Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011 by Bill Swadley.

 First published on The Huffington Post March 23, 2011

Recently during a lively discussion in the comments section of an article on the Huffington Post, one commentator said (paraphrasing) that NPR is perceived to have a liberal bias because “they’re reality based” and reality has a liberal bias. I had one of those moments when something is explained so succinctly that if someone had been looking at me at that moment I think a light would have appeared to have gone on over my head.

True fair-and-balanced (to coin a phrase) journalism presents facts concerning news stories and all opposing angles when the story in question might have more than one side. I believe most legitimate news organizations strive for this, and after being a daily listener of NPR for over 20 years I know for a fact that NPR consistently  accomplishes it (to the degree that sometimes I’m annoyed at frequently having to hear the opposite of my own, liberal opinion).

The reason almost all news outlets other than the most right-wing (you know who you are) can readily be accused of having a liberal bias regardless of how diligently they try to stay in the middle of the road is this simple explanation. Reality has a liberal bias.

So who would be against reality? How does it even make sense that the right-wing/conservative agenda would be against reality? Why would the “most watched” cable news network want to create a different reality?

A few examples (there are dozens more):

Climate change. Long accepted by most people on the left and in the middle and many, many on the right as part of our current reality. The evidence is overwhelming. But someone somewhere doesn’t like that reality and it’s beyond “inconvenient” as Al put it. It’s expensive. For who? Maybe oil companies and  investors in big oil.  Politicians who were put in office by those same companies and investors. Coal companies. The nuclear power industry. Any company that has significant revenues generated by what we now consider the sources of global warming. Just like when doctors and researchers told us that cigarettes cause cancer, the only voice refuting that claim was the tobacco industry. So “going green” becomes “job killing” and lobbyists for those companies that must conform to expensive environmental regulations call for “reigning in” the EPA. (The EPA definitely has a liberal bias.)

Health care reform. Considered such a liberal issue now that anyone who supports it is a socialist according to Michele Bachmann and her kind. The reality is that the most important aspects of the bill will benefit most people at an individual and personal level. But on the right this reality is considered very dangerous, so a new reality must be constructed and sold. That reality gives us Big Brother and [gasp!] Canadian socialized medicine. Who would want to create that reality? Just about every company involved in the health care industry in this country including doctors. Health care reform hits the bottom line for all of them. Hard.

Taxing the wealthy. Do I even need to elaborate?

The reality is that we don’t want to kill our planet, no one wants to see anyone else suffer if it can be avoided, and those who benefit most should give back at least to the same degree that their less-fortunate counterparts do. But as much as the far-right fronts for corporate and wealthy interests would like to create a different one, there is such a thing as reality and it always has and likely always will have a liberal bias.

Posted in Politics, Blogroll | No Comments »

Monday, March 7th, 2011 by Bill Swadley.

First published at The Huffington Post March 7, 21011

I don’t know any climate scientists personally, but if I did I’d ask him or her a question I’ve had ever since I first heard about global warming. My question is this: Assuming that something like the Gaia Theory is correct, what are the chances that our planet is already fighting global warming with or without our assistance?

The Gaia Theory, simply put, states that Earth is capable of regulating itself much like our bodies do, to maintain a balanced system, fight off disease, and keep things like body temperature within an acceptable range. If this is so then, like a home automatic heating and air conditioning system, a kind of thermostat would determine what actions were required to maintain the planet’s health and equilibrium.

Scientific study of volcanoes over the last 30 years or so has determined that large eruptions can and do reduce the mean temperature of large areas of the planet, sometimes for many years. If volcanoes are simply random events, each one tuned to its own cycles and rhythms and physical affects, then it’s likely that intermittent volcanic activity will have some small impact, but not lasting long enough to be of any real benefit in the fight against global warming.

What if, though, the volcanoes we’ve been experiencing over the past few decades aren’t random, disconnected incidents? What if our living planet is reacting as an organism rather than a big hunk of rock? It gets too hot, the planet has a physical reaction, and turns down the thermostat. Lower thermostat = more volcanoes = cooler planet. We have no way to know, of course, whether this is happening or not, or if it is whether it will be effective, but I’m watching with great interest as each new volcanic eruption is reported and/or predicted.

It may still be too late for us either way. Since the planet’s second-hand is gauged in millennia, not only is it unlikely to help us undo the mess we’ve caused in time for us, but a severe enough reaction to global warming by the planet could very well put us in a long nuclear winter, the old cure-being-worse-than-the-disease.

Kind of like that Twilight Zone episode where everyone is baking to death because the Earth is moving closer to the sun. [spoiler alert!] Turns out the main character was only dreaming that apocalypse, because, in reality, the Earth is moving away from the sun and everyone is freezing to death.

Posted in Blogroll, General | No Comments »