the Greater Nomadic Council

I wonder when the fun-time Nazi Land is going to open.

You bate me and I am trapped....

Here are excerpts from the ABC wire:

"Scholars say Stalin's legacy is an especially touchy subjects in the Baltics. They were not initially part of the Soviet Union, and escaped incorporation until after World War II.

During World War II, the Baltic states actually fought against the Soviets, and after the war, the Soviets came down hard on them. "The Balts suffered as much or more than the rest of the Soviet Union," said Marty Sletzinger, the director of the Eastern Europe Program at the Wilson Center, in Washington DC.

Stalin, says Sletzinger was not only an unwanted, terrible foreign influence but he was also enemy of the state who caused plenty of suffering. "I'm sure someone wants to make sure that in this day in age that people never want to forget the horrors."

Me:
Aside from the word "horrors" the pencil neck from DC makes it sound like the Lithuanians had is coming because the fought against Stalin at first. ABC is running a screen play for apologetics even in the face of undeniable horror.
Not to mention the 'enemy of the State' comment is a not so subtle way of making the point that 'the USSR wasn't the problem, no no, not communism, rather it was Stalin.'

Plus this cute ref. to a plucky minority of Stalin supporters still around today:

"Stalin is also more popular than many in the West may think. Just last December, about 500 people gathered in Stalin's hometown in Georgia to mark the 121st anniversary of the Soviet dictator's birth. Many die-hard communists still revere him."

This all to say "maybe we westerners don't really understand the Stalin legacy." If they ran a story like this about the klan the reporters would be immediately fired for unethical and insensitive reporting...and no I am not defending the klan (CYA).

I really don't see the support you do. They're just following the journalistic rules that dictate objectivity. If you're looking for judgement of anything, the mainstream media are the wrong place to look. What in that article you quote is factually incorrect? Or do you object to the lack of mention of Stalin's mass murders? If so, would you then require that any news article written about Stalin or any other similar figure from here on out include the same background information over and over? Perhaps the author felt Stalin's atrocities were well-known and not relevant enough to the article's main points to bear repeating. It's hard to tell without seeing the whole article. Still, I really think you're a bit paranoid in seeing communist apologists everywhere in the news.

As for the baiting, I must plead guilty. What's wrong with a little good-natured ribbing after all? :)

Fake article abrev.

New SlaverWorld Announced:

Eccentric tycoon and African American, Howard Jones unveiled his plan for SlaverWorld yesterday...[gruseome details of rape and murder, whippings etc. to be reenacted]...
Southern Studies proffessor Lukas Addison had this to say:
Slaveholders have always gotten a mixed reaction in the South. They were the leaders of that region once they consolidated power over blacks. A number of blacks resisted violently to enslavement and slaveholders really came down hard on them. Slaveholders of this sort always were enemies of true natural slavery. It makes sense to relive the horrors.

Worth noting also is that quite a few people hold slaveholders in high regard. About 400 blacks get together as Sons of the Confederacy every year (this is true by the way) to remember fondly the slavers that once ruled their ancestors. The Klu Klux Klan keep their memory alive to this day as well.

______________________________________-

If you can't see a problem with this, then enjoy ABC for all its crystaline objectivity.

I'm not saying I don't see a problem with it. I think the media's "objectivity" is silly. It often prevents them from making very correct value judgements or pointing out when public figures lie or otherwise distort facts. It's a systemic problem, not something that applies only when "defending" commies.

The systemic problem is a liberal problem. That is what I am saying. They select stories with a bias, and they choose biased "experts" to run apologetics for them. It is "systemic" but that doesn't get you off the hook--they are sytemically liberal. Ask yourself when the last time you heard a quote from the "experts" in a gay marriage story from a major paper that included the bare minimum observation that the vast majority of the world community thinks this is a perversion. Or that it is physically harmful to the recipient of such "affections". Or the ugly little detail that habitual sodomy relies on drug use to maintain even a modicum of performance.

This makes you squeemish perhaps, but it is all true. It is in the AMA journals and I have not seen one mention of it in the major papers as fact or as a quote from an expert. The bias is systemic and it is liberal.

That must be why the news media have been so incredibly critical of Bush for his entire presidency so far. They never let him get off the hook with distortions and outright lies. And look how nice they were to Clinton and Gore in comparison. Yup, liberal media, for sure. Look, just because the news media don't think gays are evil sodomites doesn't mean there's a liberal bias. It means they're not intolerant hate-mongers. If your definition of liberal is "anything to the left of what I believe", which it seems to be, then I would imagine you think just about everyone in the US is a liberal.

Oh, by the way, I'd love to see the AMA article that says homosexuality is perversion.

"I'd love to see the AMA article that says homosexuality is perversion"

Obviously not what I meant, Mall.

" Look, just because the news media doesn't think gays are evil sodomites"

Nowhere did I say that or demand it of the media.

"It means they're not intolerant hate-mongers"

Thank you for proving my point. The blinded bias that anyone who thinks sodomy is wrong must be an intolerant hatemonger and therefore not worth gathering a quote or perspective from is precisely the problem, precisely the bias. (As if the majority of Americans did not have a few problems with the gay lifestyle...I am with the majority on that so putting my opinion in a corner as if I were an isolated West Virginian Hermit and the rest of America was on board with this, I insist, liberal agenda on things like gay marriage is not fair either.)

BTW, homosexual acts are perverted, yes. But that neither means that gays are evil nor unlovable. That is not the implication of my previous statements, that is your prejudices regarding the conservative view point I was espousing. Read it again with a tone of pity and not hate.

Ok, you're right. I was being a bit intolerant myself. Please forgive me as that was my first comment this morning and morning makes me grumpy. Still, I strenuously disagree with you that homosexuality is perversion or that gays need either your pity or someone else's hate. However, that's a whole 'nother discussion that I'd rather not have right now.

Back to the media bias, I don't think I proved your point. You ignored my points about the pass the media gave Bush until very recently and the pounding they gave both Clinton and Gore. If there were truly a liberal bias, why wouldn't they have been praising the two liberals? There was certainly enough material to work with, whereas with Bush, there is more than enough to tear him down with. As for the gay issue, I think it ties in to the larger PC trend we went through during the 90s. Like race, sexual orientation is one of those issues you're not allowed to criticize. It has nothing to do with political orientation or media bias. Above all, the news media are out to make profits. Offend too many people and your profits drop. Since the silly PC movement, describing any criticism of any of the various protected issues might offend someone, hence the silence on that front.

The verdict is in: The New York Times in clearly not biased. I present conclusive proof in a single sentence from this morning's paper: "Environmental advocates are using the film's release, scheduled for May 28, as an opening to slam the Bush administration, whose global warming policies they oppose."

Question from the back?
Um, yes. Thank you. When the President meets with his cabinet regarding environmental issues, why do they call their own policies "global warming policies"? Could they not think of a better term?

Apology accepted, but the fact remains that alot of journalists feel that same way about my opinions and do not have to have a personal encounter with me to moderate their opinions as you have just done.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a2d3b087aa7.htm

This is worth a look and has some documentation.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#conservative

This too. Your just wrong on this one.

I know more journalists identify themselves as Dems than as GOP, but it doesn't follow that they're going to slant their coverage as a result. Following that logic, your link to that Free Republic article should be completely ignored for this discussion since the author is very likely a Republican and will obviously claim there's a liberal media bias. Anyways, this is a long-standing debate and one that it seems we're unlikely to agree on, so I don't see much point in continuing it.

For the record, btw, I didn't need an encounter with you to moderate my opinions. I've known plenty of people who think homosexuality is a sin, but are not hateful about it. I had a good friend in high school who, though a devout Christian and steadfastly against homosexuality, had a gay guy as her best friend. I simply misinterpreted your comments in this particular case, it seems. All the talk about perversion and the dimissive use of quotes gave me the impression of an attitude you apparently did not intend to convey.

Mall:
Be honest, that is not what you said in the above comments...you clearly said it was the morning and you were grumpy ergo I was to excuse you...which is fine. I seriously doubt you would have posted an apology if I had not encountered you on it (a crappy word admittedly). The press has no real watch dog except of course the group they brand as santianic nazi fringers like Rush etc.

The classic out on this is to agree to disagree, but that is a cop out. Read the links I posted and respond.

Also, be realistic. How is it when a majority of the press actually calls themselves dem and roughly 15% ident. with Republicans that you will have unslanted news. Unless you under the utopian misunderstanding that journalist belong to some priestly and unerring caste of untainted science and objectivity...a new bogus view of the press foisted on us in the 40s and 50s and 60s and still sputtering out to this day. Most major papers today were started by political parties: the New York Times, the NY Post, the Wash Post, the Tribune, The STL Dispatch, the Gazette, the Wash Times, the Telegraph,,,and the list goes on.

Be honest, that is not what you said in the above comments...you clearly said it was the morning and you were grumpy ergo I was to excuse you...which is fine. I seriously doubt you would have posted an apology if I had not encountered you on it (a crappy word admittedly). The press has no real watch dog except of course the group they brand as santianic nazi fringers like Rush etc.

Being grumpy was not the reason I got the wrong impression from your comment. That was a result of the tone of the comment. The fact that I commented about it was a result of my mood. You wrote:

Ask yourself when the last time you heard a quote from the "experts" in a gay marriage story from a major paper that included the bare minimum observation that the vast majority of the world community thinks this is a perversion. Or that it is physically harmful to the recipient of such "affections". Or the ugly little detail that habitual sodomy relies on drug use to maintain even a modicum of performance.

That still doesn't read like it was written in "a tone of pity", but since you claimed that was how you meant it and I trust you to be honest about your intentions I apologized for implying that you were being hateful. If you hadn't pointed out that there was a disconnect between your intentions and the tone of your post, no, I wouldn't have apologized because I wouldn't have known it was called for. Still, if I hadn't been a bit grumpy, I might have been more likely to give you the benefit of the doubt and would have refrained from commenting.

The press has no real watch dog except of course the group they brand as santianic nazi fringers like Rush etc.

The classic out on this is to agree to disagree, but that is a cop out. Read the links I posted and respond.

I thought Limbaugh was part of the news media. As you have admitted, he has an enormous following and much influence in shaping public opinion. How do you decide who is part of the news media and who isn't? Fox News is the most watched cable news channel and has a clear conservative slant. In fact, in the lead up to the Iraqi war, the vast majority of people who got their news from any form of televised news program had beliefs that were perfectly in line with those of the Bush administration despite the preponderence of evidence available to dispute their claims.

Regardless, let's take those numbers of political affiliation the way you want to. In 2001, 25% Democract. 6% Republican. 59% moderate, who I guess we assume are impartial. So the majority of the news would be unslanted, no? Assume that the Republicans slant conservative just as much as Democrats. The Democrats would then have only a 19% advantage over the Republicans, which is small compared to the moderate influence.

Also, the graphs don't provide any extra data about the polls, such as questions asked or methodology used in choosing participants, all of which might skew those numbers. Given that the poll asked "301 media professionals, including reporters and editors from top newspapers, TV and radio networks, news services and news magazines", it's impossible to tell what affect those might have on the outcome. Who decided what the top newspapers and networks were? Why such a small sample size? It also ignores the fact that there's a difference in style and substance between many of those media that could affect how the stories are presented and how much, if any, effect the reporter's bias might have.

Regardless, we can conclude that a majority of journalists are moderates although a higher percentage of those that aren't are Democrats rather than Republicans. Unless we assume that all of those self-identifying Democrats don't care about objectivity and all the Republicans do, it's rather foolish to talk about a monolithic "liberal media". You might be able to credibly claim that there is a mild liberal tendency among journalists that may lead to some of them slanting their stories in subtle ways to support those beliefs. However, that doesn't seem to quite be the argument you're making.

regarding pity: to clear up the disconnect you are rightly pointing out...I have no pity for sodomy (or murder or lying or greed etc.). I do have pity for homosexuals and young people who are not given the facts of the lifestyle and so either think that they are alone in their unhappiness or that this is not such a bad idea for them to try it out, respectively.

Re the media:
I thought from our recent Rush debate that we had all made it clear that Rush was entertainment/infotainment, and not mainstream media. Also, the idea that all the people who do not identify with a party are simply moderate journalists is silly. Katie Couric doesn't have a party but everyone knows she is stark raving leftist. Brokaw, Coppel, Stone Philips, all have no party officially yet again the are left leaning. You also ignored the quotes from leading media moguls that clear state that the uberleftist slant of the media is incontestible and laughable is any attempt to deny it.
2 years ago in a secret ballot mock election for all the major papers' editors at the National Press Club. The contest was 1984 Reagan-Mondale. Mondale won 98% of the vote. In one of the biggest electoral victory and with 59% of the popular vote Reagan creamed Mondale and the press votes in 2002 98% Mondale. It is absurd.

Additionally, do remember the case with the two homosexuals that kidnapped and raped a 13 year old boy who suffocated to death tied down to the mattress in the van of the kidnappers as they raped him? Almost nobody does. Do you remember Matthew Shepherd? Almost everybody does. Both cases had homosexuality as part of the story, both had two perpatrators with disgusting and malicious intent, both had violence and murder of innocent people. It could be argued that the one case was more headline grabbing because it was a child and because of rape, but whole Matthew Shepard had a nearly 8 month news cycle, the other case received almost no major coverage. Why? You might say that it is because it is too gross an issue to cover, yet pictures of Abu Graib refute that argument easily. The fact is they didn't want people to draw the conclusions (both the wrong and the right ones) about the one case, and the wanted very much to have people learn the horrors of intolerance and the plight of gays. That is a classic dividing line between liberals and conservatives. Conservative have an emphasis on family and its protection through the maintainence of public sexual mores (contra fornication, pornography, and homosexuality) whole liberals have an emphasis on promoting marginalized groups to the top of the political food chain in order to have a perfect socialist state in which the family must be marginalized...so out with family values and in with tolerance of homosexuality, becfause it isolates people and undoes the natural and strong social unit of the family thereby allowing for socialism to step in and fill the family role. Thus we get Matthew Shepard and we hear nothing of the other case. Who chooses to select a case like Matthew Shepard's out of the 15000 murders committed annually? The national media.

PS the case I refer to is the rape and murder of Jesse Dirkhising. Check it out.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14852

Matt, your comparison is offensive. Matthew Shephard was murdered because he was gay, as a result of the biases of our society. From only a brief reading of the Jesse Dirkhising article you linked, it's clear that these two guys were deviant pedophiles, but it displays a stunning narrow-mindedness to conflate this so effortlessly with their homosexuality. How many straight men kidnap, rape, and murder young women each year? Maybe it's heterosexuality that is inherently evil. And in case you missed it, the other victim the article mentioned was a girl, further confusing your implied "Gay=Murderer" thesis.

While I admire M for engaging you for this long, your credibility was frankly shot as soon as you claimed that gay sex required drugs. I would be very interested in seeing the AMA article you mention.

And as for Rush as a "media watchdog"? That's like the fox guarding the henhouse. This was a man who dismissed the atrocities at Abu Gharib as a few soldiers "blowing off steam." He's certainly entertaining, but in all the wrong ways - and to dismiss the power of even pure entertainment in shaping people's worldview is to wholly misunderstand the way culture works. In fact, I seem to remember you making a little post about how "Friends" was helping to debase our culture. If that is entertainment, and Rush is entertainment, then why do you so quickly dismiss Rush's ability to shape hearts, minds, and political beliefs?

Get your mind right, son.

I thought from our recent Rush debate that we had all made it clear that Rush was entertainment/infotainment, and not mainstream media. Also, the idea that all the people who do not identify with a party are simply moderate journalists is silly. Katie Couric doesn't have a party but everyone knows she is stark raving leftist. Brokaw, Coppel, Stone Philips, all have no party officially yet again the are left leaning.

Ok, even leaving out such a massively influential voice as Limbaugh you've still completely ignored the fact that a vast majority of people who got their news from television programs before the war on Iraq believed pretty much the same thing as the Bush administration, not to mention the fact that the clearly conservative Fox News is the number one cable news channel. You've also ignored my comments about the difference in the treatment of Bush and his administration versus that of Clinton and Gore.

And which is it? Should I trust the polls you provided me with or not? You seem to be saying that they don't actually show what they seem to now that I've demonstrated that the data fails to support your argument. Also, I ignored the Free Republic article in order to keep the debate consistent. You can't claim that self-identifying liberal journalists slant the news in their favor then use an article written by a conservative partisan to back your claims for liberal bias in the news media. Otherwise, unless you want to argue that only conservatives are capable of unbiased reporting, you have to admit that maybe a journalist's political beliefs have little to nothing to do with the articles they write.

Anyways, I think I've satisfied your request to respond to the articles and your argument. It's clear neither of us will be persuaded so I don't think it's a cop out to drop the debate at this point. However, don't interpret this as me attempting to get the last word. Feel free to respond how you see fit, but this is my last post on the subject for now.

Sleepnotwork:
My criticism with the liberal news media is that they are just like Rush only try to do it dishonestly by claiming that they are "mainstream" or "unbiased" and they are just as loopy and biased as Rush can be. And I was not standing up for Rush as the force to call them out on a lack of objectivity--this is the whole point: the media is always partisan one way or the other depending on the group of people in charge of the pwrticular paper, story, etc. The idea that objectivity is the guide to Mallarme's maxim that Matt SHepard's story was more important for coverage *because* he was murdered for being gay proves the utter lack of objectivity. Every murder case in America can teach us something about not hating, not being racist, brug use, promiscuity, divorce, teen depression, lack of God in one's life (Uh-oh, that was very unobjective, right? So the press would claim. That is why they never inquire into the spiritual health of the victim because they believe it has nothing to do with anything...another bias) Objectivity is not to be sought after because it is a utopian ideal for the press. Not lying is the goal the press should set, but interpreting the facts will always include biases so just be honest about it...just like conservative talk radio. That is all I am really saying, honesty is better than subtlety. Let us know where you are coming from instead of pretending you are some sort of scientist with no political opinions.

To further my point, ask yourself this question: Why is it that Fox is under constant fire for being (and I agree) a conservative news network. Name another major media outlet that has been widely criticized IN THE MEDIA for being too liberal. Name one and I will give up this argument.

Honesty is what I seek. I think it is a bad habit for our society when no one knows the political persuasions of the information filters for the people of the United States.

PS. Do you have any close personal friends who have active gay sex lives? Ask them.

The press has no real watch dog except of course the group they brand as santianic nazi fringers like Rush etc.

You're changing your story again. Damn libruls, taking things out of context! Slanting the coverage! Nonetheless, you did call Rush a watchdog, and your claim that you were simply highlighting the equal absurdity on each end of the spectrum shows only the limitations of your view of the political spectrum - trust me, I know lefty journalists as crazy as Rush, and they don't play nearly as well in the Midwest (Alex Jones, anyone?).

I'll grant that honesty about bias is better than subterfuge . . . but if you believe that, then why are you defending an acknowledged right-wing news network whose slogan is "Fair and Balanced"? I'm really surprised you haven't cited the authoritative Anne Coulter on this subject yet. Ultimately, supposed left-wing bias is a bogeyman used by the right to discredit the national discourse when it serves their purposes to do so, and they paint their own representatives (Rush, O'Reilly etc) as "voices in the wilderness," as being outside of journalism, so that they can be excluded from the grand tally of voices.

If you were a student at Heights, I'd pat you on the back and applaud your tenacity. The fact that you're teaching the next generation of George Dubyas is certainly appropriate, but still frightening.

(***Warning: Cover your eyes, kids!!***)

As for the sex thing - I don't really need to go to an outside source to confirm that that particular act doesn't require any outside stimulation in order for it to be plenty enjoyable (the only variable in my case being the gender of those involved).

Somebody toetag this little punk, I'm out.

Peace!

Below the belt:
"If you were a student at Heights, I'd pat you on the back and applaud your tenacity. The fact that you're teaching the next generation of George Dubyas is certainly appropriate, but still frightening"

I agree that there is duplicity on Fox's part but atleast they are exposed. The way you criticized me for leaving all that out was fair but did take for granted the original point that libs are the majority in the press (even Mallarme admitted it regarding a statistical advantage for Dems which is true and fair)
What was not fair was the quote above. Perhaps this too shows a stark difference between the liberal and conservative mind. The idea that I would foist my politics on my students is offensive and an you took an ignorant and unjust stab in the dark. I went through public schools with only one teacher that kept silent on these more political issues and he was the very best. The rest of the teachers spent their time in class attacking Christianity, Ronald Reagan, and pro-lifers any chance they got. I do not repeat those wretched mistakes with my own students. Politics is not the sum of a human's being, and I respect that.

These comments are a mental exercise and a hobby as I would assume it is for you. Let's keep it that way without getting into personal takedowns beyond the mistakes in our arguments and rebuttals herein.

Okay, one more for old times' sake:

The line you quote above is a reference to your reasoning (and typing, and punctuation) skills, not your political beliefs. I have no problem with people whose beliefs are different than mine, only with those who cannot justify those beliefs in a way I find at least theoretically tenable. I don't mind if your students come from the sort of priviledged, neo-aristocratic backgrounds that tend to breed Social Darwinist ideologies, I just want them to know what those beliefs mean and how to defend them effectively, with at least a semblance of logic.

Having discussions with people of that stripe - reasonable, thinking, logical people who also happen to oppose me politically - is a growing experience, a process of self-education and honing of my rhetorical blade. Your conservatism, however, has a paranoid, moralistic streak that undercuts the reasoning you've been able to deploy so far. You've said several things that I think can be safely characterized as narrow-minded, including but not limited to a homophobia that dare not speak its own name. If I wanted to engage in open, spirited debate with someone of opposing viewpoints, I would have a choice of partners - and I would definitely not choose you.

This isn't a mental exercise - this is target practice.

And now, as enjoyable as this has been, I must really bow out. No, no, I insist. Really, you're too kind.

The things I believe cannot be reduced to a punchline. Congratulations on succeeding in your own life where I have failed. Out.