The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Air America Bankruptcy Proof of Liberal Bias Media


Air America has filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection so they can survive a little longer. In order to survive, Air America must somehow do what they failed to do in the first place: fill an existing void in the market. In the market in order to succeed at selling anything you must make sure you have a product that is lacking. For instance, it might not be a good idea to start a business selling sand in a desert. Selling water in a desert, however, is certain financial success.

Contrast both the launching and results of conservative talk radio. When Rush Limbaugh took to the air, there was nothing like him ideologically. Limbaugh was met with huge resistance from the establishment. When Air America launched, it was heralded by the establishment and given many free plugs across the media. Yet Limbaugh and the avalanch of conservative talk show hosts have greatly succeeded, and Air America is filing Chapter 11 despite millions of dollars of cash infusions.

What is the difference? The difference is that when Rush came on the scene, there was a huge void in what he had to offer. All things conservative were suppressed, censored, ridiculed or simply ignored by other major media. When Rush began, people heard day after day what they simply could not hear anywhere else. When Air America started, there was an initial hoorah that they had created an answer for the massively successful conservative talk radio. When that passed, large numbers of listeners never materialized. Why? There are plenty of liberals out there. Air America fails to draw large audiences, because they offer nothing new. The media is already glutted with the liberal ideology. Liberals can get their fill from CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, almost all of the newspapers across the country, and from much of the garbage that comes out of Hollywood. Liberal talk radio is like selling sand in the desert.

So in summary, both the success of talk radio and the failure of liberal talk radio are proof of the massive liberal bias that exists in the media. They are as different as their ideologies; and as different as the photo shown of the two Koreas. South Korea has plenty of power at night and North Korea must turn its lights out at 9 pm to conserve electricity. Night and Day.

41 Comments:

  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    AICS,

    //Liberal talk radio is like selling sand in the desert.//

    A very good analogy sir.

     
  • At 12:19 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Thanks LA. Liberals simply cannot comprehend what life was like for a conservative before conservative talk radio tore down the wall.

    Adding liberal talk radio would be adding another bauble on the shelf to admire while not really affecting the saturation of liberal ideas in the market place.

     
  • At 6:49 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    AICS,

    The need for checks and balances created the talk radio market before the blogosphere was created. Both are surviving and appear to be getting stronger.

     
  • At 8:35 AM, Anonymous therightwingagenda said…

    Poll: Support for Iraq war at all-time low

    http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/10/16/iraq.poll/index.html

    ALRIGHT ALL YOU GOP LOG CABIN LOVING NEO CON ARM CHAIR TOUGH GUYS---Time to get your yella A$$e$$ to your recruiter and show your full support for your Idiot in Chief and his failed policy in IRaq. Come on now,don't be a bunch of Rush Limbaugh/5 Deferment Dick Cheney P****s do the right thing and fight the rich Man's war. Otherwise, you might as well just vote Democrat like the rest of the CUT and RUNNERS

    8BALL----over and out

    THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT----THANK YOU FOR RUINING THE COUNTRY!

     
  • At 12:01 PM, Blogger Malott said…

    You make a great point - and I would add that liberalism hasn't nearly the following that conservatism has. Democrat politicians embrace it when it's time to vote on bills, but run from it on the campaign trail.

    Democrats can be clever, fashionable and many other popular things...

    But their political beliefs - socialism - military weakness - an anti-American kind of pseudo-patriotism... all these are losers.

    ...and no one wants to listen.

     
  • At 12:25 PM, Blogger Joe Smoe: American Citizen said…

    //Malott said...But their political beliefs - socialism - military weakness - an anti-American kind of pseudo-patriotism... all these are losers.

    ...and no one wants to listen.

    12:01 PM ///

    You are correct!! It is a good thing that we have had a healthy dose of Giving the country away to the corporations, Cronyism, Unilateral War and international Arrogance,Massive Debt owed to foriegn powers, War Profiteering,...the list goes on and on...and still even the RED State slackjaws know that the "GODLY" GOP and Bush have the nations best interests at heart and are unwilling to listen to opposing view pionts as they and their kind that supported the Iraq mess die in droves...yeah...right!

     
  • At 1:43 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    Fact checking the Reich-wing circle jerk.......

    PBS (Lehrer NewsHour): Republicans outnumbered Democrats on the NewsHour by 2-to-1, public interest groups accounted for just 4 percent of total sources, "stay the course" sources outnumbered pro-withdrawal sources more than 5-to-1, male sources outnumbered women by more than 4-to-1 and people of color made up only 15 percent of U.S. sources.

    ABC ran "Path to 9/11" without commercials in primetime. That alone is enough evidence that ABC is no bastion of liberal ideology.

    Acting as Bush's megaphone, AP and NBC repeated Bush's claim that Clinton's North Korea policy "didn't work," ignoring that NK halted plutonium production during Clinton's presidency.

    ABC and CBS made no mention that federal FBI agents raided the homes of Rep. Curt Weldon's (R-PA) daughter and her business partner, as well as four additional locations, as part of a reported investigation into whether Weldon improperly assisted their company...... but they DID run a piece on Reid's "land deal scandal".....

    And then on CNN, who has given 50 times more coverage to the Reid land deal than the Hastert land deal. 50 times. 3361 words on Reid compared to 65 on Hastert. Reid's deal was $700K. Hastert's was $2 million. And unlike the Reid land deal, Hastert is under investigation that he took official government action that led to his profit. Yet CNN has devoted extensive coverage to the Reid deal, while virtually ignoring the far more serious allegations against Hastert. Hastert is Speaker of the House, a member of the party that rules all 3 branches of government, made nearly 3 times the profit AND all very likely because of improper official action on his part, but Reid is the one getting strung up. Go figure. Must be because they love Reid so much that they just want to talk about him all the time.

    We can always go back to the non-stop playback of "The Dean Scream" that hit every network, over and over and over again for a week straight. I think it got almost 1000 plays. So where's the non-stop replays of Chris Shays (R-CT) saying Abu Ghraib was just a sex-ring?

    And even to this day CNN hosts consistently cower from challenging long-disproven WMD claims by administration officials, not to mention letting whoppers like this go unchallenged: "If Democrats are elected, we are in for two years of investigation, God forbid, impeachments, while the world is set on fire" (Glenn Beck).

    Doesn't sound like a liberal lovefest to me. And this list is just a drop in the ocean.

    If all this is what constitutes liberal bias to you, I would hate to think what you consider "fair and balanced" media.

    Want to know more? Ever had any respect for Cronkite?

    "Project Censored is one of the organizations that we should listen to, to be assured that our newspapers and our broadcasting outlets are practicing thorough and ethical journalism" - Walter Cronkite.

    Have a look at what he's talking about here. Or these people go to work everyday to research media accountability, so you might be interested in them too.

     
  • At 3:07 PM, Blogger THE RIGHT WING AGENDA said…

    BREAKING:Four U.S. soldiers accused of raping and killing a 14-year-old girl and slaying her sister and their parents will face courts-martial on murder charges, military officials say.

    This would have never have happened if it wasn't for the LIBERAL MSM never reporting any of the GOOD NEWS that is coming out of IRAQ!!!

    THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT...THANK YOU FOR DESTABILIZING THE MIDDLE EAST...ONCE AGAIN...THANK YOU!!

    8-BALL ---OVER AND OUT!

     
  • At 3:49 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    RWA,

    I will ask you once to obtain and use your own blog for any new material you want to post. Do not use my blog for unrelated information. I have been quite patient with your nonsense, but I can't think of many instances where your comments have had anything to do with my posts. You are welcome to comment on my posts. You are no longer welcome to use my blog for what you might consider "breaking news" that has nothing to do with what I posted about.

     
  • At 4:49 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    patriot,

    We could lob examples at each other all day long. I think reality is more complex than your description. It is not simply how many GOP, it is which GOP. If they have a panel of GOP consisting of RINO's like Chaffee or bumbling inarticulate buffoons it is not saying much. Or it could be noodle spines like Lindsay Graham. Or it could be politically multiple personality ones like McCain.

    As for what they report, it must include how they report it. What do they leave out? What picture do they leave in the viewer's mind? Did they report it the day it broke, or were they embarrassed into reporting it?

    Also, do networks add stories here and there as tokens so that such a list as yours can be made?

    Like I said, we could lob examples all day. The real question is what is the impression of the viewer? Are you seriously trying to tell me that the networks' coverage is in support of:

    - The War in Iraq
    - In favor of wiretapping Al Queda calling into the US
    - Rumsfeld's handling of the two war-fronts
    - Military tribunals for Gitmo prisoners
    - That our military is 99% great and honorable soldiers, but that there are a few bad apples
    - Cutting taxes
    - School Choice
    - Etc., Etc.

    If you think that the average viewer gets this impression from the networks, you are not living in reality. There is a continual stream of rejection, skepticism, ridicule, scorn and spin against the list above (and more)

     
  • At 1:06 AM, Anonymous patriot said…

    Your pathetic "argument" about "lobbing examples back and forth" is a weak and extremely feeble straw man.

    Yes AICS, it is YOU who are being clueless and paranoid and I dare say un-American when you spout crap like this:

    Like I said, we could lob examples all day. The real question is what is the impression of the viewer? Are you seriously trying to tell me that the networks' coverage is in support of:

    - The War in Iraq
    - In favor of wiretapping Al Queda calling into the US
    - Rumsfeld's handling of the two war-fronts
    - Military tribunals for Gitmo prisoners
    - That our military is 99% great and honorable soldiers, but that there are a few bad apples
    - Cutting taxes
    - School Choice
    - Etc., Etc.

    If you think that the average viewer gets this impression from the networks, you are not living in reality. There is a continual stream of rejection, skepticism, ridicule, scorn and spin against the list above (and more)


    Who gives a damn what "the average viewer" gets from a news broadcast? It's NEWS AND INFORMATION for pete's sake! In America, we're supposed to be independent and smart enough to make up our own minds. Media in a TRULY democratic and free society is not NOT NOT NOT NOT supposed to be a propaganda machine that props up the government. The only states that have ever had that kind of state propaganda have been totalitarian or dictatorial, which IS ABSOLUTELY NOT what this country is supposed to be about. How do you NOT get that? If you think Soviet-style propogandist media is what America needs, you need to leave America RIGHT NOW because you obviously don't believe in America's major belief and value system.

    Why should networks be for or against the war? They should just be reporting the TRUTH and REALITY. The purpose of the media is to report the truth and reality of what is happening there and about what people here and around the globe are truly thinking about it.

    Wiretapping? Who has said that we SHOULDN'T be wiretapping Al Qaeda? Provide names and direct quotes. However I know that you will be unable to do this because this is a ridiculous RNC fabricated LIE.

    Rumsfeld? How dare you talk about Rumsfeld's performance without EVER having served under him? What kind of an armchair general are you? Why not listen to Shinseki, Casey, Franks, etc, etc, etc......

    Military tribunals? You're not referencing the "Military Commissions Act of 2006" are you? Are you really ready to put your die-hard American values up against that? Habeas Corpus and Guilty Before Proven Innocent and all that? I'm very serious about this so think hard about your reply.

    Where have you seen ANY network denunciation of our troops? If you're saying this is happening you need to provide names and direct quotes.

    Why should the media come out in support of cutting taxes? Why should the media come out in support of ANYTHING? Once again I ask: isn't the media supposed to JUST REPORT THE FACTS? Otherwise it's just a big PR firm, 24/7. Regardless, the media played perfect lapdogs for Bush and his millionaires' tax cuts, otherwise those tax cuts wouldn't have passed, RIGHT?
    You are so painfully fact-challenged......

    School choice? What the hell is that? Anyone in America can send their kids wherever they want. They can even homeschool them if they want. It's always been that way. You got some documented evidence to the contrary? No, I didn't think so.

    "Etc, etc." -AICS

    Yeah, you're really on top of this one, aren't you?

     
  • At 7:17 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    patriot,

    in the middle of your pile of bull, you did have one good point:

    It's NEWS AND INFORMATION for pete's sake! In America, we're supposed to be independent and smart enough to make up our own minds

    By making this statement you showed that you completely missed what I was saying. It was not my contention that they should support anything. However, they go out of their way to show their lack of support. They don't want to report news and leave it to the viewer to decide. They want to make certain the viewer thinks what they want them to think.

    And your pathetic notion that it does not matter what the average viewer thinks is a joke. News people do not go into the business just to report facts. They want to "make a difference". One way or another they will shape what they report so the viewer or reader thinks what they want.

    If you think that the networks have a conservative slant, you live in another world and have no ability to view reality. Go ahead and call that pathetic if you wish. I wouldn't waste my time arguing they sky was blue either.

    It must be some liberal movement to try and fool people into believing that what they see and hear every day isn't really what they are seeing and hearing.

    Gee patiot, you seem wound a little tight. Must be feeling a Dem landslide victory slipping away from you.

     
  • At 9:23 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    School choice? What the hell is that? Anyone in America can send their kids wherever they want. They can even homeschool them if they want. It's always been that way. You got some documented evidence to the contrary? No, I didn't think so.

    patriot, if this is an imaginary issue, please tell the teachers and their unions that. They sure waste a lot of time and money fighting an imaginary issue.

    Once again you want to deny the existence of something so obvious it is not worth the rebuttal. And no, just like my "lobbing examples back and forth" was not an argument (straw man or otherwise) neither is this. I will not waste my time arguing what is obvious when you simply want to play games and imagine things are not what they truly are.

     
  • At 11:37 AM, Blogger THE RIGHT WING AGENDA said…

    FRESH FROM THE LIBERAL MSM TODAY:

    Poll: Half of Americans think GOP Congress is corrupt.

    Approval of Republicans at record low: poll

    AG: Voter warning linked to GOP campaign

    I think this Patriot guy has something ie THAT THE GOP AND BUSH ARE A BUNCH OF LYING AND CORRUPT RAT BASTARDS, that will stop at nothing to maintain power---seems like JOHN Q RED STATE MORON is starting to see this also.

    So why aren't you GOP Limpwrists in Iraq again??? Don't be a bunch of PANSY 5 DERFERMENT LIMPWRISTS and let some Liberal Defend your freedom.


    THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT THANK YOU FOR RUINING AND DIVIDING THE COUNTRY...ONCE AGAIN THANK YOU!!!!

    8-BALL----OVER AND OUT!!!!

     
  • At 12:26 PM, Blogger Joe Smoe: American Citizen said…

    Patriot,
    you have good points that you can substantiate and make a decent arguement from, but don't expect the Flush Limplard/ FAUX NEWS crowd here to give an inch as they will go down with the USS BUSH as it sinks to the bottom of the Corrupt/Lie infested cesspool that it created. They refuse to see that ALL that Bush and the GOP swear was TRUE and RIGHT is now nothing more than LIES and FALSEHOODS. Yes, the ROVIAN brand of Kool aid they swill is that strong.

     
  • At 12:59 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    RWA,

    I have told you once, now you are on fair warning. If you won't follow common courtesy and desist from using my blog to create nonrelated posts, I will remove them.

    patriot and Joe have the courtesy of writing in response to my posts and not using my blog for an E-Blast. I am sure you will cry foul and censorship. That is not censorship. Your comments are under the same category as Spam, which I already delete. Also adding one related line will not save your nonsense from the ax.

     
  • At 1:55 PM, Blogger Joe Smoe: American Citizen said…

    YOU DO WHAT YOU GOTTA DO PAL!!!

    Any and all can come to my blog and post what you want and it will stand WITH NO CENSORSHIP!!!!

    Ya, it would appear that when the heat comes down the pike and the GOP now longer has anything to run on, based on fact, the Josef Goebbels routine comes out, typical GOP!

     
  • At 2:01 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Joe,

    You forgot to post as RWA.

    And don't tell me you don't delete spam, either.

    When you post as Joe, I don't remove your comments. Because while we completely disagree, you actually comment in a related way instead of simply spamming me.

    When you post as RWA and simply spam me, it is not only a nuissance to me but very irritating to other readers. Along with the insurance and porn spam that I remove.

     
  • At 3:33 PM, Blogger Joe Smoe: American Citizen said…

    /// All_I_Can_Stands said...
    Joe,

    When you post as RWA and simply spam me,
    2:01 PM //

    Guess again pally..that ain't me. That clown comes to my site also and fills it with his Conceptual NON SEQUITERs.

     
  • At 5:05 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    It was not my contention that they should support anything. However, they go out of their way to show their lack of support. - AICS

    You're not being honest in your first sentence, and your second sentence was entirely and solidly rebutted by my entire post.

     
  • At 5:07 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    SCHOOL CHOICE

    AICS, as expected, you blustered a lot but did not provide any documented evidence of Americans not being able to choose where they send their kids to school, if they choose to send them to school at all.

     
  • At 5:26 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    in the middle of your pile of bull, you did have one good point...- AICS

    The devoted readership here should note that this completely flaccid and laughable response to my fully documentable post of facts can't even reasonably be called a rebuttal. Note that AICS didn't even bother to try to refute a single point with any kind of documented evidence to the contrary. Nothing but pure conjecture. Granted, I expected this kind of non-respondant reply, but even this is thin by usual AICS standards.

     
  • At 5:39 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    The devoted readership is assumed to have two eyes and ears. Upon using these when watching the average network news will realize the liberal bias with ease. This makes a rebuttal unnecessary. Why would I waste my time to prove something that is virtually axiomatic.

    As for the school choice issue, it is you that is being dishonest here. Anyone that is at least partially engaged in current events knows that the term "school choice" is not about being able to choose which school to attend. You know this and yet twice you dishonestly act as if that is what is at issue.

     
  • At 3:00 AM, Blogger Mark said…

    I'm walking my favored middle line here...

    Goes to show that two parties only is a horrible and worthless path...

    I'm not contributing to the discussion though...um...school choice: I don't have kids. I dunno, i support sending your kids wherever you want, even to boarding school. Nobody should tell me where to send 'em...Umm...I listen to talk radio on my sales trips. Hannity, a bit of Limbaugh, Boulder CO air america, that guy from Minneapolis...I yell at both sides. I agree and disagree with both at the same time.

    Two parties. Two sides. It's crap.

     
  • At 10:37 AM, Anonymous patriot said…

    watching the average network news will realize the liberal bias with ease. This makes a rebuttal unnecessary.

    No, it's just that you have zero evidence that contradicts the information I presented of a measurable, researchable "conservative" bias. Even by your regularly twisted attempt at logic your opinion doesn't make sense. You go on endlessly about how liberals hate corporations and are anti-capitalist. If that were true, why on earth would the vast corporate entities that are the major networks coddle and support the viewpoints of those who you say are obviously out to destroy them? I wish you luck in keeping your brain from exploding trying to answer this.

    As for the school choice issue, it is you that is being dishonest here. Anyone that is at least partially engaged in current events knows that the term "school choice" is not about being able to choose which school to attend. You know this and yet twice you dishonestly act as if that is what is at issue.

    This is so good, let's see it again.

    "school choice" is not about being able to choose which school to attend.

    Really? Seems like an obvious logical progression to me, but you appear to have a different take on it, though you have twice now weasealed away from saying what you think it is. Saying what it's not is weak.

    Why are you unable to speak for yourself? You constantly try to weasel out of being accountable for anything you say here by conveniently calling something "opinion" when you're asked to provide documentable support for your statements. And now you're squirming away from this issue by pretending that we're supposed to know what your brain is thinking when you say "school choice".

    Back to the meat, here's a really nice postscript for the original post:

    "This operation [FOX News] loses money. It doesn't lose nearly as much as it did at first, and it's -- well, it's hit all its projections in terms of, you know, turning a profit, but it's - it will lose money now, and we expect for a couple more years. I think it's losing about $80 million to $90 million a year."
    -Brit Hume

     
  • At 12:32 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    Looks like Joe has been busted. RWA/Joe seems to have a dual personality, both are incredibly wrong on most issues.

    I love it.

    LMAO

     
  • At 1:55 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    patriot,

    You are so predictable and you are making a fool of yourself. You continue to push for me to waste my time arguing for something that is virtually axiomatic. I am not sure of your age but perhaps you are too young to have watched news before the days of talk radio, Fox News and the Internet. The chronic frustration of watching newscast after newscast and reading newspaper after newspaper that only spewed the liberal ideology was truly more torture than anyone at Gitmo ever faced.

    As the original posts describes, when Rush Limbaugh pioneered conservative talk radio his overwhelming success was due to a gap in the market that he filled. You could not get conservative straight talk anywhere else. When Limbaugh pioneered writing his first book "The Way Things Ought to Be" it was a huge success, but the publisher was harshly criticized for allowing a conservative perspective from one so popular to be published. Both his show and his books blew the doors wide open for the avalanche of all things conservative that we have seen.

    Also in my post was the underwhelming response to Air America. Air America did not provide a product that was missing in the US. Air America version 2 that was announced this week will fail because of the same reason.

    How hypocritical of you to avoid the root of the arguments of my post and then rail against me for avoiding your nonsensical claim that the mainstram media is not liberal.

    Also, your pathetic avoidance of talking about what school choice really while hypocritically claiming I am weasling out of it is also laughable. You are too informed to not know what the school choice issue is to play stupid on this. You simply do not like the name of the issue. I have no interest in arguing about the name of an issue since I did not give it its name. It is simply what it is called. Your continued pretense of not knowing what the issue is, makes you look foolish. Why do I want to fix that dilemma for you? You got yourself in it. Get yourself out of it.

     
  • At 1:58 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    LA,

    Joe/RWA can deny if they want. If I did not know it I would not say it. I alluded to this some time back and he did not address it. It was not my intention to embarrass him, but this spam nonsense has gone on long enough. To accuse me of censorship is laughable.

     
  • At 5:23 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    AICS,

    //To accuse me of censorship is laughable.//

    The bottom line here is, it is your blog. You make the rules, it's your voice, your sword.

    You certainly let it go on a hell of a lot longer than I would have. Your patience is surpassed by none.

     
  • At 11:41 AM, Anonymous patriot said…

    Weak weak weak.

    You call Limbaugh "conservative straight talk" but it is widely documented to be quite a pack of misinformation if not outright lies most of the time, and when it is mere opinion, it is painfully hypocritical.

    So YES, when Limbaugh is what you call "straight talk" it seems you cannot be relied upon to provide anythin verging on truth that is verified by fact.

    Unless you want to say that "straight talk" is merely another term for "all talk, no music" then indeed, Rush is that.

    I pointed you to Media Matters for the very reason that I go there: I have no desire to watch endless Bush talking points spewed at me unchallenged by every major network on a daily basis, but Media Matters does, and they do statistical analysis of numbers and affiliations of guests, topic word counts, etc, etc. Statistical analysis. You know, that thing called science, that produces researchable results instead of hot-air conjecture and paranoid ravings like yours.

    I notice you conveniently avoid this like the plague:

    Even by your regularly twisted attempt at logic your opinion doesn't make sense. You go on endlessly about how liberals hate corporations and are anti-capitalist. If that were true, why on earth would the vast corporate entities that are the major networks coddle and support the viewpoints of those who you say are obviously out to destroy them? I wish you luck in keeping your brain from exploding trying to answer this.

    So here's what came up first when I Googled "school choice", got the CER page, went to the FAQ section and under the section "What is School Choice" this is the first sentence:

    The term “school choice” means giving parents the power and opportunity to choose the school their child will attend.

    Seems like exactly word for word what I wrote. Actually, what I wrote was this: Anyone in America can send their kids wherever they want. They can even homeschool them if they want. It's always been that way. You got some documented evidence to the contrary? No, I didn't think so.

    So what do YOU think school choice is if it's not this? Just like you, I have no time and no desire trying to Google around trying to find out what you mean when you could stop wasting everyone's time and just come out and say it. Stop being such a coward to say what your convictions are.

     
  • At 1:44 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    patroit,

    You simply can't tell the truth to save your life. You do a google search on "school choice" and almost every page addresses that the issue labeled "school choice" goes beyond simply choosing which school you want to attend. It is you who are the coward not wanting to name the real issue. I am not going to patronize you.

    You constantly harp on my weak arguments and avoiding what you view are great points. Basically you have one debate skill: name calling. Which is why arguing with you in detail is simply not worth my time.

     
  • At 2:06 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    Basically you have one debate skill: name calling. Which is why arguing with you in detail is simply not worth my time.

    This wasn't your attitude when we were having this discussion or this discussion. What changed? Calling your repeated refusal to commit to writing what YOU mean by school choice "cowardly" is hardly name calling. Calling you a Rethuglican knuckle-dragging mouth-breather would be name calling, but I don't do that.

    I've asked you to supply your definition of what YOU refer to as "school choice" simply because (1) this is YOUR blog full of YOUR opinions and (2) because there are several different interpretations. School choice to me is as simple as reading the two words in plain English, and yes, every American family can choose where they will send their kids to school, even if that school is in their own living room. "School choice" is also a verbal slight of hand that refers to a proposed program of "vouchers" that is nothing more than government welfare for religious schools. Pro-life to me is as simple as reading the conjunction in plain English, and means the concept of being in support of life, which everyone except pathological murderers adheres to. "Pro-life" is also a verbal slight of hand that refers to an ideology of government intrusion into the private lives of individuals. All I've done is ask you to commit to a definition.

    Still, this school choice argument is a distraction from the original intent of your post, which is to address the idea of liberal media bias, of which you have been able to offer zero statistical or factual evidence that there is a liberal media bias. This is in stark contrast to the ample evidence I immediately provided of a distinctly conservative media bias.

    I'm not arguing that "conservative" talk radio isn't successful, but its success is hardly "proof" that "liberal" talk radio has failed, especially considering the timeline. You compare Limbaugh and his 18 year career to Air America Radio (AAR) and it's 2 year career. Hardly a fair comparison, but I will still address your point. Simply because AAR is trying to survive having started with a bad investment and management team does not mean that "liberal" talk radio is dead let alone support the ridiculous assertion of "proof of liberal media bias." If you listen to AAR (I doubt you ever have, and rely mainly on second-hand anecdotes) you will find that much is said there that is not said anywhere else. Many AAR hosts and syndicates do quite well, namely Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz, who I believe regularly leaves O'Reilly and Hannity in the dust ratings-wise. Trying to say that the AAR bankruptcy filing - the filing of one business venture that is a common corporate reorganization practice - is proof of liberal media bias is ludicrous. Proof requires facts, not conjecture.

    Limbaugh launched during the Reagan years - a supportive time for his voice. AAR launched during total Republican control of government - an unsupportive time for its voice. Your post conveniently also neglects to mention Limbaugh's flagship: ABC. Funny how you lump ABC in with the "liberal media" but forgot to point out its hosting of Limbaugh.

    And still you continue to avoid the 900lb gorilla in the room, that despite your blog's name, your logic is deeply flawed:

    Logically, your opinion doesn't make sense. You go on endlessly about how liberals hate corporations and are anti-capitalist. If that were true, why on earth would the vast capitalist corporate entities that are the major networks coddle and support the viewpoints of those who you say are obviously out to destroy them?

     
  • At 9:40 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    patriot,

    Not much time tonight but:

    Name Calling:
    pathetic
    extremely feeble
    clueless and paranoid
    un-American
    armchair general
    painfully fact-challenged
    completely flaccid and laughable
    twisted
    weasel
    squirming
    hot-air conjecture
    paranoid ravings
    coward

    All of these descriptors were used by you in this exchange alone. We have had our best exchanges and I have appreciated your dialogue most when you leave this crap out, as represented by your examples. Yes, I engaged in the same rhetoric as a way to hold up a mirror to your method. Not my preferred way of talking.

    School Choice:
    Thank you for naming a major comoonent of what is called "school choice" by conservatives. I know liberals do not like the name, but I view a choice with a voucher that follows to the school of choice to go beyond simple choice. It makes it an empowered choice and a vehicle for competition.

    As for the religious school red herring, I would be satisfied with a competitive school choice voucher system that excludes religious schools. Limit it to the public schools. Or limit it to a percentage of time religious topics are not discussed. I don't see the religious schools as a problem, but I would make a compromise.

    Here are some of my posts on the subject:


    School choice 1
    School Choice 2
    School Choice 3

    Also, all of this school choice talk was because it was one item in my list that the MSM does not support. You are right they should not support anything. I can better state that my list of conservative items the MSM is openly hostile toward.

     
  • At 2:15 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    I'm glad you are finally willing to engage the school voucher topic, though I look more forward to you similarly engaging the headline topic of this post.

    Indeed, the "school choice" name to describe the voucher program is a sore point because as I said, it is a verbal slight of hand that is as dishonest as the "Clear Skies Initiative" which effectively promotes pollution. It is dishonest because it takes a very direct phrase and turns it into something other than its core meaning, effectively misleading those unwilling to pull back the curtain and dig deep into the project/program under discussion. A more honest way to discuss this particular topic would be to call it accurately for what it is: the school voucher program.

    That said, I don't recall any overarching hostility of the MSM to the school voucher program. Even your posts you cite are describing MSM reporting in favor of the voucher program. But if you've got some examples of this supposed MSM hostility, I'd like to see them.

    I appreciate your willingness to limit use of vouchers to public schools, but you and I both know that if given an inch, voucher proponents will take a mile and scream bloody murder that such a limitation amounts to no choice at all.

    Aside from the little problem of where the money for vouchers is supposed to come from, implementing voucher programs sends an unmistakable message that we are giving up on public education. The American system of public education is for all children, regardless of their religion, their academic talents or their ability to pay a fee, which is why public education is the backbone of American democracy. You and I know that voucher programs offer nothing of value to families who cannot come up with the rest of the money to cover tuition costs for private schools, so any argument that says voucher programs help all people is patently false.

     
  • At 10:05 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    patriot,

    I know you think my statement that we could lob examples of bias back and forth is weak. I did not intend that as proof or an argument. I just know the end game of that: hours and hours of searching on both sides to trump the other. I just don't have time for that.

    I recognize that there are some statements, coverage that at times seems to favor the conservative side. There are different types of media. In the news there used to be one type: reporters/anchors claiming to be neutral. With Fox News we now have a network that claims to be fair and balanced. I won't argue whether they are or not. I will say they are often too liberal for my taste.

    While in other media, some have thrown away the pretense of neutrality, in mainstream TV news and newspapers that is not the case. They still try to give the appearance of neutrality. So with thousands of reports you will see some small % that seems to favor conservatives. Even if this was 1% of the time, there would be enough to fill the pages of Media Matters. Over the years while watching the news even I once in awhile stop and say "Wow, I'm surprised they said that", or covered it a certain way.

    Just boil down the media to the reporters and anchors. Other than Fox and a few on MSNBC (and CNN's token Glen Beck) I am hard pressed to find many that are not liberal:

    Old Guard:
    Walter Kronkite
    Ted Koppel
    Peter Jennings
    Dan Rather
    Sam Donaldson
    Cokie Roberts
    Nina Totenberg
    Tom Brokaw
    Mike Wallace
    Andy Rooney
    Leslie Stahl
    Barbara Walters

    Newer Guard:
    Katie Couric
    Brian Williams
    Charles Gibson
    Anderson Cooper
    Tim Russert
    Jeff Cafferty
    Chris Matthews
    David Abrams
    Lester Holt
    Natalie Morales
    George Stephanopolos
    Andrea Mitchell
    Rosie O'Donnell
    Candy Crowley
    Meredith Vieira


    This is but a small list, but these are undeniably liberal. The rank and file in the media are almost entirely liberal.

    While there are some people who can go through life with no concern whatsoever with politics, I don't think media members are likely to be neutral in their personal life. I think if anyone has a political pulse at all, it is impossible to always "pretend neutrality".

    I also do not think anyone gets into news simply to report news. No, they want to have an influence on the world. How can one have influence by always being neutral. You cannot. You will either look for opportunities to insert influencial bias or you will be a dud on the screen.

    So in summary, news is comprised of people; people who are not likely politically neutral and are hungry to leave a mark of influence on the world. At least 80% whether they try or not exhibit liberal leanings. 15% are duds and at most 5% exhibit conservative leanings.

     
  • At 4:03 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    News teams are are comprised of human beings. I agree. Human beings have a general inability to be totally neutral in terms of how they view the world. If viewed in current political definitions as proscribed by speech and actions, Jesus would be a flaming loudmouth liberal. As a self-identified "conservative" Christian who constantly derides liberals and liberalism, does that reality bother you? I only ask to determine a point of context in this discussion. A context as to how you think the world really should function.

    News NETWORKS on the other hand are corporate entities and it cannot be argued that they do not act in support of and in concert with the dominant power structure of the time, currently corporatist capitalism. News could be vastly more hard-hitting and honest than it currently is. Witness the most recent blatant example of this when the ultimate Clintonite, George Stephanopolous did not directly challenge Bush the other night when Bush said "We’ve never been stay the course, George!"

    We've never been 'stay the course'? Are you kidding me??????

    So here you have one of your supposed uber-liberals not having the courage to remind Bush that he just lied through his teeth to the American people. I haven't seen any MSM headlines screaming in 38 point bold type "BUSH IS A LIAR". I've heard Keith Olbermann say it, but he is the only one. You might suggest there's something wrong with that, but it's a factual news item, so why shouldn't it be reported?

    I have trouble with FOX because it's hard to consider it a real news information channel. It's quite obviously a forum for many opinionated people to speak ABOUT news items of the day, but that's the lion's share of its broadcast: opinion.

    Therein perhaps lies the issue we're trying to get at here. The old addage "if it bleeds it leads" aptly describes how disconnected society is from itself, people separated from each other. Neilson Ratings drive news programmers and CEOs to demand bigger graphics and more shocking images and inflamed commentary. The snake eating its own tail.

    You're right, the back and forth on this will become rapidly tiresome and will likely lead nowhere productive, but I ask in all sincerity about your thoughts in relation to Jesus and his unmistakable liberalism. Seems like it could be a worthy headline topic for your blog.

     
  • At 7:20 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    patriot,

    Good comments. You make a good point on the individuals vs. corporate level. News corporations do not really make sense to me. Their actions are often going in many directions at once. One minute they seem to follow what "sells", the next they seem to throw the bottom line out the window, the next they are trying to repair the damage for throwing the bottom line out the window. Other times they try to slip their bias through every chance they get.

    As for the concept that Jesus is liberal, I can only imagine that it would take a severe misinterpretation of the Bible to come to that conclusion. The only possible reference I can think of is promoting assistance to the poor. I think this is great, but notice Jesus did not encourage such assistance through government. I would be glad to discuss this if you give me some points why you think Jesus is liberal.

     
  • At 11:51 AM, Anonymous patriot said…

    Those are strong words to say that it would be a "severe misinterpretation of the Bible" to come to the conclusion that by modern standards Jesus would be a liberal.

    Jesus rejected greed, violence, the need for strict orthodoxy, the glorification of power, the amassing of wealth without social balance, and the personal judging of others, their lifestyles and beliefs. Jesus asked us to believe in and live a spiritual and ethical life based in our essential, inherent goodness. What Jesus promoted was clear set of spiritual principals and a way of life based upon the tenets of love, compassion, tolerance, and a strong belief in the importance in giving and of generosity to those in need. These are all benchmark principles of what constitutes a liberal.

    Let the Bible speak for itself, starting with this:

    "There are six things the LORD hates – no, seven things He detests: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that kill the innocent, a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong, a false witness who pours out lies, a person who sows discord among brothers." [Proverbs 6:16-19]

    GREED: In the temple courts Jesus found men selling cattle, sheep and doves and other sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. [John 2:14 & 15.] Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. [Luke 12.15.] Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. [Matthew 19:23] You cannot serve both God and Money. [Matthew 6:24.]

    ON ISSUES OF PEACE AND DEALING WITH OTHERS: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. [Matthew 5:9] Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [Matthew 5:39] I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you; [Matthew 5:44]

    NEEDS NO INTRO: Thou shalt not kill [Matthew 5:21]

    BASIC ISSUE OF JUSTICE: Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. [Matthew 5:6] Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy [Matthew 5:7] But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. [Matthew 6:15]

    WE DON'T NEED PRAYER IN SCHOOL OR THE TEN COMMANDMENTS AT CITY HALL: And when thou pray, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou pray, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret… [Matthew 6:6 &7]

    COMMUNITY AND INCLUSIVENESS: Love your neighbor as yourself. [Matthew 22:39] So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you. [Matthew 7:12.]

    And yes, there are over 300 verses on the POOR AND SOCIAL JUSTICE: If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. [Matthew 19:21] But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13 &14.] Woe to those who enact evil statutes, and to those who continually record unjust decisions, so as to deprive the needy of justice, and rob the poor of My people of their rights... Now what will you do in the day of punishment, and in the devastation which will come from afar? [Isaiah 10:1-3]

    It's interesting that you bring up whether or not Jesus encouraged enactment of any policies in government. Aside from this being a moot point since there was nothing remotely similar to our modern system of government at the time of Jesus, isn't this supposedly what much of the clamour is today, about whether or not our government is operating and guided by moral, Christian values? This seems to be an extremely important thing to modern "conservatives." So it should naturally follow that if government were to proceed according to Christian values, we would have enormous government programs for the poor and infirm.

     
  • At 9:22 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Sorry about the severe misinterpretation comment. It did not come out the way I meant it.

    I'm going to need another day to get to this as I have guests tonight.

     
  • At 2:14 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Patriot,

    Very good essay even though I disagree with it. I will address the areas listed:

    Greed: Greed is neither restricted to the conservative or wealthy portions of society. A poor man and even a professor of UC Berkeley can be greedy. Greed should not be mistaken when viewing ambition and individual drive.

    Violence: I agree, but I can’t think why you associated this with conservatism.

    Glorification of power: again, neither ideology has the market cornered on this.

    Amassing of wealth without social balance: While Jesus words point out the danger that the acquisition of wealth places one in a spiritual position they think they do not need God; He does not speak against acquiring it. There are several examples in the Bible where through hard work and faithfulness to God great wealth was obtained and viewed as a positive thing: Job, Abraham and Solomon (though he later misused his wealth). There are even well to do characters in the New Testament: Joseph of Arimethea, Lydia, and Philemon; all viewed positively.

    Personal judging of others:
    I disagree with what I think you are alluding to. The judging spoken here is mostly referring to judging the internal motives of others when you can only see their outward actions AND speaking against the actions of others when you are guilty of worse shortcomings. In I Corinthians 5:1-5 there is a man guilty of sexual deviancy. Paul urges them to deal with the situation. John the Baptist, whom Jesus praised, called out Phillip for marrying his brother’s wife. The Bible is clear on issues of morality. Followers of Jesus in America are citizens with the right to vote and the right of speech freedom. Every citizen looks around him/her and determines what kind of country and society he wants to live in. They also have the right to push for laws that will create such an environment to live in – the same as those who disagree with them.

    Tenets of love, compassion, tolerance
    I am not sure where the tolerance comes in. Definitely love and compassion are strong part of His message. I don’t think these traits are owned by liberalism at all. While some conservatives (and liberals) fall short on this, so many of the conservatives I know are chock full of love and compassion. As for giving and generosity, I think conservatives are far more giving than liberals. Many studies I have heard of over the years of charitable giving habits show this. I know by personal experience that when I was once financially flat on my back, it was the conservatives around me who gave sacrificially to me to help me up. I have in turn repaid them by helping others when the need arises. I don’t think giving through government counts in this. Nor did Jesus ever express that the best channel of giving was the government. Also, love and compassion were “symptoms” of acceptance of Jesus’ core message. This core message was to denounce the outward deadness of religion practiced by so many in that time and replacing it with a worship of God in spirit and truth; this peace with God made possible by Jesus’ sacrifice to come.

    Peace: It is a common mistake that biblical peace is merely the cessation of war. Biblical peace is the cessation of war with God by the individual. Those who spread the message of Jesus are therefore the “peacemakers” who propagate peace between others and God by their individual choice.

    Thou shalt not kill: I agree, although I don’t see what this has to do with conservatives. If you are talking about war, war has always been sanctioned throughout the Bible. Never has taking of life on the battlefield been associated with killing/murder. As Ecclesiastes 3:8 says “…a time of war and a time of peace”

    Basic issues of justice: Not sure where you are going with this one. If you are saying that if a man commits a crime we should show mercy and give them light or zero sentence, I would disagree. There are times when on an individual basis a judge should take circumstances into account during sentencing. When such light sentencing (especially repeated for the same person) results in the criminal being free to harm society, that is not mercy. It is setting aside prudence.

    Prayer in public schools:
    First, I think that the concept of prayer in pubic schools is so low on my list, I am not even an advocate. I think we have come a long way from the one room school house days where the kids appreciate a prayer opening as normal. Today I think it would be so ridiculed as not to be worthwhile. However, I disagree with your interpretation of Jesus in this issue. He was certainly denouncing those who pray in such a way as to be seen or to make a spectacle of themselves. There are several public prayers in the Bible where an individual prays to God before a group. Solomon at the opening of the temple, Elijah on Mt. Carmel to call down fire. Jesus prayed before raising Lazarus from the dead and on the cross “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”.

    Love thy neighbor as thyself:
    As described above I don’t see this as a liberal trait. Liberals do not love or tolerate people like me, Ann Coulter, George Bush, Bill O’ Reilly, Rush Limbaugh. Liberal policies do not even show love to the poor as they avoid making them such that the poor as likely to be pulled out of poverty. Instead they keep them in a state where liberals are needed in the future.

    Jesus was no liberal. I don’t know if I would apply the word conservative to Him either. That would be taking a category and placing Him under it. I would rather take Jesus as The category and place conservatism under Him.

     
  • At 2:31 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    Barely time to reply and wishing this was important enough to you to be its own posting rather than a tag on an unrelated topic. To be expected, you parsed it into oblivion rather than looking at the big picture.

    Greed: Greed should not be mistaken when viewing ambition and individual drive.

    Greed is "a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed". Liberals have always been the champions of sharing, not selfishness. "Conservatives" regularly push to get and keep to themselves as much of the pie as they can, regardless of consequences to others.

    Violence: I agree, but I can’t think why you associated this with conservatism.

    When "conservatives" start actively and committedly supporting policies of diplomacy and start actively advocating for the poor (against economic violence), I will stop associating them with being the party of violence.

    Glorification of power: again, neither ideology has the market cornered on this.

    Liberals have always sought to empower the masses, which is definitely not a clarion call of "conservatives"

    Personal judging of others:
    When Jesus stood with Magdalene, what was he saying?

    I don’t think giving through government counts in this. Nor did Jesus ever express that the best channel of giving was the government.

    Again, Jesus could not have made any such suggestion at that point in history. Moot point.

    Love thy neighbor as thyself:
    As described above I don’t see this as a liberal trait. Liberals do not love or tolerate people like me, Ann Coulter, George Bush, Bill O’ Reilly, Rush Limbaugh.


    It's unfortunate you consider yourself in the same league with subhuman cretins like Coulter and Limbaugh. These people are hypocrites first and foremost, abject serial liars second, and for thirds they advocate killing Supreme Court justices, assassinating government officials and they openly mock 9/11 families and the clinically ill, all to turn a buck and hear themselves talk. Sure, they won't likely be invited to keynote the DNC, but their freedom of speech is defended despite whatever deserved ridicule is heaped on them.

    Liberal policies do not even show love to the poor as they avoid making them such that the poor as likely to be pulled out of poverty. Instead they keep them in a state where liberals are needed in the future.

    Besides being false, it is pure paranoia. Show me some vote tallies that support this opinion of yours and we'll talk.

    I would rather take Jesus as The category and place conservatism under Him.

    That would make me incredibly happy if it were the case, but I don't buy it. I see too much pain and suffering and divisiveness in the USA, and it has only increased under the "conservative" rule of the last 6 years.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home