Today a friend and I were discussing the controversy that is stirring up between the Obama administration and the Fox Network Channel. I am not going to get into any discussions on if Fox is biased or not, if their reporting is "fair and accurate" or not. I think these arguments are childish and unrealistic. Any media outlet is going to reflect the political and ideological attitude of that media outlet's editorial staff and the political and ideological attitude of whoever owns or controls that media outlet. Media outlets are part of a free market economy, and privately owned or publicly traded, they're still in the private sector. If I put up an Internet Forum, and I invest in hardware and servers, my time, my effort, and my expense in bandwidth, I should have pretty much exclusive rights to publish more or less what I see fit on that site - filtered through whatever ideological or philosophical filter as I see fit. Expand that to a newspaper or TV network, and the same basic principle should still exist. The minute you say this ISN'T the case, for whatever reason, you might as well throw out the entire concept of "Freedom of the Press", so think this point through before you start arguing moral obligations to society or any other nonsense. As soon as some external force is telling a media outlet, ANY media outlet, what it should or shouldn't publish, think, broadcast or print, we're moving away from Freedom of the Press. There is NO gray here - it is non-negotiable, and if you would like to argue this with me on this particular point, really, just renounce your citizenship now and move to North Korea or Iran. So, this alone, in and of itself is an *excellent* point, a DAMNING point to the current position of the Obama administration, all by itself. But it goes beyond this.
For years, for DECADES, literally, conservatives complained about a hostile, liberal media. Ted Danson, Whoppi Goldberg, Alec Baldwin, Robin Williams, Rob Reiner, Bono and a host of other major motion picture and music industry artists have taken every opportunity to exploit their position of fame to influence national politics. Likewise, almost every media outlet and network, including the entire Turner Network empire, (who still has a huge part in CNN, for example) have had a clear preference for liberal politics. Newspaper and Television news is no different. Conservative Republicans have been largely relegated to AM talk radio and the Rush Limbaugh show for the last 30 + years. And, they have complained mightily about it.
The entire time, liberal DEMOCRATS have accused Republicans, with bemused, condescending tones, of being "alarmists, conspiracy theorists, and wingnuts". How ridiculous that any media outlet should be accused of having a bias to the left. It is completely irrational to propose such a thing.
Ironic then, that a SINGLE outspoken network, with a clear bias toward the opinions, ideologies and philosophies of the right, should prove so completely intolerable to the minds of liberals. Because face it, for the duration of the previous two Presidential terms, the left has been positively rabid in their hatred for Fox News Network. There is an extra spiteful place in the heart of most liberals where they save their most bitter venom, and that is where they keep their hatred for, as far as I can tell, 3 things. George W. Bush Jr., Dick Cheney, and Fox News Network. This is the holy trinity of unspeakable evil to Liberals - the GOP Father, Son and Holy Ghost (not necessarily in that order). There are a lot of things that liberals hate about conservatives. But few things raise their ire like these three.
And, they've pretty much got rid of at least two of 'em. That leaves only one, naggingly difficult issue to deal with. Fox News.
Now here is the thing, to me - the real kicker. The Obama administration has not been shy these past few days about their opinion on Fox News Network. They've gone so far as to say they are going to isolate Fox News from the administration. They're effectively declaring *war* on a media outlet, solely because they do not agree with the tone, philosophy or editorial content of that network. Let me put it another way. It would be the same thing as if Bush had said, "I am *only* going to deal with Fox News Network", which of course, would have had liberals *completely* up in arms.
"It isn't the same thing", I can hear the voices crying now.
It sure the !@*$ IS the same thing. The *exact* same thing. Name a presidential administration in the last 40 years that has publicly proclaimed that it would completely ostracize a single news media outlet because the administration disagreed with the editorial content and political philosophy of that media outlet. Oh. It is unprecedented. Of course it is. Because it is INCREDIBLY bad forum. Not, perhaps, as bad as accepting a Nobel Peace Prize for which you have no valid claim or right to - but still, pretty poor behavior for a Commander in Chief, none-the-less.
To me, there is only one way to interpret this. Conservatives, for the most part, are open to dialog, discussion, argument and debate. We probably welcome it, maybe even live for it. We believe in the Intel policy of "constructive confrontation". Passionate dialog leads to progress, leads to creative ideas, leads to innovation. We welcome opposing perspectives, and we're generally VERY confident (some might perceive it as arrogantly so) that our perspectives are rock solid and hard to rationally debate. When we're walking the walk we preach, I think this is the case, especially when we stick to economic conservatism and avoid the quagmire (this is a place where this overused word really applies) that is social conservatism. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to throw the liberals a bone here. For the last two Republican administrations, it has seemed that we were in bed with big corporations and preaching the same frightening social conservatism based on fundamentalist Christianity that are the two achilles heel's of the GOP. Don't get too smug, though, Democrats, your party is only better on this account because at least they *generally* avoid getting caught up in morality planks - although I'd remind you that Tipper Gore founded the PMRC, who brought Parental Warning Labels to the RIAA. At any rate, Republicans seem to welcome conflict.
Democrats would say they welcome open debate, dialog, and non-partisan discussion. But the fact is that if you *disagree* with Democratic political philosophies, it isn't long before you're being called one of "the lying liars" who tell lies. (Al Franken's version of using Soft Diplomacy with the Fox News Network. Thank God HE managed to steal his election... those dimpled chads had to be recounted for 6 months until he finally won). The truth of the matter is that Democrats make up as many lies about Republicans, about Republican policies, about Republican agendas, as Democrats make about Republicans. Liberal media buries stories, damning stories, about Democrats while endlessly seeking and pushing dirt on Republicans. They're all playing by the same handbook. Fox Network is *one* network - and the only one that leans right. This puts Fox Network at a terrible disadvantage - their difference of opinion, their spin on stories, is always going to stand in stark contrast to what almost the entire rest of the news media has to say on a particular subject.
I'm not exactly a Republican at this point, but the behavior of the Democrats ensures that I am certainly not anywhere near in alignment with the principles and attitudes of that party. I'm probably best described as a conservative or moderate libertarian. And from that perspective, I would be absolutely up in arms if a Republican presidential administration called out a single news network and absolutely REFUSED to engage with them. It is completely unacceptable behavior. Unequivocally. This is absolutely a horrible precedent for any administration regardless of political party to set. Reasonable citizens of the United States who believe in Freedom of the Press and the foundations of liberty that our forefathers set for our nation should make this opinion known to their administration. Democrat or Republican, it is your *duty* as a citizen to make certain that the Obama administration hears loud and clear that this is unacceptable behavior that will not be tolerated. If you are a Democrat, more is the responsibility *yours*. Not because you voted for him, but because you represent the ideals of your party - and those ideals should have no room for any behavior that threatens to censor and muzzle a free press.
You must sign in to take advantage of that feature. Enter your user name and password below. No user ID yet? Get one for free.
Forgot your password?
Neverleft's Things to Think About
A blog about Technology.
Real Name: Bryan Kelly Gender: male Date of Birth: January 03, 1955 Member Since: June 14, 2007 Last Signed In: November 21, 2009 Profile Views: 690 Blog Views: 6083 The Pocket Taser. Soros, The bitter truth! The "islam" problem Not PC but funny. Immigration Bill From CNN National Debt Clock Pelosi's "Worst legislation ever" Swine Flu. Everybody Should Read This! Too Old For Trick or Treat? I'll Take My Ball and Go Home! June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
You know you are too old to Trick or Treat when:
Congressional Second Graders
by Alicia Cohn
10/22/2009
Changing the locks usually signals a bad break-up.
If that is what it means on Capitol Hill, it is a bad sign for bipartisanship. Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, changed the locks on the committee’s main chamber, a decision made without the Republican members of the committee. The Republicans were later informed that the Democrats would control access to the room by holding the only set of keys. When questioned about his actions, Towns said it was a response to a video entitled “Hit the Road Jack: Oversight Democrats Run Away From Countrywide Bribe Program Vote” that was posted on YouTube and linked on Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) Twitter feed. This is the state of U.S. politics, folks. The House oversight committee was scheduled to meet on Thursday, Oct. 15 for a mark-up meeting also expected to include a call to vote. Towns wanted to subpoena Countrywide Financial documents from Bank of America. (Bank of America bought Countrywide last year after it had been one of the biggest mortgage bankers to collapse in the housing crisis.) Issa has been investigating the connections between Countrywide’s VIP loan program and Washington legislators, who may have been influenced by Countrywide deals, especially Connecticut Dem Sen. Chris Dodd, who got a “special friend” loan from Countrywide. At meeting time last Thursday, however, the Republicans showed up while the chairs of the Democrat members remained empty (shown in the video). The original excuse given was a schedule conflict with another committee meeting. Complicating that explanation, however, was the video taped by Issa staff members of Democratic members of the committee exiting a private meeting in a separate chamber after the committee meeting had been scheduled to start. Towns’ response to the humorous video, which is set to music and narrated with text, was to accuse the Republicans of bad behavior. Issa’s office retaliated by calling the lock-changing maneuver “juvenile.” Issa spokesman Kurt Bardella said the video will remain posted on the official YouTube channel. "If only they would use their creative energy to do some actual oversight and maybe hold a hearing rather than resorting to immature tactics,” he said. The committee was scheduled to meet again today, but according to Bardella, Democrats have cancelled the hearing. Meanwhile, the Republican Study Committee is channeling their creativity toward something useful by issuing Waste Action Alerts. The RSC Sunset Caucus, launched June 17, highlights wasteful spending, “working to sunset programs that taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for,” according to their mission statement. The first Action Alert highlights legislation introduced by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R.-Utah) to end mohair subsidies. Mohair: the silky fabric or yarn made from the hair of the Angora goat; possibly used to make expensive sweaters to keep congressmen warm during the winter, although some people find it itchy. Regardless, Chaffetz and other members have seen fit to question the importance of mohair as part of the federal budget. According to the Action Alert issued by the RSC, the subsidies cost about $1 million per year. Price support for wool and mohair has existed since 1947, according to the Congressional Research Service. At the time, military uniforms were made of a wool and mohair blend. The proposed bill, which would amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, has been referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. Time will tell whether mohair will spin into bipartisan agreement or heated debate, but hopefully at least Chairman Collin C. Peterson (D.-Minn.) will not see fit to change the locks on the committee chamber in order to keep the goats in. I didn't write this and do not know who did but it make a good point and I agree with it.Liberal versus Conservative Media Bias
CRAIG'S LIST PERSONALS AD
THE CONSERVATIVE REVIEW – October 20, 2009 Alienated & Radicalized In the brief age of Obama, we have had “truthers,” Comes now, the “Oath Keepers.” And who might they be? Writes Alan Maimon in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Oath Formed in March, they are ex-military and police who “The whole point of Oath Keepers is to stop a dictatorship “We say if the American people decide it’s time for a Prediction: Brother Rhodes is headed for cable stardom. And if the Pelosi-Reid progressives went postal over town- As with Jimmy Carter’s long range psychoanalysis of Joe Yet, the establishment’s reaction seems more problematic Progressives are the folks who, in the 1960s, could easily The “dirty, immoral war in Vietnam” explains why the Yet, they cannot comprehend what would motivate Middle “Whites are not only more anxious, but also more alienated. Is all this due to Obama’s race? Even Obama laughs at that. As he told David Letterman, I With black voters going 24 to 1 for Obama, he almost Moreover, the alienation and radicalization of white Referring to the white working-class voters in the Yet, we had seen these folks before. They were Perotistas In their lifetimes, they have seen their Christian faith They watch on cable TV as illegal aliens walk into their They see Wall Street banks bailed out as they sweat their They see a government in Washington that cannot balance its America was once their country. They sense they are losing Yes, If given the chance I would jump at the chance to "take out" Oscama and Pelosi. If given the opportunity I would take them to a nice restaurant and even pay for the meal. I Would relish the opportunity to ask Obama why he hate the Republic, Capitalism, and the U.S. I would ask why he is trying to destroy our nation and why he, after he promised to be a friend of the working class he is trying to destroy it with his Cap and Trade Bill which will raise the Price of gasoline by 50%, double or triple our electric bills, raise the price of everything we buy, kill more jobs and drive more businesses overseas. I would ask why he, along with the Democratic Congress, is trying to destroy our medical system. I would ask him why he has surrounded himself with Socialists, Marxists, and radicals and just how much power they have in his administration. I would ask him why he is waiting to make a decision on troops for Afghanistan and second guessing the seasoned Military leader he put there to run the war. I would like to ask Pelosi if she honestly believe all the crap that come out of her surgently stretched mouth and see id she can still blink her eyes. Yes! it would make my day to "take out" Obama.
To a Child, Love is Spelled T-I-M-Eby Mac Anderson and Lance WubbelsIn the faint light of the attic, an old man, tall and stooped, bent his great frame and made his way to a stack of boxes that sat near one of the little half-windows. Brushing aside a wisp of cobwebs, he tilted the top box toward the light and began to carefully lift out one old photograph album after another. Eyes once bright but now dim searched longingly for the source that had drawn him here. It began with the fond recollection of the love of his life, long gone, and somewhere in these albums was a photo of her he hoped to rediscover. Silent as a mouse, he patiently opened the long-buried treasures and soon was lost in a sea of memories. Although his world had not stopped spinning when his wife left it, the past was more alive in his heart than his present aloneness. Setting aside one of the dusty albums, he pulled from the box what appeared to be a journal from his grown son's childhood. He could not recall ever having seen it before, or that his son had ever kept a journal. Why did Elizabeth always save the children's old junk? he wondered, shaking his white head. Opening the yellowed pages, he glanced over a short entry, and his lips curved in an unconscious smile. Even his eyes brightened as he read the words that spoke clear and sweet to his soul. It was the voice of the little boy who had grown up far too fast in this very house, and whose voice had grown fainter and fainter over the years. In the utter silence of the attic, the words of a guileless six-year-old worked their magic and carried the old man back to a time almost totally forgotten. Entry after entry stirred a sentimental hunger in his heart like the longing a gardener feels in the winter for the fragrance of spring flowers. But it was accompanied by the painful memory that his son's simple recollections of those days were far different from his own. But how different? Reminded that he had kept a daily journal of his business activities over the years, he closed his son's journal and turned to leave, having forgotten the cherished photo that originally triggered his search. Hunched over to keep from bumping his head on the rafters, the old man stepped to the wooden stairway and made his descent, then headed down a carpeted stairway that led to the den. Opening a glass cabinet door, he reached in and pulled out an old business journal. Turning, he sat down at his desk and placed the two journals beside each other. His was leather bound and engraved neatly with his name in gold, while his son's was tattered and the name "Jimmy" had been nearly scuffed from its surface. He ran a long skinny finger over the letters, as though he could restore what had been worn away with time and use. As he opened his journal, the old man's eyes fell upon an inscription that stood out because it was so brief in comparison to other days. In his own neat handwriting were these words: Wasted the whole day fishing with Jimmy. Didn't catch a thing. With a deep sigh and a shaking hand, he took Jimmy's journal and found the boy's entry for the same day, June 4. Large scrawling letters pressed deeply in the paper read: Went fishing with my dad. Best day of my life. |
