Bias

2005-9-5 11:27:00

In my last post I mentioned a few hot button words such as bias in the media and conservative and liberal.

I am accused of being biased because I point out bias.

To be biased one has to look through the eyes of illusion and see what does not exist in favor of his own desires. Therefore, if anyone wishes to accuse me of bias, I think they should back up such an accusation with an example or two.

I said the media is biased in favor of the liberal mindset and this can be proven. If a statement can be proven then bias concerning it cannot be proven.

Some good research on media bias is presented at this page:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/

I have never seen any research to refute the data and polls given there.

A truly unbiased person is willing to see the bias of those who agree with him as well as those who do not. It is very rare to find anyone who will admit that a media piece has bias if it agrees with his beliefs or preconceived notion.

I have views in the liberal and conservative areas and find that I am accused of having a conservative bias when talking to a liberal and a liberal bias when talking to a conservative. As taught in Book III, people are extremists and swing with the pendulum and fail to see the point in the middle. When they swing to an extreme they see the midway point as the extreme.

The conservative and liberal extremes were the main point of Book III ["Lost Key Of The Buddha"]. These extremes must be seen to see the point of truth in the middle.

Seeing truth in the media is just as important as seeing truth in the scriptures, Alice A. Bailey books or any other writings. If I only tried to stimulate the accurate seeing of truth in several areas and neglect those that effect our every day lives I wouldn't be much of a teacher.

The trouble with politics is that there is extreme bias held by many people there but all the more reason that the presentation of truth by the media needs to be examined.

It is best that such conversation not be a free-for-all or bedlam would be the result. As the teacher I insist that hot political subjects be not widely discussed unless they are on topic. If we introduce a fairly narrow subject at a time and not go all over the spectrum then it is possible we can have some civil discussions on politics when the subject is appropriate.

Sharon has never done anything like this and is always supportive of the topic at hand. I do not think you can find any inconsistencies of tolerance here.

Just because I tolerate other points of view does not mean that I will not disagree with some and present my own view in opposition at times. Tolerance does not mean agreement.

As far as sides being taken I do not think anyone has taken sides with this catastrophe. I think all on this list view it as a great calamity and feel empathy for the victims - men, women and children, black, white, oriental, French, Mexicans and the rest. We also feel for the helpless animals. I think all active posters on this list have respect for other races.

Many have expressed surprise at the slow response in New Orleans. This does not surprise me at all. If you've ever watched a bureaucracy at work such sluggishness is to be expected.

And how does bureaucracy propose to solve the problem?

Simple, more bureaucracy.

If you want a sad picture of neglect of bureaucracy look at this:

picture of buses in flooded New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina
An aerial view of flooded school buses in a lot, Thursday, Sept. 1, 2005,
in New Orleans, LA.

Here you will see a picture of hundreds of school buses that could have been used to bus the stranded victims to safety before the flood if only a local bureaucrat had approved it.

The Molecular Relationship is the solution to bureaucratic problem and will bring much greater efficiency when implemented on various levels.

  

"The less government we have the better."
  -- Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882)