QUESTION: One of the things we've seen this year is the reduction in your approval ratings. And I know how you feel about polls, but it appears to be taking something out of your political clout, as evidenced by the Patriot Act vote.
What do you attribute your lowered polls to? And are you worried that independents are losing confidence in your leadership?
The question above gets my vote for the single most obnoxious utterance of the major media last year. The CNN transcript transcript of the press conference President Bush held on December 19 does not identify the questioner.
In the President's astonishingly restrained and polite answer, he addresses his interlocutor as "David," so I assume it was David Gregory of NBC.
The press did some truly awful things last year. The flying falsehoods in the reporting on hurricane Katrina. The spill-the-secrets betrayals of the New York Times' stories on CIA airplane flights to foreign holding centers. The mythic "outing" of Valerie Plame. And the relentless ongoing negativity of the coverage from Iraq.
But the concentrated blank-faced hypocrisy of those four sentences from Gregory takes the prize.
Let's imagine that President Bush could have answered that question the way it deserved.
"Oh, I don't know, Stretch. I suppose when the greatest image- and opinion-making machine the world has ever seen devotes five years to making me look bad, it might have some effect."
Storied newspaperman Ben Hecht, in his out-of-print autobio, A Child of the Century, told how he and a photographer from a Chicago newspaper made news when there wasn't much of anything happening for real. They went to the shores of Lake Michigan, dug a jagged ditch, took a picture, and wrote up a story about an earthquake. Then they went out and filled up the ditch. It worked so well and created such a furor that they did it again.
That was back in the Roaring Twenties, and it was all quite innocent. Hecht and his photographer didn't bear anybody any ill will. They just wanted to stir up some excitement and have some laughs.
By contrast, I visited my sister a few years back and was struck by reading the Washington Post in person and on paper. Far more evident than on the web, the newsprint Post struck me as, well, sick. The Post created news, too, just like Ben Hecht, but it did so self-righteously, as a matter of policy -- not just some reporter's prank. For example, one day while I was in Virginia, the paper ran a front-page story about something, maybe it was radon contamination in Maryland schools. And then the next day, it ran a story based on results of a poll -- its own -- testing how upset Marylanders were about radon contamination in the schools.
The Washington Post, in other words, felt perfectly justified in trying to run a local school board.
I've been around newspapers all my life -- they're a family business, in a humble way. I go back long before the word "media" came to be applied to the news business. I've never had any illusions about the elevated virtues of news reporting. My Dad, who took to the advertising side of the business, made it very clear to me that newspapering was "writing on the backs of advertisements," as George Bernard Shaw once described it. If you don't sell enough space, the reporters don't get room to write. And papers do display favoritism. My first editor was a bigshot in the Lion's Club. The Lion's Club got a lot of ink. Big deal.
I have seen newspapers go through two big, wrenching transformations. Today, we take for granted that newspapers print lovely color pictures and tight, sharp type. That's a product of the first transformation, a technical one, from letterpress printing to offset. In letterpress, ink is applied to a raised lead surface and applied to paper by presses as big and heavy as locomotives. In offset, a mixture of ink and water is applied to a far more delicate engraved surface, then transferred to a rubber blanket, thence applied to paper.
That change, an enormously expensive one involving a big new capital investment, drove marginal newspapers out of business in the late '50s and early '60s.
The second transforming influence came from national TV network news. When the latest news could be obtained from the tube at dinner time, the afternoon daily paper became obsolete. Seemingly overnight, cities with two newspapers were reduced to one, and big cities with half a dozen or more papers fell to three or two or one.
Today, the convergence and transformation has grown more complicated. Watergate started it all, giving newspapers a shot of arrogance from which they have never recovered. Then came the Internet and Clinton and talk radio at about the same time. The major media took sides, and the Internet and radio fought back.
Major news media today has become an image-making enterprise, much more like the advertising agencies of classic Madison Avenue in the 1950s. And, just as with old-time Madison Avenue, people tell pollsters they don't trust reporters ââ¬â "the media," as it is said now.
I used to watch cable TV news shows during the Clinton impeachment and think, "Can't people see what's going on?" Of course, people did, and people do, and major media nowadays, while not quite in its death throes -- it still controls the national hearthbeat [STET!], television -- is obviously fighting a desperate rearguard battle.
There may, indeed, come a media Waterloo, the ultimate convergence of declining TV news viewership, splintering audiences scattered across too many channels, and falling newspaper circulation and ad revenues. It may have begun already, in the coverage of the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito (I write this over the weekend of January 7-8.) It should offer myriad opportunities for over-the-top outrage.
Because, in response to today's multi-element convergence, the media has not responded rationally. Offset printing was a technical revolution, resulting in capital re-investment. Television caused print consolidation. Today's competition, more like a death of a thousand cuts, has seen the media retreat into siege-like ideological solidarity. That just can't work, especially as the news product gets ever more predictable, and -- face it -- ever more dull.
The old fashioned "news triangle" was "facts -- interest -- readers" -- facts of interest to your readers. If you ignore facts, and the readers aren't interested anymore, there's simply nowhere to go.
#1
I think the MSM is in long term decline, but that doesn't mean it won't have at least one "recovery period" before the ultimate fall (as many declining institutions do).
The scary thing is that the recovery may coincide with the '08 elections...
#2
The fall will not happen, but drastic change will. I imagine the major networks will dump national news shows in favor of an occasional feed from cable new.
Newspapers will dwindle and daily papers may disappear (or go online only) since ad revenue are drying up faster than readership.
As an Infantry soldier currently in Iraq I feel compelled to comment on this article and point out several issues that could mislead the public back home. I shouldn't let articles like this bother me but I'm frustrated because I know people will read or see this interview and assume that what they are being told is the 100% truth and won't put any thought or research into it. I'm also sick and tired of politicians and journalists commenting on subjects they don't know much about. I'll try to keep my comments as concise as possible...
...Another reason this article frustrates me is because you never hear people like Mrs. Clinton propose solutions to any of the problems they address. She says, "This is Bush/Cheney policy... I've been one of the leading critics pointing out all the failures, the incompetencies".
Ok then Mrs. Clinton, tell me what you'd do differently.
These people are never challenged to tell what they would do differently or how they would do it. It's always appoint a committee or nominate a board to conduct an investigation. If you're going to complain about something tell me how you'd like to try to fix it. Re-read the article and realize how much of the interview talks in generalities and makes broad accusations against the current administration without presenting any alternative views or suggestions.
I was extremely frustrated when Mrs. Clinton said, "...that considering the United States' defense budget was half a trillion dollars, the additional protection was affordable. She said the administration had refused to listen to people in the field like Paul Bremer, former ambassador to Iraq, who said the United States needed more troops in Iraq to pacify the country."
It is quite easy for Mrs. Clinton to say that the military should be able to afford it new armor, but it isn't that easy. It's not feasible (logistically or financially) for the military to field new equipment every time something new or better comes out because we'd be in a constant state of change. And the part about Paul Bremer makes me laugh. She refers to "people in the field like Paul Bremer". Mr. Bremer was never in the military chain of command. President Bush has repeatedly stated that he will always provide whatever the military commanders on the ground ask for...
...Hindsight is always 20/20. We can always second guess battle plans based on their results. And if you think this interview wasn't for personal political reasons, don't forget this quote (in case you missed it): "He's [President Bush has] got three more years in office. Some of us wish this wasn't the case."
If I have to listen to many more politicians or journalists misconstrue what is really going on over here and discuss topics about which they know little or nothing or address issues for personal or political reasons I think I'm going go crazy.
I truly believe that reporting like this occurs because some politicians and news media rely on the ignorance of their readers, listeners, and constituents and know that these people will believe what they see and hear without question, without doing their own research. Until these people are questioned and challenged this behavior will continue...
#4
Interesting she picked up the Armor issue as a platform. The woman and her husband denied the requests for armored vehicles and more troops when "they" sat in the White House. This resulted the imbarsament and loss of life of soldiers in Somalia.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
01/11/2006 13:50 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I don't know bomb-a-rama, I'd throw down a 5spot to nail the old hildebeast.
#7
Funny that you don't hear from Cassini on this. I was looking forward to his/her expert analysis on how the Lt must be lying and obviously a shill for BusH.
Conservatives donât have a level playing field because our country suffers from a liberally biased news media. Some people think media bias is not a fact, but merely a debatable opinion. These people are quick to point out that conservatives have venues for their ideas: talk radio, the Internet, Fox News and The Wall Street Journal.
Looking at the issue from a marketing prospective helps debunk the absurd claim that there is some sort of parity in the media for liberals and conservatives. Consider three target audiences: passionate liberals, passionate conservatives and normal people who vote. Those of us who fall in one of the first two groups, battle for market share of the third group. We want our ideas embraced. We want our candidates elected.
Paradoxically, the primary target audience for those of us passionate about politics is voters who are disengaged from politics. How do you reach this group? How do they form their opinions? Talk radio and the rest of the new media doesnât reach these people or sway their opinions. The primary audience of talk radio is those of us who are passionate about politics and are committed to a political ideology. We are not normal.
Normal people donât care as much about politics or liberal versus conservative ideology as they care about sports, hobbies, their jobs, family activities, etc. They are not interested in taking the time to understand issues on a deep level. They want sound bites and headlines. They want to glean information efficiently, form quick opinions and move onto something else more enjoyable.
The target audience - people who swing elections and influence policy because of their answers to public opinion polls - is reached through the mainstream media. These people spend a few minutes with the newspaper and catch their local news on television. The claim that media bias is not a problem because conservatives now have a voice in the media misses the big picture perspective.
Advertising types make decisions regarding getting their message out based on gross rating points (GRPs). Yes, the total GRPs from talk radio, the Internet and the rest of the conservative media, is huge. In fact, advertisers understand that for products disproportionately purchased by conservatives, they have attractive and efficient advertising opportunities. Although the reach of the conservative media is staggering when looked at on its own, it is tiny when compared to the reach of the mainstream media.
Total all of the GRPs from news programs on ABC, CBS, NBC and their hundreds of affiliates across the country. Then add in the circulation of all of the nationâs newspapers and you have a Goliath that makes the audience of the conservative media look like a David. More importantly, the mainstream media reaches the audience that drives policy and swings elections, while the new media is preaching to the choir.
Associated Press Writer Deb Riechmann has more influence over public opinion polls than Rush Limbaugh does. Riechmannâs dispatches are printed in tens of millions of newspapers throughout the country and because she covers President Bush, her stories often get television coverage as well.
Liberally biased Riechmann is pawned off as news, but it is understood that conservatively biased Limbaugh is presenting commentary. When Riechmann packaged Cindy Sheehan sympathetically, and covered President Bush harshly, it made an impact with the primary target audience that influences public opinion polls. Limbaughâs excellent commentary on the subject helps those of us who want to dig deep into important stories understand why we have the opinions we do. Limbaugh doesnât change our opinion as much as he solidifies them. Riechmann, on the other hand, serves it up to those looking for the fast food equivalent of the issues of the day. The opinions of the people she reaches are more easily swayed than the opinions of Limbaughâs more thoughtful audience.
The new media led by Limbaugh has been a wonderful development for conservatives. None of us would want to go back to the dark ages of the 1980âs. But, just because conservatives have a voice, it doesnât mean the media is balanced. Liberal bias in the mainstream media is a huge problem in this country. Like other topics, those of us who take the time, understand the ramifications of media bias. Those who stay at the surface level of thinking, dismiss media bias as a non-issue.
#2
However....
As I heard the other day, the average age of the CBS news [lower case intended] viewer is 60. Look who they got to replace Rather. Check out the who buys what products advertised. Marketing offices in business certainly know who's watching. I have no hard stats, but watching my mother's "Greatest Generation", they're still hooked on paper. That mass audience appears to be literally dying out. They won't completely disappear and though in smaller numbers the older population holds a lot of buying power to keep the commercial subsidies coming for a little while longer. The time is coming in about a decade when the strength of that subsidy will no longer sustain and we'll begin to see the collapse of the traditional outlets. Noticed any layoffs already? There will be no return to the 'good old days' for those institutions because they've demonstrated a complete lack of ability to evolve.
#3
"Right-Wing bloggers, who have set themselves up as watchdogs of what they categorize, self revealingly, as the "Mainstream Media" have several qualities in common.
The class includes a wide range of conservative and reactionary blogs for which it's an article of faith that the traditional press is secretly devoted to inculcating the nation's innocent readers with their liberal agenda."
"None of these critics appears to be genuinely interested in correcting factual errors or improving this newspaper's, or any newspaper's, performance as a journalistic institution -- which are certainly legitimate goals. Their main purpose is to hunt down deviations from a political orthodoxy that they themselves define. Their techniques include a promiscuous use of labels as shorthand slurs ('leftist' and 'liberal' being, of course, their most popular denigrations). They no doubt find this technique valuable because once they can hang a label on a newspaper or a journalist, they can dispense with anything so fundamental as discussion or argument. Some also favor imputations of treason or unpatriotism; contentions that the offending reporters and editors are detached in spirit from their readership; and suggestions that what underlies their political deviancy is moral turpitude.
"To back up their assertions, they often quote articles selectively, take out of context what they do quote, and ascribe imaginary motivations to reporters and editors, which they then feel free to decry. As any student of history knows, these are tools and techniques that were used to great effect during the Stalinist show trials of the '40s and '50s. The functionaries who wielded them then had the same goals as the self-anointed press watchdogs on the right do today: To support the regime in power through intimidation and threat and to impose ideological conformity, while avoiding at all costs debate on the merits.
"These critics equate a newspaper's failure to parrot a conservative, Republican, or Bush Administration line with inaccuracy, or cavalierly interpret it as evidence of 'bias.' Unconcerned with a free press's duty to challenge official versions of events, they fault newspapers and newsmagazines for failing to fall into lockstep in support of George W. Bush and his policies . . .
"Such reveling in ignorance of one's subject is a new phenomenon in criticism. You don't hear movie critics bragging about never going to the cinema, TV critics dropping their cable subscriptions, or book critics swearing off reading. But it's not at all unusual to hear the blogging critics urge readers to cancel their subscriptions to their daily newspapers, as though their goal is to reduce their followers to the same state of blissful benightedness to which they aspire themselves."
#4
I don't think anyone is trying to supress debate. The "left" has decided to take a diametrically opposed position to almost every topic that arises. This is unfortunate when it comes to things like national security, military operations and energy policies. Republicans are no doubt guilty too to some degree, but all my life I can not recall such a seething hatred for an administration, nor such unrelenting vitriol against people for doing what they think is right.
The left is not just saying "we should do it this way", they are saying "Do it this way or else".
#5
Following the money we see the group with the most spendable income is the gay men.
How many new cable/sat channels are now targeted to them. (I count at least 4 in the past few months) Then look at ad and show targeting.
Struggling middle class married folk are not targets as their income has little disposable value.
Now factor that into news reporting.
#6
"Such reveling in ignorance of one's subject is a new phenomenon in criticism."
Don't you get it? This is precisely the problem. They think they know more than their readers, and that plainly isn't true. Did Dan Rather and his experts know more about typography than those people at LGF? Obviously not. Does any legal comentator about the law on TV know more than someone who has practiced for 1 year in a major metro area? Obviously not. Does any military comentator on TV know more that even the greenest, most inexperienced soldier? Obviously not.
For decades, the interpretation of what is news and how it should be viewed has been up to them. Now, with the Internet and widespread access to primary source material, everyone can see the evidence, weigh the arguments, and judge for themselves. But they still want to decide what is the truth, what is logical, and what is important to the readership. In reality, they are (just another) service business, and must respond to their customers, or die. Now that people have choice in consumption, we can see the results.
Just like tempramental artists, of course the loosers will rue the judges, the customers who have left their products, as too stupid and ignorant to get the sophistication of their product. After all, the vast majority of people we see on the TV (e.g anchors, reporters, etc.)are just actors, nothing more.
Posted by: Mark E. ||
01/11/2006 11:33 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"But they still want to decide what is the truth, what is logical, and what is important to the readership."
And even deeper than that, they want to continue telling us what to think.
Their bias is not what bothers me; everybody is "biased" in that we each have our own point of view and there's nothing wrong with that. What bothers me is the dishonesty about that bias, and the manipulativeness of their sneak-preaching.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/11/2006 11:47 Comments ||
Top||
#11
One thing the post misses is that Rush may not directly influence opinion because he's preaching to the choir and all, but he indirectly influences opinion by bringing data and talking points to that same choir.
Another thing the post misses is that when something is funny people tend to remember it and pass it along. The Liberals seem to be abandoning funny to the Conservatives.
#12
"Howard Kurtz has right wing epubs/cons "nailed" on their constant whining and bitching about the so-called "MSM liberal media bias"."
Sure. Yeah.
Posted by: Mark E. ||
01/11/2006 13:12 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Face it, BirdDog: you're just not tall enough for this ride.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/11/2006 13:13 Comments ||
Top||
#14
You know, I just wanted to add that stating that an individual who disagrees on an issue is too stupid, or evil (the quoted article compares blogges to Stalinist inquisitors), or both to understand or accept their argument is no way to convince someone that an argument is valid or true. You won't win many voters that way. I suggest you try and hide as best you can your utter contempt for people who disagree with you.
Posted by: Mark E. ||
01/11/2006 13:20 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Mark E.
I think Mr. Kurtz is saying in so many words that
repubs/cons are "brainwashed" by RNC Bush/Rove propaganda to the point THEY cannot be objective
about dissenting opinions. In other words the "bias" is coming from those that agree and support President Bush.Liberal media bias is in
THEIR MINDS, NOT THE MEDIA. LOL
#16
Your position is that people who disagree with you are brainwashed? My point in post #14 stands. Good luck with that brainwashing argument, though....
Posted by: Mark E. ||
01/11/2006 14:03 Comments ||
Top||
#17
The thing that BirdDog fails to realize is how many of us arrived here from the starting point of supersaturation with the cream of the so-called mainstream media. BirdDog, let me tell you of my own voyage:
In the summer of 2001 we finally got an internet connection. I immediately discovered that my favorite newspaper, the New York Times, was available (for free!!) and, instead of reading that paper only on Sunday, I was now able to read it every single day -- and with no mass of paper to be recycled. Heaven! I gorged myself on its pages and archives for hours each day, and felt ever so superior to the benighted masses who chose not to educate themselves about the world beyond their doorsteps.
But, as time passed, I noticed something disconcerting: some of the articles I read stated as incontrovertible fact things that I knew to be untrue. Things about Israel for instance (Daddy was involved in the early years of that country's formation; his mother used to kaffeeklatch with Golda Meir about educating the nation's youth, her profession). And things about Europe, where we'd lived for a number of years, and where Mr. Wife had played a part in his company opening new markets in the recently freed Eastern Europe and Russia.
And then, Mr. Wife got an on-line extension to his Wall Street Journal subscription, which he shared with the home computer. Double heaven! I discovered the WSJ has a page of links to the editors' favourite on-line resources -- and some of those were web logs. So I checked that out. (You'll have concluded by this point that I'm a bit of a news junkie.) And the blogs were full of posts "fisking" articles from the NYT and others, pointing out the same errors of fact that I had noticed, and giving links to sources... just like proper researchers are supposed to do. (This is where I mention that my father was a research professor, and I was set to editing his publications from the moment I could read English -- for language use, of course, not content -- because English was something like his 8th learnt language, and he tended to use Germanic (one of his four mother tongues -- he's from Latvia originally) sentence structures underneath the classic scientific one. Imagine a half-page long sentence with five references, three chemical formulae, and the verb at the end. I spent a lot of time relocating his verbs. And I developed a firm understanding of the use of foot/end notes.)
At this point my supersaturation (see paragraph 1) crystallized. It wasn't just me, y'see. There were a lot of us who noticed the errors and outright falsehoods of the media elite which had informed our understanding of world events. And some were clever enough to tear apart the falsehoods, and some were clever enough to put the original sources from all over the world in one place, so that I could draw my own conclusions unfiltered by the prejudices of the New York Times' reporting staff. I didn't find Rantburg because I was a Conservative Republican (neither holds true for me, nor even for a majority of Rantburgers as far as I can tell -- rock-ribbed Conservatives and Republicans tend to wander off after a short period of frustrated argument), nor because I watch Fox News or listen to Conservative talk radio (I don't, and the few times I did by accident, I was highly distressed by all the shouting at people. I prefer people to listen politely to one another.). I found Rantburg because here was a one-stop shop for news straight from the places where things are happening, and for comments from people who know from personal knowledge and experience what they are talking about. And those that spout cant, like you BirdDog dear, are challenged immediately by experts in the subject. For a news (and, to be honest, learning) junkie, this is as close to heaven as I expect to find in this lifetime.
So if you want Rantburgers to respect the positions you take on anything, BirdDog dear, you would be wise to claim your bona fides up front, and let the experts size you up. As far as I can tell you are a noisy party-liner who's learnt to post articles that support your viewpoint. Tell me whence comes your expertise, if you wish me to give your words more weight than the zero I've given them thus far.
#19
The definition of a Liberal [circa 2000 CE] is 1) one who can hold two contradictory concepts at the same time and remain sane and 2) believes that there are one set of rules for those of his beliefs and another set of rules for all others [see Inner Party, Outer Party; 1984 by George Orwell].
For generations liberals have shamed the culture for allowing institutions composed of 95% percent old white males to run our schools, our businesses, our government. They forcefully declared that such a population could not in the least understand the entire body of the people composed of women, minorities, etc. They established âdefactoâ discrimination and segregation based solely upon statistical analysis of such population and imposed quotas of every form and manner to wiggle around the 14th Amendment. With this power they created imposed diversity.
Now when it comes to their MSM composed of a population which is 90 to 95% registered Democrats while the electoral figures show a distribution about evenly divided between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, these same miscreants just shut their minds off from the very argument they make about the fundamental need for diversity for the rest of us. As Lincoln intoned, you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can not fool all the people all the time.
first of all, I really dont think you actually read the post of the regulars in here. They are highly partisan right wing republican conservatives, who absolutey hate the democratic party and its leaders. The host of this site Fred,
had the absolute audacity and unmitigated gall to tell me that: "The leaders of the Democratic Party make me want to spit". They slander & bash
democratic politicians in here on a daily basis. What happens is when a democrats fights back in here they cannot deal with it. I think they are bullies and cowards and furthermore I havent seen anything written in here by those on the right that makes me think they are experts on anything.
Second of all, I really dont think you actually read, the things i am posting or the articles I
reference.
I think that some of the postitions that the right wing repub/cons take are absolutely absurd and have little or no basis in reality. I believe that many of them are brainwashed by the rnc/bush rove connection and they spout their propaganda as if it is all fact & truth, which it isnt.
Anyone that disagrees with them is quickly labeled a "troll" which is pure bs. I say exactly what I think. What is really taking place is that they absolutely cannot stand anyone that disagrees or debunks their right wing propaganda.
Yes I am a democrat, but I get my news from several sources which could be considered liberal or conservative. I try to examine both sides then make up my own mind. Try it, try to think outside of your own republican box.
#22
The [regulars here] are highly partisan right wing republican conservatives, who absolutey hate the democratic party and its leaders.
You haven't been here long. The former is true. Most folks here have supreme distaste for the direction the Democrat Party has taken as a result of the leaders it has chosen and the positions it has taken in the GWOT. For that reason, many of them have left the party, or in the worlds of Ronald Reagan, the party left them. They aren't necessarily Republicans yet and they certainly aren't right wing. Some of us are, but not nearly so many as you assume, particularly when you get away from defence issues.
The interesting thing is that you are so unpersuasive in your commentary here. Like others from your side of the aisle, you are more interested in picking a fight than in proving a point. You are not seeking converts to your cause, you are striking out at your enemies. That's fine for you if it makes you feel better. But it is the reason the Democrats are going to become the permanent minority party for the next 60 years. And that's fine with me.
#23
You are clearly young, BirdDog. Whether chronologically or just to the news gathering experience, I wouldn't venture to say. It doesn't matter anyway, as youngness (like its analogue, youth) is a naturally self-correcting.
I actually do read your posts, and chuckle quietly to myself, having once upon a time been in your shoes. Clearly, however, you did not read the above of mine in its entirety, else you would not still accuse me of being a Republican, either big or small R. I actually read all the posts, often enough several time a day, because for a few years I've been a semi-invalid housewife whose time is her own, at least until the after-school chauffeuring starts (but it looks like lately things are much improving on that front!). The ones who've attacked you the strongest are the old hands, many of whom have been contributing to this site since Fred put floated it in the ether around 9/11. You aren't the first of your type to discover Rantburg, nor the first to come in spitting venom, and we regulars fondly hope that you will actually think about the comments of those who disagree with you. You see, those with the mental honesty to learn from these discussions have become some of our most productive and beloved members.
Until you reach that point, however, please do us all the politeness of giving up your favorite terms of insult, Republican and Conservative, because they apply in perhaps as much as 50% of the cases here, and demonstrate a certain refusal to think to the rest of us.
Oh, and you'll be happy to know that Fred isn't a Republican Conservative, either. He's what's formally known as an Independent, and informally as a cynic. And only partly because of the years he spent as an intelligence analyst for the government. Disliking the antics of entirely too many elected representatives of the Democratic Party is not a preserve of registered members of the Republican Party, but is freely partaken of by many of us who think for ourselves, and may not even be aware of the Party line (what I, myself, know of the Party line I have learnt from your posts).
#25
My apologies to all for my wordiness. I just read on another thread that BirdDog has also been known here as Cassini and Left Angle. Shame on him for changing names just so he can fly under the radar to drop his (as he fondly hopes) bombs! Moderators, please ban his IP -- he isn't here to learn, just to disrupt, as Nimble Spemble and others more perceptive than I have pointed out. Such behaviour is not only stealing Fred's bandwidth, but rude as well; a gentleman does not hide under series of identities, but presents himself honestly and proudly to the world.
Inspector, you are a dear. Tell you what: all the ladies and gentlemen are invited for tea. Milk, sugar and lemon are over there, and the liquor is on the sideboard for those of you who prefer it. Inspector, if you would be so kind as to pour out for a moment, I'll fetch the cakes I baked earlier. ;-)
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/11/2006 21:23 Comments ||
Top||
#28
bird dog....
I started out far far left...... (starting being college) by 85 I was right wing republican because JIMMY and Friends drove me their.
To top it off they are TWITS!
Demo arguments tend not to be. They are really forms of bullying or intimidation.
Would I switch to a third party if it lots the TWITS from the democrats and had a more responsible additude to toward the common citizens in the US?
Yes! But I don't see it. What I do see is that the democratic TWIT leadership is so dangerous that putting those children in power would seriously hurt the survival of normal humans at home in the USA.
The adults in the Republican party may have lots of negative aspects from my viewpoint but they are not following TWIT ideas that lead to the end of a USA.
There's a great scene in The Simpsons set in the not-too-distant future when Marge says to Homer, "You know, Fox turned into a hardcore sex channel so gradually, I didn't even notice."
Something similar could be said of the spectacle of these Supreme Court confirmation hearings. We have become so accustomed to distortions and outright lies, you'd think it's patriotic to insinuate decent nominees are racists, sexists or liars. "Oh, that's just par for the course" is no longer an observation; it's a rationalization.
Here's just one of the dozens of deceitful low blows aimed at Samuel Alito. In his opening statement Monday, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said Alito "has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job" among the thousands of cases that came before him. Any reasonable person hearing that would assume Kennedy was calling Alito at minimum "insensitive" or, more likely, a racist. But Kennedy was lying â albeit in a very lawyerly way.
Alito has ruled for the plaintiff in many racial discrimination cases, but he wasn't always the guy on the multi-judge appellate panels who wrote the opinions. In fact, Alito has written many opinions siding with plaintiffs "of color." Even so â as appeals court judges are wont to do â he didn't always write to the "merits" of the plaintiff's claim so much as to the relevant legal issues. So by peeling off selective opinions, Kennedy is left with the slimy insinuation that Alito is biased against minorities. But instead of, "Have you no shame, senator?" we get, "It's par for the course."
Amid all the country club decorum, there's a whiff of a show trial to these proceedings. The aim isn't to illuminate; it's to catch Alito saying something that will sound damning in an endlessly replayed sound bite. Hence the relentless campaign to get nominees to spill their guts on hot-button issues. When Justice John Roberts was in the hot seat, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., declared into every camera in the USA â including the security cams above ATMs â that Roberts' lack of a paper trail required he divulge his views more. Now, Schumer argues that Alito's enormous paper trail obliges him to be even more responsive than Roberts was.
In a sense, the no-holds-barred approach is entirely justified because we've invested judges with so much power. And with the stakes so high, politics alone determines who sits on the bench. Having lost at the polls, liberals are desperate to keep the courts on their side. This is why they are touting Sandra Day O'Connor as Babylonian King Hammurabi reincarnated, though her rulings were widely recognized as intellectually incoherent and inconsistent. Who cares about that, so long as you come out "right" on abortion and affirmative action?
Indeed, liberal jurisprudence is driven by results. The judges on the left side of the Supreme Court regularly scan around the globe to find precedents where they can't find them at home. The "living constitution" is just a fancy phrase for "making it up as you go along."
In one area, however, liberals are right (though they will change their position when a liberal is nominated). Alito, like all nominees, should be more forthcoming about his views. If we're going to have judges rule like unelected monarchs, we should at least know what they think before they get on the throne. But in a better system, the bench wouldn't be a throne in the first place.
#2
When you understand that an underlying reason that the Dems don't support democracy in Iraq is because they don't support democracy in America, it starts to make sense. During the heady days of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, the pushers and makers of the party knew they couldn't get their agendas through the house of the people, so they empowered the judiciary to do their dirty work. That is why they are so disparate to hang on to their last vestage of power in the courts which they have manifested in to the modern aristocracy of America. Above the people, unaccountable, and slavishly obeyed. For all the anger and outrage for many decrees, has one, one judge ever been removed from office for his expansion of power and authority over our lives, our communities, our states? Congress is a coward. You don't need Constitutional admendments, you just toss the cretin and put someone else in who is capable of actually reading the Constitution. There is no balance of powers. This is why the great show plays before us. It demonstates that Congress has failed to do its business, but don't worry, they'll pass regulations on water flow through your bath. They'll declare March 13th "Wear a Green Shirt to Work Day" for the green dye lobby. If Congress isn't going to do its work, maybe we should. Time for these Princes, Barons, and Dukes to be subject to the direct consent of the governed. Move the circus out of the Senate and back to the population where it belongs. Let us vote!
#1
Sort of off-topic but it is a reference to zombies. I've posted two trailers for the movie I'm working on:
http://www.rjschwarz.com/2006/01/trailers.html
If you have comments post them on the linked page and not here. I feel bad enough about hijacking the thread and wouldn't be upset if Fred deleted this post as spam.
Still I posted a request for zombies a long time ago and there seemed to be some interest so I thought I'd give you guys an early peek.
#2
I'm beginning to suspect the fuse on this will be very short. Israel is going to do something this spring and nobody but the Iranians will mind. In fact, they will get a lot of silent, unseen, deniable assistance and acts of ommission from lots of parties. They may make a few snide remarks, but nothing of substance will happen. The next couple of months are just kabuki dance in the remote case the MMs come tho their senses at the last minute.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The press did some truly awful things last year. The flying falsehoods in the reporting on hurricane Katrina. The spill-the-secrets betrayals of the New York Times' stories on CIA airplane flights to foreign holding centers. The mythic "outing" of Valerie Plame. And the relentless ongoing negativity of the coverage from Iraq.
There may, indeed, come a media Waterloo, the ultimate convergence of declining TV news viewership, splintering audiences scattered across too many channels, and falling newspaper circulation and ad revenues. It may have begun already, in the coverage of the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito (I write this over the weekend of January 7-8.) It should offer myriad opportunities for over-the-top outrage.
Conservatives donât have a level playing field because our country suffers from a liberally biased news media. Some people think media bias is not a fact, but merely a debatable opinion. These people are quick to point out that conservatives have venues for their ideas: talk radio, the Internet, Fox News and The Wall Street Journal. 
There's a great scene in The Simpsons set in the not-too-distant future when Marge says to Homer, "You know, Fox turned into a hardcore sex channel so gradually, I didn't even notice."
