posted
Funny...I tend to think democrats are horrible at leading and governing nationally...I mean...They've had the majority in congress and the senate for two years and what's happened since then?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I'd be more inclined to believe that the reason the Democrats haven't done much in the last 2 years is that they were better off biding their time until this year when they could win the executive branch and the legislative branch. Actually doing, or trying to do, anything in the last 2 years might:
1. Have been blocked by an executive veto. There are not enough votes in congress to override the veto.
2. Have made Bush look good, if it had worked.
3. Have made them look bad, if it had not worked.
Nope. They were much better off biding their time...
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Funny...I tend to think democrats are horrible at leading and governing nationally...I mean...They've had the majority in congress and the senate for two years and what's happened since then?
You found out that they can't do much if they can't override veto or vote for cloture in the senate?
Seriously, the 110th congress (what we have now) passed the record number of filibusters before they were even halfway to the 111th. The GOP has reached record levels of 'vote obstructionism,' as they say.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The media as a whole aren't liberally biased. They'll follow whatever angle will give them the best ratings.
I think 24 hour news networks as a FORMAT are to blame, rather than any political bias. The 24 hour news cycle forces them to make the tiniest things into news that really should be left alone. We're a hypersensitive nation because of it. I think they need to have 8-10 hours of dead air. If something really big DOES happen, then cut in. Otherwise, informercials as far as the eye can see.
But come on guys, we're a LOT better off than a hundred years ago. Now news outlets are so afraid to call a spade a spade for fear of being labled biased that they pretend everything is valid and never bother to say anything outright is right or wrong.
As far as Democrats vs. Republicans? That's tough to really nail down. First off, I thin Christine and Samp nailed it on the head. First off, Democrats can't get anything they really want passed because you don't just need a Senate majority, you need what they call a SUPERmajority to invoke a cloture motion and bring the vote to the floor. Until Dems get to 60, or close to it, they might as well be a minority. Besides, Bush still has the veto pen and he's not afraid to use it. Combine that with the fact that I think Dems WERE in fact biding their time for a more favorable outcome. This year was a perfect storm for Dems, and if it holds out for two more weeks, they might get everything they wanted. They'll be able to run the table for two years at least, and 2010 isn't a much more favorable year for GOP than this year is.
I think both sides have shown ineptitude at running things, but Republicans have by far been the best example of poor short sighted government in the last decade. I think Dems have good ideas and good intentions with bad political plays that make them look ineffective. I think Republicans have awful ideas and good intentions and they are great at getting them passed.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to mention the GOP downvoting a bill supported by a standing president of their own party that received a majority vote from the opposition... You think maybe, just maybe the Republicans are being a tad obstructionist this Congress?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any media source that attempts to present the facts as they find them rather than make them up ala Rush Limbaugh, gets accused of liberal bias. As best I can tell, reality has a liberal bias.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or, if your side doesn't have any good news to be reported, and there is not much bad news to be reported on the other side, instead of doing better, just blame the media.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems unsurprising to me that the media as a whole is biased "liberal" given that the media employs a disproportionate number of the type of people that graduated from a faculty of arts rather than say engineering or business.
Heck, if you want to get picky, the media is disproportionately university educated (and probably white too).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It seems unsurprising to me that the media as a whole is biased "liberal" given that the media employs a disproportionate number of the type of people that graduated from a faculty of arts rather than say engineering or business.
Heck, if you want to get picky, the media is disproportionately university educated (and probably white too).
Shouldn't we then be able to look at media bias in other countries then? Comparatively speaking are the news agencies in Indonesia more liberal than the average Indonesian conservative?
Are newspeople in The Netherlands clinically insane with liberalism? Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The media is filled with people who graduated in the humanities and had enough family money to endure poverty wages during their apprenticeship period. And the national media skewers towards the bigger name schools, so a lot come from privilege to begin with.
So they mostly come from privilege, graduated in the humanities, and chose a profession that likes to think of itself as high-minded and isn't going to make you rich. Of COURSE there's a liberal bias.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade: Well, using an American scale, very probably. I think pretty much everyone would look too "liberal" But in general, I was more talking about the US and Canadian situation.
The type of forces that push certain people into humanities and certain people into engineering or technical fields are slightly different in other countries systems.
For example, in Canada engineering, technical, and medical fields are disproportionately filled by children of immigrants or recent immigrants, which has consequences on their representation in other fields. On the other hand, this particular effect obviously doesn't really take place in China.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a slight tangent. Consider the fact that our politicians are disproportionately lawyers. On the other hand, the leader in China is in hydraulic engineering (the previous one was in electrical engineering) and the premier is a geologist.
This has subtle and not-so-subtle consequences.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
The problem with this study, as with all studies of this nature, is in difficulty in objectively define what is liberal and what is conservative and to determining the neutral point in the spectrum.
This study determines the neutral point by using the ADA ratings of Senators to estimate where the average is for the American people. So the first problem with this study to the presumption than unbiased equals centrist. Historically its very easy to find examples where most of us would agree that the centrist position, the majority position was heavily biased. Consider for example the history of racism and sexism.
Second we have to consider the meaning of the word biased. The free online dictionary defines biased as simply "favoring one person or side over another". By that definition there isn't any thing wrong with being biased, everyone who make a decision or chooses sides, ever, under any circumstances is biased. But I don't think that's what most people mean when they accuse the media, or say "climate scientists" of being biased. I think people are most connotation is that of this webster's dictionary definition.
quote:Systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others.
Its one thing to try to determine where the mass median position lies, it is an entirely different thing to determine whether or not that position is neutral or influenced by some shared irrational prejudice held by many people in the society.
Finally, this study compares sources used in the media to sources sited by Senators of various political bents and finds the most media sources are very slightly more likely to use the same sources as left leaning politicians than those of right leaning politicians. The problem here is that there are least two possible interpretations of this finding.
The first, which supports the conclusions of the study, is that the media selects these sources because of those source support the preconceived liberal notions. i.e that the media is guilty of a sampling bias.
The second alternative, however, is that the media use some other criteria for selecting its sources (such as verifiability by an additional source) and that this criteria just happens to favor sources used by liberals over those used by conservatives.
Consider for example the climate change debate. The overwhelming majority of the scientific experts support the conclusion that the climate is changing and the human activities are the cause. There are two interpretations of this 1) the facts support this conclusion and 2) nearly all scientists share an irrational prejudice for this answer. The methodology used in this study would come to the same conclusion regardless of which answer was true.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the definition of biased is very relevant. And at least by most standards of "bias" that I hear today, I think the media should be biased. They should endorse candidates they feel are qualified. They should tell the truth and tell us why. Trying to sit on the fence and pretend that all candidates and all issues are equal is nonsense. Frankly, when our leaders are doing something bad I want to know about it and I don't want the stigma of media bias to get in the way of that.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the definition of biased is very relevant.
Exactly! There is nothing inherently wrong with choosing sides. The problem comes when you selectively ignore facts because they don't support the side you've chosen.
There are issues that are in fact value judgements and there are issues that can be resolved based on study of the facts. Take for example the issue of welfare. Whether or not society in general, or the federal government specifically should care for the poor is an value issue. Whether or not a specific program is effective and efficient in caring for the poor is an issue of fact. The problem arises when individuals or organizations allow their value based judgement of whether government should or should not be helping the poor to skew their perception of the whether government welfare programs are actual efficient and effective.
What I'd like to see is a study that compares those two issues. If we look at climate change for example, is the media disproportionately reporting studies that support a liberal position? In this case I know the answer and it is no. In fact even although the media has of late been favoring reports that support the liberal environmentalist stance, the media is still disproportionately reporting studies that question the validity of climate change. The media bias on this one actually favors the conservative position over the scientific fact based position.
If we look at welfare, for example, is the media disproportionately reporting studies that find government welfare to be efficient and effective? If so, is that bias consistent with expert review of the veracity of the studies or a reflection of media prejudice? I don't know the answer on this one, but I'd like too.
Or if we look at the abortion issue. Whether or not you think a fetus is fully human and deserving of legal protection is a value issue. The differences between a fetus, a tumor and a viable child are not. The question of whether legal exceptions for the Mothers health are frequently abused mixes the two with the question of what constitutes a legitimate health concern being a value judgement and the issue of how frequently abortions are justified for different types of health issue being a question of fact. If the media is allowing their value based judgement on abortion to distort the factual information they present, that's a problem. If they take a position but still present all the facts objectively, that's not.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: On a slight tangent. Consider the fact that our politicians are disproportionately lawyers. On the other hand, the leader in China is in hydraulic engineering (the previous one was in electrical engineering) and the premier is a geologist.
This has subtle and not-so-subtle consequences.
One of my best friends graduated from Purdue last year with a degree in civil engineering and is currently at grad school for her (I think) Masters of International Engineering, which includes two years in the peace corps. Other than myself, she's the most hyperpolitical person I know, and I tell her at least once every other month that she needs to get into politics when she gets back from the PC. I think Congress would be better served by having a larger cross section of the population in it, and by having a wider array of professions. It's one thing to bring in a panel of experts, but I think it'd be a lot better if we had engineers working on pieces of legislation that deal with infrastructure, or if we had doctors working on legislation dealing with the healthcare system. First hand experience is different than listening to someone else talk about it.
And yet my friend continues to say she won't get involved in politics, even though I know she'd love to be in government, because she hates the horse race, she hates the politicking, and so do I. I know of no way really to get more professionals, more non-lawyer professionals anyway, into government. That's one thing that absolutely has to come from the ground up, it can't come from any kind of law or reform. I think part of the problem is that lawyers are more political on average than any other profession, and as a result slide more easily into politics whereas doctors, teachers and engineers scoff at the process and wash their hands of the whole thing. It requires a fundamental change in the way we do and view things.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The media is 100% liberal anti-american, anti-family, anti-religion, anti-marriage, anti-morals, anti-values! Can we make the media a crime? Or at the very least, in defense of good people, fire them all and replace them with fair, good, honest people?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I think Congress would be better served by having a larger cross section of the population in it, and by having a wider array of professions.
Indeed. Although in my case, I guess it would be Parliament. I guess I'm doubly annoyed on the issue because Chinese Canadians are hit doubly on this issue, being out-"politicianed" by much smaller ethnic groups for a variety of issues including self-segregation into many of the professions that are under-represented. Plus, there is a cultural thing against politics.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I know of no way really to get more professionals, more non-lawyer professionals anyway, into government. That's one thing that absolutely has to come from the ground up, it can't come from any kind of law or reform. I think part of the problem is that lawyers are more political on average than any other profession, and as a result slide more easily into politics whereas doctors, teachers and engineers scoff at the process and wash their hands of the whole thing. It requires a fundamental change in the way we do and view things.
quote:Exactly! There is nothing inherently wrong with choosing sides. The problem comes when you selectively ignore facts because they don't support the side you've chosen.
My view. The Media has always been biased one way or the other. The problem arises where the facts are being distorted grievously by the media source.
That said, clearly Fox News is not liberally biased, if you can call it journalism.
</cheap shot>
EDIT: As for the constitution? The US Constitution, though a venerable, crucial, amazing and groundbreaking document, is an elderly one. It does not cover anywhere near as much as ground as more modern constitutions have and do and wasn't written in a time where people were more (note: that says "not more") enlightened than we are now. It may be wrong.
Not only that, it may not change as fast as it could. I do not know my American history but it seems to me there are many situations in the past where amendments dragged behind not just on the majority of the people but also on the movement of the times.
I could be wrong, but was slavery outlawed before it was popularly opposed?
EDIT 2: OSC is right, however, that the judiciary seems to have a lot of power in deciding what laws is, but I think it's partially to do with what I mentioned above. The constitution is more of a guidance document, not a legal one. It is the more detailed laws that judges should be ruling on, not the constitutions general guidelines.
He's also right that journalists in America despite apparent extensive university training (or perhaps because of for some reason?) do not seem to uphold the rigorous level of real news in most outlets. This is also true to an extent with Canada. Important changes and details and truths seem to slip by journalists when they shouldn't, comedy shows do a better job of being the fourth estate etc.
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: ... My view. The Media has always been biased one way or the other. The problem arises where the facts are being distorted grievously by the media source.
Agreed. In my view, all media is biased if only because their respective demographics and viewing audience is biased (and honestly, probably prefers it that way). In some ways, I rather prefer open disclosure where the media openly reveals their biases and strives to be non-biased.
In other ways, I wonder if our media carries its own (not exactly worse, just different) dangers.
I've had some interesting insight into how some interact with and view the media in China. There the media is blatantly biased, but the people know its biased and the result is a sort of cat and mouse game. "I know that you know that you shouldn't trust me. But do you know that I know that you know ..." And its interesting to see the games that people play and (for example) some of the in-family stories of mid-level government officials listening to foreign radio to get the other side of the story.
Here, often people carry the dangerous assumption that that there is no bias (... because our media is segregated and competitive). But ultimately, the media reflects the biases of the people that write the news and of the people that they're trying to sell to.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's quite true that both sides have good intentions. However, who displays more sanity, integrity, and common sense? Neither extreme.
In a general sense, you'll notice conservatives are more willing to behave with blatant insincerity (yes, I know about the exceptions). They're also more likely to be willing to advocate violence, and are often quite serious. However, occasionally, when listening to NPR, I have to roll my eyes at the obvious spin.
I'd have to say that I think a slightly liberal bent (liberal as compared to what might be politically average in the U.S.) at this point in time in US history (maybe the last 30 years) is probably the most reasonable position. However, some countries are probably too liberal, on average. In some countries/times, a slightly conservative (versus the average at that stage) stance is probably the most reasonable.
This reminds me of OSC saying that he considers himself middle of the road, simply because he gets about 50/50 on the hate mail, half implying he's too liberal, the other half the other way. Well, guess what? A big chunk of the OSC reading audience is LDS. They're more conservative than average. I guarantee that random polling of the US population would show that he's right-of-center on most issues.
The question is, how do you bootstran yourself out of a groove if you're not even aware of your natural bias, because your immediate environment and/or peers passively encourage it?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"This is total crap. Bush has used the veto FAR less than any president in modern history... "
There was a Reublican-controlled congress for the first 6 years of his administration. That made it pretty unnecessary to use it. Now the Democratic majority in Congress is too small to force through veto-proof legislation. Bush has even threatened vetoes plenty of times. I've heard it on the news. How are you not hearing about those instances? Do you not watch/listen to/read the news?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That speaks more to congress not being able to get through the stuff he would want to veto than him being unwilling to veto.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Lyrhawn said: "Besides, Bush still has the veto pen and he's not afraid to use it."
This is total crap. Bush has used the veto FAR less than any president in modern history...
Like others are saying, that has a lot more to do with the fact that his own party controlled Congress for the first six years of his presidency. Since he was working with them, it was pretty much a no brainer that they wouldn't pass legislation he wouldn't like, and in six years of Republican control, he only vetoed one bill of theirs, on Stem Cell research. He's also on record has having threatened to veto 40 different bills in those first six years, and Republicans backed off every time. I could only see a total of ten vetoes with two attempted pocket vetoes that were disputed, but 9 of those vetoes came during the 110th Congress, when the Democrats were in control. Now, pretend that Democrats had been in control for all eight years and that this was an average for each Congress, you'd get 36 vetoes for his presidency, which, not including pocket vetoes, puts him EXACTLY equal to Clinton.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somebody hand lobo some ice packs. That beating must have produced some aches and pains that need them, right lobo?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Media coverage of John McCain has been heavily unfavorable since the political conventions, more than three times as negative as the portrayal of Barack Obama, a new study says.
How and why one does a study on the positive and negative coverage of a particular person and how one draws meaningful conclusions from that study is beyond me.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swear words are a crime against humanity. There are good words and bad words. Only good words should be used, bad words are like a cancer of the mind that eat the soul. When I die I will be happy because I will no longer be around humans who use the evil versions of poopoo, caca, dang, oh darn, and fudge (not the wonderful sugary desert! Maple Walnut for me!)
ACORN and Barack Obama are very bad for you me and them. I sleep well at night knowing that God will punish them for their sins!
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Like others are saying, that has a lot more to do with the fact that his own party controlled Congress for the first six years of his presidency. Since he was working with them, it was pretty much a no brainer that they wouldn't pass legislation he wouldn't like, and in six years of Republican control, he only vetoed one bill of theirs, on Stem Cell research. He's also on record has having threatened to veto 40 different bills in those first six years, and Republicans backed off every time. I could only see a total of ten vetoes with two attempted pocket vetoes that were disputed, but 9 of those vetoes came during the 110th Congress, when the Democrats were in control. Now, pretend that Democrats had been in control for all eight years and that this was an average for each Congress, you'd get 36 vetoes for his presidency, which, not including pocket vetoes, puts him EXACTLY equal to Clinton.
Lets look a bit deeper: During Clinton's first two years, the dems controlled congress - He vetoed nothing. During Clinton's second two years, the repubs controlled congress - He vetoed 17 bills. During Clinton's third two years, the repubs controlled congress - He vetoed 8 bills. During Clinton's fourth two years, the repubs controlled congress - He vetoed 11 bills.
During Bush's first two years, the dems had the senate, the repubs had the house - He vetoed 0 bills. During Bush's second two years, the repubs controlled congress - He vetoed 0 bills. Druing Bush's third two years, the repubs controlled congress - He vetoed 1 bill. During Bush's fourth two years, the dems controlled congress - He vetoed 10 bills.
So, if you are going to average the vetoes based on when the other party was in control, bush would have 10 (you say 9 – I counted 10) times 4 = 40 vetoes and Clinton would have (17+8+11)/3 = 12 times 4 = 48.
This is not even taking into consideration the first two years where the dems conrolled the senate.
This is hardly the hallmark of a president who “has the veto pen and [is] not afraid to use it."
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well okay, I submit to your math there. I'd forgotten about those first two years when the Dems were in control, but frankly, an 8 veto difference over 8 years isn't that big a deal, and both fall within the relative decline of veto use over the last 40 years or so. FDR vetoed like 450 bills. John Q. Adams didn't veto any. These things, thus far, ebb and flow, but an eight veto difference? Not a big deal.
quote:This is hardly the hallmark of a president who “has the veto pen and [is] not afraid to use it."
That's entirely subjective and requires a much, much deeper look into legislation passed over the last two years. If we grant that in general, presidents of the last 16 years (Clinton and Bush) don't veto any or at least very, very, very little legislation from their own party (1 bill in 8 years if single party control through both administrations), then we should focus most of our attention on what bills are being passed when there is dual party control, when controversial bills are more likely to come across his desk.
In order to prove that my statement is false, you'd have to look at every piece of legislation that the Democrats passed in the last two years that Bush ideologically should have or might have vetoed but chose not to for whatever reason. Presidents don't veto stuff just for the hell of it, they do it because they don't like the bill. The majority of the bills he has vetoed have been either Iraq war measures or stem cell research or similar stuff. So how many of those types of bills that he was opposed to did he actually sign into law? There have been presidents in the past who have signed legislation into law even when they didn't like it because they were nervous about the usage of the veto.
Bush isn't one of them. You're trying to use just the number as the sole determining factor, but you have to take a lot of others things into account when you look at a president's veto usage to decide whether or not they used it liberally or not. How many more times do you think he would have used it if Republicans hadn't been able to filibuster unwanted legislation in the Senate? It's stuff like that that gives you a real idea of what his numbers could have been if not for surrounding circumstances.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Your posts are unacceptable. I don't have the time to police every post of yours -- bring them in line on your own. Stop the language (changing a couple letters without changing the word means it's still not ok), and stop the personal, character, and broad sweeping attacks. While your posts do garner responses, they don't encourage positive productive discussion. You are welcome to disagree with whatever/whomever you like if it's done within the user agreement. Please start showing some respect for people, especially those who are members of (and proprietors of) this forum.
you should also allow people's personal attacks against me to be meaner because I totally deserve it like take the I, screenwriter thread, for example, where I think my 'unacceptable' attitude might have come from.
I do believe that my previous posts before here were very acceptable, but when I said "I think I may have written something great' I got a lot of personal attacks, not your writing is lousy, but 'you are a joke'.
I have been accused of being ignorant, stupid, retarded, a waste of space, and so idiotic there is no way I could be human, so this must be true.
i will now obey the majority and only agree saying things like
'Excellent point!"
Any inside word on when the sequel to Empire comes out?
I can't wait!
I think all people who everyone likes should write more!
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marijuana is indefensible! All the evidence the government has compiled in 60 years has shown that marijuana is bad for towns, countries and the world. It leads to murder, car wrecks, rape and the hatred of all things holy. I think that if someone is ever caught with the reefer, they should have to work on the chain gang until all the money used to study the harmful effects of marijuana is paid back!
In 60 years, in hundreds of studies by totally neutral scientists, not one single positive benefit has ever been found! We should get harder on these druggies. Life in prison maybe?
And oh how the media promotes marijuana!
They always have the stoners be the funny guys who like nature! We must take a stand against this horrible subversion of our entire community!
There are a lot of problems in the world today, and the marijuana druggies are not working! We need to make them work! There is a lot of work to be done, they should somehow help fix the problems that marijuana has become!
It is time for good people to get together and take back our world! We must get harder, tougher, stricter and more zero tolerance with these people!
Let's show them we mean business!
We must use all resources possible, stay vigilant, and do everything we need to do until all the marijuana is removed from the planet and we have won the war on marijuana criminals!
Never surrender!
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gee you're right there mr. unicorn feelings. I see now that obviously overblown mocking sarcasm and vapid post-editing is the mature response to being told to cool it.
I would have never known otherwise. keke.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem isn't with vetos by themselves, which are after all a constitutional power of the president.
The problem is with the "signing statements" which are completely unconstitutional, and yet are used by Bush as if they have the force of law. Bush signs the law but attaches a statement next to it that he doesn't feel bound to obey it. Yay, how nice.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sarcasm isn't particularly cool, Thor. And I really had hopes that you were going to kick the MJ habit this time out.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
