On October 03 2012 04:57 jdseemoreglass wrote: These debates... Especially the "townhall" style format, my god... I just might throw a brick at my television when I hear the questions.
"Mr. Romney, I've been a garbage man for 60 years, until a microbe crawled up my nose and into my brainpan, and you call me the 47%. Why do you hate poor people and want them to die?"
Moderator: "Yes, Mr. Romney, why do you want them to die? And Mr. President, why are you so caring and compassionate?"
Exaggeration is always fun, but I don't think I've ever seen a debate that wasn't implicitly biased in the majority of questions. People just don't realize liberal bias in the moderation because that is simply their world view, they can't see around it. They don't realize you can phrase any question about a hundred different ways, and they inevitably come from the liberal perspective.
For example, you can say: "Mr. Romney, how can you cut government benefits that people depend on?" "What do you expect seniors to do when their medicare is reduced?" You won't ever hear a question phrased: "How can we reduce the public's ever growing dependence on government support?" Or, "Why should taxpayers foot the bill for more (blank)?", or "Since all the experts agree that the current system is unsustainable, what is the best way to untangle it?" It's all basically asking the same thing, but the framing of the question is absolutely everything. I think in the ideal system, the moderators wouldn't have any leeway at all in framing the question. I think their role should be reduced to simply naming topics. "The Economy. Go." Or, if that is too vague, "Social Security." I guess the problem with this format is that the politicians will be able to say whatever they want and we won't have the interesting "GOTCHA!" moments that the media is looking for. But we could reduce this by allowing a much more free back and forth between the candidates. Let them respond to each other, and our only goal would be to simply prevent it from turning into a shouting match.
And what allows you to overcome your "world view"? There are surely those blind to bias given their perspective, sure. But conservatives who pretend that the media is some monolithic liberal machine are just as blind.
Read the Powell Memo.
Having taken a number of classes on media studies, I'm well aware of the memorandum in question. It still does not prove any sort of monolithic media presence, as there are huge amounts of monied and corporate influence on both the liberal and conservative side of things.
? I don't mean to be rude, but it's obvious that most of the media has a rather liberal tilt to it. Even some of the most moderate such as CNN have a bit of a lefty tilt. The exceptions of course are Fox News and Talk Radio which are both far to the right. Even among "fact checking" and "research organizations", it is easy to figure out which ones are not independent. As Powell notes, this bias can be seen in the aggregate yet not explicitly contributed to one factor simply because it's such a gradual creep. I'll grant you that it could be changing morals -- however there are many media individuals who push these viewpoints at the current time. If you don't feel equally dirty watching Rachel Maddow as you do when you watch Fox News, you're drinking the Kool-Aid and just not noticing.
Well MSNBC and Fox News exist at polar ends of the spectrum, and even I can't help but wince at times when watching Rachel Maddow
On October 03 2012 03:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The US used to have a big crime problem. Watch movies from the 80's / early 90's - they're all about crime (Robocop is a good example). Part of the response to the crime was to lock more people up. The problem of too many people locked up should start sorting itself out as the country adjusts to the new reality of less crime.
Numbers are per 100,000 population.
The number of incarcerated Americans also varies hugely by state. State and local governments are also the ones responsible for police work. So its more of a state / local issue than a national one.
That's not nearly enough of a crime problem to explain our incarceration levels.
Then what do you think does explain it?
Most of it is the War on Drugs and mandatory sentencing guidelines. It's pretty messed up that a nominally free country imprisons more of its people than the Gulag did.
I don't disagree with that. I just see those things as reactions to crime. More crime leads to people wanting to get tougher on crime...
On October 03 2012 05:19 Velr wrote: So... We got people with jobs in a country that need goverment support. This means, despite working, they don't earn enough --> Goverment jumps in to pay the diffrence.
So... Whats the problem here.. let me think.. Oh, it's: "People with jobs not making enough money to live from it".
Sooo.. Either you have to pay them decently for their work or you have to support them via goverment (taxes)... Or let them starve or just somehow get rid of them. You want less goverment support/involvement, so assure that they get paid enough to live from their work (so they pay taxes that then can go into education so future generations get higher paid work... .... ).
You are really reinforcing my point about people being unable to see beyond their own biased perspective. Especially when you throw out absurd either/or fallacies, such as, "either we increase public support, or we let people starve to death." Those are not the options, I could offer plenty of other possibilities.
Also you are assuming everyone who needs support are people who have jobs and just aren't making enough to "survive." Let me at least offer a little anecdotal evidence here to the contrary. I have a relative right now who doesn't work. She doesn't work, because she CHOOSES not to work. She is not on the verge of starvation, in fact she is overweight. The government gives her subsidized housing, food stamps, unemployment, WIC, and who knows what other benefits. She actually lives in a better home and drives a nicer car than my wife and I who work. She's been in this state for years, and will continue to be, because she has no incentive to change. If the government suddenly pulled her support, sure, she would have a hard time. But that's because the system has created dependence that wouldn't exist in the absence of the support.
Now somewhere between your extreme and the extreme I offered, there is a point that comes pretty close to "common sense" good governing.
yeah you have a biases as well my friend, you have this slant for the conservative view and think that his liberal slant is much worse then it is. We all have a bias because we all like to hear ideas that we agree with, calling someone out on theirs while not admitting you have your own really undermines your argument.
while i really doubt your story is true at all (even if it was, this women is breaking the law, you can not get rich off government support legally)
i do agree with you that somewhere in the center is the right way to govern the country. We need a way to support those in need while preventing fraud. We need a way to give people choices while not infringing on others. We need to have a real talk in this nation about where we are going
On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote: The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard.
No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing.
The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone?
This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens.
Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush.
Oh OPEN YOUR EYES for once. It's one thing to agree with the policies of Republicanism, it's another thing to defend the current Republican party whose obstructionism is at an unprecedented all time high by FAR.
Democrats did the exact same thing? Not even close. Republicans broke the all-time record for filibusters during the 111th Congress, of which the previous record held was by the 110th Congress which was also led by the Republican minority (filibusters doubled compared to the 109th!).
To top it all off, it's taken them an average of 139 days to confirm Circuit Court nominees compared to the 29 days it took the Bush Administration, and 99 days for District Court nominees compared to 21 days for Bush. We have TONS of vacancies in the federal courts and the Republicans are pissing off even the judiciary! They're even doing the same with executive nominations.
Once again it's one thing to believe in the ideals of Republicanism. It's also nice if you'd have the balls like a couple of other posters in this thread to actually praise Republican obstructionism. But don't even try to say Democrats did the same shit. It's not even close.
This is wonderful. After the Citizen United bullshit, Republicans are trying to pass a law that would prevent union for donating anything to candidates.
You know, because if one individual has a ridiculous weight on the election because he is rich, it's fine, but if an organization representing workers try to have any effect at all, something must be done.
Republicans have been trying to weaken unions throughout the entire country. Union strength is at an all-time low. Playing right into the hands of the Koch brothers.
That graph just proves my points: It spikes right during Bush's presidency. The Democrats started it (granted, it was Newt's strategy). The biggest difference is that Republicans have just been forthcoming with their motivations, so everyone thinks they're the only ones with such motives. The Democrats hid it a little better (and there was less contentious legislation being passed at that time -- Democrats have been pushing a LOT of economic reforms these two sessions which are the thing the two parties disagree about more than anything). I'm not praising the activity, but this is definitely NOT a new thing.
In 2005, a group of Republican senators led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, responding to the Democrats' threat to filibuster some judicial nominees of President George W. Bush to prevent a vote on the nominations, floated the idea of having Vice President Dick Cheney, as President of the Senate, rule from the chair that a filibuster on judicial nominees was inconsistent with the constitutional grant of power to the president to name judges with the advice and consent of the Senate (interpreting "consent of the Senate" to mean "consent of a simple majority of Senators," not "consent under the Senate rules").[28] Senator Trent Lott, the junior Republican senator from Mississippi, had named the plan the "nuclear option." Republican leaders preferred to use the term "constitutional option," although opponents and some supporters of the plan continued to use "nuclear option."
On May 23, 2005, a group of fourteen senators was dubbed the Gang of 14, consisting of seven Democrats and seven Republicans. The seven Democrats promised not to filibuster Bush's nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances," while the seven Republicans promised to oppose the nuclear option unless they thought a nominee was being filibustered that was not under "extraordinary circumstances." Specifically, the Democrats promised to stop the filibuster on Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William H. Pryor, Jr., who had all been filibustered in the Senate before. In return, the Republicans would stop the effort to ban the filibuster for judicial nominees. "Extraordinary circumstances" was not defined in advance. The term was open for interpretation by each senator, but the Republicans and Democrats would have had to agree on what it meant if any nominee were to be blocked.
And with regards to the appointments, I believe that has been one of the few points where they have come to an agreement to pass legislation to fix how confirmations are handled to prevent this type of situation in the future. Not saying I love it the before or the after, but they ARE taking steps forward on this part of obstructionism.
Actually, the spike was towards the end of Clinton's presidency, peaked during the beginning of Bush's presidency, then immediately dropped way back down for a couple of years before rising back up again during Bush's second term and before the Republicans became the minority and wreaked havoc. But you're right, filibusters certainly aren't "new." What they are are an "old" thing exacerbated to the point where they should be called a "new" thing aka a blatant disregard for governance and incessant obstructionism.
And bullshit on your claim that were soooo many more contentious policies introduced into the Senate than before. Contentiousness was never an issue with them. The judicial and low-level executive confirmations are all you need to look at to see how extremely petty Republicans have become. Just because Obama called them out on it during his State of the Union and the judiciary told them to get their act together because they were holding up tons of litigation does not suddenly make their four years of retardation vanish into thin air.
On October 03 2012 05:08 aksfjh wrote: I find it funny that empathy is treated as a liberal slant.
I find it funny when liberals slant empathy, example:
Mitt Romney opposes abortion. The slant: "War on women". How come he doesn't have empathy for women? What they leave out: He has empathy for an unborn baby.
Yea, that's not what I'm talking about. It's not about policies, it's about the information presented. News that focuses on the hardships as it pertains to those people in the story, not as it pertains to the "average" consumer. Really that's what it boils down to, telling a story instead of selling one.
On October 03 2012 05:19 Velr wrote: So... We got people with jobs in a country that need goverment support. This means, despite working, they don't earn enough --> Goverment jumps in to pay the diffrence.
So... Whats the problem here.. let me think.. Oh, it's: "People with jobs not making enough money to live from it".
Sooo.. Either you have to pay them decently for their work or you have to support them via goverment (taxes)... Or let them starve or just somehow get rid of them. You want less goverment support/involvement, so assure that they get paid enough to live from their work (so they pay taxes that then can go into education so future generations get higher paid work... .... ).
Ideally people develop the skills / abilities they need to earn a good living. That way low paying jobs and the need for government assistance become irrelevant.
On October 03 2012 05:08 aksfjh wrote: I find it funny that empathy is treated as a liberal slant.
I find it funny when liberals slant empathy, example:
Mitt Romney opposes abortion. The slant: "War on women". How come he doesn't have empathy for women? What they leave out: He has empathy for an unborn baby.
Yea, that's not what I'm talking about. It's not about policies, it's about the information presented. News that focuses on the hardships as it pertains to those people in the story, not as it pertains to the "average" consumer. Really that's what it boils down to, telling a story instead of selling one.
It might not have been what you were talking about, but I just gave a legitimate example of why people treat might empathy as liberal slant. Sometimes it is liberal slant disguised as empathy.
What exactly is the story you are referring to anyway and what is being treated as liberal slant?
On October 03 2012 05:19 Velr wrote: So... We got people with jobs in a country that need goverment support. This means, despite working, they don't earn enough --> Goverment jumps in to pay the diffrence.
So... Whats the problem here.. let me think.. Oh, it's: "People with jobs not making enough money to live from it".
Sooo.. Either you have to pay them decently for their work or you have to support them via goverment (taxes)... Or let them starve or just somehow get rid of them. You want less goverment support/involvement, so assure that they get paid enough to live from their work (so they pay taxes that then can go into education so future generations get higher paid work... .... ).
You are really reinforcing my point about people being unable to see beyond their own biased perspective. Especially when you throw out absurd either/or fallacies, such as, "either we increase public support, or we let people starve to death." Those are not the options, I could offer plenty of other possibilities.
Also you are assuming everyone who needs support are people who have jobs and just aren't making enough to "survive." Let me at least offer a little anecdotal evidence here to the contrary. I have a relative right now who doesn't work. She doesn't work, because she CHOOSES not to work. She is not on the verge of starvation, in fact she is overweight. The government gives her subsidized housing, food stamps, unemployment, WIC, and who knows what other benefits. She actually lives in a better home and drives a nicer car than my wife and I who work. She's been in this state for years, and will continue to be, because she has no incentive to change. If the government suddenly pulled her support, sure, she would have a hard time. But that's because the system has created dependence that wouldn't exist in the absence of the support.
Now somewhere between your extreme and the extreme I offered, there is a point that comes pretty close to "common sense" good governing.
yeah you have a biases as well my friend, you have this slant for the conservative view and think that his liberal slant is much worse then it is. We all have a bias because we all like to hear ideas that we agree with, calling someone out on theirs while not admitting you have your own really undermines your argument.
while i really doubt your story is true at all (even if it was, this women is breaking the law, you can not get rich off government support legally)
i do agree with you that somewhere in the center is the right way to govern the country. We need a way to support those in need while preventing fraud. We need a way to give people choices while not infringing on others. We need to have a real talk in this nation about where we are going
(i hope its to the left :p)
Just because I'm offering the right perspective does not mean I am advocating it. I'm trying to offer opposing points since people tend to ignore their existence with so many of their arguments. If the majority on TL was right wing, my arguments would become very liberal, I assure you that. I rarely state my own views, people simply extrapolate them based on who and how I argue against others.
As far your other point, I think everyone agrees on that. Everyone agrees that we need to support those in need. The problem is that everyone has a different definition of need. Let me again offer a right perspective of need since you come from a liberal perspective. If a person has shelter, food, clothing, and access to an education and emergency medical care, then their needs are effectively met. Whatever goes beyond that is using the violence of government to increase comforts at the expense of other people. Programs such as Social Security, which do not take into account a person's economic need at all, are programs which progressives should oppose in their current incarnation, since they are effectively regressive by transferring wealth from those who are in a lower class to a higher. Typically a person's class and financial well-being rises as they get older, causing the young and less well off to subsidize those who are older and more likely to have reached financial security. This is an example of a government program supported by liberals which ignores need and simply serves to benefit one group at the expense of another.
On October 03 2012 04:57 jdseemoreglass wrote: These debates... Especially the "townhall" style format, my god... I just might throw a brick at my television when I hear the questions.
"Mr. Romney, I've been a garbage man for 60 years, until a microbe crawled up my nose and into my brainpan, and you call me the 47%. Why do you hate poor people and want them to die?"
Moderator: "Yes, Mr. Romney, why do you want them to die? And Mr. President, why are you so caring and compassionate?"
Exaggeration is always fun, but I don't think I've ever seen a debate that wasn't implicitly biased in the majority of questions. People just don't realize liberal bias in the moderation because that is simply their world view, they can't see around it. They don't realize you can phrase any question about a hundred different ways, and they inevitably come from the liberal perspective.
For example, you can say: "Mr. Romney, how can you cut government benefits that people depend on?" "What do you expect seniors to do when their medicare is reduced?" You won't ever hear a question phrased: "How can we reduce the public's ever growing dependence on government support?" Or, "Why should taxpayers foot the bill for more (blank)?", or "Since all the experts agree that the current system is unsustainable, what is the best way to untangle it?" It's all basically asking the same thing, but the framing of the question is absolutely everything. I think in the ideal system, the moderators wouldn't have any leeway at all in framing the question. I think their role should be reduced to simply naming topics. "The Economy. Go." Or, if that is too vague, "Social Security." I guess the problem with this format is that the politicians will be able to say whatever they want and we won't have the interesting "GOTCHA!" moments that the media is looking for. But we could reduce this by allowing a much more free back and forth between the candidates. Let them respond to each other, and our only goal would be to simply prevent it from turning into a shouting match.
And what allows you to overcome your "world view"? There are surely those blind to bias given their perspective, sure. But conservatives who pretend that the media is some monolithic liberal machine are just as blind.
Well, so far as I can tell most people only seek opinions which reinforce their own. They read books that support their own beliefs. They make friends with people who agree with them. They watch media that supports their perspective. I've always tried to do the opposite, I've read Chomsky and Rothbard, Vonnegut and Friedman, etc. Obviously I'm not immune to bias but it can at least help me have a greater awareness of opposing perspectives.
As to your second point, I'd like to hear your opinion on what percentage of Hollywood you would call Democrat or Liberal, just as an example. You can't say less than 70%.
Hollywood is surely a liberal stronghold, the arts always have been. But what is important in this case is the obviousness of Hollywood's liberalness. Since the golden age of film, Hollywood has stood as an obvious liberal establishment with which conservatives are able to solidify their counterpunctual agenda, with McCarthyism being the most extreme and prominent example. Furthermore, Hollywood is not the media.
On October 03 2012 05:19 Velr wrote: So... We got people with jobs in a country that need goverment support. This means, despite working, they don't earn enough --> Goverment jumps in to pay the diffrence.
So... Whats the problem here.. let me think.. Oh, it's: "People with jobs not making enough money to live from it".
Sooo.. Either you have to pay them decently for their work or you have to support them via goverment (taxes)... Or let them starve or just somehow get rid of them. You want less goverment support/involvement, so assure that they get paid enough to live from their work (so they pay taxes that then can go into education so future generations get higher paid work... .... ).
You are really reinforcing my point about people being unable to see beyond their own biased perspective. Especially when you throw out absurd either/or fallacies, such as, "either we increase public support, or we let people starve to death." Those are not the options, I could offer plenty of other possibilities.
Also you are assuming everyone who needs support are people who have jobs and just aren't making enough to "survive." Let me at least offer a little anecdotal evidence here to the contrary. I have a relative right now who doesn't work. She doesn't work, because she CHOOSES not to work. She is not on the verge of starvation, in fact she is overweight. The government gives her subsidized housing, food stamps, unemployment, WIC, and who knows what other benefits. She actually lives in a better home and drives a nicer car than my wife and I who work. She's been in this state for years, and will continue to be, because she has no incentive to change. If the government suddenly pulled her support, sure, she would have a hard time. But that's because the system has created dependence that wouldn't exist in the absence of the support.
Now somewhere between your extreme and the extreme I offered, there is a point that comes pretty close to "common sense" good governing.
yeah you have a biases as well my friend, you have this slant for the conservative view and think that his liberal slant is much worse then it is. We all have a bias because we all like to hear ideas that we agree with, calling someone out on theirs while not admitting you have your own really undermines your argument.
while i really doubt your story is true at all (even if it was, this women is breaking the law, you can not get rich off government support legally)
i do agree with you that somewhere in the center is the right way to govern the country. We need a way to support those in need while preventing fraud. We need a way to give people choices while not infringing on others. We need to have a real talk in this nation about where we are going
(i hope its to the left :p)
Just because I'm offering the right perspective does not mean I am advocating it. I'm trying to offer opposing points since people tend to ignore their existence with so many of their arguments. If the majority on TL was right wing, my arguments would become very liberal, I assure you that. I rarely state my own views, people simply extrapolate them based on who and how I argue against others.
As far your other point, I think everyone agrees on that. Everyone agrees that we need to support those in need. The problem is that everyone has a different definition of need. Let me again offer a right perspective of need since you come from a liberal perspective. If a person has shelter, food, clothing, and access to an education and emergency medical care, then their needs are effectively met. Whatever goes beyond that is using the violence of government to increase comforts at the expense of other people. Programs such as Social Security, which do not take into account a person's economic need at all, are programs which progressives should oppose in their current incarnation, since they are effectively regressive by transferring wealth from those who are in a lower class to a higher. Typically a person's class and financial well-being rises as they get older, causing the young and less well off to subsidize those who are older and more likely to have reached financial security. This is an example of a government program supported by liberals which ignores need and simply serves to benefit one group at the expense of another.
Social Security is a bad example. Before it was introduced half of all senior citizens rotted in poverty. As much as Social Security may need reform, that is just a bad example with flawed reasoning.
Edit: 2000 posts. Let me take this moment to just say I love you all regardless of ideology and regardless of how you make me want to grab your genitals and push them straight up past your gut and out of your nostril at times!
I think Joe Scarborough said it best. Never has "conservatives" had as many mediums to push their views like cable TV, radio, and the internet.
Even if the major TV networks are "liberal", Reagan still won the presidency. Bush Sr. and Jr. won the presidency. You can't say they had an easier time with the "liberal" media.
At some point, you have to admit your candidate just plain sucks instead of blaming the media. Honestly, if someone like Jeb Bush or the old governor Romney ran, Republicans would probably be winning this right now.
On October 03 2012 04:57 jdseemoreglass wrote: These debates... Especially the "townhall" style format, my god... I just might throw a brick at my television when I hear the questions.
"Mr. Romney, I've been a garbage man for 60 years, until a microbe crawled up my nose and into my brainpan, and you call me the 47%. Why do you hate poor people and want them to die?"
Moderator: "Yes, Mr. Romney, why do you want them to die? And Mr. President, why are you so caring and compassionate?"
Exaggeration is always fun, but I don't think I've ever seen a debate that wasn't implicitly biased in the majority of questions. People just don't realize liberal bias in the moderation because that is simply their world view, they can't see around it. They don't realize you can phrase any question about a hundred different ways, and they inevitably come from the liberal perspective.
For example, you can say: "Mr. Romney, how can you cut government benefits that people depend on?" "What do you expect seniors to do when their medicare is reduced?" You won't ever hear a question phrased: "How can we reduce the public's ever growing dependence on government support?" Or, "Why should taxpayers foot the bill for more (blank)?", or "Since all the experts agree that the current system is unsustainable, what is the best way to untangle it?" It's all basically asking the same thing, but the framing of the question is absolutely everything. I think in the ideal system, the moderators wouldn't have any leeway at all in framing the question. I think their role should be reduced to simply naming topics. "The Economy. Go." Or, if that is too vague, "Social Security." I guess the problem with this format is that the politicians will be able to say whatever they want and we won't have the interesting "GOTCHA!" moments that the media is looking for. But we could reduce this by allowing a much more free back and forth between the candidates. Let them respond to each other, and our only goal would be to simply prevent it from turning into a shouting match.
And what allows you to overcome your "world view"? There are surely those blind to bias given their perspective, sure. But conservatives who pretend that the media is some monolithic liberal machine are just as blind.
Read the Powell Memo.
Having taken a number of classes on media studies, I'm well aware of the memorandum in question. It still does not prove any sort of monolithic media presence, as there are huge amounts of monied and corporate influence on both the liberal and conservative side of things.
? I don't mean to be rude, but it's obvious that most of the media has a rather liberal tilt to it. Even some of the most moderate such as CNN have a bit of a lefty tilt. The exceptions of course are Fox News and Talk Radio which are both far to the right. Even among "fact checking" and "research organizations", it is easy to figure out which ones are not independent. As Powell notes, this bias can be seen in the aggregate yet not explicitly contributed to one factor simply because it's such a gradual creep. I'll grant you that it could be changing morals -- however there are many media individuals who push these viewpoints at the current time. If you don't feel equally dirty watching Rachel Maddow as you do when you watch Fox News, you're drinking the Kool-Aid and just not noticing.
I think the general media bias comes largely from the background of people in media: middle class, college-educated moderates. I think the label that would best fit a lot of the respectable media would be Rockerfeller Republican, which is of course a bit liberal by contemporary standards.
On October 03 2012 04:57 jdseemoreglass wrote: These debates... Especially the "townhall" style format, my god... I just might throw a brick at my television when I hear the questions.
"Mr. Romney, I've been a garbage man for 60 years, until a microbe crawled up my nose and into my brainpan, and you call me the 47%. Why do you hate poor people and want them to die?"
Moderator: "Yes, Mr. Romney, why do you want them to die? And Mr. President, why are you so caring and compassionate?"
Exaggeration is always fun, but I don't think I've ever seen a debate that wasn't implicitly biased in the majority of questions. People just don't realize liberal bias in the moderation because that is simply their world view, they can't see around it. They don't realize you can phrase any question about a hundred different ways, and they inevitably come from the liberal perspective.
For example, you can say: "Mr. Romney, how can you cut government benefits that people depend on?" "What do you expect seniors to do when their medicare is reduced?" You won't ever hear a question phrased: "How can we reduce the public's ever growing dependence on government support?" Or, "Why should taxpayers foot the bill for more (blank)?", or "Since all the experts agree that the current system is unsustainable, what is the best way to untangle it?" It's all basically asking the same thing, but the framing of the question is absolutely everything. I think in the ideal system, the moderators wouldn't have any leeway at all in framing the question. I think their role should be reduced to simply naming topics. "The Economy. Go." Or, if that is too vague, "Social Security." I guess the problem with this format is that the politicians will be able to say whatever they want and we won't have the interesting "GOTCHA!" moments that the media is looking for. But we could reduce this by allowing a much more free back and forth between the candidates. Let them respond to each other, and our only goal would be to simply prevent it from turning into a shouting match.
And what allows you to overcome your "world view"? There are surely those blind to bias given their perspective, sure. But conservatives who pretend that the media is some monolithic liberal machine are just as blind.
Well, so far as I can tell most people only seek opinions which reinforce their own. They read books that support their own beliefs. They make friends with people who agree with them. They watch media that supports their perspective. I've always tried to do the opposite, I've read Chomsky and Rothbard, Vonnegut and Friedman, etc. Obviously I'm not immune to bias but it can at least help me have a greater awareness of opposing perspectives.
As to your second point, I'd like to hear your opinion on what percentage of Hollywood you would call Democrat or Liberal, just as an example. You can't say less than 70%.
Hollywood is surely a liberal stronghold, the arts always have been. But what is important in this case is the obviousness of Hollywood's liberalness. Since the golden age of film, Hollywood has stood as an obvious liberal establishment with which conservatives are able to solidify their counterpunctual agenda, with McCarthyism being the most extreme and prominent example. Furthermore, Hollywood is not the media.
Quite frankly your post is utter nonsense. Traditionally, liberals cherished the arts and considered them more culturally important than conservatives, which usually amounted to more funding. Such is the case today, and your strange declaration that things are "not really that simple" coupled with "In reality that is all it is" leads me to conclude even you are not sure what you are trying to say. Furthermore, your first article describes the pitfalls of the GLOBAL film industry through a description of German tax shelter use, and the second source you provided might be one of the worst wikipedia articles out there. Can you rephrase your comment for coherence?
On October 03 2012 05:19 Velr wrote: So... We got people with jobs in a country that need goverment support. This means, despite working, they don't earn enough --> Goverment jumps in to pay the diffrence.
So... Whats the problem here.. let me think.. Oh, it's: "People with jobs not making enough money to live from it".
Sooo.. Either you have to pay them decently for their work or you have to support them via goverment (taxes)... Or let them starve or just somehow get rid of them. You want less goverment support/involvement, so assure that they get paid enough to live from their work (so they pay taxes that then can go into education so future generations get higher paid work... .... ).
You are really reinforcing my point about people being unable to see beyond their own biased perspective. Especially when you throw out absurd either/or fallacies, such as, "either we increase public support, or we let people starve to death." Those are not the options, I could offer plenty of other possibilities.
Also you are assuming everyone who needs support are people who have jobs and just aren't making enough to "survive." Let me at least offer a little anecdotal evidence here to the contrary. I have a relative right now who doesn't work. She doesn't work, because she CHOOSES not to work. She is not on the verge of starvation, in fact she is overweight. The government gives her subsidized housing, food stamps, unemployment, WIC, and who knows what other benefits. She actually lives in a better home and drives a nicer car than my wife and I who work. She's been in this state for years, and will continue to be, because she has no incentive to change. If the government suddenly pulled her support, sure, she would have a hard time. But that's because the system has created dependence that wouldn't exist in the absence of the support.
Now somewhere between your extreme and the extreme I offered, there is a point that comes pretty close to "common sense" good governing.
yeah you have a biases as well my friend, you have this slant for the conservative view and think that his liberal slant is much worse then it is. We all have a bias because we all like to hear ideas that we agree with, calling someone out on theirs while not admitting you have your own really undermines your argument.
while i really doubt your story is true at all (even if it was, this women is breaking the law, you can not get rich off government support legally)
i do agree with you that somewhere in the center is the right way to govern the country. We need a way to support those in need while preventing fraud. We need a way to give people choices while not infringing on others. We need to have a real talk in this nation about where we are going
(i hope its to the left :p)
Just because I'm offering the right perspective does not mean I am advocating it. I'm trying to offer opposing points since people tend to ignore their existence with so many of their arguments. If the majority on TL was right wing, my arguments would become very liberal, I assure you that. I rarely state my own views, people simply extrapolate them based on who and how I argue against others.
As far your other point, I think everyone agrees on that. Everyone agrees that we need to support those in need. The problem is that everyone has a different definition of need. Let me again offer a right perspective of need since you come from a liberal perspective. If a person has shelter, food, clothing, and access to an education and emergency medical care, then their needs are effectively met. Whatever goes beyond that is using the violence of government to increase comforts at the expense of other people. Programs such as Social Security, which do not take into account a person's economic need at all, are programs which progressives should oppose in their current incarnation, since they are effectively regressive by transferring wealth from those who are in a lower class to a higher. Typically a person's class and financial well-being rises as they get older, causing the young and less well off to subsidize those who are older and more likely to have reached financial security. This is an example of a government program supported by liberals which ignores need and simply serves to benefit one group at the expense of another.
Social Security is a bad example. Before it was introduced half of all senior citizens rotted in poverty. As much as Social Security may need reform, that is just a bad example with flawed reasoning.
Edit: 2000 posts. Let me take this moment to just say I love you all regardless of ideology and regardless of how you make me want to grab your genitals and push them straight up past your gut and out of your nostril at times!
I don't quite see how it is a bad example. We are living in the present, not the past. In either case, how about another example.
Subsidies for higher education. Milton Friedman can say it better than I can.
On October 03 2012 03:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The US used to have a big crime problem. Watch movies from the 80's / early 90's
Much of this has to do with sweeping neoliberal reforms and the gutting of social programs. cf David Harvey _A Brief History of Neoliberalism_. In particular, the bankruptcy of new york city and imposition of austerity by IMF, after which a huge crime wave swept the city (and was cracked down upon by Giuliani, whose consultancy firm went on to do a similar thing after similar reforms in Pinochet's Chile)
On October 03 2012 05:19 Velr wrote: So... We got people with jobs in a country that need goverment support. This means, despite working, they don't earn enough --> Goverment jumps in to pay the diffrence.
So... Whats the problem here.. let me think.. Oh, it's: "People with jobs not making enough money to live from it".
Sooo.. Either you have to pay them decently for their work or you have to support them via goverment (taxes)... Or let them starve or just somehow get rid of them. You want less goverment support/involvement, so assure that they get paid enough to live from their work (so they pay taxes that then can go into education so future generations get higher paid work... .... ).
You are really reinforcing my point about people being unable to see beyond their own biased perspective. Especially when you throw out absurd either/or fallacies, such as, "either we increase public support, or we let people starve to death." Those are not the options, I could offer plenty of other possibilities.
Also you are assuming everyone who needs support are people who have jobs and just aren't making enough to "survive." Let me at least offer a little anecdotal evidence here to the contrary. I have a relative right now who doesn't work. She doesn't work, because she CHOOSES not to work. She is not on the verge of starvation, in fact she is overweight. The government gives her subsidized housing, food stamps, unemployment, WIC, and who knows what other benefits. She actually lives in a better home and drives a nicer car than my wife and I who work. She's been in this state for years, and will continue to be, because she has no incentive to change. If the government suddenly pulled her support, sure, she would have a hard time. But that's because the system has created dependence that wouldn't exist in the absence of the support.
Now somewhere between your extreme and the extreme I offered, there is a point that comes pretty close to "common sense" good governing.
yeah you have a biases as well my friend, you have this slant for the conservative view and think that his liberal slant is much worse then it is. We all have a bias because we all like to hear ideas that we agree with, calling someone out on theirs while not admitting you have your own really undermines your argument.
while i really doubt your story is true at all (even if it was, this women is breaking the law, you can not get rich off government support legally)
i do agree with you that somewhere in the center is the right way to govern the country. We need a way to support those in need while preventing fraud. We need a way to give people choices while not infringing on others. We need to have a real talk in this nation about where we are going
(i hope its to the left :p)
Just because I'm offering the right perspective does not mean I am advocating it. I'm trying to offer opposing points since people tend to ignore their existence with so many of their arguments. If the majority on TL was right wing, my arguments would become very liberal, I assure you that. I rarely state my own views, people simply extrapolate them based on who and how I argue against others.
As far your other point, I think everyone agrees on that. Everyone agrees that we need to support those in need. The problem is that everyone has a different definition of need. Let me again offer a right perspective of need since you come from a liberal perspective. If a person has shelter, food, clothing, and access to an education and emergency medical care, then their needs are effectively met. Whatever goes beyond that is using the violence of government to increase comforts at the expense of other people. Programs such as Social Security, which do not take into account a person's economic need at all, are programs which progressives should oppose in their current incarnation, since they are effectively regressive by transferring wealth from those who are in a lower class to a higher. Typically a person's class and financial well-being rises as they get older, causing the young and less well off to subsidize those who are older and more likely to have reached financial security. This is an example of a government program supported by liberals which ignores need and simply serves to benefit one group at the expense of another.
Social Security is a bad example. Before it was introduced half of all senior citizens rotted in poverty. As much as Social Security may need reform, that is just a bad example with flawed reasoning.
Edit: 2000 posts. Let me take this moment to just say I love you all regardless of ideology and regardless of how you make me want to grab your genitals and push them straight up past your gut and out of your nostril at times!
I don't quite see how it is a bad example. We are living in the present, not the past. In either case, how about another example.
Subsidies for higher education. Milton Friedman can say it better than I can.
If you think Milton Friedman would give the same speech today, given what has happened to higher ed and student loan servicing changes, I think you'd be mistaken. When he gave that speech the world was an incredibly different place, and college was far more affordable. And don't give me this community college bullshit, the higher ed for profit bubble will burst soon enough.
On October 03 2012 05:19 Velr wrote: So... We got people with jobs in a country that need goverment support. This means, despite working, they don't earn enough --> Goverment jumps in to pay the diffrence.
So... Whats the problem here.. let me think.. Oh, it's: "People with jobs not making enough money to live from it".
Sooo.. Either you have to pay them decently for their work or you have to support them via goverment (taxes)... Or let them starve or just somehow get rid of them. You want less goverment support/involvement, so assure that they get paid enough to live from their work (so they pay taxes that then can go into education so future generations get higher paid work... .... ).
Ideally people develop the skills / abilities they need to earn a good living. That way low paying jobs and the need for government assistance become irrelevant.
I think about anyone no matter which standpoint he is on agrees with that. The question is what you do with people that don't, which there allways will be.
I see "Bosses" earning millions employing people which can't live of the pay they are given albeit being 100% on the job. I can't for the live of myself come up with a good argument as to why the upper echeolons should swim in money and others need goverment help while working for the same company. I'm not arguing for equal pay, far from it, but the way it is now (not just in the US) is just ridiculous. Then hearing/seeing these same guys, which damn well know how much they pay their lowest employees, bitch about "poor people taking away their money (via goverment)" makes me just angry.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Violent_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9EY57.png)
