• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Best political party name this election season (from NY Governor Debate last night):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-TeMHys0
 
NHPlanner said:
Best political party name this election season (from NY Governor Debate last night):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-TeMHys0
Click to expand...

Does NY allow all the candidates to be present at the debates, or was this a special reason? We have lots of wackos - they can be on the ballot, but a usually not invited to the debates. 7 or 8 candidates to debate, seems pointless to me.
 
Can truth be any stranger? Ginny Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice "Silent" Clarence Thomas, calls and leaves a voice mail on the office phone of Anita Hill asking her to apologize for accusing "Silent" Clarence of sexual harassment during their employment together more than 20 years ago.What would possibly possess the wife of a sitting Justice to do such a thing? He's got the most secure job in the country but does she think his widdle pwide is huwt?

He should resign, effective immediately, IMO.:not:
 
From the I can't believe she is a serious candidate section...

Delaware's O'Donnell doesn't think separation of church and state is in the Consititution and has said so. Well after she was told there was, she still doesn't believe so.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...gets-coons-for-constitutional-law-101/?hpt=C1

Christine O'Donnell received a lesson on the Constitution at Delaware's Widener Law School Tuesday, but unfortunately for the Republican Senate candidate it came during a debate with Democrat Chris Coons.

On the issue of whether creationism should be taught in public schools, a highly skeptical O'Donnell questioned Coon's assertion that the First Amendment calls for the separation of church and state.

"The First Amendment does?" O'Donnell asked during the Tuesday morning debate. "Let me just clarify: You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"

Coons responded by quoting the relevant text: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

"That's in the First Amendment?" a still skeptical O'Donnell replied smiling, as laughter could be heard from the crowd.
 
Gedunker said:
Can truth be any stranger? Ginny Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice "Silent" Clarence Thomas, calls and leaves a voice mail on the office phone of Anita Hill asking her to apologize for accusing "Silent" Clarence of sexual harassment during their employment together more than 20 years ago.What would possibly possess the wife of a sitting Justice to do such a thing? He's got the most secure job in the country but does she think his widdle pwide is huwt?

He should resign, effective immediately, IMO.:not:
Click to expand...

I like how she phrased it as "extending an olive branch." I'm not sure its extending anything when you are asking the other side to say they were wrong. That's just pestering.
 
Planit said:
From the I can't believe she is a serious candidate section...

....

On the issue of whether creationism should be taught in public schools, a highly skeptical O'Donnell questioned Coon's assertion that the First Amendment calls for the separation of church and state.

"The First Amendment does?" O'Donnell asked during the Tuesday morning debate. "Let me just clarify: You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?".......
Click to expand...

These views are not abnormal. They are held by many leaders of the nutbag conservative religious right. The Texas Board of Education is attempting to teach just such viewpoints as O'Donnells as fact. More importantly, the Texas Board of Education knows they have power over textbooks due to economies of scale, and they have acted to use that power to revise the history of the founders.

Get used to it, we will be hearing a lot more of this drivel as fact in the future. Welcome to power by the hom skoold!
 
Planit said:
From the I can't believe she is a serious candidate section...

Delaware's O'Donnell doesn't think separation of church and state is in the Consititution and has said so. Well after she was told there was, she still doesn't believe so.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...gets-coons-for-constitutional-law-101/?hpt=C1

Christine O'Donnell received a lesson on the Constitution at Delaware's Widener Law School Tuesday, but unfortunately for the Republican Senate candidate it came during a debate with Democrat Chris Coons.

On the issue of whether creationism should be taught in public schools, a highly skeptical O'Donnell questioned Coon's assertion that the First Amendment calls for the separation of church and state.

"The First Amendment does?" O'Donnell asked during the Tuesday morning debate. "Let me just clarify: You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"

Coons responded by quoting the relevant text: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

"That's in the First Amendment?" a still skeptical O'Donnell replied smiling, as laughter could be heard from the crowd.
Click to expand...

Duke Of Dystopia said:
These views are not abnormal. They are held by many leaders of the nutbag conservative religious right. The Texas Board of Education is attempting to teach just such viewpoints as O'Donnells as fact. More importantly, the Texas Board of Education knows they have power over textbooks due to economies of scale, and they have acted to use that power to revise the history of the founders.

Get used to it, we will be hearing a lot more of this drivel as fact in the future. Welcome to power by the hom skoold!
Click to expand...

Technically, neither were correct. The "separation of church and state" is not in the 1st Amendment - Mr. Coons quoted the text verbatim. Though similar concepts were espoused or described in late 18th/early 19th century letters from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the concept was first included in judicial interpretations of jurisprudence in the 1878 Supreme Court case Reynolds v. U.S. and subsequently expanded upon definitively in the 1947 case Emerson v. Board of Education. Given our system of common law, these judicial decisions have been, and must be, in a way, inserted into any interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

So, Ms. O'Donnell was correct literally but I doubt she was actually knowledgeable or intentioned in such a way, and Mr. Coons was not correct literally, yet demonstrated knowledge of concepts applied since via judicial interpretation.

:science: :cool: :p
 
Thank you for the clarification Professor TexOak. You are correct. My brother said she is a Simple Sarah wannabe and is going after votes rather than credibility.

As DoD stated in Texas, didn't Kansas education system go through this same issue a year or two ago?
 
Planit said:
On the issue of whether creationism should be taught in public schools, a highly skeptical O'Donnell questioned Coon's assertion that the First Amendment calls for the separation of church and state.

"That's in the First Amendment?" a still skeptical O'Donnell replied smiling, as laughter could be heard from the crowd.
Click to expand...

If she would have said, "does it say that word for word in the first amendment", then I might believe she isn't a moron. But she is like Palin in that she is educated by talking points, not research, so she only knows surface information. That is a talking point that is wrong in concept, but correct if you look at it technically.

This is what scares me about the Tea Party. Stick to the economy. Please don't get involved in any other topics that you don't understand. :not:
 
The First Amendment originally prevented the Federal government from adopting or promoting a particular "official" religion, preventing people from worshiping any particular religion, or from not worshiping any religion at all. Some later discussion surrounded whether this also applied to individual states. But the prevention of the fedral level from promoting or preventing any particular religion was pretty clear and I think this is what most people think of when they say "separation of church and state."

My reading (and I am no constitutional scholar) is that the Tenth Amendment says that any power not given to the Federal government in the Bill of Rights rests with the States. But the First Amendment DOES outline the issue of religion and government, so it seems to me this should trump states rights in such a case. Since all public schools must comply with standards set by the federal Department of Education (est. 1867) the favoring of Creationism (which DOES promote one particular religion's view) seems to me to be in violation of the First Amendment and any claims to states rights is trumped under the Tenth. I think this is also why some have sought to cast these teachings as "Intelligent Design" - to sidestep the specific-religion view.

Its also worth noting that Darwin's Origin of Species was published on 1859 and the DoE was created in 1867. The tension between what was being taught locally in the piecemeal education system that had evolved up to that time and the soon-to-emerge federal standards, which adopted evolution, has meant this controversy has been there since the beginning of standardized education in America.

I suppose there is an argument to be made that since public education is funded by a combination of state and federal monies, that the states should have some say. But if we are going down that road, why should a non-believer's tax dollars be used to teach religion-based education in a public school setting that takes place on government property? NOT teaching Creationism in the schools does not prevent anyone from going to church or Sunday school or any additional religious education people choose, But teaching it in the school FORCES those who do not share that belief to learn and accept these beliefs and that seems in direct conflict to the First Amendment.

Personally, I can't believe that a whole generation of children in places like Texas and Kansas will potentially enter college being so out of step with their peers in other states.

Again, I am not constitutional scholar, but I have just been reading/studying about this stuff, so its pretty fresh on my mind. This is my lay attempt at playing Supreme Court Judge.
 
wahday said:
The First Amendment originally prevented the Federal government from adopting or promoting a particular "official" religion, preventing people from worshiping any particular religion, or from not worshiping any religion at all. Some later discussion surrounded whether this also applied to individual states. But the prevention of the fedral level from promoting or preventing any particular religion was pretty clear and I think this is what most people think of when they say "separation of church and state."

My reading (and I am no constitutional scholar) is that the Tenth Amendment says that any power not given to the Federal government in the Bill of Rights rests with the States. But the First Amendment DOES outline the issue of religion and government, so it seems to me this should trump states rights in such a case. Since all public schools must comply with standards set by the federal Department of Education (est. 1867) the favoring of Creationism (which DOES promote one particular religion's view) seems to me to be in violation of the First Amendment and any claims to states rights is trumped under the Tenth. I think this is also why some have sought to cast these teachings as "Intelligent Design" - to sidestep the specific-religion view.
Click to expand...
The 10th Amendment is also directed at the enumerated powers of Congress in Article. I. Section. 8. and the prohibitions of powers to states in Section. 9. and Section. 10. (and anywhere else in the document). What is not covered in its text is thus, by default, a power of the states *OR* of the people (as individuals) themselves.

BTW, Wisconsin's state constitution also includes a religion clause:

(Article I)
"Freedom of worship; liberty of conscience; state
religion; public funds. SECTION 18. [As amended Nov. 1982]
The right of every person to worship Almighty God according
to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall
any person be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of
worship, or to maintain any ministry, without consent; nor shall
any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be
permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious
establishments or modes of worship; nor shall any money be
drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or
religious or theological seminaries. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29,
vote Nov. 1982]

Religious tests prohibited. SECTION 19. No religious
tests shall ever be required as a qualification for any office of
public trust under the state, and no person shall be rendered
incompetent to give evidence in any court of law or equity in
consequence of his opinions on the subject of religion."

wahday said:
Its also worth noting that Darwin's Origin of Species was published on 1859 and the DoE was created in 1867. The tension between what was being taught locally in the piecemeal education system that had evolved up to that time and the soon-to-emerge federal standards, which adopted evolution, has meant this controversy has been there since the beginning of standardized education in America.

I suppose there is an argument to be made that since public education is funded by a combination of state and federal monies, that the states should have some say. But if we are going down that road, why should a non-believer's tax dollars be used to teach religion-based education in a public school setting that takes place on government property? NOT teaching Creationism in the schools does not prevent anyone from going to church or Sunday school or any additional religious education people choose, But teaching it in the school FORCES those who do not share that belief to learn and accept these beliefs and that seems in direct conflict to the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
Would you also advocate putting the kibosh on tax financing/subsidizing of educations at private/religious colleges and universities (ie, Brigham Young, Notre Dame, Valparaiso, Marquette, University of Southern California, Texas Christian, etc)?

wahday said:
Personally, I can't believe that a whole generation of children in places like Texas and Kansas will potentially enter college being so out of step with their peers in other states.

Again, I am not constitutional scholar, but I have just been reading/studying about this stuff, so its pretty fresh on my mind. This is my lay attempt at playing Supreme Court Judge.
Click to expand...
I wonder what would happen if the USA went back to the monetary system called for in Article. I.,Section. 8. ("The Congress shall have Power...") Paragraph 5 ("...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin...") and Article. I. Section. 10. paragraph 1 ("No State shall... ...coin Money, emit Bills of Credit, make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt...") - essentially the gold standard?

Remember that at the time of the Constitution Convention, there was no common currency between the former British colonies and trade between them was a mess (Paragraph 5 of Section. 8. also allows Congress to "...fix the Standard of Weights and Measures"). Several of the former colonies had also just endured hyper-inflations. Thus, the requirement for a common currency based on a gold and silver standard was written in.

^o)

:-c

Mike
 
wahday said:
....

Personally, I can't believe that a whole generation of children in places like Texas and Kansas will potentially enter college being so out of step with their peers in other states.
.......
Click to expand...

Sad, but true.

They will grow up knowing that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery in any way shape or form.

They will grow up knowing that the forefathers never intended an actual separation of church from the state.

That studying racial and other social groups separately “really takes away from the whole idea of the melting pot effect".

There is so much craziness coming out of texas it is not even funny. Be afraid, be very afraid.

To make you feel even better. The people who write the textbooks don't care. As long as they sell a few books, the quality of the education kids receive does not mean a thing. So they will facilitate what texas is doing.

At least what was happening in Kansas stayed in Kansas.
 
Duke Of Dystopia said:
Sad, but true.

They will grow up knowing that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery in any way shape or form.

They will grow up knowing that the forefathers never intended an actual separation of church from the state.

That studying racial and other social groups separately “really takes away from the whole idea of the melting pot effect".

There is so much craziness coming out of texas it is not even funny. Be afraid, be very afraid.

To make you feel even better. The people who write the textbooks don't care. As long as they sell a few books, the quality of the education kids receive does not mean a thing. So they will facilitate what texas is doing.

At least what was happening in Kansas stayed in Kansas.
Click to expand...

Yep, as a Texan I consider the State Board of Education by far our greatest embarassment. I'm a huge supporter of public schools, but if this trend in Texas continues I'm going to be looking for a private (hopefully non-religious or limited religious affiliation) school for my future kids. At a minimum, it looks like I'll be supplementing my kids' education more than I thought to make sure they learn about folks like Thomas Jefferson, the history of various civil rights movements, race relations, etc. Even my most conservative relatives (teachers) are livid about these actions by the State Board. A friend of mine, Rebecca Bell-Metereau, is running for SBOE this November in hopes of pointing it back in a proper direction.

Dig around and see if you can find some of the video from their hearings... all I can say is WOW. :-o:-c
 
mgk920 said:
What is not covered in its text is thus, by default, a power of the states *OR* of the people (as individuals) themselves.
Click to expand...

Which is why I feel that since the First Amendment does talk of not promoting a specific religion, denying people the right to worship their own religion or allowing people to pursue no religion at all that the states don't have cause to claim such a power themselves. The text gives this power to the central government. But, again, this is not my strong area so perhaps I am not interpreting correctly.

mgk920 said:
Would you also advocate putting the kibosh on tax financing/subsidizing of educations at private/religious colleges and universities (ie, Brigham Young, Notre Dame, Valparaiso, Marquette, University of Southern California, Texas Christian, etc)?
Click to expand...

A college or university is a bit of a different animal because you CHOOSE the courses you take whereas Creationism in the cases discussed here represents curriculum all students are REQUIRED to take. There's the rub. They have no way to opt out - its not an elective. But certainly people have questioned this and taken it to court (the college/university funding that is) so its definitely not a clear cut answer.
 
Hink_Planner said:
Fox News... we love to hire people that are fired for good reasons! As if we didn't see this coming... at what point do we just put Fox News in the same place as The Onion?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...-news-offers-juan-williams-2-million-contract

My favorite line from Ailes...

:victory: :victory:
Click to expand...

but.....but.....but everyone else is part of the liberal/commie/socalist/nazi/california-northeast elitist/pagan/anti-American cabal. Who else is protecting us from that Kenyan anti-colonialist/socliast/communist/nazi who is bent on destroying this Country that so many died for. You know he is the anti-Christ who really isn't eligible to be president.:r::wall: Let me tell ya about the death panels and the concentration camps that FEMA is building for those who oppose the chosen one /savior who is destroying the free markets and making the government too big so that will take over our lives.
 
Whose Yur Planner said:
but.....but.....but everyone else is part of the liberal/commie/socalist/nazi/california-northeast elitist/pagan/anti-American cabal. Who else is protecting us from that Kenyan anti-colonialist/socliast/communist/nazi who is bent on destroying this Country that so many died for. You know he is the anti-Christ who really isn't eligible to be president.:r::wall: Let me tell ya about the death panels and the concentration camps that FEMA is building for those who oppose the chosen one /savior who is destroying the free markets and making the government too big so that will take over our lives.
Click to expand...

What gets me is that Juan Williams isn't a bad guy. I honestly, don't believe that he is a bigot. I think he is just part of the hype machine now. He wrote an article on Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...uslim-garb-airplane-oreilly-ellen-weiss-bush/ which gives his side of the story. He paints the story a bit different than what really happened. His implication was that muslims scare him. He makes it seem like he meant something different. This is a broad stroke, and continues to push the uncivil discourse our country is getting used to. NPR is a news organization. They don't want this type of commentary from their employees and they rightly fired him. It just shows how far even alright journalists go. Fox News is a joke. And sadly it isn't even funny anymore...if Fox News expected the same level of respect and civility out of their "reporters" that NPR did, we might not be where we are today in our media world.
 
Does anyone outside of a few elitist circles even listen to NPR anymore?

^o)

(how are their overall ratings compared with the ratings that FNC receives? :-c )

Mike
 
I don't believe it was right for NPR to fire Juan WiIliams based on what he said. This wasn't a bigoted remark- all he did was confess to a prejudice within a context (airplane encounter) that I'd bet 90% of Americans have as a result of the terror attacks of 9-11. What's wrong with admitting that? I'm disappointed that the speech police at NPR would hang him for this, and I wonder if they would've let him go if he didn't work at Fox and the comments weren't said on Bill O'Reilly's show.
 
The saddest part of the whole situation to me is that someone like Juan Williams, who is fair and open and honest will be used as a divider.

Maybe he will bring some cred to Fox News as a permanent fixture? You've got to like Juan Williams. He was my introduction to NPR when he hosted Talk of the Nation.
 
Juan Williams has been appearing on Fox for a long time already. The central issue from NPR's perspective is that his role on Fox and the content of what he has said (and this was not the first incident in which he had been warned) was deemed to be in violation of NPR's ethics code, which requires contracted journalists to "avoid situations that might call its impartiality into question." He had already been riding this line with his appearances on Fox and that was the reasoning that led to last year's request by NPR to no longer have him identified on Fox a an "NPR News Analyst." Because they felt his opinions put NPR's impartiality into question.
 
hilldweller said:
I don't believe it was right for NPR to fire Juan WiIliams based on what he said. This wasn't a bigoted remark- all he did was confess to a prejudice within a context (airplane encounter) that I'd bet 90% of Americans have as a result of the terror attacks of 9-11. What's wrong with admitting that? I'm disappointed that the speech police at NPR would hang him for this, and I wonder if they would've let him go if he didn't work at Fox and the comments weren't said on Bill O'Reilly's show.
Click to expand...

Everything I read is that NPR was looking for ways to get rid of him and the other (whats her name) NPR correspondent who is also on fox's payroll. There is no denying Fix is a propaganda outlet, and NPR has a issue with their supposedly unbiased reporters appearing on fox.

That said, in the context of the conversation, where O Reilly asked him "Am I wrong to blame muslims for 911?" Williams said" No you aren't wrong. Muslims scare me"

That is not cool. Sure its cool if you are a bigot and you watch fox all the time, but not for normal people.

What if he had said

"Look Bill, I'm not a bigot, but whenever I see a jewish guy wearing a yamika I get nervous and grab my wallet".

There would be outrage. Its okay for him to have that opinion (even though I think its wrong). But its not okay for him to legitimize that kind of thinking. NPR is totally right to get rid of someone who is afraid of Americans just because of what they look like.
 
I try not to get involved in these political threads but I will say two things. NPR let the late Daniel Schorr freely express his liberal views. After 10 years with NPR, Juan Williams should not have been fired by telephone regardless of the offense, real or imagined.
 
ofos said:
I try not to get involved in these political threads but I will say two things. NPR let the late Daniel Schorr freely express his liberal views. After 10 years with NPR, Juan Williams should not have been fired by telephone regardless of the offense, real or imagined.
Click to expand...

Even Williams is saying that NPR had been warning him about appearing on fox news and saying wacky things that could make NPR look bad. Seems like he knew he shouldn't have been doing this and continued to break their rules/direction. Whether we agree with him or not, it seems he ignored his employers direction. That is usually grounds for dismissal.
 
wahday said:
The central issue from NPR's perspective is that his role on Fox and the content of what he has said (and this was not the first incident in which he had been warned) was deemed to be in violation of NPR's ethics code, which requires contracted journalists to "avoid situations that might call its impartiality into question." Because they felt his opinions put NPR's impartiality into question.
Click to expand...

ofos said:
NPR let the late Daniel Schorr freely express his liberal views. After 10 years with NPR, Juan Williams should not have been fired by telephone regardless of the offense, real or imagined.
Click to expand...

I agree with ofos. NPR's ethics code seems to be applied under the auspices that NPR's progressive liberal outlook is fact rather than a particular worldview.
 
imaplanner said:
Even Williams is saying that NPR had been warning him about appearing on fox news and saying wacky things that could make NPR look bad. Seems like he knew he shouldn't have been doing this and continued to break their rules/direction. Whether we agree with him or not, it seems he ignored his employers direction. That is usually grounds for dismissal.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that he shouldn't have been fired. Employment is at the employer's discretion. I just said that he should not have been fired by telephone . That is an act of cowardice. The comment about his views being between him and his psychiatrist was also uncalled for.

FYI, I've been a big fan, listener, and supporter of NPR for years. Don't even think about throwing me under the conservative vs. liberal bus on this one!
 
ofos said:
FYI, I've been a big fan, listener, and supporter of NPR for years. Don't even think about throwing me under the conservative vs. liberal bus on this one!
Click to expand...

I wasnt intending to do that

TexOk said:
NPR's ethics code seems to be applied under the auspices that NPR's progressive liberal outlook is fact rather than a particular worldview.
Click to expand...

Do you listen to NPR? I believe it is a misnomer that it is progressive and/or liberal. It is generally as unbiased as I believe a news outlet can be. The only reason it gets labeled like that IMO is that fox news type right wingers label everything that is factually based, as liberal.
 
imaplanner said:
Do you listen to NPR? I believe it is a misnomer that it is progressive and/or liberal. It is generally as unbiased as I believe a news outlet can be. The only reason it gets labeled like that IMO is that fox news type right wingers label everything that is factually based, as liberal.
Click to expand...

I don't regularly listen to NPR, but I have listened sporadically. I might listen to it more if I found it interesting rather than boring or, at times, condescending. While the station might not be biased in the way that Fox News is in outright expressing it's opinion into the news, it is extremely biased in the news it chooses to cover. I honestly think that is a reason it is a favorite of liberal audiences - they don't hear any blatant bias, and they get to hear things that they find interesting or want to know about from people who are part of groups they admire and who they believe are underrepresented in the news media.

For the record, I take issue with Fox News, too, and don't watch it, either. I get my news from a variety of sources, mostly print, of varying perspective.

Also, your last sentence tends to confirm my original hypothesis.
 
TexanOkie said:
Also, your last sentence tends to confirm my original hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately Ima's statement is pretty true. Name one news outlet that isn't obviously rightsided like Fox as a neutral news source? I think that liberals don't believe that all sources that have conservatives as writers are rightsided. But it seems that many (not all) conservatives feel that the media is left leaning if it has any liberal writers.

NPR is probably left of center, but not by much. Much closer than any other radio station I can think of.
 
Hink_Planner said:
Name one news outlet that isn't obviously rightsided like Fox as a neutral news source?
Click to expand...

I don't think there are any neutral news sources. The best we can hope for is balance, and even then you can't really get that from any individual news source. NPR is definitely more balanced than, say, Fox News or MSNBC. But that's not really saying much, is it?
 
TexanOkie said:
I don't think there are any neutral news sources. The best we can hope for is balance, and even then you can't really get that from any individual news source. NPR is definitely more balanced than, say, Fox News or MSNBC. But that's not really saying much, is it?
Click to expand...

So you agree that NPR is balanced? What more can you hope for?

They fired Juan Williams for not being balanced. They strive for balance. They expect their employees to at least not put themselves in situations where it is obvious they are unbalanced. I still think they did the right thing. It is unfortunate for Juan Williams, as I stated before, I like him. But he was wrong. His views were wrong. And NPR, even if they were looking for an out, got it right.

=====================

In other political news...this is a major reason we can't get a balanced budget...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44100.html

And yet we won't even consider it. From the article...

Since Sept. 11, 2001, Congress and the Defense Department have added more than $2 trillion to the Pentagon budget. About half that increase covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; the rest covered the "base" (non-war) parts of the Defense Department. Against all logic, the extra money made our military forces mostly smaller and older.
Click to expand...

Right now, the Pentagon does not know how it spends its money, as the Government Accountability Office has reported for decades. It is literally "unauditable."
Click to expand...

Those making today's defense budget decisions are locked in a mindset where more empty spending is never enough. That, more than anything, needs to change.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hink_Planner said:
So you agree that NPR is balanced? What more can you hope for?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think NPR is balanced. I don't think any media outlet is balanced. I said NPR was more balanced than either Fox News and MSNBC, but that that kind of comparison doesn't really mean much (because Fox News and MSNBC are off-the-scale unbalanced). I'd put NPR about on a same plane as The New York Times as far as balanced coverage.
 
TexanOkie said:
No, I don't think NPR is balanced. I don't think any media outlet is balanced. I said NPR was more balanced than either Fox News and MSNBC, but that that kind of comparison doesn't really mean much (because Fox News and MSNBC are off-the-scale unbalanced). I'd put NPR about on a same plane as The New York Times as far as balanced coverage.
Click to expand...

Which are the two most balanced news outlets available? I just want to understand what you consider to be balanced. And although you are much more reasonable than some on the conservative side, whenever I try to have an open dialog about the media with some, I get told that I am not conservative enough if I think that the media is unbiased a lot of the time. I believe that outside of obvious websites (Drudge, Huffington, etc.) and MSNBC or Fox, most others attempt to be balanced. I won't argue that many drift left, but in the end they are still pretty fair and accurate in accounts. They don't follow the loony left or right stories. Although lately they have all been failing on this front.
 
Hink_Planner said:
Which are the two most balanced news outlets available? I just want to understand what you consider to be balanced. And although you are much more reasonable than some on the conservative side, whenever I try to have an open dialog about the media with some, I get told that I am not conservative enough if I think that the media is unbiased a lot of the time. I believe that outside of obvious websites (Drudge, Huffington, etc.) and MSNBC or Fox, most others attempt to be balanced. I won't argue that many drift left, but in the end they are still pretty fair and accurate in accounts. They don't follow the loony left or right stories. Although lately they have all been failing on this front.
Click to expand...

I truly believe the media has a conservative bias. Sure, lots of journalists are liberals, but editors and media owners are overwhelmingly conservative. The media is biased towards conservative corporatism.
 
TexanOkie said:
I'd put NPR about on a same plane as The New York Times as far as balanced coverage.
Click to expand...

So then what would you considered balanced? Comparative to most news outlets, NPR presents both sides of the coin very well (almost as good as the newshour on PBS). Really can't get an unbiased other than say BBC America news. Papers editorialize because they need to sell a product. Same with Fox, MSNBC, and most news talk radio stations: they gotta sell them adds. Audience and ad revenue is key.

Yes, NPR has more "stories" that perk my interest as a left-center leaning person, but at the same time i think when you view NPR as a whole "Morning edition, Talk of the Nation, All things Considered and Marketplace" it is a pretty well rounded news source.

You are not going to get that from Glen Beck, Rush, KO, Meadow Hannerity and the other talking pundits out there.
 
TexanOkie said:
I don't think there are any neutral news sources. The best we can hope for is balance, and even then you can't really get that from any individual news source. NPR is definitely more balanced than, say, Fox News or MSNBC. But that's not really saying much, is it?
Click to expand...


Actually it says a LOT.

Considering they go out of their way on controversial topics to include voices on multiple sides of an issue. Many times I have listened to a topic that was pro-something for one hour and then con-something the next on the same subject. No other media source in our nation does that. Include the fact they never allow the screaming over each other thing is impressive. I assume you don't know this, as you stated above you listen to NPR only on occasion.

No other news source spends that kind of time on a subject. I am sorry you feel its boring but hey, look on the bright side, there are still a few score millions that actually do follow and report on actual news! :D

I agree, all news has a bias of some sort or other. Here is a thought for you. If the news is "left leaning", maybe it is that way for a reason?

Just think, all those journalists looking for a story and they keep finding crazy stuff that puts government and industry in a bad light. When further researched, they find even more damning evidence. Don't you think they would trumpet an old/existing method of operating if the evidence proved it was working? Take mine safety for example or; deep water oil drilling, car safety, food inspection.....

The point is, that reporters may naturally find issues with the existing order as they accumulate knowledge. New knowledge is change/potential to change. When they post it to the world "conservative elements" of society disagree with the possibility of change. No change is the essential idea of being conservative. Add religious fundamentalist beliefs and conservatives understandingly view such reporting as liberal rabble rousing.

Take the "no change and connection to religion" out of the reporting and of course you have a liberal news bias.
 
Hink_Planner said:
Which are the two most balanced news outlets available? I just want to understand what you consider to be balanced. And although you are much more reasonable than some on the conservative side, whenever I try to have an open dialog about the media with some, I get told that I am not conservative enough if I think that the media is unbiased a lot of the time. I believe that outside of obvious websites (Drudge, Huffington, etc.) and MSNBC or Fox, most others attempt to be balanced. I won't argue that many drift left, but in the end they are still pretty fair and accurate in accounts. They don't follow the loony left or right stories. Although lately they have all been failing on this front.
Click to expand...

CPSURaf said:
So then what would you considered balanced? Comparative to most news outlets, NPR presents both sides of the coin very well (almost as good as the newshour on PBS). Really can't get an unbiased other than say BBC America news. Papers editorialize because they need to sell a product. Same with Fox, MSNBC, and most news talk radio stations: they gotta sell them adds. Audience and ad revenue is key.

Yes, NPR has more "stories" that perk my interest as a left-center leaning person, but at the same time i think when you view NPR as a whole "Morning edition, Talk of the Nation, All things Considered and Marketplace" it is a pretty well rounded news source.

You are not going to get that from Glen Beck, Rush, KO, Meadow Hannerity and the other talking pundits out there.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't think any news media outlet is completely balanced. Some stations, like Fox News and MSNBC, report only a select few stories they hand-pick to tell and place way more weight on a particular interpretation or explanation/analysis of that story. Other sources, like HuffPost and other blog-type outlets, report on almost anything but with a decidedly partisan approach. And some sources, like NPR and the New York Times, try to not give more weight to a particular point of view but still select stories of interest to people with certain views. A station that reported everything that happens with equal time and weight to any view of said happening would be completely balanced. Such a station is impossible to create by time constraint alone. There are definitely stations that are, on a scale, more balanced than others hence the NPR-Fox News/MSNBC comparison. But ultimately, those that are more balanced are still unbalanced, which is why I strongly advocate taking in news from a wide variety of sources of varying perspectives and content.

I don't think Duke's analysis of the liberal/journalism link is complete, but I also don't care enough at the moment to elaborate on why. Perhaps in the near future...

Imaplanner is right about a leaning towards corporatism - however, corporatism, at least ideologically, is not conservative. It seems to be the domain of social democrats on the left and fascists on the right, and winds up being part of the mixed-bag system we have in the US and similar places due to compromise.
 
I think at the heart of this media discussion is understanding what exactly "balanced" or "objective" means.

For many folks/"news" outlets, it means having representatives from opposing sides of a particular camp hashing it out on a subject. This kind of "balancing" can have two problems with it: 1) it may give voice to interests that really do not represent half of the population's views on an issue (ie. wingnuts) and 2) it often simply stakes out opposing viewpoints without leading to substantive discussion.

If I have someone on my "balanced" show to discuss, say, domestic violence against women, should I then also have a guest on that thinks its ok to beat your wife? This is what a lot of mainstream media amounts to in its "balanced" reporting. Again, this would give voice to a minority and admittedly harmful view in our society (because it infringes on the rights of other citizens through intimidation and violence) and creates false dichotomies on topics that need to actually be discussed in a more nuanced and productive way. That is at the core of my frustration with so many news outlets. That and, in the case of Fox "news," the blatantly inflammatory information and, at times, outright lies posited as "fact" to sway public opinion. A sad excuse for anything that could even remotely be called "journalism." It makes me feel like I am living in the Gilded Age of Robber Barons and Yellow Journalism.

What really bothered me personally about Juan Williams' comments (setting aside for a moment how he was treated) is his characterization of Muslims as "those people" who dress up in "their garb." How many of "those people" are actually American citizens? Shouldn't we then be talking about "our people" instead? What if we were talking about Black people who talk in "that way" and how that makes someone nervous that "they" might be getting ready to rob them? It all seems pretty inflammatory and not the choice of words someone in a prominent position should be making. Again, I'm not talking about the actions against him here, but why I find that kind of commentary so disappointing from someone who claims a high degree of professionalism in their job as a journalist.
 
Mike Pence

Mike Pence is going to step down from the Republican leadership likely to set up a run at the presidency in 2012.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44201.html

Any Indiana people have experience with Pence? From my quick review (other than the stupid stuff he says on Hannity and at Tea Party rallies) is that he is a social uber-conservative, and follows the party line on everything else - tax cuts, immigration, cut federal government size, etc.

He seems like someone that has a very small, if not zero, percent chance of making it big. He is also a member of the house... which doesn't work well when trying to make the step to president. I don't understand who would give him the idea that he is a good candidate? Am I missing something that makes him unique?
 
Hink_Planner said:
Mike Pence is going to step down from the Republican leadership likely to set up a run at the presidency in 2012.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44201.html

Any Indiana people have experience with Pence? From my quick review (other than the stupid stuff he says on Hannity and at Tea Party rallies) is that he is a social uber-conservative, and follows the party line on everything else - tax cuts, immigration, cut federal government size, etc.

He seems like someone that has a very small, if not zero, percent chance of making it big. He is also a member of the house... which doesn't work well when trying to make the step to president. I don't understand who would give him the idea that he is a good candidate? Am I missing something that makes him unique?
Click to expand...

Pence is an Uber Conservative/Tea Partier who actually believes what he is saying.:-c8-!, He's part of that the government is always wrong/the market is always right brand of Indiana/Midwestern conservatism, which brought us the privatization of government services. That has been a corrupt disaster in Indiana. He also comes from the same area as Dan Burton, if that gives you an idea.
 
NOW has come to the defense of Christine O'Donnell with the whole Gawker false-sex-story bit. Rightfully so about this specific instance, but it just seems odd to read the first sentence of that last sentence.
 
A Prayer

Dear Supreme Being:

Please make the political advertisements end. We are tired of hearing continual attacks against opponents, instead of reasonable details. We are tired of seeing opponent's pictures literally taken out of context.....faces distorted (mid-sentence snapshot). We are tired of hearing insinuations about bus-loads of children being driven by their sexual predator bus driver to a remote location (an actual ad in my area!), happening because of policies by an opponent. We are tired of hearing that Bush caused our economic problems. We are tired of hearing that Obama caused our economic problems. We are tired of hearing (fill in the blanks).

Sincerely, Bear.
 
I will be walking with Illinois' next governor (Bill Brady), next senator (Mark Kirk), and Massachusetts senator Scott Brown tomorrow at the Sycamore Pumpkin Parade, one of the largest parades in Illinois, part of a small-town festival in the heart of Northern Illinois. And if I can't walk with them, there's always my friend who's running for countywide office.

I love campaign season, and it's especially exciting since the pendulum appears to be swinging in my favor this year, unlike the past few election cycles.
 
Back
Top