Sheer Stupidity? :-)
(You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time...)

"Anti-Troop? OK, you may not be aware of this, but that is disengenuous at best." -Brian webber

I am aware that being anti-war does not automatically make you anti-troop. I based this statement on the facts that:
A: Their signs were rather anti-troop, not just anti-war, and
B: If they support the troops, why are they trying to demoralize them just as they're shipping out to give up a year of their life in service to their country? The soldiers can't change any policy. The soldiers can't cancel the war. All they can do is know whether the American people support them or not.
So in my eyes, if the protest wasn't itntended as an anti-troop demoralizer, then it was poorly thought-out at best.


"Where did you get those numbers?" -Brian Webber

Police estimations, reported on the local radio stations. Personal visual confirmation (of the aproximate proportions).

Oh yes, and the local right-wing porpoganda machine.

Sheesh. What, you think i'm just making numbers up?


"No go back and read those posts you admit to not reading if you want some more "food for thought."" -Brian webber

I intend to.


"Here's a CNN link. Google came up with Fox News first, but I know you wouldn't trust it.

However, Zarm, it appears to have been an old shell -- but it does put the lie to the statement that Saddam never had WMD." -ScottN


Thanks for the fact-checking. (sooner or later I'll have to start doing that too, huh? :-) )
And yes, I admit that it wasn't a major WMD stockpile. That would be enough of a story that the major news media wouldn't dare ignore it.

But it is evidence that some of Sadam's WMDs are still around and accessible to terrorists. (And hadn't been destroyed as ordered.) True, we haven't found the stockpiles yet. (But then again, that leads to an interesting fact... During World War I, the German forces had several large cannons for shelling europe. They were enormous. I'm still looking for the specs, but if memory serves, they were 75 feet long, with a barrel about 12 feet wide. They were mounted on flatbed railroad cars. Ever see "Indiana Jones and the Phantom Train of Doom?" Yeah, one of those. There were at least 5 known in existance. They were hidden near the end of the war. Guess what? In all the years since world War I, they haven't been found. Yet people are expecting stockpiles of WMDs just sitting in an open warehouse, maybe with some neon signs or something, waiting for imediate discovery. Face it, there are a lot of places in the world to hide things. Saddam had a squadron of Migs burried in the desert- and let me tell ya, there's a lot more sand where that came from!Not to mention other countries that would gladly accept such weapons for future use.
So be patient. At least we found a piece.)


"Rudy G and McCain probably didn't get covered because neither is running for president this time around." -Brian Fitzgerald

And Bill Clinton was? Cause last I saw, he got plenty of screen time during the DNC. The speakers they show aren't just limited to the official campaigning; it seems to me that these two (especially Rudy; there's such a bid to-do about this whole thing being in New York anyway,) should be well-enough known on the political spectrum right now to warrant screen time.
By the next night, I was watching PBS, who covered the entire convention. Did Shwartzeneger (sp.) or Cheney get any screen time on the regular networks? (I would imagine so...)

MikeC: Yes, although what would you define political correctness as?
Luigi Novi: I'm not following. What does PC have to do with it?

...During World War I, the German forces had several large cannons for shelling europe. They were enormous. I'm still looking for the specs, but if memory serves, they were 75 feet long, with a barrel about 12 feet wide. They were mounted on flatbed railroad cars. Ever see "Indiana Jones and the Phantom Train of Doom?" Yeah, one of those. There were at least 5 known in existance. They were hidden near the end of the war. Guess what? In all the years since world War I, they haven't been found...

Interesting story - I never heard such a thing. Where did you hear it? Can you provide links or books?

I'd have guessed that after the Versailles treaty, when the German Army was dismantled, most of the equipment would've been taken by the victors, esp. the French, but I'm not very into history.

And what good would some guns sitting in a forest be? What would be the motive behind hiding them? Why would they stay hidden for so long - they would be outdated 60 years later, but their metal value might be interesting.

I find the news media insufferably politically correct, the epitome of "safe" liberalism. Would that fall under ideological or institutional conservatism?

Rudy G and McCain probably didn't get covered because neither is running for president this time around." -Brian Fitzgerald

And Bill Clinton was? Cause last I saw, he got plenty of screen time during the DNC. The speakers they show aren't just limited to the official campaigning; it seems to me that these two (especially Rudy; there's such a bid to-do about this whole thing being in New York anyway,) should be well-enough known on the political spectrum right now to warrant screen time.

Since the networks only gave 3 hours of prime time to the dems and the republicans it wouldn't have mattered who they showed and who they didn't. If they had showed McCain and Guliani they would have bumped "Zig Zag" Zell Miller the Georgia conservative democrat who gave a speach in support of President Bush and than you guys whould be whining about the fact that only Republicans supporting the president were shown not the democrat who is supporting him over his own parties condidate, which is a bigger story.

In other words, they promote institutional conservatism as opposed to ideogloical conservatism.

Quite right, quite right. As for political correctness, this applies as much for the right as the left. Would be PC to propose, for example, the nationalization of health care without being labelled "socialist" as an epithet?

Regarding the German cannons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bertha

Sorry, more precisely fitting the query is this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Wilhelm_Gesch%FCtz

Re:Last Comment
Sorry, Snick but I believe, that Zam's referring to the German "Max E" 38cm (15inch) gun which had a range of 30 miles...
(It fired a 880 pound (400 Kg)HE (High Explosive) shell, but weighed 270 tons....)

Mike, I think Political Correctness is an outgrowth of liberalism, not conservatism, and I'm not sure if the same two categories are found in both. But assuming if one insists on using the same two, I would say that PC falls under the category of ideological or left liberalism (whereas ideological conservatism is also called right conservatism). Then again, since institutional, or classical liberalism emphasizes means (rapid change) over ends (any particular form of government), one could argue that Political Correctness is somewhat institutional because censorship is a quick fix, as opposed to addressing an opposing viewpoint intellectualy, which brings the debate out into the open. I'm also not sure if the media is responsible for PC, as I believe it started with college campus "speech codes," which may suggest it started among the educational intelligentsia rather than the media.

For more on the ideological (Left vs. Right) vs. the institutional, or classical context of liberalism and conservatism, see Word IQ Encyclopedia's entry for conservatism.

Snick,

from your second link:

...The gun was never seen by the Allies; towards the end of the war it was completely destroyed by the Germans...

I wasn't doubting that the big guns existed - I was doubting that the germans had succesfully hidden them. All material was turned over to the victors, mostly french. (And during WWI, officers thought of war as honorable - it wouldn't have fit to hide guns after a surrender and then lie about it. Among other reasons.)

Just out of curiosity… does the CBS fiasco seem like the actions of a fair or right-leaning media?
CBS, which has pretty much ignored “Unfit for Command” and it’s best-seller status, and primarily dismissed the Swift Boat Veterans’ claims out of hand, was so eager to try and find dirt on Bush that they fell for these forged National Guard documents.
Now, I’m certainly not saying that CBS forged the documents, or even that they accepted them knowing they were forged, but it certainly seems that they were so over-eager that they didn’t even bother with proper fact checking before they aired the dirt. Do you honestly think that would happen with dirt on John Kerry?


(As for those that doubt the documents were forged, many pieces of evidence have come up in the last week or so. These include:
-The spacing of the lines (Only available on a top of the line model typewriter at the time, which the officer in question was unlikely to have)
-The Kerning
-Small, raised “th” after a number- not a typewriter function, but a Microsoft Word function
-Character testimony from the deceased officer’s family (including the fact that he didn’t keep records like that), and inconsistency with his general expressed opinions
-Easy near-identical document duplication in Microsoft Word
-Failure to follow military protocol
-Signature doesn’t even remotely match other recorded signatures for the supposed author
-Factual errors (Example: The general that was “putting pressure on to sugar-coat the incident” retired 18 months earlier. Also, military memos were not commonly kept in “personal files,” but filed with other records)
(Another interesting note: Research into this area has yielded the testimony of the base commander’s son that Bush twice requested Vietnam duty under a new fighter program called "Palace Alert", and was refused due to insufficient flight time logged. This story is, of course, heavily debated. If true, however, this is just another story severely under-reported by the “Non-Liberal Media.”)
-Fact that even though some claim that many of these features were available on new and expensive typewriters, a legitimate memo from just a month later is written on a standard typewriter with none of these features, consistent with the kind of typewriter supplied to the National Guard at the time.


Several of the many available links following this story are:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526_Bush_Guard_Documents-_Forged
http://peterduncan.net/CBS_Documents.html


Frankly, putting lies in the mouth of a dead friend is about as low as it gets in my opinion. Anyway, just more “food for thought”)

The documents may not have been faked, and you can't use the font as an excuse because it's the same font as the White Hosue documents that claim Bush DID fufill his service obligations. So if CBS's are fake (by the way, did it ever occur to you that they may have fallen victim, not the non-existent left wing bias but to the "get it first" bias that ALL news outlers in America suffer from?), then the White Houses' are too.

Do you honestly think that would happen with dirt on John Kerry?

It HAS happened. Remember the "affair" that a major New York newspaper had to retract a story about? It's the get it first bias that Al Frnaken talked about in his last book. I like the way he put it;

"The Get-It-First Bias: Remember the 2000 Election? There were some, problemn, associated with that one."

But there is a difference between the reports on Kerry's "affair" and these latest reports on Bush.

The documents may not have been faked, and you can't use the font as an excuse because it's the same font as the White Hosue documents that claim Bush DID fufill his service obligations. So if CBS's are fake (by the way, did it ever occur to you that they may have fallen victim, not the non-existent left wing bias but to the "get it first" bias that ALL news outlers in America suffer from?), then the White Houses' are too. -Dude


Right... so since the font is the same, that automatically verifies the authenticity of the letters? (Really, that's beside the point. The font- did I even mention it?- is not the main arguing point. it's just a component of the Microsoft Word match, which is just a component of the overall argument.)
Sorry, I think the evidence is still overwhelming.

(by the way, did it ever occur to you that they may have fallen victim, not the non-existent left wing bias but to the "get it first" bias that ALL news outlers in America suffer from?) -Dude

Yes, that is possible. I believe that probably is a factor. But I think that the general sloppy investigation and rushing of the reports has something to do with the rabid Anti-Bush feelings in the media as well. I think that in another area, the documents would have been more thoroughly investigated. But when it comes to Bush, the media seems to be quickly losing all semblance of impartiality.


It HAS happened. Remember the "affair" that a major New York newspaper had to retract a story about? -Dude


Actually, no. I never heard about it. But there's a difference between mudslinging rumors and forging military documents.

How about when the media jumped all over the "Clinton sold secrets to China" and than when it turned out the only secrets the Chineese had were ones that they had gotten after someone stole them from Los Alamos lab before Clinton was President, that retraction was on like page 16 of most newspapers.

As Bernard Goldberg said, the media can have two biases--a tabloid bias and a liberal bias. They're not mutually exclusive. For instance, Clinton got taken to the woodshed a bunch of times as President thanks to the media's tabloid bias.

Goldberg makes a very good point there. But I would argue that it is very hard to make the argument that even speaking politically, "THE MEDIA" has a one-direction bias. He does a good job of illustrating many examples of possible liberal bias, but then Eric Alterman does the same with conservative bias. Each side can look for and find a list of examples supporting their side. But how does one determine if the media as a WHOLE leans to one direction or the other? So I think that yeah, there is a get-it-first/tabloid/monetary/ratings/titilation bias, and a political bias that goes both ways depending on whose doing the reporting.

I'll buy that for a dollar, but it seems that there are more liberals in the media than conservatives.

I agree that more liberals are in the news media because they are people who research things and many see themselvs as defenders of the people. The bosses are more likely to be conservative because they are big business who's job is to sell ads to make money.

According to Rowse, even William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, acknowledges the myth of a liberal bias: "'I admit it, the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." And Pat Buchanan confessed, "'The truth is I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage than I ever imagined I would receive.'"

In the Baton Rouge Advocate, 1/11/02, writer Sean J. Healy articulates the issue well:

"Ten multinational corporations own virtually all broadcast, Internet, or print media in this country—General Electric, Viacom, AOL/Time Warner, Disney, AT&T, News Corp, Liberty, Sony, Bertelsmann, and Vivendi. Who really thinks Jack Welch or Rupert Murdoch is going to appoint radical left-wingers to run their businesses? These companies depend on other big corporations for their advertising revenue—big corporations who don't want news that equates to bad PR. They also have huge vested interests in parts of the conservative agenda, such as deregulation, that will further increase their already vast influence and profits.

Again, when we say liberal bias, we don't mean "radical left-winger." I mean "safe liberal." Someone who can't see what the fuss is over creationism vs. evolution. Someone who believes that abortion rights, gay rights, and gun control are obviously good things, although just how far we go on this is a little murky. Someone that votes Democrat, but wouldn't vote Green because they're a little too far.

Y'know what I mean?

I'm not sure. I've never heard any mention at all in the mainstream news media about the evolution vs. creation debate. I've also not seen any indication that the media thinks abortion rights or gay rights are "good things" or "bad things." Or about voting Green.

Again, when we say liberal bias, we don't mean "radical left-winger." I mean "safe liberal." Someone who can't see what the fuss is over creationism vs. evolution. Someone who believes that abortion rights, gay rights, and gun control are obviously good things, although just how far we go on this is a little murky. Someone that votes Democrat, but wouldn't vote Green because they're a little too far.

Than how's that liberal, it's middle of the road. Are we now talking about a middle of the road bias? Even many members of the republican party agree with letting current scientific theory/fact guide what science teachers do and are fine with the idea of gay rights. Many don't want gay marrage but don't have a problem with giving them basic rights. Almost anyone with an education in science believes in evolution, that's hardly a liberal thing.

And that is what Goldberg states...most liberals dont even realize that they are liberal...they see themselves as middle of the road...even though they definatly are liberal ideas...

Goldberg's credibility is suspect at best Vargo. Like the quote from the late John Chancellor that he took so far out of context that it made it look like there was a pro-Communist bias at NBC. Also, one of the 12 (only 12?) examples of liberally slanted reporting he found in THOUSANDS of hours of broadcast television, one of them wasn't even broadcast! It was a CBS producer making a crack about Gary Bauer. SO even when Bernie seems to have a point, it comes off as more than a litle bit selective. Or as Al Franken puts it, "It's like going only to the murder mystery shelf of your local library, then claiming that library has a murder mystery bias. 'They're all murder mysteries!'"

Daily Howler, Spinsanity.org, and other websites have debunked Bias as throughoughly (though with a lot fewer pages, wink wink) as Ann Coulter's slanderous book Slander.

Dang... I had a big manifesto typed out, and then the computer went down. Let's see what I can remember.

I agree with most of the statements above, but I think perhaps the Goldberg quote is more accurate than you're giving it credit for. I hate to break it to you, but those issues don't tend to be "middle of the road." Even the fact that they've chosen a side to support speaks of bias. (Though forming an opinion is fairly inevitable in any situation.) But the positions they take are consistently on the left.

For one thing, just look at the terms they use. The "Mayday for Marriage" isn't supporting marriage, it's "denying gay rights." The constitutional amendment isn't "defining what marriage is," it's "banning gay marriage."
Simillarly, the two sides in the abortion movement used to be "Pro-choice" and "Pro-life." The trend is now starting to become that the two sides are "Pro-choice" and "Anti-choice." (Can you imagine if they were refered to as "Pro-life" and "Anti-life?" Can you honestly picture that in any major news media? Anyway, I digress...)


I think, as per the Goldberg quote, that the networks may not all realize that they have a liberal slant either. I don't tend to think of myself as having a conservative slant, I just think of it as being more toward the "sane" and "I can see the most obvious thing in the world that they're completely missing" slant.
I'm sure from their perspective, they're thinking exactly the same thing. But I would suggest that the bias still exists.

At the very least, I'd say that CBS/Dan Rather cannot be held as examples of a fair and biased media. After the woman that typed Jerry Killian's memos came forward to say that she never typed those documents, and even though she hated Bush, they weren't true, and after CBS changed it's position more often than John Kerry on Iraq, (I know, cheap shot :-) ) CBS finally stated that "while the documents may be false, we believe the content to be true."
In other words, "Even though our evidence didn't pan out, the accusation stands, and it's as valid as ever. After all, who needs a grounding in fact to attack the President of the United States?"

Doesn't sound like a fair and balanced media outlet to me.

Good points, Zarm. And I agree with the assertion--those aren't far left-wing stances that the media has, but they ARE liberal. Goldberg jokingly said that the media is middle-of-the-road in the East and West coast. But in the South and the Midwest, those views are not middle of the road, they're liberal. I'm called liberal by my friends, for instance.

In other words, "Even though our evidence didn't pan out, the accusation stands, and it's as valid as ever. After all, who needs a grounding in fact to attack the President of the United States?"

In other words, they're following the example set by the Right Wing media. All's fair in politics and war right?

For one thing, just look at the terms they use. The "Mayday for Marriage" isn't supporting marriage, it's "denying gay rights." The constitutional amendment isn't "defining what marriage is," it's "banning gay marriage."
Simillarly, the two sides in the abortion movement used to be "Pro-choice" and "Pro-life." The trend is now starting to become that the two sides are "Pro-choice" and "Anti-choice." (Can you imagine if they were refered to as "Pro-life" and "Anti-life?" Can you honestly picture that in any major news media? Anyway, I digress...)

Hold it, it is banning gay marrage, that is the action that the bill will do. That's not spin that's what it is, "defining what marriage is," is simply the rights intended result of that ban. That would be like saying that when the media talked about "banning assult weapons" they were bias because they didn't call it keeping M16s out of criminals hands," if they did that would be liberal spin.

Also I dare you to find anything outside of the op-ed pages where they use the term "anti-choice". According to AP guidlines for such things the terms are "abortion-rights" and anti-abortion. Neiter pro-choice or pro-life are to be used since bot are spin terms that both sides though up so as not to be though of as anti-something.

Also how is evolution a liberal thing when every mainstream scientist and even many educated conservatives believe it?

Evolution is not as widespread beleif as it once was Fitz, many people are coming to see that it something cannot happen from nothing. Last stat i heard was that about 80% or more americans beleive in a god, it's just not everyone has the same beleif in god. Most then often they are agnostic and they do not think that he does anything in our daily lives, they do beleive however that he might have had something to do with the creation of the universe.

Also, it is not banning gay marrage, it's a "right" that didn't exist in the first place. America has historically never allowed gay marrage, the right has always been for a man and a woman to marry. The government has restricted marrage for years and years, and no one but the gay community has spoke up about it. Just because they want to create some imagined right doesn't mean that they get it.

Webbs, first off, liberal media was around first, so i'm pretty sure the right would be following their example. Secondly, what are you talking about? As i recall, clinton WAS a scumbag, the right wing media didn't need to create anything about him, Clinton did a good enough job of making that stuff up for himself. They didn't have to go digging, Clinton's closet was overflowing with dirt to find. And then we villify Ken Star for doing the job he was assigned to do (thanks Left wingers)

As i recall, clinton WAS a scumbag, the right wing media didn't need to create anything about him, Clinton did a good enough job of making that stuff up for himself. They didn't have to go digging, Clinton's closet was overflowing with dirt to find. And then we villify Ken Star for doing the job he was assigned to do (thanks Left wingers)

The Right Wing claimed Hilalry was a lesbian.
The Right Wing called Chelsea Clitnon the White House dog.
The Right Wing accused the CLintons of murdering Vince Foster (even Ken Starr didn't buy that, and he's not a man generally considered to be in Clinton's pocket).
The Right Wing went on TV Spet 12 2001 and used every bit of false logic they could come up with to blame 9/11 on Clinton.
The Right Wing was so desperate to get rid of him, they impeached him for lying about consensual sex with an intern. Wrong? Sure? Worth throwing a man out of office? Bull$#it.
The Right Wing by way of the Wall Street Journal accused Clitnon of murdering two teenage boys in Arkandsas, WITH A TRAIN! My guess is Paul Gigot was smoking too much pot and watching Dudley Do-Right when he came up with that whopper.

And the Liberal media jumped on all of them, except for the muurder claims, only doing stories on them like "The Life and Times of a Rumor."

Your side uses slander the way the samurai of ancient Japan used swords. So don't even take the moral high ground Vargo, because you have as much claim to that as Madonna does to Judaism.

The right wing has done slippery stuff in the past as well as slander. That has no connection to the point of the liberal media; did the media report on the impeachment? Of course--liberal or not liberal, this was a story, and as I recall, Ken Starr was portrayed quite negatively.

The only media sources that I remember that picked up on the murder claims and the insulting comments about Hilary and Chelsea were right-wing talk radio such as Rush Limbaugh, hardly any proof that the media isn't liberal.

"Hold it, it is banning gay marrage, that is the action that the bill will do. That's not spin that's what it is, "defining what marriage is," is simply the rights intended result of that ban." -Brian Fitzgerald

I suppose if you look at it that way, yes. The same way that the rules of baseball "ban" 7-base setups, or deny the pitcher the "right" to pitch a football.
The things is, people saying there's a right to gay marriage is like people saying there's a right to cubed circles. That isn't what a circle is.
That's what the ammendment is. It's saying that marriage isn't "The union of two people." It's saying marriage is "A union of one man and one woman." Therefore, gay marriage is s valid a phrase as dry water.
So yes, I suppose from a certain position, that could be considered "banning gay marriage." And "banning polygamist marriage." and "Banning Incestual marriage."
Any deffinition can be seen as "exclusivist." But that's only because it states what something IS. So yes, all of the things that AREN'T would feel excluded, but that doesn't equal an attempt to ban them.
It seems to me that with all of this debate over marriage, there needs to be a deffinition of what marriage IS. You can't say 'this group is included in so-and-so' or 'the government should recognize so-and-so,' if nobody knows what so-and-so really means. Thus, a deffinition for marriage.
I don't know if I'm putting this into words very well, but I would contend that (as opposed to your last sentance above,) the 'ban' would be a result of the deffinition, not vice-versa, and secondarily, there is no 'ban' on a made-up or non-exsistant right. Just like nobody's trying to ban your right to using a penny as 10 cents of legal tender, because a penny is 1 cent. That's just what it IS.


But that's what I'm saying. How many times has anybody even had a chance to explain any of that? How many times has a news station really tried to give equal time to both points of view? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but if you look at it closely, the news is almost always biased towards one side of the argument. And more often than not, it's the side "on the left."


"Also I dare you to find anything outside of the op-ed pages where they use the term "anti-choice". According to AP guidlines for such things the terms are "abortion-rights" and anti-abortion. Neiter pro-choice or pro-life are to be used since bot are spin terms that both sides though up so as not to be though of as anti-something." -Brian Fitzgerald


Okay, I will give you that point- those are terms used more in our local paper, not widespread. However, I think you've just proved my point. There is already a "right to abortion," and the opposition is against that "innate right." Fair terms would be "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion." There is a bias already in place that abortion is right and the opposition is wrong.


"In other words, "Even though our evidence didn't pan out, the accusation stands, and it's as valid as ever. After all, who needs a grounding in fact to attack the President of the United States?"

In other words, they're following the example set by the Right Wing media. All's fair in politics and war right?" - Brian Webber


Funny, because everyone that I've seen arguing that there is a Liberal media has been offering examples or proof. Where as your statement seems to follow the same baseless acusation statement that you're responding to.


"The Right Wing claimed Hilalry was a lesbian.
The Right Wing called Chelsea Clitnon the White House dog.
The Right Wing accused the CLintons of murdering Vince Foster (even Ken Starr didn't buy that, and he's not a man generally considered to be in Clinton's pocket).
The Right Wing went on TV Spet 12 2001 and used every bit of false logic they could come up with to blame 9/11 on Clinton.
The Right Wing was so desperate to get rid of him, they impeached him for lying about consensual sex with an intern. Wrong? Sure? Worth throwing a man out of office? Bull$#it.
The Right Wing by way of the Wall Street Journal accused Clitnon of murdering two teenage boys in Arkandsas, WITH A TRAIN! My guess is Paul Gigot was smoking too much pot and watching Dudley Do-Right when he came up with that whopper.

Your side uses slander the way the samurai of ancient Japan used swords. So don't even take the moral high ground Vargo, because you have as much claim to that as Madonna does to Judaism."


With the exception of the missed opportunity to off Bin-laden (read 'Dereliction of Duty') and the whole Lewinsky affair, I didn't hear about any of those. If those things were said, they shouldn't have been.
However, just like the Kerry campaign (I know, another cheapt shot...), you need to realize that counter accusations/charges don't negate the validity of the origional charges. Yes, some people on the Right may have said incorrect or slanderous things. That doesn't give the media free reign or absolve them of any bias they might have. The claim was never made that the programs on the right were perfect. But that's not the issue at hand.
Thank goodness that you are taking the moral high road, and avoiding all of those insults and slander.


"Luigi Novi: Again, evolution has nothing to do with the creation of matter. Merely how species adapt to their environments."

I think that usually the Big Bang theory is coupled hand-in-hand with Evolution. Since Evolution as an alternative to Creation still needs an explanation of how everything got there in the first place, the two are generally considered to be 2 parts of an overall theory.

But as I recall, this argument started before, and once it takes over a thread, it doesn't let go. So, back to politics...?


"You have yet to establish that there is a need for an initial motivator. You ignore the possibility that matter has always existed. If, after all, God has always existed, then God requires no creator. Likewise, if matter and energy have always existed in some form or another, they require no creator. But if everything needs a "first mover," who created God?" -Jgould


...Or not. Look, it's very simple: The nature of God makes him self-existent (requiring no creation.) The nature of matter doesn't. Which is why God (an entity requiring no creation) is the only way to solve the "Well, were did THAT come from? And where did IT come from?" argument.
Once again, this is veering heavily OT. (And if I'm the one to notice that, you know it has to be bad.)


"I don't see how you can reason that the infinite existence of God is "more plausible" than the infinite existence of matter, which we experience every second of our lives." -Jgould


I don't see how you can find this invisible "gravity" more plausible than the fact that the Earth is flat, something we can see every second of our lives. -An anonnymous member of the Santa Maria, early 1492.

Just cause you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. (In all seriousness, we live in a world of cause-and-effect. The only way for things to logically resolve themselves is an effect without a cause, or something outside of the law of cause-and-effect universe. You find it more believeable that matter always existed. Other people find it more likely that a God who always existed is the case, becuase he can exist outside of our cause-and-effect universe. So?
Last I heard, there was no proof for String Theory. People believe it anyway.)


"But I digress. How is evolution a liberal issue? The lack of consensus, by the way, is peculiar mostly to the US and a few other countries." -Jgould


Well, I think we all digress. While I think that Liberals hold a distinct majority of the believers in Evolution, I don't think that it's a strictly Liberal issue. If you look at the origional quote, it says "Someone who can't see what the fuss is over creationism vs. evolution."
In other words, somebody already biased towards one point of view, and they can't even see why the issue would be important to creationists. Since Creationism tends to be focused primarily on the right, this would be another example of the media leaning toward the left side of the issue.
(At least, that's what it seemed to me that MikeC meant. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

...Or not. Look, it's very simple: The nature of God makes him self-existent (requiring no creation.) The nature of matter doesn't. Which is why God (an entity requiring no creation) is the only way to solve the "Well, were did THAT come from? And where did IT come from?" argument.
Once again, this is veering heavily OT. (And if I'm the one to notice that, you know it has to be bad.)

Positing God doesn't solve anything; it merely raises entirely new questions. This amounts to saying, because I can't explain something, the answer is God. That's logically incoherent.

I don't see how you can find this invisible "gravity" more plausible than the fact that the Earth is flat, something we can see every second of our lives. -An anonnymous member of the Santa Maria, early 1492.

On the contrary, we can demonstrate empirically that gravity exists as a physical force. Further, we prove empirically that the Earth is (roughly) spherical without actually travelling into space. I don't see how the existence of God - which you would be hard-pressed to demonstrate empirically - is at all similar.

Just cause you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. (In all seriousness, we live in a world of cause-and-effect. The only way for things to logically resolve themselves is an effect without a cause, or something outside of the law of cause-and-effect universe. You find it more believeable that matter always existed. Other people find it more likely that a God who always existed is the case, becuase he can exist outside of our cause-and-effect universe. So?
Last I heard, there was no proof for String Theory. People believe it anyway.)

Now, I'm saying that it's more plausible to theorize about the eternal nature of matter than it is to posit a God whose nature remains completely undefined and whose precise relationship to any physical phenomena remains similarly undefined. There is a significant difference between String Theory and a Theory of God. The former builds on existing and developing physics and mathematics - that is, from assumptions that can be proven in some way or another - while the latter is merely a cop-out to a philosophical and scientific solution that simply may have no solution.

Well, I think we all digress. While I think that Liberals hold a distinct majority of the believers in Evolution, I don't think that it's a strictly Liberal issue. If you look at the origional quote, it says "Someone who can't see what the fuss is over creationism vs. evolution."

Except that I think that quote is itself loaded in its terminology, since it implies that "believers in Evolution" (itself a loaded term) don't understand the "fuss" of the debate. We understand it quite well, but we just tend to get tired of listening to arguments that leave logic behind in favour of ontological arguments that have been refuted for millienia.

In other words, somebody already biased towards one point of view, and they can't even see why the issue would be important to creationists. Since Creationism tends to be focused primarily on the right, this would be another example of the media leaning toward the left side of the issue.

No, let's stop throwing around the term "bias." People do have preconceived conceptions about the world around them - this does not imply that these conceptions are false. To accuse an opponent of bias seems generally to be done in order to argue that your own argument is true. Thus "evolutionists" are "biased" because they disagree on the basis of objective scientific data, theories, and principles of logic that the claims of creationists have a kernel of truth.

Back to the question of media bias, I think the problem lies in the limited amount of time journalists have to examine any issue or story, along with the question of marketability. Generally speaking, pairing intolerant atheists with their fundamentalist counterparts can make for good TV but is useless for discourse.

While I'm not cetain that this is the only problem resulting in bias or the appearance of bias, it is a major problem.

One example: when CNN first started Crossfire the concept was to bring in an informed expert on some issue and have two panelists present their concerns and questions from two different perspectives, which would help the viewers better understand the issue.

Later, in the interest of "fairness" (and fireworks and therefore ratings) they started bringing in extremists and pairing them up. The show went from a rational discussion to a shouting match.

Courage.

In general, there is little 'liberal bias' in the media. There is far too little serious discussion of Bush's mistakes. He's even more of a "Teflon President" than Reagan was, and the media must be blamed for it (and not just the Republican journalists that call themselves FOX News).

You hit the nail on the head--"too little serious dicussion." We'll scream until we're blue in the face about a Bush D.U.I. from years ago, put freakin' Kitty Kelly on the news to talk about age-old smears, anally analyze John Kerry's Vietnam actions, but will we actually discuss current issues like economic strategies and the war in Iraq? No.

Again, in this instance, this is where I see the media as having a tabloid bias rather than a liberal bias.

One way to conquer bias is to be able to coherently form a sentence, "The other side believes what they believe because ___________" that the other side would agree with. For instance, people do not want legalized abortion because they enjoy terminating fetuses. People do not want affirmative action removed because they are racist bastards. People do not support the death penalty because they're sadistic fiends. There are real, viable reasons for all of these positions. For instance, I want abortion banned, I think affirmative action should be tweaked but retained, and I support the death penalty. To argue these positions effectively, I must respect and understand alternative viewpoints.

I love that letters of the alphabet are battling. I bet E's major complaint is that C gets better billing.

Anyway, MikeC, would you state that on the issue of E. vs. C., the media has a "liberal bias"?

Yes, sort of. I don't see it reported on that often because it's not that flashy a story, but C.'s people tend to be a bit more extremist than E's.

No I would say that they have a factual bias. They are biased toward what is accepted as scientific fact over mytho-historical ideas.

I never hear any mention of the EvC debate in the media. EVER. The only place I hear about it is on places like James Randi's website, Michael Shermer's books, and on Penn & Teller's Bull***t!. The media rarely or never features equal time for skeptics on matters like UFOs, ghosts, the Bermuda Triangle, psychic powers, etc, and I've NEVER seen them mention EvC. Has anyone else here?

Here in GA they do, at least they did when state school superintendant Cathy Cox wanted to remove the word evolution for schoolbooks. BTW she never got that one off the ground because even here in the bible belt she couldn't drum up that much support for it.

Comedy Central Unspins O'Reilly

'Daily Show' Viewers Among Best Informed Voters

I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing that the most informaed voters get their information from a commedy show because the mainstream media doesn't seem up to the task.

The title for this board is amusing. Liberals seem to be unaware of any liberal bias in the media. They endlessly whine about Fox news and its conservative leanings. So what about CBS. Dan Rather has gone on the attack after Bush senior and now Bush junior. Bernard Goldberg even cited evidence for CBS's bias in his book. But liberals ignore all this. They put their blinders on and keep complaining about Fox. Give it a break already.

Dan: You are the one with the blinders man. We've pretty much put the Liberal media myth to bed. You're like the mayor in Jaws; you refuse to see the turth until it bites you on the ass!

Brain, if by put it to rest you mean refuse to listen to it...then yes, you have put this argument to rest..congradulations.

Dan: So what about CBS.
Luigi Novi: First, what CBS did seems to have been a genuine mistake. This is entirely different from FOX, which internal memos and interviews with current and former employees indicates issues directive from its upper echelons (Roger Aisles, Rupert Murdoch and John Moody) to its reporters and anchors to deliberately give Republicans more of a fair pass, and to find things embarrassing and damaging to Democrats. The documentary Outfoxed illustrates this.

Second, Dan Rather admitted this. When was the last time FOX did the same?

Dan: Dan Rather has gone on the attack after Bush senior and now Bush junior.
Luigi Novi: Can you give examples of this that fall outside the boundaries of journalistic obligation?

Dan: Bernard Goldberg even cited evidence for CBS's bias in his book. But liberals ignore all this.
Luigi Novi: How can they “ignore” it if they’ve responded to it? Eric Alterman in “What Liberal Media? The Truth about Bias and the News” (notice that the word “bias” is in italics on the cover, which means he’s referring to Goldberg’s book—not ignoring it), and Al Franken in “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them” both responded to Goldberg’s charges, and illustrate how Goldberg himself stretched the truth. Franken in particular illustrated an example of how Goldberg, referencing a right-wing media-watch group, quoted the late NBC anchor and commentator John Chancellor entirely out of context to make it appear that Chancellor was saying that communism was not a problem in the old Soviet Union. Franken presented the full context of the quote, which shows that Chancellor was merely telling Tom Brokaw that Gorbachev could not blame communism for Russia’s problems because Gorbachev had completely dismantled communism in the country by that point. Franken challenged Goldberg with this in January 2003 on Phil Donahue’s MSNBC show, and Goldberg was unable to respond to it.

The only thing books by conservatives like Goldberg or liberals like Franken prove is that both sides can suffer from confirmation bias, and find only things that fit their preconceived world view, perhaps some more than others.

Goldberg is not a conservative.

"We've pretty much put the Liberal media myth to bed." -Brian Webber

Where? in this thread? if so, I'd say you ARE the one with blinders, my friend. (Dang... once again I scroll down and Derrick's already said it better... I gotta get DSL and start patroling these threads more often...)

"Luigi Novi: First, what CBS did seems to have been a genuine mistake."

ROTFL!


.


.


Oh wait... you were serious.

Um, okay... but if it was a serious mistake, it was certainly one made with impared judgement... you can't tell me that a neutral party would have rushed in like that over the objections of the verification experts and aired documents that it took the public less than 6 hours to document and research... Even if the bias was only an anti-Bush bias, it still influenced their judgement.

Where? in this thread? if so, I'd say you ARE the one with blinders, my friend.

How so? It's simple logic; if the media was HALF as Liberal as your Righties think (lie?) it is, then why are Liberals so often burned by it? Why did CBS sit on a story about the fake Niger documents so it could go ahead with the documents that told us what we arleady knew; that Bush didn't fufill his obligations as a pilot? Why did NBC fire Ashleigh Banfield when she had the tamarity to report the TRUTH about the Iraq operation? Why did ABC news attack Gen. Wesley Calrk for being friends with Michal moore, and basing their attack on something Moore said, THATW AS TRUE! Bush went AWOL for over a year and ahlaf to work on a partisan politcal cmapign. Erego, he qualifes as a deserter!

The mainstream media only LOOKS Liberals because Fox news, The New York Post, the Washington Times, and 90+% of talk radio is SO far to the Right.

Why do they torch republicans twice as much as democrats. Why do they claim victory for Kerry when in reality he is sucking this election up. Media has power my friend, The world is not enough style. And Since when are those papers Conservative??

Zarm Rkeeg: Um, okay... but if it was a serious mistake, it was certainly one made with impared judgement... you can't tell me that a neutral party would have rushed in like that over the objections of the verification experts and aired documents that it took the public less than 6 hours to document and research... Even if the bias was only an anti-Bush bias, it still influenced their judgement.
Luigi Novi: Which does not compare with a deliberate and instructed mandate from the network to find damaging or embarrassing material for one side, and give the other a break.

As for Kerry, Derrick, he did win that first debate, and in terms of his behavior, did better than Bush during the second.

Why do they torch republicans twice as much as democrats.

They don't They just cliamed they've been torched, even if what's being reported is true. It's a beautiful little game they've set up really. Even when they fail to get the media to shill some Right Wing position, it works in their favor. Win win.

Why do they claim victory for Kerry when in reality he is sucking this election up.

Reality only looks like that when you're on LSD. Anyone who actually WATCHED the deabtes knows Kerry wiped the floor with that smug little chimp.

And Since when are those papers Conservative??

The NY Post and Wash. Times? Since their inception!

I watched all of the second debate, I would say Kerry lost flat out. Bush destroyed all of his points.

So is it the NY times thats liberal then??

I watched all of the second debate, I would say Kerry lost flat out.

What?!? You clearly were wtaching and listening to a different debate. Maybe you were wathcing Hannity & Colmes and got confused. Bush was beligerent, rude to kerry, rude to Charlie Gibson tried to reduce complex issues to black-and-white simplicity which any smart person knows never works, and he lied about several things, like having never owned a timber company. How do youc all that a win? Using your logic I can prove that Tom Green gave the best performance of all time in Fredyd Got Fingered!

Might I suggest a good website for you? It's written by someone who used to be exactly like you, only meaner, before he pulled an Angelus and joined the forces of light. David Brock's http://mediamatters.org/ It unspins the Righties take on reality.

Bill O'Reilly was at it again. He claims more proof of a liberal bias in the media: the majority of newpaper editorials in America favor Kerry for President. That's not proof of bias. That's proof that editorial writers actually read the news they print. How can any sane person accept the rosy picture of Iraq that the Bush administration is trying decieve America with?

I don't know. What do you think, Little Plastic Man that lives in my head?

Rona: Even more damning is the fact that at least 35 of the papers that have endorsed Kerry endorsed Bush in 2000, and 1 of them, the Detroit Free Press has never endorsed ANYBODY prior to this election. Kerry is their first. [sarcasm[]I hope he was gentle[/sarcasm] But seriously folks, with the number of conservatives, including former Nixon and Reagen officials coming out criticisng Dubya, is this really a surprise?

The Myth of "Liberal Media" Exposed

As if you couldn't tell by the massive attacks levelled at Al Gore during the 2000 election (he exaggerates, he lies, he wears weird cufflinks), there is no collective liberal media... No global liberal conspiracy to slant the news. In fact, it's just the opposite, despite RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's contention last week that "the major dailies across the country tend to skew liberal." Salon.com notes that since 1940, only two Democratic candidates have received more newspaper endorsements than their Republican counterparts, according to industry trade magazine Editor & Publisher.

Who Will Be The New Liar?

New York Magazine has published what they believe the short-list for which intellectually dishonest columnist will replace the intellectually dishonest William Safire. Mentione:

David Frum, Charles Krauthammer, Christopher Caldwell, Richard Brookhiser, Fred Barnes, Robert Kagan, and Timesman John Tierney.

Know anything about these scumbags? Who do you think it's going to be? Would it be better to replace Safire with someone as extreme as possible, to isolate the column, or someone more mainstreamishly conservative, like Kagan, who would have more credibility, but ultimately, be just as dishonest as the more extreme ones, only in a more nuanced way.

And if you have any greatest-hits lies by the list, post them here. It's never too soon to start the discrediting.

Bush & the Rise of 'Managed-Democracy'

By Robert Parry
February 12, 2005

In effect, organizations like FOX News, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal
editorial page, Rush Limbaugh and right-wing talk radio are simply adjuncts of the Republican
Party. To this add scores of Washington pundits often employed by tycoon-financed "think
tanks" such as the American Heritage Institute, Cato Foundation, etc. For all the braying
about "liberal media bias," which may be the most successful GOP "spin point," Democrats
simply have no equivalent propaganda machine.

I really don't have time to debate this, but I thought it would be worth throwing out. Does anyone think that pre-release controversary (Think the Passion, or Dogma,) are calculated publicity stunts by the studio?

I don't think that any of them set out to be controversial like that. But once the controversary
takes hold the studios have to decide to either embrace the controversery or run from it. Miramax ran from it (thanks to parent co. Disney) by dumping Dogma and Fahrenheit 9/11. Most of the other studios ran from it with The Passion by not picking it up for distribution, even though it had an Oscar winning director, was modestly budgeted and a huge built in fan base of the original source material;) In all 3 of those cases Lions Gate films picked them up, figuring that the conroversery world help in the long run; I remember before Fahrenheit 9/11 came out a guy from Lions Gate said something like "this is going to be like The Passion, all this controversery is going to generate huge interest in the film."

NOTE: Lions Gate also picked up The House of 1000 Corpses after Universal dumped it. As a small Canadian distribution company they have little to loose by negative publicity, Disney, Universal, Sony, et al have more to loose from negative publicity like that and what they see as less to gain from the same publicity.

Lion's Gate didn't release The Passion Of The Christ; Newmarket Films did (at least in the U.S.) When the movie became a monster hit, Twentieth Century-Fox purchased the home video rights.

Adam, you are right oops. sheepishy looks away and quietly scurries out of the room.

Senator Clinton and GTA

While I question where in the constitution the Senate is granted the power to regulate the content of video games or their 18th century version, I'm not sure what's better, attacking an extremely violent game for sexual content, or defending an extremely violent game for not having sexual content.

Better to defend the game than permit the censorship. From what the article says it seems like the company got hacked by some rather skilled fans. Which means the hackers themselves are the problem not the company or the game.

I'm assuming they're using the much abused Commerce Clause.

I still want to know, what part of "Congress shall pass no law..." does Congress not understand?

I've read about this one. The hackers are claiming that the ability to do that stuff was already hidden in the game by some of the designers and they just unlocked the ability. The game makers claim that's not true.

So who's the bigger nerd, the one that creates his own mod patch to unlock an unfinished minigame to have simulated sex, the one who creates his own mod pack to have simulated sex, or the one who gets off on making two girls kiss on the Sims for a few hours?

Free Speech is the last refuge of a scoundrel..

I've read about this one. The hackers are claiming that the ability to do that stuff was already hidden in the game by some of the designers and they just unlocked the ability. The game makers claim that's not true.

The game makers are lying their asses off, as proven by the same minigame being unlocked in the PS2 version of the game by way of an Action Replay code.

That said, so what? It's a game where you can pick up hookers even without a patch, and proceed to see the car start rockin. Wow, that's so much less inappropriate than what the patch restores. Especially when you run the ••••• over and get your money back afterwards. Hah, take that whorey!

Anyway, if you're going to make it a crime to sell M rated games to minors, how about some consistancy in the law and have it apply to R rated movies as well? Or those rap albums with the little parental advisory stickers? Why just games?

Oh, because they're (relatively) new and an easy target for the hot wind politicians.

The big deal that they are making about the game, and if the people at Rockstar games put that hard core sex into the game that should have made the game rated Adults Only (the video game equilivent of X or NC17) not M (The video game equilivent of R) and most stores wouldn't carry it.

Some states do have laws about selling tickets to R rated movies to minors.

But I do agree that the government should stay the hell out of it.

How hardcore can the sex be if (and pardon me if this comes out sounding crude, but I don't know how to put it in a way that someone won't possibly have a problem with it) there is no depiction of a pen-is, or a vagina, or penetration, or pretty much anything, other than dry humping?

And it's not like this is a part of the game as sold. It's something they removed, just in a lazy way that left it open for someone else to find and restore.

Frankly, I wish that instead of caving, Rockstar would say "screw it" and withdraw it from being rated entirely, instead of giving in and recalling existing copies so they can stick an AO sticker on them. Movies don't HAVE to be rated, why should games HAVE to be rated, just so long as they make it clear if it's not for kids.

PS-this board censors pen-is but not vagina? SEXISM! ;)

If the game is unrated than stores like Media Play, Walmart, Target, Blockbuster, Hollywood Video and Best Buy won't carry it and in many towns these days those are the only place people can get video games in many towns.

Hey, don't blame the board! It's the entire site, not just this board, something I have no control over, and have voiced skepticism over myself.

A note on "netiquette":

The "dictionary" a site's censorware uses does not have alot of imagination. A lot of times it is possible add to the "dictionary," but you have to be specific. The computer does not know that **** is the same as #####, so both have to be added to the "dictionary" separately. And there is always someone who wil discover that the Administator did not think to include @@@@@@ or that if you misspell **** as **-**, the censorware won't pick it up. There are always ways around the censorware.

But one should still respect the Administrator's rules. If you can't make your point without running afoul of the censorware, try rephrasing using more "polite" terms. If you still can't, post on another site without the restrictions. You can always link to your argument on that site (with appropriate warning).

Deliberately flouting the Administrator's rules may force him to take action. We lost the abilityright to directly post graphics here on NitCentral because of one poster deliberately ignoring Phil's rules, even after repeated warnings.

The preceeding three paragraphs are the opinion of the poster and do not (yet) constitute an official position of the Administation. We now return you to the discussion already in progress.

If the game is unrated than stores like Media Play, Walmart, Target, Blockbuster, Hollywood Video and Best Buy won't carry it and in many towns these days those are the only place people can get video games in many towns.

But they also won't carry it if it's AO. So there's no difference except if it was unrated, it would be a screw you to the ESRB, which I've never cared for.

Hey, don't blame the board! It's the entire site, not just this board, something I have no control over, and have voiced skepticism over myself.

When I say board, I mean what you think of by site, I think. What you call a board is apparently what I think of as a topic.

If you can't make your point without running afoul of the censorware, try rephrasing using more "polite" terms.

Well, considering pen-is is the correct, scientific term (at least without the -), and anything else I'd replace it with, from wang to schlong is, if anything, less polite, I'll risk it when being frank. If joking, wang it is.

We lost the abilityright to directly post graphics here on NitCentral because of one poster deliberately ignoring Phil's rules, even after repeated warnings.

Note to self: Don't post pics of wangs.

For what it's worth, I find the lack of directly posted pics to be a GOOD thing. Keeps the board (er, site?) nice and clean, and lets it load faster. Er, clean as in a clean design, not clean as in "free of wang pics" which I hope it was anyway, other than the posters who were naughty and caused the change.

If the game is unrated than stores like Media Play, Walmart, Target, Blockbuster, Hollywood Video and Best Buy won't carry it and in many towns these days those are the only place people can get video games in many towns.

But they also won't carry it if it's AO. So there's no difference except if it was unrated, it would be a screw you to the ESRB, which I've never cared for.

I agree with you, but Rockstar Games does not. They are making a rated M version of the game for all of those stores.

I moved the Cindy Sheehan thread to the War Protests board.

Pat Robertson's televised request that the US assassinate Venezuela's President has raised a whole host of issues. It was interesting to see how the different news channels and programs covered his remarks. CNN covered the Venezuelian Ambassador's condenmation of the remarks live. FOX News ignored it. While the networks' nightly news programs interviewed clergy and politicians critical of Robertson's remarks, one network was different again. Guess which one? FOX, of course. Brit Hume and gang were actually complaining that the liberal media was being negative in its coverage of Robertson (they mentioned CNN in particular). Earlier, a bleached-blonde newsreader for the network announced the upcoming story with "Coming up, an American Minister has a 'wild' idea for dealing with a dictator!" Since when is advocating murder a "wild idea"? Shepard Smith started his report not by condenming Robertson, but by complaining that Venezuela's Chavez was a "left-leaning" guy. FOX's Gibson worried that dear old Pat might be the target of "Venezuelan hit squads". It really is amazing how the right can make itself out to be a victim again!

As for Robertson and his brand of politicised (Republican) Christianity, many of his previous statements were also mentioned on other (non-FOX) stations.

On his venomous opposition to feminism, here's what he said at the 92 Republican National Convention: "Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their babies, practice withcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."

Speaking about DisneyWorld's "Gay Day" in '98, he wished that GOD would rain his wrath on Orlando with biblical distasters, hurricanes, and "possibly a meteor". What messages of peace from a man of god.

And of course, we come to the White House's weak denoucement of his remarks as being "inappropriate' remarks of a "private citizen". Private citizen? He was a Republican canidate for President and was one of prime movers in organizing the Evangelical vote for Bush in 2004. And the White House can't issue a stronger condemnation of a cleric who issues a "Fatwah". I forgot. The White House only criticises Muslims and Liberal Clergy.

Is Hollywood liberal?

For quite some time I wanted to write about this claim and didn't get around to it, but now Zompist has done it and raised most of my points, and a few interesting ones I didn't think of.

Some points are well taken, but:

*While military men may be good, military leaders are generally portrayed as bloodthirsty, insensitive rotters. Patton, in fact, is portrayed as a raging loony in his own movie.

*Religion is laudatory, but it's sort of a safe, nebulous religion, like, say, "The Force." When was the last time a fundamentalist Christian, for example, was portrayed positively on screen? Or a Republican?

*The "government is wrong" message is actually rather liberal, depending on how you interpret the message of such movies as "Goodnight and Good Luck" and "Syriana."

*I would say that Hollywood uses conservative mediums to get across liberal messages; at some level, of course, they're only interested in the bottom line--money, so they want to attract everybody. I don't believe in a Hollywood liberal conspiracy, but I do think generally people in Hollywood have similar political and ideological beliefs that, of course, influence what kind of movies they make.

Um, MikeC, these remarks were about the mainstream movies that make 80% or similar of the Hollywood stuff. And while occasionally a bad military leader appears, it's usually the exception, so the good military guys can be outraged. At the end, the bad/corrupt/bloodthirsty leader is either killed, retires or stays on as opponent for further sequels.

Religion is laudatory, but it's sort of a safe, nebulous religion, like, say, "The Force." When was the last time a fundamentalist Christian, for example, was portrayed positively on screen? Or a Republican?

Zompist said "Religion" not Christianty. It's not necessary to show Republicans directly if 8 out of 10 movies push republican beliefs and propaganda indirectly. After watching 10 movies of Stallone or Arnie solving problems by shooting, the average guy on the street thinks that's the only way to solve any problem, and votes for a president who wants to start wars.
Same for religion: it isn't necessary to show fundie guys being right, it's enough that religious people who know the Bible are proven right.

The "government is wrong" message is actually rather liberal, depending on how you interpret the message of such movies as "Goodnight and Good Luck" and "Syriana."

I don't know where you heard this from. I only know that the liberals say "Mistrust the government", as in "Keep a close watch on it; don't automatically believe what the president tells you, etc." Democracy requires vigilance, not follow-your-leader yes-men.
I don't know these movies you mention.

Besides, Zompist is criticizing that any government or administration is useless or involved in sinister conspiracies. That's not a liberal idedology - liberals want affarmitive action and social security and a working justice system and all that stuff. Republicans and right-wingers want the libertarian anarchy where only the strong and rich survive.

This also fits in with the disregard for proper democracy in action movies. Either there's a king/emperor, or an authority figure that leads by command. This whole principle of the lone guy saving the world ignores that today, a society must work together, that nobody lives in the jungle. (And people don't survive for long all alone in the jungle).
When there's a team, the leader isn't choosen by a democratic process, but because he's "destined" to be it. This "destiny" of the leader, who's the best of the best of the best leaves me very uneasy.
I also wonder if the typical American really understands what democracy is about and how it works (esp. since the average citizen seems to be convinced that the US is the only real democracy...) Democracy isn't rugged cowboys who solve problems with guns; it's not two parties against each other, one of them darkest evil, the other purest good; it's not one guy telling people what to believe and do because he's destined to be; and so on.

I would say that Hollywood uses conservative mediums to get across liberal messages...

I don't know where you see liberal messages in action movies where problems are caused by foreigners, the heroes are white Americans, the world is saved by shooting and blowing things up, and the black guys die to save the white couple.

...at some level, of course, they're only interested in the bottom line--money, so they want to attract everybody...

There is another level besides money for the Producers??? Now that's news to me. Yes, scriptwriters may try to ... no, scratch that. Given the standard action movie scripts, the normal writer is some hack writer who doesn't notice plot holes big enough to drive a truck through if there are enough explosions. (Since the audience likes explosions, they are proven right.)
If there's an intelligent script or book, the suits/bosses show their limited intelligence and understanding in how they deal with it, or rather, bastardize it.

..I don't believe in a Hollywood liberal conspiracy, but I do think generally people in Hollywood have similar political and ideological beliefs that, of course, influence what kind of movies they make...

Of course, that's the big problem with the "because so many actors are liberal, there's a liberal conspiracy in Hollywood" theory: the actors don't produce the movies. And from most accounts of people who deal with the studio bosses, they are only interested in money, and their beliefs are very similar right-wing and republican. That doesn't mean that there's a conspiracy, but the effect is that the majority of movies pushes an outdated, oldfashioned, one-sided propaganda.

Most of these action movie examples are from the '80s, an admittedly rather conservative period.

Personally I dont think Hollywood is liberal or conservative. Its all about the money and what sells. Some liberal some conservative stories and then there is bruckheimer which is neither liberal nor conservative just boom.....

I think it tends to be both liberal and money-oriented, with some conservatism thrown in there at certain times.

I would say Hollywood generally goes with the flow--the eras of film correspond nicely with the historical periods in which they were created ('40s--patriotic, '50s--complacent, '60s--turbulent, '70s--cynical, etc.).

*Religion is laudatory, but it's sort of a safe, nebulous religion, like, say, "The Force." When was the last time a fundamentalist Christian, for example, was portrayed positively on screen? Or a Republican?

When was the last time a movie portrayed an atheast in a positive light, or even at all?

Jodie Foster in Contact, just off the top of my head. I get the impression that Robert Langdon from The Da Vinci Code is either an atheist/agnostic, or a really lapsed member of whatever religion he may have been raised with, so when that movie is released, assuming it retains those qualities of his character, that'll be another.

And then there's most of the Star Trek characters, though their atheism/agnosticism is usually not explicitly addressed in the movies, with the possible exception of the fifth.

Actually, it's hard to think of any positive figures that have specific beliefs about religion (including atheism) in films (there are, of course, a few). Most seem to have this nebulous quasi belief in a god.

Think of any positive priest character in any film, like the two in The Exorcist, Gabriel Byrne in Stigmata, etc.

And there's Bethany in Dogma.

Alan Cumming's Nightcrawler.

Luigi, but the whole point of Contact is that she starts out not believing in God at all and ends much more open to faith because everyone thinks's she's crazy when she tells the truth of what she saw.

Good point about the ST characters tho. But I can't think of anything out of cult TV series (Garabaldi B5) that ever explicitaly had an atheast character who didn't end up converted or made to look like a close minded fool.

But for the purposes of this discussion, she is presented as a positive character insofar as her atheism. As far as the end of the film, that may be one interpretation, but I don't see it as her changing her atheism. "Open to belief" is somewhat vague, after all.

Fitz: But I can't think of anything out of cult TV series (Garabaldi B5) that ever explicitaly had an atheast ...
Luigi Novi: Yeah, that's a non-believer from China, right?

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=510632006

In summary, a group of filmmakers blame the failure of erotic thillers on the current presidentcy.

Response: Pick which one you think is the best.

A. Gosh, today erotic thillers are the victims, tomorrow homoerotic westerns! What is this world coming to?

or

B. Well, they could make a screen adaptation of the Starr Report.

Pesti, actually they didn't pin it on the current presidency at all. If anything they pinned it on the current political climate, meaning that much of the backing of Bush and his radical right types is another symptom of the push toward a more fire and brimstone type of religion.

CNN picked 6 Democratic operatives to ask questions at debate.

Good lord.

Well it is a Democrat debate. What kind of people vote in the Democrat primary? Democrats. In many states if you are not a member of a party (Democrat or Republican) you CAN'T vote in that party's primary. What kind of people should they have asking questions of the democrats who are fighting for their party's nomination? Republicans who can't even vote in that primary?

According to the source, CNN claimed that they were "undecided" voters and fed at least one of them, a UNLV student, a question about whether or not Hillary Clinton preferred diamonds or pearls, instead of the question she wanted to ask about a nuclear facility.

David, are you American? Right now we are in the primary phase of the election cycle. That means that democrats are running against other democrats for the democratic nomination. Right now among democrats you have Ombama supporters, Clinton supporters, ect and than undecided democrats. Same in the Republican party (Gulianni supporters, Thompson supporters, ect and undecided republicans.) On Bill Maher's show he often asks democrats and republicans if they are supporting anyone yet. Anyone who can't figure out that the people who are going to be voting in the democratic primary are the audience for that debate probably shouldn't be voting in the next election anyway.

Actually if you click on the link about the UNLV student link it says that she had to submit 5 questions on different topics including a lighthearted/fun one. She wanted to ask the one about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site. The candidates had already spent 10 minutes on it so they told her to ask the fluff question. I fail to see how asking a fluff question to Clinton INSTEAD of a question that had a liberal slant to it is part of some liberal media conspiracy. BTW here's the question that she wanted to ask:

Yucca Mountain, NV is the proposed site for the country's nuclear waste repository. Despite scientific evidence that it is a vulnerable site, the federal government continues to push for the plan to move forward. The evidence relied on is unsound and the risks involved in transporting high-level radioactive waste across the country are high. What will you [Sen. Clinton] do to ensure that the best site/s is/are chosen for the storage of spent nuclear reactor fuel?

Furthermore I don't understand how asking her a fluff could be part of a pro-Clinton bias given that the media talking about her hair, clothes and makeup has done nothing but undermine her credibility as a candidate. Even Stephen Colbert & Bill Maher have referenced the fact that she has no chance of winning as long as the media keeps treating her as the "girl candidate" while treating the male candidates simply as the male candidates simply as "the candidates."

As for myself I do agree that the media does spend way too much time on dumb fluff, symbolism and not nearly enough time on real issues. In fact lots of liberals, myself included, see that as one of the main reasons that Bush was able to win twice. Everyone remembers Bush dressed up as a pilot acting like "Top Gun," or on the ranch at a BBQ, or with a hatchet in his hands clearing brush for Earth Day more than they understood any of the important issues.

Brian, how does your first paragraph refute the information that David is referring to? The issue is that the people in question were labeled as "undecided voters", which portrayed them as regular average joes. Instead, it turns out that some of them have paid or formal relationships with the party. What does this have to do with who the "audience" for the debate is? Hell, the UNLV student even used a fake name. Why is this?

Brian, I am American (and just got back from a delicious Thanksgiving dinner) and am very aware of the goings-on of the election cycle. I agree with you that the audience of the CNN debate would probably be 99% Democrat, but CNN claimed that the voters that were called upon were "undecided" when many worked for the party. It just seemed odd that the CNN made the UNLV student ask a fluff question. She's going to have a hard time being taken seriously if she keeps flip-flopping from strong presidential competitor to girly-girl.

Try this on for size: Clinton responds to allegations of question-planting in a rally. This happened about a week before the debate. Clinton claims that she was unaware that her campaign workers were planting questions. My question to her: if you didn't know it was happening, how did you happen to randomly choose one of the people in the audience whom your campaign approached? (I know this doesn't have to do with the topic of this forum, but it fits in with the current discussion)

Brian, I am American (and just got back from a delicious Thanksgiving dinner)

For some reason I was thinking you were British. I think because of you name (Guardian) which subconsiously made be think of the famous paper of the same name in the UK.


and am very aware of the goings-on of the election cycle. I agree with you that the audience of the CNN debate would probably be 99% Democrat, but CNN claimed that the voters that were called upon were "undecided" when many worked for the party.

Yea but if they are not supporting Hillery or Ombama or whoever in the primary they ARE undecided.

Brian, I am American (and just got back from a delicious Thanksgiving dinner)

For some reason I was thinking you were British. I think because of your name (Guardian) which subconsciously made be think of the famous paper of the same name in the UK.


and am very aware of the goings-on of the election cycle. I agree with you that the audience of the CNN debate would probably be 99% Democrat, but CNN claimed that the voters that were called upon were "undecided" when many worked for the party.

Yea but if they are not supporting Hillery or Ombama or whoever in the primary they ARE undecided.

Yea but if they are not supporting Hillery or Ombama or whoever in the primary they ARE undecided.
Take a look at this. I'd hardly call Democratic staffers "ordinary people."

According to the original link I posted above, the young woman who asked the "diamonds and pearls" question isn't even elegible to vote. I wouldn't call her an "undecided voter" either.

Again, Brian, doesn't "undecided" cause the viewer to assume a bit more than that? For me, it causes me to understand that they are regular average joes, and not that they're people with formal, paid relationships with the party or with specific candidates.

According to the original link I posted above, the young woman who asked the "diamonds and pearls" question isn't even elegible to vote.

That is out of date info that has been updated. Taken from your own link.

(Added later: Commenter wjb states that "Maria Parra-Sandoval was sworn in as U.S. a citizen in Las Vegas by Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt in March 2006." So presumably she really is eligible to vote).

Thanks for the update. Here's some more new information:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313681,00.html - At least four of the questioners in the CNN-Youtube Republican debate were Democratic supporters or operatives. Hmmmmmmmm...

I'd say that the former high-school intern should be excluded. The internship may have been unrelated to political support and more for experience in politics in general.

I have to say, though, for a foxnews.com story about Hillary and Barack supporters being involved in a Republican debate on CNN, that isn't nearly the hatchet job it could have been.

Check out this Daily Show clip. Jonah Goldberg wrote a book called 'Liberal Fascism' where he argues that modern liberal/progressives are really fascists. I'm sure that Luigi would have a field day with this guy. He must set a record for most uses of rhetorical devices and logical fallacies. First he claims that the problem today is that people use the word fascism too often and about things that are not fascist, which is exactly what his book does. He argues that organic foods are fascist because Nazis believed that we were part of an organic whole.

Fox News ran a story where they referred to Michelle Obama (Barack's wife of 16 years) as his "baby mama." Baby Mama is a term that comes out of the poor black culture and refers to single mothers who do not have a relationship with the biological fathers of their children. Even Don Imus must have seen that one and said "hey isn't that a little racist?"

A Fox News anchor even referred to a fist bump that the Obamas shared on stage (a gesture as common and no more controversial than a high five) as a "terrorist fist jab."

After all of that does anyone still think of them as a respectable news organization, or have they finally dropped the "fair & balanced" BS in their ads?

Second the last time the right tried to smear the wife of a charismatic and idealistic politician she ended up becoming a Senator from New York and almost the democratic presidential nominee.

Their this does seem to show that the right is grasping at straws here. David Brooks even characterized Obama as elitist by saying that he couldn't go into an Applebee‘s salad bar and people think he fits in there. Brooks showed how in touch he is with "regular people" by not even knowing that Applebee's doesn't have a salad bar.

Fox News producer arrested for child pornography charges.

Interestingly, I couldn't find any mention of this story through a search at FoxNews.com.

Come on, Luigi, you know he was set up by the liberal media.

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith admits that some Fox News viewers are 'frightening.'

I'll bet he got ripped a new one by his bosses after that broadcast.

Shep goes off the reservation a bit.

Fox News Viewers Know Less Than People Who Don't Watch Any News.

FOX News: The Muppets are Commies.


(The Teletubbies were unavailable for comment.)

It'd be one thing if they'd've pointed out how cliched it is to use the oil industry as the villain, but to try to paint it as liberal propaganda all the while trying to point out all the good the oil industry has done is a hard sale post-BP Gulf oil spill, doncha think?

And isn't it a bit hypocritical for any Republican to be bitching about "class warfare", something Conservatives have excelled at for years?

Back in 2018, Trump wanted the FCC to investigate the license of NBC, due to their "perceived" bias against the Trump White House. (The truth hurts, doesn't it, Donnie Boy?) Networks are not licensed by the FCC, "President" Dumbass; individual stations are.

I love the fact that Twitter are now fact-checking him.
You can see the foam coming out of his mouth...

Maybe the stress of that, combined with Trump's age (a few weeks shy of 74) his diet of red meat junk food, his overweight physical shape, combined with his lack of exercise (I don't think golf is proper exercise, especially since Trump spends most of his time on the course in a golf cart) and his being a rage-a-holic makes him a candidate for a massive stroke or heart attack. Which, if fully realized, can definitely be a good thing.

By Twitter's standards, anyone posting what Trump posts would have their account banned by now. I remember Twitter saying the only reason they don't have a bot taking down alt-right accounts automatically as they do with ISIS accounts is because a good number of prominent US politicians would be taken down by any such decent algorithm.

And that would be a problem because?

It's censorship. If the can do it to Republicans, they can do it to Democrats, too.

Back in 2018, Trump wanted the FCC to investigate the license of NBC, due to their "perceived" bias against the Trump White House. (The truth hurts, doesn't it, Donnie Boy?) Networks are not licensed by the FCC, "President" Dumbass; individual stations are.

Besides, there is this little thing called the First Amendment, which prevents people like Orange Hitler doing something like that.

Fox Business personality and ardent Trump supporter Lou Dobbs got sh*tcanned this past Friday. In a move so fast, it probably surprised even Dobbs. More here.
One theory I heard for Dobbs' firing was just basic economics. In other words, his show wasn't bringing in enough ad revenue to justify his salary.

As I write this, Fox News is running a show about scandal embattled New York State governor Andrew Cuomo, titled The Collapse of Cuomo. Who has been accused of sexual harassment by some 11 women. (Cuomo, of course, has denied all of it.) Not that I'm a fan of Andy Boy (I hated his old man, the late NYS governor Mario Cuomo, for reasons documented elsewhere on this site.) The hypocrisy here is enormous. Fox does a hatchet job on Cuomo, but continually embraces the Great Sphincter, Donald Trump. Who for decades has been accused of the same stuff, and gotten away with it, that Cuomo is being accused of.

Orange can bribe more people than Cuomo can.

Direct TV will not renew the carriage contract of One America News Network when it expires in April, 2022. This is the channel that, even more than Fox News, has spread lies and other disinformation about the 2020 election. Plus, that may mean the end of OANN, as the channel depends on the fees it receives from Direct TV. More here.

I wish they had not renewed OANN in 2020. I might still be with my ex-GF.

Sorry to hear that, Scott.

Yeah, she drank the Qool-aid.

Yeah, it happens.

Unlike most other TV networks and news outlets, Fox News and the Fox Network are not carrying the hearings of the committee investigating the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. It's apparently sour grapes on their part, as so far, the hearings seem to lay the blame for the attack right into the lap of Fox News' lord and master, the former president Donald John Trump.

"...into the lap of Fox News' turd and master'?
Oh, wait, you said 'lord'.
Never mind.

Good old Faux News.

Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

Tucker Carlson is out at Faux... Fox News; the announcement came down this morning. I don't know for sure, but my guess is that the decision to let Carlson go came out of the over $700 million settlement Fox has to pay Dominion Voting Systems, for unfounded accusations in regard to the 2020 election and Dominion's voting machines. More from CNN here.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

So long, Tucker.

Don't let the door hit you in the a** on the way out.

I have a bet on that he’ll be with OANN or NewsMax within a month

He may try for the Presidency instead.

Yeah that's what your mate reckons but I think that's just a lot of hot air. Much like Carlson himself.

God, I hope not.

I agree with Scott that Carlson will land somewhere (probably not OANN, especially since their viewer base is down, as DirecTV dropped the channel a while back). But, maybe not so soon. Carlson's contract with Fox may have a non-compete clause, which could keep him off competitors for a specific length of time. Certainly longer than thirty days. My guess is that Carlson is being paid quite well, to sit home snd twiddle his thumbs, while he's waiting for his next move.

Which now makes it more likely that he will make a run for the presidency, or vice-presidency.

Nothing to keep that from happening.

Carlson is taking his show to Twitter. That may be in violation of his Fox contract. Which, even though he is off the air, may still be in effect. More on that here. Makes me glad I'm not on Twitter. Or Facebook, Instagram or any of that social media stuff.

He should go to Russia. I'm sure Vlad would love to hire him.

Some have called Tucker Carlson a
White Supremacist, also
Why do Fox News, the New York Post
and others often consider it bad to be "woke"
How exactly do we define "woke"

How exactly do we define "woke"

Well, if you ever come up with a good definition, let us know, because no one else seems able to.

My own personal definition of Woke: Communism of the 21st Century.

How is "woke" different from
Political Correctness, did anyone see this link https://web.archive.org/web/20040806224435/http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm

Woke is a term that is basically bandied around by people who can no longer say anything about anyone that is remotely negative.

It was a sort of sarcastic term at first (about how everybody's eyes are suddenly open) but it has been twisted a lot to become a negative.

There is nothing wrong with growing as a society and, perhaps, recognising that the way we spoke about and treated people who were different from us in the past is not acceptable today.

I have a major problem with erasing the past and changing things to retroactively make them palatable.

I have a major problem with erasing the past and changing things to retroactively make them palatable.

That's what the Communists did.

Which is why I see Woke as a modern day incarnation of that hideous ideology.

Another incredibly stupid and thoughtless comment, this tome from Fox News host Greg Gutfeld (who I call "gutless" ). He stated that some Jews had to be useful to survive the Holocaust. More on that Gutless stupidity here.
First DeSantis' thoughtless comments on slavery, now this moronic comment on the Holocaust. The movie Idiocracy can't compare to those two brain dead know nothings.

Stupid is what Rethuglicans do best.