LIBERAL MEDIA: A BOGEYMAN

Do the media have a liberal bias?

My contribution: [Sent to the Seattle Times, not printed, 08-02-06]

LIBERAL MEDIA A BOGEYMAN

Is there a liberal media bias? That depends on what your definition of bias is. Ring any bells? Maybe enough said. My view is that there is an anti-reality bias and maybe even conservatives could agree. We just don’t agree on presenting reality. Defined in Encarta as: an unfair preference or dislike for something. That leaves us with the disagreement over what is fair. I guess it is fair that both syndicated columnists blamed the people.

The odd thing is that the conservative believes for all people that "newsworthy events" are seen through their own belief systems but that she does not shape the news. By expecting that news reporters must balance the news; that reality is balanced, is itself a bias. Her belief and that of other conservatives creates a bias that the media is supposed to be balanced, when reality is not. Not any more than that two columnists from Harvard represents balance or Harvard, would more good news represent reality.

With just a little less bias from conservatives and less fear of bias from the media, we probably "couldn’t handle the truth." Just because there is so much bad news, does not mean it is liberal bias. The unfairness in that Clinton was impeached and that headlines don’t hold congress and the administration more accountable, may be my bias. But that does not mean that the media facing more reality and doing their jobs would not feed the myth that they are too liberal. A myth that keeps reality from changing our course. A culture of fear needs a bogeyman.

Tolerance at the table?

People for the American Way presents a basic argument against the tolerance of intolerance.
Just what was Obama's purpose? ? [*] I hope there is some here.
I think I found it, and to shine the light on ...

[Maybe tabling the metaphor of the table as the well as the use of metaphor?
It also should not be a case of "reaching out" to the other side.]

[[No Dis-Respect but it is "fair and balanced".]]

[*][Update: link inserted for purpose driven foe-be-ah? And apples and oranges. I was originally focused on the lack of attention given to the benediction speaker but it is not a matter that balances the issue. Except if is balanced on the separation of church and state. It is my belief that there should be no government regulation to force the associations made in one's church and it may be said that the word marriage should be given to that category, with the caviat that states give equal rights to churches to determine their definition of marriage and the states provide for civil unions to those who choose. But no!!!! It seems that some people will not be happy with re-parsing of words, like freedom or rights..]

Historic Health Care Bill Passed

The House has Passed the Senate Bill.
Thank You Historic Speaker!
Thank You Minority Leader for so disrespecfully recording your nonsense for history.[*]

The Senate now has the option of adding a few Republican options or maybe even some Democratic plans.

*[3-22-10] Believe me, I don't believe I could more respectfully record my reaction to Minority Leader Boehner's address.

[In fact, I actually just had a long discussion with a Deputy Chief of Staff reflecting my displeasure with his antics. I may or may not summarize it later, but I can characterize it as a less than heated discussion. My main point was that it is difficult to imagine many reasonable people bothering to call in to respond to such behavior, given the visceral reaction and condescension possible. It might be likened to calling in on a childish tantrum. I was just curious about the decorum of their callers, I think I kept mine, but I did continually get caught by the whining rhetoric. The reported belief that the process was unprecedented and partisan like never before. Ha! Oh and the "blame it on emotions" mixed in with the "need to be heard" excuse.]
[Update: see runaround rhetoric and clean sheet of paper: the Republican "leadership" has been forced by Democratic leadership to be accountable but still whine about the politics while blaiming it on 200 years of heated words simultaneously martyring** themselves in the rhetoric and hijacking*** the word "change" from a "clean sheet of paper". They want history to be forced or a force, as long as it is thier force not the peoples. Which "common sense" would mean, no history, no constitution, no rhetoric, no politics.
** I hope I have not too incautiously used the word, but it might be better to say Cantor makes a rather heroic leap in his rhetoric and "akin" to self-sacrifice.
*** refers to office call]

The Guilt Trip

No, not this analysis: the opposition to* truth and consequences.

All the judgments that the typical or rabid anti-abortion believer might attribute to the pro-choice or pro-abortion practitioner, seem to be emblematic of a belief in freedom from cause.  Could an equivalent judgement be made that they want all the social consequences from lack of such freedom? 

I know this is complicated, but such seem the hazards of putting oneself in another's shoes or rational or is it just judgement? 

Let alone transportation [!] ?

* or of?
 

Pre-empting Crimes

Remember: Humor is a tool and so is the dictionary.
While Bill Clinton hinged his excuses on "what the definition of 'is' is". The current administration has pre-empted excuses by hinging humor and the dictionary on "what the definition of everything is".

Abuse of power is the issue. While Clinton was investigated and found to have hinged his evasion of his abuse of an intern, Nixon was investigated and found to have covered up his abuses on the national level, and Bush pre-empted abuses on the international level. But now what Bush has done to get us "over there" will congress investigate too much "over here"?

If the above is too hard to follow, then try this:
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act: S. 1959 Here is the TEXT

While the above is the senate bill by the same name here is the House version which passed: H.R. 1955

While I did read the latter, the former will be discussed on The Thom Hartmann Show. [See Update]
AM1090 Seattle 9 AM to noon

`SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
`In this subtitle:

`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

I hate to alert any potential terrorists but do not these definitions pertain to The Project for the New American Century ? It may be a section that united the vote for this bill, while an understanding of it, would certainly mean to change it.

[Earlier Posted Comment here:
Earlier radicals there:
Jefferson-

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.Goldwater-

[Same Day Update: After posting the above I found this on Slate Bad Ideas]

[Update The Thom Hartmann Show: 11/29/07 ]
[11-29-07: TruthOut]

Loose threads...

Signs it began in 2007.[My point is not from the first link, but from my belief that there was a limited time frame for the inquiry that did not go back far enough.]
Reaction to Robert Gibbs. In Balance.

TruthOut.org

The truth is that I stumbled upon Cognitive Policy Works * through my registration** with TruthOut.org and I was too busy not working on my own Wage-Productivity Gap to run out in time to get the last printed copy of the Seattle Post Intelligencer.

Where was I going with this? Just unpackaging or repackaging "on the fly" as the CPW's Joe Brewer might say, or my yet to read William Rivers Pitt and maybe back to my use of allegory and metaphor and a need*** to be more productive.

* today's reading inserted here, actual original stumble was here.

** email updates are a valuable filter(sign-up and contribute if you can)

*** and finally my point I did not know I has heading for, a contribution to the dialogue: In the power of belief over facts and needs over wants. (Maslow)

Red Labeling!

Maybe I need to point out the irony in A Wonderful Conversation.
Baiting Obama [*]demonstrates the tactic of fear mongering.
The Republicans who label themselves the Grand Old Party really are the Red Labelers by relying on Good Old Phobias of labels.

They utilize guilt by association, but run guilty of no association. It is really fear of any meaning. FDR in his first inaugural said:

...first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

I will point out that this was in the depth of the depression, and he points out:

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things.

Now it is said about FDR, that little was know of his plans. So do not take that as any swap at or comparison to the current candidates, Democratic at least. And of course Republican plans have been shown to mean little anyway. Bush in this blog, and McCain in his Flip-Flopper-Krafting, it is plain as the red on their faces. And the only thing green is the buck which is past and the envy behind their angry red labels.

[There is nothing humorous about the situation, except that humor does present an approach which should be investigated as a cover for anger. I presented a perspective that Swift Boaters have sunk the good name of a branch of the military-- Swift Boat Veterans-- (not so directly), in The New Wave, but Andy Borowitz (thanks to Thom Hartmann) takes it to the delta.]
[*] Henceforth the bold links will be the featured article I will be sure to read fully.

Just to clarify...

Have they filled Helen's seat yet?

Just to clarify: I do not believe all Jews should go back home*, and I hope (and feel confident) Helen Thomas did not either.(**) She seems to recognize that there are two states, Israel and Palestine from her answer to the original question. Which is more than one might be able to conclude of the questioner[***], given the way it was (mis?)understood, and misrepresented. If Helen Thomas (age aside) can be given such a hard time for her opinion and poor decision to engage in a sidewalk interview, my point is that there would be a whole lot more job openings in journalism, especially in the media.

* which home and what is a Jew?(not that I am answering that, but that does go to the modus operandi of a lot of the questioners{so called journalists] with their "what if"s or "it is as if"s. By the Golden Rule, they would not have been in the position to have created this "gotcha moment", be they Wire Staff, Newsroom or Press Secretaries.)

(**) and belief and saying it are two different things which some confound.

[***] 6-10-10:update others worse than Thomas

Not a lack of intelligence, just the use of intelligence.

In the last day or so, Resident Bush has emphasized the intelligence that we are sure about. He stated, (approximately)that anyone who knows the history of the Saddam regime knows that he possessed biological and chemical weapons. Further that he had used them. There is no lie or contradiction in this belief. It is just that we are uncertain Bush knows the meaning of "history" or intelligence, or indeed "possessed" or "used". For these are all past tense.

Now we have a Resident who may not know what "was" is.

If intelligence has some evidence, we must find out who provided it to him and how it was filtered for him. It is more than knowing where the buck stops, but where did it start?