Useful Idiots

[carlfense]

I do agree with Husker_x there, at least to some extent. I still don't know that I buy into everyone calling the media totally biased, but I do know that at least 80% of the people I talked to in 2005, a time-frame when I was really trying to figure out who I was politically, that considered themselves conservatives or libertarians were unhappy with W. Bush. To clarify though, the conservatives that I'm referring to are essentially libertarians with a religious bent. I know for a fact that those attitudes weren't covered by the media. I'm not willing to say, at this point in my life, that it's because of media bias. I think it could be explained by a number of things. I'm more willing to say that those attitudes were like rising lava in an active volcano, and that they've only recently erupted. They've taken the shape in the form of the tea parties, and that's what the media has covered because it's newsworthy. I know I face a lot disagreement on this stance, but I simply don't consider mainstream Republicans to be conservatives. I'm talking about the Republicans carlfense referred to in his Teddy Roosevelt post like a month ago. They're Republicans, sure, but they're far from conservative in many ways. I will agree that those Republicans never criticized W. Bush; my mom is one of them. My dad and I though, my dad being a conservative, and I a libertarian, constantly criticized the Patriot Act every time it was brought up in family conservations.

***snip***

I fully agree that many conservatives or libertarians were unhappy with Bush. However, these people were not particularly outspoken about their beliefs. They didn't rally, they didn't march on Washington, etc.

 

The left leaning opponents of Bush DID do these things . . . so naturally the media covered them.

 

All I'm saying is the blind rage that the tea baggers exude didn't come out when Bush was drastically increasing the deficit . . . when Bush was wasting trillions of dollars on a witch hunt for WMDs . . . when Bush was drastically curtailing personal liberties in the name of patriotism . . . etc. That rage was reserved for when a black Democratic president pursued equally ridiculous follies. To me . . . that is hypocrisy. To you . . . it might not be. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

 

Now before I get accused of being horribly biased, I agree that I don't think Obama is any better. We'll see how his presidency looks over time but I am unimpressed at the moment.

First, the term "tea bagger" is an offensive pejorative term esoteric pseudo-intellectuals like to use because they think it's cute.

 

Second, the projection of racism just because some disagree with another's policy just because the person is black is old, tired, and beyond the pale which either implies ignorance, or trying to get a cheap pop. Democrats should be the last people to lecture anyone about race with their track record in history.

 

I can point to hundreds of op-eds and articles in conservative publications which criticized the Bush administration for the Patriot Act, his stance on amnesty for illegals, and Congess' penchant for their spending practices when it came to debt. Why do you think Republicans suffered huge losses in 2006? The establishment wasn't listening to the voter's concerns and as a result, they stayed home at election time.

 

The tea party movement sprang up from the disgust stemming from the Wall Street bailouts and the government takeover of businesses. The movement wasn't even focused on Obama until Congress rammed through a "stimulus" bill totaling nearly $1 trillion without even reading it. It's the constant ramming massive spending bills through Congress without debate is what has their ire up. Bush added over $4 trillion to the national debt within 8 years in office. Obama will reach that mark in just 4 years. Link

 

2009 $1.845 trillion

 

2010 $1.379 trillion

 

2011 $970 billion

 

2012 $658 billion

 

Obama promises to cut the deficit in half in four years, and the $658 billion projected deficit in 2012 certainly accomplishes that, but it is still $200 billion more than Bush's record-large budget deficit of $458 billion in fiscal 2008. If you add up only the first five years, 2009-2013, you find that the national debt explodes by almost 50%. This unprecedented spike in the national debt will greatly exacerbate concerns on the part of our largest foreign buyers of Treasury debt, not to mention the downward pressure it will create on the US dollar and further upward pressure on interest rates.

 

It's pretty bad when Warren Buffet has a better credit rating than the federal government.

 

March 22 (Bloomberg) -- The bond market is saying that it's safer to lend to Warren Buffett than Barack Obama. Two-year notes sold by the billionaire's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in February yield 3.5 basis points less than Treasuries of similar maturity, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Procter & Gamble Co., Johnson & Johnson and Lowe's Cos. debt also traded at lower yields in recent weeks, a situation former Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. chief fixed-income strategist Jack Malvey calls an "exceedingly rare" event in the history of the bond market.

 

The $2.59 trillion of Treasury Department sales since the start of 2009 have created a glut as the budget deficit swelled to a post-World War II-record 10 percent of the economy and raised concerns whether the U.S. deserves its AAA credit rating. The increased borrowing may also undermine the first-quarter rally in Treasuries as the economy improves...

 

While Treasuries backed by the full faith and credit of the government typically yield less than corporate debt, the relationship has flipped as Moody's Investors Service predicts the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K. America will use about 7 percent of taxes for debt payments in 2010 and almost 11 percent in 2013, moving "substantially" closer to losing its AAA rating, Moody's said last week.

Many of those people protesting lived through the Carter years with interest rates in the 20 percentile range and stagnating inflation in the upper teens. It's the uncertainty of whether or not they'll be employed due to misguided government intrusion and what kind of debt they will leave their children is what has their dander up.

Personally, I think the tea bagger moniker is both appropriate and hilarious. I agree with many things the tea party stands for but on an individual level many of the members are completely uninformed and filled with an unfocused rage. Have you ever stopped to listen to the things they say? Anything they disagree with is "Unconstitutional!!!! (DAMMIT!!!)" We wouldn't have this problem without those "damn elitists!!" (right . . . if only we'd elect some uneducated people.) And then they proceed to worship the founding fathers like they are deities. (Which is ridiculous . . . they were MEN. They had some good ideas, they had some bad ideas.) Finally . . . they cling to the concept that the US is a christian nation, despite all evidence to the contrary. (Check out the Treaty of Tripoli. It was voted on by Congress in 1796 and it specifically says that the US is a secular nation.)

 

Anyways. Long story short, there is plenty to ridicule about the tea baggers. I have several of them in my family. Unfortunately, I have firsthand knowledge that there is a racial bias in at least some of the tea party movement. You can be as upset as you want, but I don't throw the race thing around lightly. However, when the shoe fits, the tea party should wear it.

[knapplc]

There's a video floating around where some grad student went and interviewed the Tea Party people protesting at the White House recently. They were completely uninformed on the healthcare bill, and basically just mouthed what Glen Beck spits out. I'll dig it up when I get home.

 

I have no problem with the Tea Party movement in principle. I am definitely in favor of more people watching the nonsense our government pulls off. But uninformed opinions, especially when they're so vocal, don't fix anything. In fact, they often just make the problem worse.

 

We need to pull together here. We need to stop focusing on our differences and focus on our similarities. We're building deep divides over philosophical differences that amount to a hill of beans when you boil life down to what 99.9% of people want: A decent job, food on the table and a safe place to raise our kids. Who doesn't want that? You can't tell me there isn't a way to achieve these things without all this rancor.

[carlfense]

There's a video floating around where some grad student went and interviewed the Tea Party people protesting at the White House recently. They were completely uninformed on the healthcare bill, and basically just mouthed what Glen Beck spits out. I'll dig it up when I get home.

 

I have no problem with the Tea Party movement in principle. I am definitely in favor of more people watching the nonsense our government pulls off. But uninformed opinions, especially when they're so vocal, don't fix anything. In fact, they often just make the problem worse.

 

We need to pull together here. We need to stop focusing on our differences and focus on our similarities. We're building deep divides over philosophical differences that amount to a hill of beans when you boil life down to what 99.9% of people want: A decent job, food on the table and a safe place to raise our kids. Who doesn't want that? You can't tell me there isn't a way to achieve these things without all this rancor.

 

Exactly. And the tea party people seem to be just as uninformed as the "Hope and Change" Obama crowd.

[jnkyrdoff6]

There's a video floating around where some grad student went and interviewed the Tea Party people protesting at the White House recently. They were completely uninformed on the healthcare bill, and basically just mouthed what Glen Beck spits out. I'll dig it up when I get home.

 

I have no problem with the Tea Party movement in principle. I am definitely in favor of more people watching the nonsense our government pulls off. But uninformed opinions, especially when they're so vocal, don't fix anything. In fact, they often just make the problem worse.

 

We need to pull together here. We need to stop focusing on our differences and focus on our similarities. We're building deep divides over philosophical differences that amount to a hill of beans when you boil life down to what 99.9% of people want: A decent job, food on the table and a safe place to raise our kids. Who doesn't want that? You can't tell me there isn't a way to achieve these things without all this rancor.

 

Exactly. And the tea party people seem to be just as uninformed as the "Hope and Change" Obama crowd.

Maybe so. I'm not a tea party goer or anything, but I do agree with some of their stances. I don't think Glen Beck is a libertarian, even though he says so sometimes. I don't watch him that often though. I think really, you're going to find that people are equally uninformed in every party. It's really not possible for anyone to be all-knowing about anything. I came across a website about a year ago that made the claim that the IQ distributions of registered Democrats was something like 115, and that of registered Republicans was something like 95. But, if you dissect it, it's really not possible. If you put it on a Bell curve or any other standard distribution, it would mean that like 30% of registered Republicans are mentally handicapped. I can see how the attitudes of the tea party members might rub some people the wrong way. From what I gather, they probably think they're extremely informed. I can see how that can be seen as them trying to rub it in others' faces. Some of their stances are definitely bogus, in my opinion, but at least they're trying to follow the government like Knapplc said.

[walksalone]

Television, the idiot tube, helps to raise our children as fools, Watch the news see what they want you to see, our awareness is limited by network tv, Moronic sit-coms and one-sided news alter your feeling give you conformist views

[sarge87]

I do agree with Husker_x there, at least to some extent. I still don't know that I buy into everyone calling the media totally biased, but I do know that at least 80% of the people I talked to in 2005, a time-frame when I was really trying to figure out who I was politically, that considered themselves conservatives or libertarians were unhappy with W. Bush. To clarify though, the conservatives that I'm referring to are essentially libertarians with a religious bent. I know for a fact that those attitudes weren't covered by the media. I'm not willing to say, at this point in my life, that it's because of media bias. I think it could be explained by a number of things. I'm more willing to say that those attitudes were like rising lava in an active volcano, and that they've only recently erupted. They've taken the shape in the form of the tea parties, and that's what the media has covered because it's newsworthy. I know I face a lot disagreement on this stance, but I simply don't consider mainstream Republicans to be conservatives. I'm talking about the Republicans carlfense referred to in his Teddy Roosevelt post like a month ago. They're Republicans, sure, but they're far from conservative in many ways. I will agree that those Republicans never criticized W. Bush; my mom is one of them. My dad and I though, my dad being a conservative, and I a libertarian, constantly criticized the Patriot Act every time it was brought up in family conservations.

***snip***

I fully agree that many conservatives or libertarians were unhappy with Bush. However, these people were not particularly outspoken about their beliefs. They didn't rally, they didn't march on Washington, etc.

 

The left leaning opponents of Bush DID do these things . . . so naturally the media covered them.

 

All I'm saying is the blind rage that the tea baggers exude didn't come out when Bush was drastically increasing the deficit . . . when Bush was wasting trillions of dollars on a witch hunt for WMDs . . . when Bush was drastically curtailing personal liberties in the name of patriotism . . . etc. That rage was reserved for when a black Democratic president pursued equally ridiculous follies. To me . . . that is hypocrisy. To you . . . it might not be. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

 

Now before I get accused of being horribly biased, I agree that I don't think Obama is any better. We'll see how his presidency looks over time but I am unimpressed at the moment.

First, the term "tea bagger" is an offensive pejorative term esoteric pseudo-intellectuals like to use because they think it's cute.

 

Second, the projection of racism just because some disagree with another's policy just because the person is black is old, tired, and beyond the pale which either implies ignorance, or trying to get a cheap pop. Democrats should be the last people to lecture anyone about race with their track record in history.

 

I can point to hundreds of op-eds and articles in conservative publications which criticized the Bush administration for the Patriot Act, his stance on amnesty for illegals, and Congess' penchant for their spending practices when it came to debt. Why do you think Republicans suffered huge losses in 2006? The establishment wasn't listening to the voter's concerns and as a result, they stayed home at election time.

 

The tea party movement sprang up from the disgust stemming from the Wall Street bailouts and the government takeover of businesses. The movement wasn't even focused on Obama until Congress rammed through a "stimulus" bill totaling nearly $1 trillion without even reading it. It's the constant ramming massive spending bills through Congress without debate is what has their ire up. Bush added over $4 trillion to the national debt within 8 years in office. Obama will reach that mark in just 4 years. Link

 

2009 $1.845 trillion

 

2010 $1.379 trillion

 

2011 $970 billion

 

2012 $658 billion

 

Obama promises to cut the deficit in half in four years, and the $658 billion projected deficit in 2012 certainly accomplishes that, but it is still $200 billion more than Bush's record-large budget deficit of $458 billion in fiscal 2008. If you add up only the first five years, 2009-2013, you find that the national debt explodes by almost 50%. This unprecedented spike in the national debt will greatly exacerbate concerns on the part of our largest foreign buyers of Treasury debt, not to mention the downward pressure it will create on the US dollar and further upward pressure on interest rates.

 

It's pretty bad when Warren Buffet has a better credit rating than the federal government.

 

March 22 (Bloomberg) -- The bond market is saying that it's safer to lend to Warren Buffett than Barack Obama. Two-year notes sold by the billionaire's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in February yield 3.5 basis points less than Treasuries of similar maturity, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Procter & Gamble Co., Johnson & Johnson and Lowe's Cos. debt also traded at lower yields in recent weeks, a situation former Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. chief fixed-income strategist Jack Malvey calls an "exceedingly rare" event in the history of the bond market.

 

The $2.59 trillion of Treasury Department sales since the start of 2009 have created a glut as the budget deficit swelled to a post-World War II-record 10 percent of the economy and raised concerns whether the U.S. deserves its AAA credit rating. The increased borrowing may also undermine the first-quarter rally in Treasuries as the economy improves...

 

While Treasuries backed by the full faith and credit of the government typically yield less than corporate debt, the relationship has flipped as Moody's Investors Service predicts the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K. America will use about 7 percent of taxes for debt payments in 2010 and almost 11 percent in 2013, moving "substantially" closer to losing its AAA rating, Moody's said last week.

Many of those people protesting lived through the Carter years with interest rates in the 20 percentile range and stagnating inflation in the upper teens. It's the uncertainty of whether or not they'll be employed due to misguided government intrusion and what kind of debt they will leave their children is what has their dander up.

Personally, I think the tea bagger moniker is both appropriate and hilarious. I agree with many things the tea party stands for but on an individual level many of the members are completely uninformed and filled with an unfocused rage. Have you ever stopped to listen to the things they say? Anything they disagree with is "Unconstitutional!!!! (DAMMIT!!!)" We wouldn't have this problem without those "damn elitists!!" (right . . . if only we'd elect some uneducated people.) And then they proceed to worship the founding fathers like they are deities. (Which is ridiculous . . . they were MEN. They had some good ideas, they had some bad ideas.) Finally . . . they cling to the concept that the US is a christian nation, despite all evidence to the contrary. (Check out the Treaty of Tripoli. It was voted on by Congress in 1796 and it specifically says that the US is a secular nation.)

 

Anyways. Long story short, there is plenty to ridicule about the tea baggers. I have several of them in my family. Unfortunately, I have firsthand knowledge that there is a racial bias in at least some of the tea party movement. You can be as upset as you want, but I don't throw the race thing around lightly. However, when the shoe fits, the tea party should wear it.

Secular or not....

 

Diplomat Joel Barlow was instrumental in the negotiation and drafting of the Treaty. My understanding is that Barlow was a religious skeptic, and he inserted the text which was intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. The Article 11 text looks more like an olive branch of appeasement than a declaration of secularism. My guess is that Barlow didn't want to give the impression the US was intent on reigniting the Crusades which were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291 between Christians and Muslims.

 

It never fails though who use the Treaty of Tripoli as their defense for the US being a secular nation but always seem to ignore the Treaty of Paris of 1783 which predates the aforementioned Tripoli Treaty. This Treaty, negotiated by Ben Franklin and John Adams among others, is truly a foundational document for the United States, because by this treaty, Britain recognized the independence of the United States. The Treaty begins with the words, "In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity... ," and there is no dispute about its validity or its wording.

 

Then there's the passage in the Declaration of Independece which reads.....We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. This governmental philosophy is uniquely American. The concept of Man's rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief in their Divine origin. Lacking this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept. God-given rights are sometimes called Natural Rights--those possessed by Man under the Laws of Nature, meaning under the laws of God's creation and therefore by gift of God. Man has no power to alienate--to dispose of, by surrender, barter or gift--his God-given rights, according to the American philosophy. This is the meaning of "unalienable. One underlying consideration is that for every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty--for every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility; so that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty-Responsibility. There is a duty, or responsibility, to God as the giver of these unalienable rights: a moral duty--to keep secure and use soundly these gifts, with due respect for the equal rights of others and for the right of Posterity to their just heritage of liberty. Since this moral duty cannot be surrendered, bartered, given away, abandoned, delegated or otherwise alienated, so is the inseparable right likewise unalienable. This concept of rights being unalienable is thus dependent upon belief in God as the giver. This indicates the basis and the soundness of Jefferson's statement (1796 letter to John Adams): "If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis of their own government it is our case . . ."

 

You make an excellent point when you note that the disputed Article 11 says the government of the United States is not founded upon the Christian religion. However, the government is not the nation, and the government of the United States is not the same as the state and local governments. In adopting the First Amendment, the Founders clearly intended that there be no established religion at the national level, but they left the states free to have their own establishments. A primary reason for the adoption of the First Amendment establishment clause was the different establishments at the state level -- Congregationalists in New England, Anglicans in the South, Baptists in Rhode Island, Catholics in Maryland, Quakers in Pennsylvania, etc... This does not mean that the American social/political network was not founded with Christian principles of mind, or that the peoples of America were not Christian to some degree; it merely addresses the government of America.

 

I think the question here should be; "Was our nation founded upon the concept of natural rights or does our rights originate from the government?" Because I can tell you there's a growing sect of the American political spectrum believes there's no such thing as "God given or immutable rights" only rights derived by the good graces of government which can be given or taken away by a 50+1 vote.

 

 

On to the race issue...

Unfortunately, I have firsthand knowledge that there is a racial bias in at least some of the tea party movement.

So a small minority does a movement make? If that were the case, then the Democratic Party should be called the Klan Party since there is a current sitting Senator who was a Grand Exalted Cyclops of the KKK, who was at one time the Majority Leader of the Senate, and is still a revered member of that body. The Klan and the Democratic Party were synonymous. Are the Revs. Wright, Jackson, and Sharpton indicative of all black people when they have spewed anti-Semitic rants in the past, but yet they are revered as leaders of their movement? With every movement there will be small pockets of idiots.

 

Check out these racists.....

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=PcsnWLLdl70

 

 

I'll just leave you with the esoteric rantings of the festering boil on America's backside.

 

[carlfense]

The Treaty of Paris? Really?

 

First, the Treaty of Paris was signed by 3 (count 'em . . . THREE) people representing the United States. Remember that the Treaty of Tripoli was UNANIMOUSLY approved by all 339 Congressional votes AND signed by the president. Advantage: Treaty of Tripoli.

 

Second, the words at the beginning of the Treaty of Paris are arguably nothing more than an oath or affirmation noting the solemnity of the occasion. There is no such ambiguity about the plain language of the Treaty of Tripoli's claim of the status of the United States as a secular nation. "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion . . ." Clear enough, no? Advantage: Treaty of Tripoli.

 

Third, your quoted passage from the Declaration of Independence is focused on man . . . not on a deity. The only part that even references religion is only included to segue into the listed rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Remember again . . . "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. . . " was unanimously approved by Congress.

 

Fourth, you are not correct in stating that the establishment clause does not prohibit state level religions. The Supreme Court found that the 1st Amendment was applicable to state governments. ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education ) The relevant part states that "the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_clause )

 

Finally, I guess you can make the argument that the "nation" of the United States does not reference or include the government. However, if you do intend to make that argument you certainly wasted your time citing treaties made by the government, government documents, and the Constitution.

 

Regarding the racism present in many of the most outspoken tea baggers . . . I know what I've seen and heard. I'm not saying that they are all racist, but it's certainly present in the local groups that I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears.

 

In the spirit of closing with an unrelated video I will leave you with a hilarious Jon Stewart impression of Glen Beck.

[Husker_x]

I almost pissed my pants watching that Jon Stewart video. Funny sh#t.

[knapplc]

I almost pissed my pants watching that Jon Stewart video. Funny sh#t.

 

 

It's funny and sad all at the same time. I have grave concerns over the rhetoric coming from the likes of Olbermann, Beck, Coulter and Limbaugh. Every year they all get further and further from the middle, and their audiences continue to grow. People need to be wise enough to stop watching and believing this crap.

 

There has to be a threshold where people say, "OK, Glenn, I've followed you this far, but no farther. You've gone loony on this one." But it seems like the critical analysis necessary for that thought is lacking in far too many people.

 

Maybe people are just watching these blowhards for the entertainment value and the words they say don't stick in their psyche. I'm afraid that's not the case, though.

[Husker_x]

I almost pissed my pants watching that Jon Stewart video. Funny sh#t.

 

 

It's funny and sad all at the same time. I have grave concerns over the rhetoric coming from the likes of Olbermann, Beck, Coulter and Limbaugh. Every year they all get further and further from the middle, and their audiences continue to grow. People need to be wise enough to stop watching and believing this crap.

 

There has to be a threshold where people say, "OK, Glenn, I've followed you this far, but no farther. You've gone loony on this one." But it seems like the critical analysis necessary for that thought is lacking in far too many people.

 

Maybe people are just watching these blowhards for the entertainment value and the words they say don't stick in their psyche. I'm afraid that's not the case, though.

 

I like Beck in that he's a constitutionalist and a small government proponent, but that's about it. He spends far too much time inventing conspiracies and using threadbare logic to connect events. As a skeptic I live my life by the maxim that where stupidity is a sufficient explanation for something, maliciousness and conspiracy aren't necessary. I wouldn't go as far as some to say that Beck is faking it. I think he believes mostly everything he says, and he does have a deep respect for the founders. From there everyone is free to make up their own minds.

[carlfense]

I almost pissed my pants watching that Jon Stewart video. Funny sh#t.

 

 

It's funny and sad all at the same time. I have grave concerns over the rhetoric coming from the likes of Olbermann, Beck, Coulter and Limbaugh. Every year they all get further and further from the middle, and their audiences continue to grow. People need to be wise enough to stop watching and believing this crap.

 

There has to be a threshold where people say, "OK, Glenn, I've followed you this far, but no farther. You've gone loony on this one." But it seems like the critical analysis necessary for that thought is lacking in far too many people.

 

Maybe people are just watching these blowhards for the entertainment value and the words they say don't stick in their psyche. I'm afraid that's not the case, though.

 

Yes. It seems that you can't get a television or show now unless you are extreme left wing or extreme right wing. Unfortunately, these wacko conspiracy theorists are popular. Unfortunately, many viewers don't grasp that it's cheap theater designed to separate them from their money. Unfortunately, people ignore thoughtful newsmen who refrain from shouts of Marxism! Leninism! Nazism! Sadly, I think the days of newsmen like Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert are gone. It's a damn shame.

[knapplc]

Meh. I can find something I like in the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, Olbermann, Coulter and any other talking heads we can come up with. It's just the vitriol that goes along with it, the infused hysteria into already serious topics that I find fault with. Well, that and the ever-increasing gap between Left and Right that these idiots inspire.

 

It's like we're all sitting in a tree, and these fools are shouting at the woodcutters, "CHOP FASTER!" Sooner or later we're all going to fall if people keep listening to them.

[Husker_x]

Meh. I can find something I like in the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, Olbermann, Coulter and any other talking heads we can come up with. It's just the vitriol that goes along with it, the infused hysteria into already serious topics that I find fault with. Well, that and the ever-increasing gap between Left and Right that these idiots inspire.

 

It's like we're all sitting in a tree, and these fools are shouting at the woodcutters, "CHOP FASTER!" Sooner or later we're all going to fall if people keep listening to them.

 

The other thing that we all need to keep in mind, particularly regarding TV and specifically cable news, is that ratings and profit are the bottom line. America has been in a constant state of crisis––or so we're told––for about fifty years, maybe longer. The world is constantly on the brink of utter annihilation. At least that's the impression I get from watching cable television. And the reason obviously isn't that we're on the brink of collapse; it's that its damn good television to pretend we are. That's not to say there aren't problems, even serious ones. The Bush/Obama spending spree could actually lead to a financial disaster, but we've had one of those before, too, and we're still here to talk about it.

 

My favorite book on this subject is Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. It's a short book written in the 80s about the dreadful impact of news and politics evolving into entertainment. If anyone gets a chance, don't miss reading this one.

[carlfense]

Meh. I can find something I like in the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, Olbermann, Coulter and any other talking heads we can come up with. It's just the vitriol that goes along with it, the infused hysteria into already serious topics that I find fault with. Well, that and the ever-increasing gap between Left and Right that these idiots inspire.

 

It's like we're all sitting in a tree, and these fools are shouting at the woodcutters, "CHOP FASTER!" Sooner or later we're all going to fall if people keep listening to them.

 

The other thing that we all need to keep in mind, particularly regarding TV and specifically cable news, is that ratings and profit are the bottom line. America has been in a constant state of crisis––or so we're told––for about fifty years, maybe longer. The world is constantly on the brink of utter annihilation. At least that's the impression I get from watching cable television. And the reason obviously isn't that we're on the brink of collapse; it's that its damn good television to pretend we are. That's not to say there aren't problems, even serious ones. The Bush/Obama spending spree could actually lead to a financial disaster, but we've had one of those before, too, and we're still here to talk about it.

 

My favorite book on this subject is Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. It's a short book written in the 80s about the dreadful impact of news and politics evolving into entertainment. If anyone gets a chance, don't miss reading this one.

I'm going to head to the library right now.

[knapplc]

Yeah, very much agree on that, x. It's getting so that you can't watch anyone anymore because you can't believe what they're hyping isn't for ratings rather than straightforward, real news. You have to diversify your intake, and use common sense to glean what truth you can from the muck. It's pretty hard, even for someone cynical enough not to believe any of them.