”
  • When science is used to push for dramatic policies
  • When journalists are not reporting the issue objectively
  • When supports appeal to scientific consensus instead of arguments

One can easily see how this list applies not only to global warming alarmism, but to Darwinism as well.