[Vision2020] rosy future for rabid liberal at loose ends?
lfalen
lfalen at turbonet.com
Tue Nov 9 17:38:19 PST 2010
Regarding your last sentence. You are better than most on the V, but occasionally we all lapse into being personally derogatory when we should try to keep it, just to the issues.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: keely emerinemix kjajmix1 at msn.com
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 21:19:03 -0800
To: jampot at roadrunner.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] rosy future for rabid liberal at loose ends?
>
>
>
>
> Here's the point, Gary -- Using your scenario below, and pretending I'm Martha, I'd be wrong to just holler that John is stupid. I may think he is, for whatever reason, but his roofing ideas aren't, in and of themselves, evidence of it, and that approach doesn't get anyone anywhere with any degree of civility. Further, I might, instead of calling him a moron, make my own compelling arguments that cedar shake are a better roofing choice for us; that way, whether he's an idiot or not, I come off reasonably solid in argument and in character, and that would be a reasonable debate -- one marked with civility and also with reason-based arguments grounded in fact.
>
> But if I were to advance my argument -- either on its own or in response to John's -- by saying, "I think it'd be fun to go without a roof this year," or by saying, "Let's go with composite, because Uncle Leo has one, and he's a really sharp dresser," I would not be making a reason-based argument grounded in fact. Worse, if John were contending for metal roofs and I falsely insisted that metal roofs cause acne, lead to scurvy, and promote grotesque sexual debauchery besides, I would be acting not only unreasonably, but would be demonstrating bad faith. It would be worse, even, if I lied about metal roofs to a viciously angry cedar-shake lobby that had demonstrated previous animus, and very real threats, to the metal-roof makers of the world.
>
> I see that sort of thing more often in Fox than I do in MSNBC, and probably more often on MSNBC than I see on the three networks' news programs. Tom provided us with an excellent example earlier today (thanks, Tom!) of a demonstrably false assertion perpetuated against Obama by a Fox correspondent, and it's hardly the first time. Frequent Fox guest Pat Buchanan, for example, cannot seem to grasp anything positive (and very little true) about a country turning demographically a bit more brown, and while that's encouraging to nativist and racist elements who cheer him on, I don't know that it contributes anything to the studied analysis of emerging social problems. Sean Hannity, like Bill O'Reilly, has had enormous success milking the fears of Christians by railing against silly things like "the war on Christmas," and I think that's cheap, tawdry, and shameful, particularly given the very real persecution that Christians in other countries face, and those of other faiths !
who are
persecuted by Christians. And that Fox has hired the obnoxious and inane Sarah Palin as a commentator is surely not something you would applaud, because if I were concerned about Fox's suffering at the hands of "liberal elitists," I'd want to avoid, then, the hiring of someone who aspires to public office and is defined by good looks, a zingy personality, and an utter inability and disinclination to grasp the political and social issues of the day -- that's my opinion, based on her demonstrated avoidance of policy debate in favor of platitudinous screeching. If that offends you, then please direct me to a solid, conservative interview, writing, or debate originating from and spoken by Ms. Palin that demonstrates a solid grasp of the issues addressed.
>
> While I'm a liberal, I'm hardly an elitist; I think being a homemaker with a BA in journalism earned 30 years ago doesn't make me any more "elite" than anyone else I encounter, and in this town a whole lot less so. But because I favor liberal points of view in politics and society -- generally, not always -- doesn't mean that I think liberals are smarter than conservatives. What I said is that I see network conservatives faltering on the "reasonable, fact-based argument" component, and engaging in shameful fear-mongering, more than I see liberals do the same. I stand by that.
>
> It's no cause for shame to not be as bright as someone else, but bad character and conduct, neither the provenance of right or left, is always shameful.
>
> Keely
> www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
>
>
>
>
> From: jampot at roadrunner.com
> To: kjajmix1 at msn.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] rosy future for rabid liberal at loose ends?
> Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 17:07:32 -0800
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I understand perfectly well that
> the thoughts you expressed were YOUR OPINION. They were remarkably similar to
> the opinions Rose expressed last week. And those regularly expressed by
> Hanson, Deco, Clevenger, Smith, Cambell, etc. along with many others who
> have nothing to do with this forum. I get it. FNC is evil. People who watch it
> are "less intelligent" then those who look to more progressive news outlets for
> information. The information they ingest is inaccurate and their understanding
> is in some way flawed. I understand that this is your opinion. It seems to
> be a popular one and you're entirely welcome to it.
>
> Please allow me to highlight MY
> OPINION. It is that when the progressive fall back position in any
> conversation is a variation on "Conservatives, whether it be those on FOX or
> those who watch it, are stupid" very little that is productive will come of
> it.
>
> Picture this:
>
> John: I think we should replace the
> roof this year, its starting to leak.
>
> Martha: I
> agree.
>
> John: I think we should use
> metal.
>
> Martha: I think we should use cedar
> shake.
>
> John: Metal will last longer,
> be less expensive, and be more fire resistant.
>
> Martha: You're a
> moron!
>
> John: ...?
>
> Where do you think that
> conversation is going?
>
> g
>
>
>
>
> From: keely emerinemix
> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 3:57 PM
> To: jampot at roadrunner.com ; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] rosy future for rabid liberal at loose
> ends?
>
> It would seem to me that you would understand that what you've
> highlighted is MY OPINION. I have offered to you an opinion -- my own --
> and my hope would be that you would respond to it with an opinion that
> highlights where we agree or where we disagree. Instead, you've apparently
> decided that my having the opinion, which you obviously disagree with, is the
> issue here.
>
> THAT seems to be, in my mind, a pretty big barrier to
> productive conversation.
>
> Keely
> www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: jampot at roadrunner.com
> To: kjajmix1 at msn.com;
> vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] rosy future for rabid liberal
> at loose ends?
> Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 00:59:20 -0700
>
>
>
>
>
> " I find Fox'
> analysis and perspective to be much less intelligent, accurate, and reasonable
> than that of even the most strident MSNBC pundits."
>
> Really? Well there we have it then.
> The unmistakable essence of the progressive mind set and perhaps one of
> the the biggest barriers to productive conversation. The elitist (why
> does that ring a bell?) notion that they just must be right
> because they imagine that those with whom they disagree are ever so much less intelligent and
> unreasonable then themselves. Is it any wonder that common ground is
> so difficult to reach when the opening salvo from the left is so utterly
> dismissive and contemptuous? When newly elected Republican members of congress
> are seated and they feel precious little inclination to compromise with their
> democrat counterparts it most assuredly won't be difficult to understand
> the reason why.
>
> g
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: keely emerinemix
> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 10:30 PM
> To: jampot at roadrunner.com ; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] rosey future for rabid liberal at loose
> ends?
>
> Truthfully, I'd have to say that it's the "established" media,
> print and broadcast, who bring the most bias-free coverage, specifically NBC (my
> preferred network source), ABC, and CBS; and Time and Newsweek. Now, I
> love Mother Jones and The Progressive, but I wouldn't presume to try to persuade
> you that they're editorially even-handed. And they don't need to be, just
> as Fox and MSNBC don't need to be perfectly unbiased -- they offer analysis and
> commentary from differing perspectives, which is not only obvious but also by
> design. Nonetheless, I read them, just as I read (courtesy of Roger) The
> National Review and the Wall Street Journal. It's good to get all sides of
> an argument, but it's also important to discern what's news and what's
> discussion. They both have their place, but they're not at all the same
> thing.
>
> Sadly, it seems that fewer and fewer Americans understand
> that. And I think that of the two, MSNBC and Fox, it's Fox that more
> portrays itself as a "news" organization, and it isn't; putting it another way,
> I think Fox viewers are far more likely to feel suspicious of the networks as
> well as to believe -- sincerely but mistakenly -- that what they get from Fox is
> news, as opposed to commentary. Further, I find Fox' analysis and
> perspective to be much less intelligent, accurate, and reasonable than that of
> even the most strident MSNBC pundits. I prefer MSNBC's Rachel Maddow to
> Keith Olbermann, and Olbermann to virtually anyone ever featured on Fox, but not
> even I would suggest that MSNBC is without bias. I just think it's much
> less without fear-mongering and jingoist bigotry than Fox, and that's important
> to me.
>
> Keely
> www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: jampot at roadrunner.com
> To: kjajmix1 at msn.com;
> vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] rosey future for rabid
> liberal at loose ends?
> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 19:47:10 -0700
>
>
>
>
> And I would suggest that you are in
> error. While I don't for a second believe that what is broadcast on programs
> such as The Factor, Glenn Beck's show, or Hannity qualifies as news, I don't
> believe that the brass at FOX would try and have you buy it either. On the other
> hand segments such as News Watch, Fox News Weekend, America's Newsroom, and Fox
> Report with Shepard Smith are as objective as anything on broadcast television.
> I also believe that On the Record with Greta Van Sustren (no conservative, her)
> and Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace does a good job of delivering objective
> information with balanced analysis. Dismissing FOX because you disagree with a
> few of their talking heads is as silly as a conservative rejecting everything
> reported in the NYT because of its demonstrated editorial slant. If there is a
> news source that brings absolutely no baggage to its reporting I'd love to hear
> about it.
>
> g
>
>
>
>
> From: keely emerinemix
> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 6:47 PM
> To: jampot at roadrunner.com ; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] rosey future for rabid liberal at loose
> ends?
>
> Hey, if Olbermann knowingly violated his employers' policies, he
> got what he ought to have gotten. No scandal there.
>
> But the
> question of Fox News being "fair and balanced" obscures the real point,
> which is whether or not Fox News is really "news." I don't think we need
> to have the lexicography battle that we've been having over "to bear," but no
> one who's ever produced, studied, or benefited from real journalism -- real news
> gathering and news reporting -- would seriously suggest that Fox is "news" in
> any way, shape, or form.
>
> Fox News is nothing more than "Open Mic
> Night" in a room full of culturally insecure, frightened and naive Christian
> conservatives trying to earn the respect of the swaggering rich, important guys
> across the bar. The rich guys drink better beer and drive more expensive
> cars, but the Religious Right has some really attractive sisters they bring to
> the ball, and that makes everyone in the room fast friends -- to the enrichment
> of the guys operating the microphone.
>
> Keely
> www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: jampot at roadrunner.com
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Sat, 6 Nov
> 2010 12:01:46 -0700
> Subject: [Vision2020] rosey future for rabid liberal at
> loose ends?
>
>
> Anybody care to speculate on how
> long it takes for unceremoniously sacked MSNBC hack, Keith
> Olbermann to swallow what little pride he may have left and accept
> a position along side Alan Colmes, Mara Liasson, Juan Williams, Bob
> Beckel, Kirsten Powers, Susan Estrich, Tammy Bruce, Pat Caddell, etc. over
> at what appears to be the only fair and balance news source, FOX? The idea
> of watching him on Sean Hannity's show makes me laugh just thinking about
> it.
>
> g
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of
> the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list