The whole discussion of liberal bias has had me baffled for a long time. How do you decide what is liberal or not liberal to start out with?
A few months ago the owners of the company that I work for, one of our European reps, and I were sitting down to a meal. When one of our owners made the a comment about liberal bias in the press, I asked our European rep (from the UK) if he had heard enough of the news reporting in this country to make a judgement. He laughed and said 'Are you kidding?' Not really knowing what he was thinking I said 'No you really will have to enlighten me'. He said 'To anyone from Europe it appears to have a heavy conservative bias'. Mind you this was a working, dress suit, European corporate type. So go figure. I think Phoo is on target.
T
Wow, that's great. Your ONE anecdote really sums it up. Maybe Europe carries more Bush-bashing headlines than they do in America?? That must automatically make the American media conservative.
FWIW, generally media folks in other countries see our media folks as fairly conservative on the whole - and yes, that's because their socities are more "liberal" than ours (e.g., most other countries think universal health care and funding higher education in egalitarian ways and avoiding destroying the environment and all the rest of the lefty stuff is simply common sense...gad, I wish we did here too...)
…their socities are more “liberal” than ours (e.g., most other countries think universal health care and funding higher education in egalitarian ways and avoiding destroying the environment and all the rest of the lefty stuff is simply common sense…gad, I wish we did here too…)
Tom, you’d like it in Europe, or Scandinavia at least. Not that we’re all that good, but at least we’re a li’l bit better in these matters and still trying to do better…
KSDB Blathered: "Silly is saying there is no real LMSM and then admitting that you can think of a handful of LMSM reporters. Be consistent if you’re going to deny that the LMSM exists."
I purposefully said it that way because 1)You would make it the central part of your arguement without 2)Actually finding any to list.
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
KSDB pulled another one out of his butt and farted "Right … and you’ve got the dime-machine horse saddle sores to prove it??"
No, a horseman doesn’t get saddle sores (that’s for greenhorns). A real man has calluses. A real man doesn’t take 6 years to clear brush. He does it and gets it done.
In this picture I’m practicing a sliding stop. This mare is a Reiner and a Cutter.
In this picture…off to the right out of the shot is a cow and we’re getting ready to do some cutting work. This particular mare (she’s the same as above) is very well bred with Doc Bar and Cutter Bill bloodlines. Her daughter (which I still have) has even better blood. Her sire ranked 2nd and 6th in the world in working cow horse and reining. I rode with the man who owned him who is an excellent horseman and was a member of the Canadian Equestrian Team for several years. We rode alot of horses and worked alot of cattle back then.
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
KSDB further embarased himself with this line: “And they weren’t going to bring it on until they heard Bush say this??? What were the terrorists doing instead: crochet??”
That line has nothing to do with what I said. Read a book sometime. The comment was on the premise that “Bring it On” could mean anything other than what it means. What does Bush mean when he says people misinterpreted his statement? He’s just making excuses for his stupidity, for instead of realizing that he should think before he puts his foot in his mouth he instead blames others for misunderstanding what comes out of that clearly ever shrinking, gin soaked, cocaine numbed brain of his.
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
KSDB stuck his face out of the car window and said "And you know this because you bunk in his garage??"
I know this because he still makes video and audio tapes to taunt you and show you just how inept your team is… 'cause if you can’t admit ineptness then you must be partners.
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
KSDB then takes shots at dogs: "Here’s hoping the dog is a little better-spoken than its master."
My dog doesn’t speak. She’s a dog. She is, however, very smart. She has no use for any Texas oil thieves. That makes her smarter than you.
Go buy yourself a good dog and let it do the thinking for you.
That is a fine lookin’ mare you have there KF… It’s been a looong time since I’ve been in the saddle. My best bud, (waaaay back before we found the ladies, married had kids etc…) use to ride all the time. He always had Tennessee Walkers. Fantastic horses. Lots of fun. (Chick magnets too!)
if bush isn’t a cowboy ,who is?what do you think he’s appologising for?Ksdb, you must be in that 30% who approve of this criminal as president-how far to the right must one be to consider the MS press “liberal”? i don’t know-Seems to me the MSpress only reports what the casa blanca puts out.the truth is elsewhere…the “terrorists” were trained by the cia ,back when we were on the same side(i can’t spell mujahadeen)they had alot of help destroying the wtc,####,one of those bldgs wasn’t even hit by a plane…there’s almost no association between al qaeda and either iraq or afghanistan(they just have oil or access to it)but, go on be afraid,believe the party line- thanks,guys great ntrack forum stuff:) right on Kingfish…
I’d like to float a hypothesis here, and see if anybody can refute it. Here is the hypothesis: There are really two basic questions that we need to be able to answer to understand why we are fighting in Iraq and what we should do regarding Iraq.
Background for question 1. A little bit of reading of the history of warfare quickly reveals that much of the intelligence gathered is wrong. Everybody who makes military decisions knows this. I think that most people would agree that there were clues that our intelligence prior to invasion of Iraq might have some major gaps. So the first question is this: Why did we rush to make a pre-emptive strike instead of working to shore up the existing intelligence uncertainties?
Background for question 2. There seem to be two schools of thought for dealing with international terrorism. The first is that if we attack the terrorists and destroy x% of them, then the threat to the world is reduced by x%. The other school of thought is that if you destroy x% of the terrorists, you generate a huge new wave of terrorists that are relatives, neighbors, or countrymen of the deceased, and who see the intervention by outside forces as a wrong, regardless of the stated goal of these forces. So the second question is: Does destroying x% of the currently existing pool of active terrorists increase or decrease the threat to the world?
So how about the hypothesis? That is, if we could answer these two questions, would be able to understand why we are fighting in Iraq and also what we should do regarding Iraq? The more I think about it, the more that it seems that most of the other questions that arise revolve around these two.
I think that the two points of view rgarding the second question tend to be labeled as liberal and conservative stances, and when these labels are applied, the discussion becomes confused with many other hot button issues. This is typical of what is happening in much of the political discourse in the US. The liberal vs. conservative debate is a dangerous impediment to logical discussion and we all ought to work like dogs to shut it off, and try another approach.
Regarding the first question, note that it is inaccurate to say that we are fighting in Iraq because of 9/11. If you think through it logically, 9/11 was the impetus for collecting intelligence on Iraqi intentions, not the reason for a strike. Our interpretation of this intelligence led to the strike.
good points,T- unfortunately,i think this is one of those issues where what we believe(political persuasion)comming in shapes what we can accept as reality. it seems like there’s plenty of facts for all sides,and we all choose what to accept what we think is plausable…some see liberal media spin,some see "valid "reasons for the occupation,i see an illegal admin conducting an illegal war for their own enrichment,and all the evidence- i don’t think agreement is possible… but if we need an occupation to acheive our goals, maybe they’re the wrong goals… it’s always time for peace
The liberal vs. conservative debate is a dangerous impediment to logical discussion and we all ought to work like dogs to shut it off, and try another approach.
Now THERE is an itelligent idea… it really is too bad it ain’t gonna happen though. The extreme left and extreme right despise any concept of a “middle ground”. It goes against their mantras. There IS no middle ground… only WINNERS or LOSERS.
It’s just like what’s happening with the “classes”. In the not too distant future there will only be two. The Upper Crust who will have the largest portion of the wealth in the US, and the Lower class who will have almost NO wealth. The Middle Class is being shipped to China, Mexico, Haiti, Honduras etc… For what you might ask? To create more profit (wealth) for that Upper Crust while pushing the middle closer to the Lower class. You know what though? Any second-grader ought to be able to see that it will not work for long.
uh-o,i agree with Diogenes-this sellout of the middle class is one of the worst things the bush family has perpetrated on the nation-the effects will be much more profound than the 2 wars we’re currently waging
No, no dude… this has been going on long before Bush and gang came along. Laying it on Dubya’s doorstep is nothing but a political cop out. If we had a Dem in office, the Repubs would be doing the same though.
yes,again,i agree…certianly no alternative with the dems-to me it’s about big business or Business As Usual-both parties have abandoned the middle (& lower) class for BAU-i think the bushes have furthered this effort well,though,with all the "free -trade"stuff,and their tax “breaks” for the top 1%.you know of “policy for a new americas” written by cheney,wolfowitz,etc?They’ve been busy…no political cop out-he is the “decider”,if it were a democrat in office i would oppose him/her equally…look at the way the ruling party has restructured the election system-look at the economic policy,look at the erosion of personal freedoms-these guys are the problem-right now…
There is no way to prevent the middle class from taking it on the chin over the next few decades. The improvements in communication (especially the internet and the adoption of English as a universal language of commerce), improvements in shipping, and the export of manufacturing and IT technologies to developing countries that has already occurred, all work together to put our middle class in direct competition with labor in countries like China and India. Nothing can stop the equalization of salaries between the US, Europe, and these countries. The barriers that once maintained European wealth in the presence of developing-countries poverty are gone.This is one of the unpleasant (for US and Europe) and unforseen consequences of improvements in some key technologies. The only thing that government can do now is to put together policies that will help take the sting out temporarily, or maybe protect narrow sectors of the economy. A cynical person might say that the process could be slowed down by generating conflict and encouraging the enhancement and persistence of cultural barriers that create barriers to trade and the flow of intellectual wealth. Lets hope governements don’t act on this line of thought.
Time to circle the wagons if you (like me) are middle class. Tough times for the middle class are ahead no matter who is in power. In the US, probably the best we can hope for is a realization, at some point, that in the long run it is dangerous to have tax policies that further accentuate the gap between the haves and have nots. History is replete with cases where such a dichotomy leads to instability (e.g. ‘let them eat cake…’). And as audiobru says, the war will have its effect as the expense will eat into the wealth pool that has so far cushioned the effect of the leveling of the labor field.
Right T. Look at the mess in China right now. They have willingly taken a huge burden on their shoulders in the name of “globalization”. They are wrecking their ecology in an already overburdened land. Same problems are occuring in other lands that offer cheap labor for wealthy manufacturers based elsewhere. It won’t last forever…
tspringer, to answer your first question in one word: oil. I know, it is not terribly interesting, but it is the truth. The US runs on oil, and without a guaranteed inexpensive supply of it some very rich people are in trouble (that is, they are not worried about the oil for our sakes, they are worried for themselves - so that if a solution exists whereby they stay rich and oil is not a factor, well, then, they will take that route). Anyway, it’s all spelled out in PNAC documents. Add to the oil as the primary reason the machinations of fundamentalists over the last 30 years, dispensationalists who think the end of the world is coming when Israel is fully established, and you have the sufficient conditions.
As to your second question, empirically we see what is happening - more terrorists are being made by Bush’s policies - which BTW suits fundie Musliim-haters just fine.
I dunno, it seems so obvious, I don’t really understand why there is any debate about it at all. Willful ignorance on the part of some, cupidity on the part of others, and simple deceit and malevolence and lack of concern for their fellow humans on the part of the PNAC people.
...their socities are more "liberal" than ours (e.g., most other countries think universal health care and funding higher education in egalitarian ways and avoiding destroying the environment and all the rest of the lefty stuff is simply common sense...gad, I wish we did here too...)
Tom, you'd like it in Europe, or Scandinavia at least. Not that we're all that good, but at least we're a li'l bit better in these matters and still trying to do better...
Yes, I'd like to move to Canada at least. Refreshing to visit my in-laws who live there; my community often strikes me as simply insane, living in a fantasy world.
It is hard to avoid concluding that the philosophies emanating from “Project for the New American Century” think-tank were not a part of the reason for the excessive rush to initiate the invasion of Iraq. since Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz made clear their thoughts on the matter well before 9/11through PNAC pronouncements. Every American should read the available PNAC documents so that they understand the philosphies that were in play prior to 9/11 (e.g. Here) It is hard to say that oil was not a factor influenced the course of events, but I come away with the impression that the main influence was the belief that IN GENERAL it would be advantageous for the US to take a much more aggressive stance militarily.
I think that you are probably right in suggesting that the answer to question 1 is to be found in the PNAC documents.
tspinger, you are wrong that nothing can stop the middle class from taking it on the chin, I think - the USA will have to get used to lower economic expectations, and indeed the bottom 3/5 have been taking on the chin since about 1982, but a shift of priorities to socially progressive legislation could take a lot of the sting from that - better support of education, health, and community services would do an awful lot for that “middle class.” Exactly what the republicans don’t want to happen.
You are right that policies can take some of the sting out the impacts that a barrier-free world will have on the middle class in developing countries. But if there is a company in China with skilled workers who can make a $10 SM-58 mic clone that is just as good as an $90 SM-58 made in the US, only one of two things can happen. Wages at the US factory have to drop or the factory closes. In the long run it’s hard for me to see anything but a stagnation of manufacturing salaries in the developed countries that persists until salaries in the developing countries rise and close the wage gap. The problem is that multinational companies will continue to shift manufacturing from region to the region to find the lowest-wage labor source (e.g from Mexico to China), so this is going to take a long time.
Concerning your comment that social policies will help take the sting out. In this case I think that social policy is almost synonymous with tax policy. For the last few years the tendency has been to use tax policies to try to put more money into the hands of the ‘investor class’, with this policy defended based on the theory that dollars in the hands of investors generates more economic activity that in the hands of others, and that all boats will rise with a rising tide. There certainly needs to be more debate on the correctness of this theory. There are economists who will argue that it is money spent by consumers (dominated by the middle class) that generates most economic activity. Amazingly, debate about the fairness of the current tax policies doesn’t seem to have much traction, even though it should. But it is primarily changes in tax policies that could reduce the sting of middle class travails. For example, in the US, the issues of maintaining the solvency of Social Security and Medicare are simply appendages of the tax policies. So is availability of financial assistance for higher education and so on…
Well there IS the war in Iraq, and that was a policy choice. By my calculation, if the cost is spread over the US population evenly, it is currently up to about $3,000 per household of three. When you consider that this is all borrowed money that we will pay interest on, make it about $5000-$6000 that each family will have to pay back. That is money that will be hard to pay while I also pay the $100,000 that it will take to my son through college. Sucks.
There is a website that calculates your contribution to the war. Highly uncertain calculation, of course - I saw that the American Economics Association calculated the total cost (including things such as lost wages and future medical benefits to vets) at 2 trillion and rising. That’s a chunk of dough.
I disagree about the tax policy - it is not as simple as “investment goes where the labor is cheaper.” Look at germany - they have higher wages and good social services and higher quality of life - how? By being more productive and making stuff of recognized higher quality. Productivity, intelligence in manufacturing decisions, and quality of product cna offset all or almost all of the savings that accrue from going to China. But the automotive folks in particular see a chance to break the unions, and have managed in the process to demonize them, when it is empirically demonstrable that the truck made in Flint can pay just as much as the truck made in Mexico, and in the process we can avoid destroying the social investment in a largish urban area (flint that is) that took several generations. It’s wasteful and hurts people and is totally unnecessary, except from the viewpoint of the stockholder and management, who have very few if any human concerns and are not motivated by any sense of virtue or social awareness.
