Subject:
|
Re: Newsbits: CA Recall and IMF-Argentina Negotiations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:01:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
592 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Carl Nelson wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
One book may be a revelation, or it could be a disgruntled whiner. It may
be correct for the situation he was in, but not for the industry at large.
It may even be correct for the industry at large, but by itself, it would be
hard to draw that conclusion.
|
True, but it’s very difficult to refute Goldberg’s claims in the book. He
makes several good points, such as:
1) Why conservatives are always labelled and liberals are not, e.g., why it’s
always “conservative” Antonin Scalia but never “liberal” Laurence Tribe.
|
Virtually all of the Supreme Court justices have a liberal, conservative or
morderate label attached to them, so it seems I have easily refuted Goldberg in
all of a few seconds. As to Tribe, who is not a member of the Supreme Court,
and thus not particularly comparable, a quick look on yahoo delivers all sorts
of descriptions of him as “liberal”, so again, refuted, and most easily.
| |
2) Why white males are the only group that can be ridiculed. (I take it as a
compliment since we’re the only ones tough enough to take it!) ;-)
|
Because they are the ones in power, and remain so. And last I checked, everyone
is ridiculed, so I’m increasingly suspecting that Goldberg is just grinding a
personal axe.
| |
3) Why well-meaning advocacy groups are not questioned, but simply have their
line repeated.
|
They do get questioned. What planet is Goldberg from?
| |
4) Why news reporters openly mock the stories they are covering, rather than
simply reporting. Goldberg’s ostracism from CBS began when he questioned the
objectivity of a reporter who in a news story termed Steve Forbes’ flat tax
proposal as a “risky scheme.”
|
Wait, he just complained that advocacy groups are not questioned. You’ve
juxtaposed a presidential candidate with advocacy groups - have other
presidential candidates been “mocked”? Bad example by Goldberg.
| |
5) Why alternative viewpoints are not presented. He gives the example of a
story that had views from two antis and no pros as an example.
|
That is a problem with TV news in general - and why I don’t bother with it for
the most part. It’s those outside of traditional liberalism and conservatism
that have cause for complaint.
| |
FWIW, Alterman’s “What Liberal Media?” provides a counterpoint. He makes the
mistake of defining himself (and he’d make George McGovern look like Barry
Goldwater) as middle-of-the-road, therefore anything to the right of him is
conservative. He makes an excellent case about conservative media not
providing alternative viewpoints as well, leading to your well-said point:
| |
For the point of debate, let me note that I have utterly no doubt that
instances of bias can be found, in either direction, human nature being what
it is.
|
I shall not debate your infinite wisdom on this, as I am in wholehearted
agreement.
| |
| |
I mean “mainstream media,” meaning media outlets where people turn for
information rather than opinion, which includes the: major networks...
|
|
Fox still doesn’t qualify as a major network. It qualifies as a cable news
network. Just compare viewership of the evening ABC/NBC/CBS news (~20
million viewers each) to Fox News viewership (~1.5 million viewers).
|
Fox is counted as a major network. WB and UPN are not. Nor have you
established that any of ABC/NBC/CBS are inherently and consistently “liberal”
(considering their savaging of Clinton and hands-off of Reagan and Bush, the
case could be made the other way).
| |
| |
Yes, you were specific, but you left a lot uncovered, nor have I heard Time
and Newsweek singled out as “liberal” before. You may be right, I don’t
read them on a regular enough basis to form an opinion - but there is a
tendancy among conservatives to identify anything not specifically
conservative as liberal (get in that pre-emptive strike alleging bias, just
in case).
|
You’re right about the tendency to label anything not conservative as
liberal, and for liberals to label anything not liberal as conservative.
Once again, human nature.
|
If that were true, then liberals would be refering to the “conservative media”.
Yes, some of both sides are guilty of labeling anything not of them as against
them, but the calculated spin-mastering of broad-based bias is only coming from
one side.
| |
| |
As to the point about endorsees, I simply didn’t challenge you to provide
evidence of such because I thought it would go down a tedious route -
locally of the two biggest newspapers, the Los Angeles Times will recommend
both liberals and conservatives, the Orange County Register only
conservatives, so my local experience does not support your claim (not that
it represents a valid sample). Anyway, I take it you have a headcount to
have made your claim, so quote the source and lets take a look at the
evidence.
|
Geez, I am chagrined. I looked closely at he study that I was ready to
bludgeon you with and it was from 1980--hardly applicable to our debate
(ouch!)!
|
Well, who knows, you could still be right, so I shall not gloat.
| |
The only numbers that I found in a cursory search that had a reasonable basis
were from USAToday and Gannett (its parent company). They reported the
following endorsements for the past few presidential elections:
1992
----
45 endorsed Clinton
15 endorsed Bush
22 made no endorsement
|
Bush shot himself in the foot (read my lips, oops, I lied!) - I’m not surprised
at this on top of the economy going downhill.
Again, this is a why rock the boat, the economy has improved since Bush was
tossed. Go back to Reagan and see if he got the nod for his second term would
be my response (or was preferred over Carter, for that matter).
| |
1996
----
45 endorsed Clinton
28 endorsed Dole
24 made no endorsement
1 offered opposing endorsements by different members of the editorial board
|
Isn’t this just a slight variation of the above?
Pretty darn even. Where did that bias go?
| |
Comment 1: I wonder why the difference in 1996 numbers between the two
sources, obviously both Gannett-based. I’d suspect that the more recent one
includes papers acquired in the time period between reports.
Comment 2: Tedious in the extreme, looking this up. I spent about 2 hours
looking for a relevant study of this, that wasn’t from some propaganda site.
I’d find it interesting to see a study that looked at endorsements by party
or leaning, especially if it included circulation of the paper in there. Any
interested journalism or poli sci students out there?
|
Well, that is what I meant. Interesting, but I wasn’t about to do the work!
:-)
| |
| |
No, it’s not a notation of the status quo: the term “liberal media” is an
attempt by conservatives to try and dismiss any criticism of them by
claiming bias. An example would be to call newspapers liberal, but then
trumpet how newspapers claimed that Bush would have won the recount in
Florida (which is the exact point this conversation began with), or use the
“liberal media” (i.e. the “mainstream media”) to bash Clinton over and over
again. It’s not the bashing I mind so much, as the hypocrisy of doing so
while claiming the “liberal” media is out to get them.
|
It is a term typically used in a whining manner, but that doesn’t make it
untrue. Here’s something from the American Society of Newspaper Editors
(http://www.asne.org/kiosk/editor/97.jan-feb/dennis4.htm) where a 1996
study of newspaper journalists showed that 61% considered themselves
“Democrat or liberal,” 15% “Republican or conservative,” and 24%
“independent.” The table linked in the article contrasts that with the
general public.
|
I think this more significant information, but at the same time, democrat does
not equal liberal, and republican does not equal conservative for any given
individual. The question needed to be, do you view yourself as a liberal,
conservative, or moderate?
| |
That of course doesn’t equate to bias in the media, nor do I believe that the
media is 100% biased 100% of the time. As I’ve said before, I think the
media bias isn’t a conspiracy. The vast majority of the time they do a fair
job. Their first bias is in favor of their ratings--anything “scandal” or
fearmongering gets top ratings, and therefore top treatment. Then when it
comes time to present different viewpoints, they go with what they know,
which is more often the liberal view. That’s how bias manifests itself, IMO.
|
Again, what really depends is on how they present the news itself (as opposed to
the op/ed page).
| |
And if you think that the bias never manifests itself on important issues,
then why did Dan Rather refuse for a month to report about Gary Condit, and
why was Trent Lott vilified (and rightly so) for his comments about Strom
Thurmond but Robert Byrd (D-WV) can use the n-word in a speech with no
comment?
|
But I already said that I acknowledge individual cases of bias manifest
themselves in both directions, people being what they are. As to the cases you
mention, I’d have to see the specifics to be able to comment, but they hardly
indicate some broad pattern regardless (you basically conceded that I can find
them going back the other direction, so I’m going to be lazy and not bother!).
| |
| |
Why? The one has nothing to do with the other. A better suggestion is to
keep the term “liberal media”, or don’t quote how newspaper claim Bush would
have won a recount. Give up one or the other since they are mutually
exclusive.
|
I just find it fun to point out that there was never a recount, public or
private, that showed Gore winning. I’m not trumpeting anything, just making
a point and quoting a source. Isn’t that what debating is about? And
shouldn’t you be interested in discrediting the point rather than accusing me
of hypocrisy?
|
I did not accuse you of hypocrisy, just that if you were going to quote the one,
don’t use the phrase. I was merely warning not to fall in a hypocritical trap
(though others will have to assess whether or not you willfully leaped into the
trap afterwards).
And if the recounts never showed Gore winning, then why didn’t we depend on the
will of the American people rather than bypass it with the Supreme Court? Pity
Bush didn’t have the confidence of the voters.
| |
| |
I already noted that Gore accepted the Supreme Court’s decision, so quoting
anything about Florida is fairly useless (a point that as I recall, you
agreed to). But be that as it may, since you have laid it on the table” the
Florida Supreme Court is not part of the Democratic party, so I don’t see
where you have a point.
|
It makes no difference whether he was successful or not. It’s sufficient for
me to show that Gore attempted to do “whatever it takes” to gain the office
of the presidency.
|
No - inasmuch as he accepted the Supreme Court’s decision, he clearly was not
willing to do whatever it takes, which is why I said don’t bother with Gore.
Further, challenging a close vote is hardly what I would define as some kind of
overbearing ruthlessness - it is a standard provided for by law. It is far more
ruthless to try and avoid the legality of a recount by simply stalling so long
on making a decision that a recount can not be done, despite the provisions for
such. If that is how a recount will always be met, then having a provision for
a recount is a lie, or a mutable thing to be discarded when it does not meet the
approval of those in power (i.e. a betrayal of the electorate).
| |
BTW, the nine-member Florida Supreme Court is composed of nine justices
appointed by Democrats.
|
Who have no connection to the National Democratic Organizing Commitee. Nor are
they necessarily liberal - especially being from the south - or even Democrats
themselves.
| |
| |
Judge: not democratic party, so again, there is no point.
|
So, you’ve called your Senators, and asked them to stop blocking Bush’s
judicial nominees? After all, they’re going to be judges, so they’re not
going to be partisan, regardless of who appoints them.
|
That depends on what you mean by partisan. Scalia is nothing but partisan,
O’Conner is a conservative, but hardly what I would call a partisan. Souter
seems to be a good example against you.
| |
| |
But to adress it
anway, I take it you (or your source) is paraphrasing, because I sincerely
doubt that the law is written the way you quote it: who the heck would write
into a law “there is no provision allowing a judge to extend the hours of
voting? They would say, “the hours of voting may not be extended under any
circumstances” and if that was what was written, I firmly believe that is
what would have been quoted (but wouldn’t change that a judge could review
the law). Anyway, what you quote is stated as a spin. I can probably safely
restate it to say: there is no provision prohibiting a judge from extending
the hours, and I suspect I would be correct. Further, judicial review of
laws is well-established (i.e. just because there is a law, doesn’t make it
legal).
|
The actual law:
“The election judges shall open the polls at six o’clock in the morning and
keep them open until seven o’clock in the evening. At seven o’clock in the
evening, all voters at the polls, including any in line to vote, shall be
permitted to vote.” (Missouri Revised Statutes, Section 115.407
http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C100-199/1150407.HTM)
|
Nothing preventing a judge from extending hours if there are irregularities.
See, the quote you provided was extremely misleading.
| |
The law was passed in 1977 and contains the following annotation:
“(2000) Circuit judge lacked jurisdiction to extend voting hours. State ex
rel. Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc. v. Baker, 34 S.W.3d 410 (Mo.App.E.D.).”
|
Was this before or after the vote in question (it is worded such that it must be
after the fact)? And elected officials can pass all sorts of anti-judicial laws
and not have them stand up, as I already previously noted. In other words, the
annotation looks like after the fact posturing.
| |
The source for that document was the Missouri Secretary of State--the guy in
charge of elections--after public hearings and government investigation into
potential fraud. It’s interesting reading, especially the part (beginning at
the last paragraph of page 9) about how the Gore-Lieberman campaign filed a
suit alleging that someone was not allowed to vote when “Mr. Odom in fact had
voted and had no trouble voting.”
It continues on the next page:
“The information suggests that the lawsuit was not filed as a result of
problems that occurred on election day, but instead was filed as a result of
a plan conceived before election day. At about the same time that the court
issued the Order, St. Louis City residents were receiving pre-recorded
telephone messages from Rev. Jesse Jackson telling them they could vote late,
and half an hour later Vice President Al Gore was telling KMOX radio
listeners that the polls were still open. The purpose of these communications
was to encourage persons not eligible to vote because of their failure to get
to the polls on time to nonetheless go to the polls and vote.
|
Ummmm, forgive me, but that sounds like a bunch of partisan hooeey. Somebody’s
little empire got stepped on and now he is whining.
| |
“Further support that the attempt to extend the voting hours was not to
address problems that occurred on election day but instead was conceived
before election day is that almost the exact same petition was filed in
Jackson County. A comparison of the two petitions reveals that long passages
in both petitions are word-for-word the same. The use of canned pleadings
suggests a strategy to extend the voting hours was developed before election
day, and that the lawsuits were not a result of occurrences that happened on
election day.”
|
Not that it makes the slightest sense at all. Why the heck spend that kind of
effort on something dubious rather than spending it on actually getting the vote
out? I’m extremely skeptical of this story.
| |
Does that qualify as “whatever it takes,” a preplanned effort to file false
lawsuits to subvert election law?
|
Nope - I frankly don’t believe the scenario as laid out. What do the local news
agencies have to say on the matter?
| |
| |
(deleting the reply I wrote as I realize that...) You need to establish that
Gore was behind the military ballot problems. You have currently simply
juxtaposed the two and implied a connection. Perhaps you felt it obvious,
but I need my memory jogged, alas.
|
Huh? Gore wasn’t behind the military ballot problems. I’m establishing that
it was hypocritical for him to continually claim that “every vote must count”
when he actively tried to throw out military (read: primarily Republican)
ballots.
|
If Gore wasn’t behind it, then how is it some scheme by the democrats? And if
he wasn’t behind it, then why in the next sentence do you again claim that he
is? Resolve these two statement:
Gore wasn’t behind the military ballot problems
he (Gore) actively tried to throw out military...ballots
| |
| |
Of course there were indications that abuses occured - they may or may not
have been the reason for the recount request that you are refering to, but
they were there. So, oops! - forgive me if I sloppily connected the two.
|
Ah, understood. The mathematical reason for the recount in heavily
Democratic areas is this. Let’s say (I’m making up numbers here) that
there’s an across-the-board counting error rate (meaning that the error
prevented the ballot from being properly counted) of 1% in an area with
100,000 voters. That makes 1,000 votes in error. Now let’s say that the
area voted 75% Democratic and 25% Republican. A recount that corrected all
errors would find 750 Democratic votes and 250 Republican votes. One in a
heavily Republican area would find more Republican votes.
|
Ummmm, so why would there be a problem with this?
| |
| |
So...the claim was not backed up by any action (i.e. your accusation is not
supportable by the facts as they currently stand)?
|
I have no knowledge of any. That doesn’t mean that it’s wrong--if I’m wrong
and you don’t point it out I’m still wrong. It does not establish that
mediation is a proper means of judicial review either; can you point me to
where it is?
|
I worded my parenthetical comment very carefully: I did not say that you were
wrong in your view, just that by any measureable evidence you can’t really back
up the accusation of illegality. I can respect you thinking it illegal even if
I disagree, but I can’t really respect it as any kind of actual proof against
the Democrats doing illegal things.
Can I point to mediation being proper? Why yes, the very example you site - if
it was improper, then it would at least be in dispure, and since you concede
that it is not, then guess what? :-)
| |
| |
Ummmmm, if that’s the way you feel, why the arguement? But in any case, yes
you do have to tie it to the Democratic party, because the whole point is
that the Republican Party, from the top of the power structure is
coordinating the effort against the Democrats. The NAACP is not the
Democratic inner circle.
|
And the NRA isn’t the Republican inner circle either...
|
Inasmuch as I have never mentioned the NRA in any of this, this is a disingenous
argument. You have tried to show that the Democratic party is just as ruthless
as the Republicans with an example about the NAACP. If I try and show how the
National Republican Organizing Committee is ruthless by siting an example
instigated by the NRA, feel free to shoot me down. :-)
| |
See above re: Missouri lawsuits for one that is related to at least the
Gore-Lieberman campaign as plaintiff. But I guess that’s not the Democratic
party?
|
That would be correct.
| |
| |
| |
Let’s talk about content then. Is equating the governor of a state to a
murderer acceptable content for a campaign ad?
|
Ummmmm, where did an ad say that? (to save the inevitable response, no the
ad you refered to made no such claim - however, the site you just disavowed
did)
|
That’s assuredly what it meant--“if you elect Bush these killings will
continue.”
|
What you just placed in quotes in no way accuses Bush of being a murderer. You
don’t see that?
| |
| |
And I said your challenge is meaningless: if some other company was able to
abusively act in the fashion Enron did via coddling by The Powers That Be,
then we are still at the same point (i.e. I don’t find the Tit for Tat
Defense, or The Two Wrongs Make it Okay Defense as valid). So, again, yes
or no. Again, feel free to append explanations after the yes or no, but we
really can’t proceed until you actually answer. If yes, Bush and Co. did
clear the path for Enron’s excesses, then we have reached a conclusion on
this point (beyond any rationalizations or explanations that you feel may be
mitigating - your point about other companies getting the same treatment
would fall into this category). If no, then we can proceed to the evidence
that indicates otherwise.
|
I’m not sure where you learned about debating, but it’s up to the person
making the claim (i.e., “The bottom line is that they (Enron) were
protected and sheparded by Bush and his buddies every step of the way except
the last.”) to provide evidence. Give me hard evidence (not from some
liberal propaganda site) that the above is true. You can’t have it both
ways, asking me to justify everything that I say and refusing to do it
yourself!
|
You made your answer dependent on me answering your question first. Actually, I
had answered it, but did so again in a more extensive fashion. But now you come
up with a new condition. One would think you simply don’t like the question,
and that you are looking for any excuse not to be pinned down by an answer.
I’d rather bypass the nonsense (though I seem to be getting it anyway). All you
have to do is say, “No, I don’t believe he aided or abetted Enron in any way”
and I will proceed to the evidence that you demand. If you believe that he did
aid Enron in some fashion, then why don’t we skip the nonsense and go onto what
you feel are mitigating factors (so far consisting of, well, EVERYONE does it,
so why is Bush being castigated?). I have accused you directly in believing
that Bush has in some fashion aided Enron in a dubious fashion, and I don’t see
you denying it.
| |
| |
Yes, you can say it more clearly, by matching deed to word. If it must not
be tolerated, then to prevent it the roots of the problem must be explored.
If the answer is: well, the roots can be explored, but if it gives
ammunition for liberals to rightly criticize Bush (assuming that’s where the
evidence goes), then no, the roots shouldn’t be explored, then your real
answer is: Yes, wrongdoing is to be tolerated, as long is it done by
people I politically agree with.
|
You’re confusing me with the Republican party: I can’t do much of anything
about Enron. Wish I could--its lying criminal execs deserve to be flat broke
like the people they bilked and in jail.
| |
And to temporize the seeming harshness of that last statement, let me say
that it is more of a trap that anyone can fall into, often without realizing
it, than a planned response.
|
I understand what you mean, and it’s not that harsh. All of us would like to
think we’re above it. I think that if there was wrongdoing by Bush and
Cheney they should be accountable for it.
|
Alright then, if you think them innocent, then I need to provide evidence that
justify a greater inquiry, or we can skip that if you feel there is some
mitigating circumstances, which we can then proceed directly to. But ya gotta
give me the yes or no before we can proceed. If you don’t want to proceed, then
just say so (any answer that doesn’t include the yes or no will be viewed as you
don’t wish to continue - it gets tedious asking).
| |
I think for the most part the parties do a decent job of policing their own
(the Democrats properly distanced themselves from Gary Hart, the Republicans
made Gingrich, Livingston, & Lott step down) to show that they will challenge
wrongdoing, regardless of who does it.
|
They’ll challenge wrongdoing when they are confronted by it in a manner that
they cannot ignore - but they will ignore it until then (both sides are equally
guilty of this).
| |
| |
Equating a downturn, and a long term failure of the economy on someone
else’s watch is not particularly supportable. Further, you don’t believe
your own argument, why should I?
|
I don’t have to believe my argument to refute yours. All I’m saying is that
if you blame the bad economy on Bush then you need to assign blame to Clinton
as well. And plenty of other people deserve blame as well--overexuberant
investors, crooked execs and accountants, some Muslim extremists committing
mass murder by flying planes into buildings, to name a few.
|
I beg to differ. If the argument you are advancing is a mere sophist’s trick,
then it is incapable of being refutation. How can you refute something with
evidence neither side believes? You might be able to score debate points with
the unwary, but taking such a tack does nor provide enlightment regardless of
the outcome.
| |
I think that the government can help or hurt the economy. I am crediting him
with making a correct move to help the economy, rather than one that will
hurt it.
|
The question was whether he had already hurt it.
| |
My basic point is pretty simple: an economy that responds primarily to
government control is a communistic one. Our economy is not communist, and
the government doesn’t have much control.
|
I think I would describe it as simplistic, not simple. The government levies
taxes (socialism), has some kind of control over interest rates, has some form
of control over imports, has some control over business rules, banking rules,
organization rules, inheritance rules, wages, hiring practices and on and on.
Does ours have as much control as a Communist one? That’s a different question
entirely.
| |
Whew. Good thing only innocent electrons are harmed for us to continue this
debate, eh?
|
Enlightenment is help, not harm.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
41 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
