A President's Roots

I usually avoid reading articles that target our President. It seems obvious that the press think him to be "less-than-polished" as a speaker and often disagree vehemently with his views. It's probably because they are clueless about the type of individual that I believe him to be.

The President grew up in the rough-and-tumble of the oil patch of West Texas. Yes, I know that his roots lie in the well-worn soil of New England's elite, but his formative years were in an environment that is known for action, not talk; overcoming adversity, not giving in to fears; domination of the elements, not hand-wringing over what nature throws at you. I believe that there is an element in his character that is much closer to the common, everyday, hardworking people of this nation than it is to the self-styled elite of the Washington and international jet-setting crowd. He is caught between the two worlds.

Perhaps that is why the mainstream media, the "old-world superiority complex" of Europe and the "snobbery" of New England and California hate him. It is because they don't see him as one of the elite. He doesn't fit their expectations. He hasn't bowed to the requisite "polish" that is expected by them. He has retained that element of the average citizen that ties him to their values.

When the music fades and his tenure in the Presidency is only a memory, I believe that history will treat him kindly. Time has a way of changing perspective. No longer will minor idiosyncrasies get in the way of thoughtful, honest evaluations of effectiveness and character. He will be remembered well. Thank you, Mr. President, for holding on to the values of Middle America -- the "flyover" country that our East and West Coast brethren demean as the land of the uncouth, unwashed servants of their elitist agenda.

Bias Within Agenda Within Bias or Good Country Living

It seems to me there is often a disconnect between the title of articles and the content of the articles. That disconnect continues to deepen when the article reflects a biased view from the author. I'm sure that I'm guilty of such in my posts, but my real target is the mainstream media -- especially concerning research about health, the environment or the economy.

Titles by their very nature are designed to capture the attention -- to sensationalize. They generally give insight into the biases of the editor or the author (sometimes you don't know which). They usually reflect the perceived key issue in the article -- according to the title writer. The article itself often "fastens onto" something out of a research paper that fits an agenda or particular area of concern of the author. Of course, the author is usually reading the research paper because it is within an area of interest for the author. So, what we have is a "piling on" of biases through the journalistic process that ultimately results in a sensational title designed to elicit an emotional response.

All of this totally ignores the inherent biases of the researcher who wrote the original paper. He starts with biases as well. They come from his funding source and they come from the framing of his original hypothesis which arises from his own personal agenda.

It is difficult for the general public therefore to obtain a reasonably unbiased account of research. First, they likely don't have the technical skills to analyze the data generated by the research and second, they probably cannot easily obtain access to the data if they so desired. So, they are left to attempt extraction of relevant bits of information from their entry point into the process (probably a news account) and then if it is of high interest, their ability to dig deeper.

This is something that I've felt is a root difficulty in sifting through the hype surrounding "Global Warming." However, what put me on the subject today is something totally unrelated. It concerns this article about the connection between Vitamin D and health risks.

I wonder if the researchers fully considered that the true connection might be that humans are made for a period of daily outdoor activity in which they naturally obtain exercise and soak up a reasonable amount of sunshine. It's another one of the chicken or the egg problems. Is it the exercise, the sunshine or the combination of both that provides the health benefit? The issue is further complicated by air quality issues. If the study subject breathed good, clean pure air while exercising/working outdoors in the sunshine, would that make a difference? In my mind, there's no substitute for good clean country living. Sorry for the ramble.