they can't make it work these days even when they rig the conditions for the test to where it's not-realistic.

it's not a (R) vs. (D) thing. It's a "this shit doesn't work yet so stop pissing off allies and enemies by threating to roll it out" thing. you can't back it up, so why threaten people with it?

In 1993, SDI was reorganized as the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). The more limited system, called the National Missile Defense (NMD), is intended to protect all 50 states from a rogue missile attack, but the deployment of such a system was forbidden under the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Russia opposed the NMD plan but, under President Putin, also proposed a mobile, pan-European missile defense system with a similar purpose that would not violate the ABM treaty. In 2001, President George W. Bush called for accelerated development of the NMD system, and subsequently withdrew from the ABM treaty to permit the system's development and deployment. Apparently successful early tests of the U.S. system were later revealed to have occurred after the odds of success had been enhanced (1984, 1991). Subsequent tests were generally more successful, although flawed or limited in certain respects, but tests in 2002, 2004, and 2005 involved failures. In 2002, President Bush ordered the deployment of a modest missile defense system by 2004, with interceptors based at sea and at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., and several interceptor missiles were emplaced by the end of 2004. Also in 2002, the BMDO was renamed the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). In addition to NMD, the MDA is also working to develop missile defenses for the battlefield as part of the Theater Missile Defense program.

It all depends how how you define success, that's why I said real life conditions. The successes have been achieved by doing things like eliminating dummy warheads, tuning warheads' radio frequency to match the interceptor, and only launching in perfect weather conditions. As far as I know there has never been a successful test under conditions we would expect in an actual missile launch. At this stage deployment is merely theatrical rather than operational.

To this I wonder...why?

We(i.e.NASA) send rockets to land (i.e. intercept) on meteors that are 100's of thousands of miles away. Yes, the meteros are larger but so are the amount of variables to consider for such a distance.

I don't have any real sense as to the worthwhile nature of such an endeavor and the likelihood of successful deployment if we "keep at it"...but I think it may be (admittedly anecdotally) reason enough to continue funding NASA development as it really seems to drive quite a bit of innovation and technology.

I haven't seen any state polls with approval ratings as high as 80%, or as low as 28%. Do you have links that show that the "northeast" as a whole, or the average of the states individually there is at 80%, or that the "south" is 28%?

I understand the sentiment here, but this is a bit unrealistic, IMO. At least in real dollars and ratio of cost savings. If you're talking short term (under 5 years)...then maybe some degree of savings can be realized.

But if it is a particular(or a handful of) technology holding up a viable real-world application, which has a high degree of cross-market use cases which will drive it's development, then yes it(i.e. the tech) could still be more cost-effective in 'x' years but the relative costs of the technologies and expert labor for the items you do not need development of will continue to increase at least with inflation (and potentially exponentially if expertise moves out of the Strategic Missile Defense area to focus where the 'real' money is today).

IMHO, if you push it out 10 or more years I think you'll find labor and the other associated costs will dwarf the savings of some advances in technology...if not in a relative ratio, then certainly in real dollars. Doesn't mean you should launch something that doesn't work just because (I think) it might be cheaper today...but just saying it does not always work that way.

NO YUO!!!ONEONoneoneoneone

Jon seems extra ornery today.

{yawns}

"Now with even MORE ornery" ... sounds like the tag line for a potato chip commercial.

House just voted with bipartisan support to strip all government funding from ACORN. Will now move to the Senate.

House votes to defund ACORN

good

I post this not to score political points, but just as a bit of ironic whimsy.

Tea Party Protesters Protest D.C. Metro Service - Washington Wire - WSJ

I know I laugh at the dumbest things but that just made my afternoon

SI

I wonder what would happen if Steve and MBBF were to ever accidentally touch.

The obvious. The universe would end.

He was also horrified that people had to use private transportation (a taxi) to get to the event.

On balance I think ACORN does more good than harm and I've never really understood the hatred for the organization, but when videos like those surface they have to take their medicine. I'd demand the same thing happen to a conservative organization. I agree that some people are going to be hurt by this, but ACORN has to clean shop before they can expect taxpayer funds.

Yeah, I'm probably going to go get about 3 super sized big gulps, and eat 2 dozen taco bell tacos that day. And get to work.

Assuming we can somehow get this latin heritage period to be an extended Cinco de Mayo type celebration, I'm definitely in favor. Cheap tacos and punch bowl margaritas ftw.

LOL. So I get an email from my local Rep, Mark Kirk (R-IL), who, by the way, is running for Obama's former Senate seat next year, and of course it's about ACORN.

What catches my eye, however, is the statement that since 1994 the government has given the outrageous sum of $53 million to ACORN. Which is just bad timing, because on the way home I heard this NPR story about how the government gives $1.2 BILLION each year in aggregate to very small airports around the country that service pretty much no one: Feds keep little-used airports in business - USATODAY.com

So yeah, clearly the folks at ACORN have made some bad decisions, and by now, if you accept at face value everything we've been told about ACORN (which is a stretch, but let's go with it for the sake of argument), it's clear the organization needs a pretty serious change in direction/oversight. But of course that ignores a lot of the good work the organization does. For $53 million over the course of 15 years. I mean, Bill Clinton and John Edwards spent more than that on haircuts. WTF?

I mean, a Wall Street company squanders that kind of money and it would be a rounding error. No one would care. We'd never even hear about it.

We gave billions to KBR and they constructed showers in Iraq that electrocuted American soldiers. AIG probably lost that much government money an hour while under duress. Fifty-three million is probably the amount of money the execs at Goldman Sachs siphoned off from the TARP funds for their own bonuses.

I mean sure, ACORN has some Grade A dipshits working for it and clearly and executive/oversight/management structure that's completely out to lunch. So the answer is to jettison the infant with the bathwater? Completely dump any of the good they do for a savings of roughly $3 million/year? What a fucking joke.

You are very naive if you don't think they haven't benefitted immensely under Obama. They dictate a lot of federal poverty policy that is worth way more than $53 million. (In exchange obviously for considerable help from them during the election.

Are you kidding? Do you really want to get self righteous on this? This isn’t going to be left wing talking points versus right wing (which I think you might think I am) talking points. I am very deeply up to date on St. Louis’s downtown politics (especially the politics and efforts of several non-for profit organizations) I can tell you all about A.C.O.R.N. and its ultimate goals. My girlfriend’s NPO is practically bed buddies with them. My friend works down the street from their headquarters.

And I am not talking about anything illegal. (Though they have been the subject of voter fraud issues here in St. Louis well before Obama was ever a national player) Everything they do is completely legal and very, VERY politically adventagous. I can’t fault them for it at all they have termindous "political game" but I can also attest that both the charity (sadly) and ACORN would love as much socialism is they can get. And Obama loves ACORN. So don’t even try to pretend like their influence on government policy is worth less than what most baseball players have made in the same time period. Please. ACORN and Obama are as allied as you can get.

Those are two pretty serious assertions. Let's see your evidence.


Anyway, I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea: at the end of the day I can live with them losing their money because I believe in accountability (a foreign concept in today's political landscape, I know). If someone screws up badly, they shouldn't be trusted anymore. It's amusing, of course, that given the list of organizations that have screwed up massively over the past few years it's ACORN that gets singled out, but that's politics for you, I guess.

What I find amusing is guys like Mark Kirk getting so self-righteous about it, when in perspective no one gives a fuck about $3 million a year under any other fricking circumstance and there's a nice bright example of considerably more government waste on the front page of USA Today this same day.

(By the way, who knew USA Today did investigative journalism?)

I mean seriously, $3 million/year? The government probably spends that much on hookers and blow. :D

seriously. wasn't the whole "socialism" boogyman over with when the Soviet Union collapsed?? I'm not sure what the deal is with invoking it as some sort of fear tactic these days.

the minerals office of the department of the interior under Bush II certainly used to :D

There are no assertions at all. I work at a public school, all of the board policy and central office policies are the result of massive politicking. I am sure where you work is exactly the same way. You really think a major city and its policies with it's lower class aren't 100% political?

About my girlfriend she is definitely an Obama supporter. And she really deep in her heart wants to help homeless people not go hungry and to stay on their feet. And she tells me all the time about the real politics behind food banks and homeless shelters, its really sad. (This is local stuff, nothing to do with ACORN) As far as ACORN goes she has also told me about help they have gotten from ACORN and help that they gave to ACORN. It is really hardcore politics. Deals where the mayor gets something, the local aldermen get something, and the NPO’s can operate soup kitchens etc. Nothing illegal either but a lot different than what most people think goes into helping the homeless. (Oh we will just go cook food for them… What we have to make backdoor handshake deals with politicians to help the homeless???)

So how does this effect national policy? Obama was once one of these guys. You don't think that he is of the same mindset of these guys and bounces ideas off these guys? They are in his ear waayy more than most. This is simply more than $52 million.

And that's my whole point. I am not Glenn Beck uncovering some massive conspiracy like you guys act like you are about every subject. I just happen to be more familiar with ACORN than most people.

You've painted a picture of ACORN that describes it similarly to any organization, be they non-profit or a corporation, that lobbies the government for money and influence.

You've then taken Obama's past experience as a community organizer and made the logical leap that ACORN now "dictates" (your word, not mine) U.S. poverty policy under the Obama Administration.

That's a hell of a logical leap, my friend.


I certainly hope you had a similar level of outrage upon hearing that the company formerly headed by Dick Cheney, which received billions in taxpayer's money, was responsible, through negligence and shoddy work, for, on a number of occasions, the electrocution of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. And they served my brother meatballs in Ramadi that were effectively inedible.

Though they later blew up the meatballs at their observation post for fun, so I suppose that was a net benefit. :D

that right there is your flaw. that's a big leap to make with zero evidence, just your feeling

Fuck, you guys aren’t worth it. If you want to live in la-la kumbaya world and think that the organizations that help the poor do it without any interference from the government and in turn get no benefit for themselves than we can’t have a serious discussion on this topic.

It is like a St. Louis fan trying to bring perspective to a Yankees-Red Sox arguement. I am familiar with each side’s talking points, actually agree and respect some from each side, but in the end of the day see right through both of their sets of bullshit. (because I don’t really CARE that much about either one) You guys seem to think you are either for poverty or against it and there is no grey area. Well that’s fucking naïve and you will never be able to rationally discuss organizations like ACORN, and the salvation army, and church organizations You just don’t get it.

You're right. Big oil, the defense industry, and banks (isn't this true for every administration) were huge beneficiares of Bush's presidency. Like like social justice organizations will be under any Democrat. You don't think ACORN is one of the the players in the social justice arena?

nobody's saying they don't have interference or benefit from the government, but to insist that accorn plays some major role in setting FEDERAL policy because "obama was once one of those guys" and "he bounces ideas off them" and "they are in his ear wayyyy more than most" is a leap with no evidence to back it up. it's guilt-by-association when he's indirectly associated.

Yes there are. Two, in fact:

1. ACORN dictates U.S. poverty policy.

2. ACORN provided considerable help to the Obama campaign during the election.

An assertion is generally defined as a positive statement or a declaration that is offered without immediate obvious support (logical, factual or otherwise).

So you've clearly made two assertions. I've asked you to prove them. If you can't, then they're merely allegations.

Generally-speaking I think you'll find more factual support for your second assertion, though it may be tough to prove that ACORN provided the Obama campaign with more material support than other organizations.

Also, your first assertion might be easier to prove if you used "influence" instead of "dictate", but you didn't. Maybe you can make a case that Ken Salazar (Interior), Tom Vilsack (Agriculture), Hilda Solis (Labor), Kathleen Sebelius (Health and Human Services), or Shaun Donovan (HUD) are in thrall to ACORN.

I have no problem dropping funding to ACORN. There should be a high standard for those who receive funding from the government and they don't meet it.

With that said, I agree in a way with what flere is saying. ACORN is real small potatoes and is getting way too much attention. I mean we gave $170 billion to AIG and they are now giving their new CEO a $10 million dollar bonus for essentially nothing. We had companies like Haliburton extort billions from the government in Iraq for shoddy work. There are much bigger fish in the lake than ACORN.

But the ACORN witchhunt is political. It allows one side to portray the other as some scandalous minorities looking to circumvent elections. It is funny that the ones in the media who are so upset about people not covering ACORN were the ones who let a President pass on lies to start a war that will cost trillions along with the thousands of American lives.

Totally fine with the cutting of funding, but how about we put this same effort into issues that matter a little more.

Who said that?

There's a big difference between contending that governments and non-profit organizations often operate in mutually beneficial (and sometimes slimy) relationships (with which I'd say we all would agree) and saying that ACORN dictates U.S. poverty policy.

Look, you used the wrong word and you presented your opinion, based on personal experience, as fact. We all do it. I'm sure I've done it, probably recently. It doesn't validate your argument. The points you make about ACORN being a shady organization, especially in St. Louis are relevant, but they simply don't translate into support for an argument that Obama owes his election to them or that they dictate U.S. poverty policy. Admit that you over-reached with your argument, and we'll move on.

Well, to be honest, I'm going to bed, so the thread will move on anyway, so do what you like. For what it's worth, I know where you're coming from, being passionate on an issue, I just take issue with your overreach. Nothing personal.

Listen your original post's conclusion was along the lines of "A Republican sent me a postcard saying the government spent $50 million on ACORN. Therefore that is about their level of influence. Why are we are up in arms about an amount the government probably spends on ashtrays." Correct me if I'm wrong.

My response is ACORN's influence if properly measured would be in the billions. And NO I have no evidence to support this but I also have no evidence support that alcohol companies benefit immensely from the war on drugs or that casinos benefit form online gambling being illegal but I don't think anyone would ever try and argue those aren’t true. You guys are just defending ACORN because that what you think Obama supporters are supposed to do. (and are incapable of thought that agrees with the other side. Just like JinMidGa and MBBF are the other way) There is no doubt that social justice is a key part of any Democrat, espeically a former community organizer. No doubt at all.

X Acorn and X to the other Fleecers.

Im unhappy about the AIG bonuses BUT I do recognize that theyre the bad bank and are serving a very important purpose to the financial system right now. Most dont know that.

No... save the infant. ACORN could help put her to work on the streets in a few years. :p

Did I say that? Where did I say that?

LOL - ACORN's influence if properly measured would be in the billions?? really??

look - i have no problem saying they're slimy and until they clean house they don't deserve government $$, but that's just insane.

as flere said, just admit you overreached with your argument and it's fine.

nobody in this thread has really "defended" ACORN, we're all just saying you've overstated your argument

My original post ( #5510 ) says nothing about influence. Doesn't even use the word. My focus was clearly and plainly about the dollars and the ridiculousness of the outrage from Mark Kirk, especially when compared to other bullshit government expenditures, specifically one on the front page of USA Today, today.

Put simply, you misread my post.


While this is a ridiculous statement, it wouldn't necessarily be hard to make a case for it as an argument. Simply start looking at new federal expenditures made by the Obama Administration aimed at poverty programs that show some mark of ACORN influence (such as it being a program ACORN ran until recently, or a program ACORN lobbied for, etc...) and start adding them up.

Always the voice of reason. :D

I wouldn't go as far to argue they aren't true, but I'd like to see some evidence they are true. It at least seems possible to me that an easier access to gambling would increase traffic in casinos and that casinos would benefit from the online presence. I've also never seen any studies that say alcohol use declines when other drugs are used.

In short, yes, I would like to see some evidence before I believe any assertions.

OK seriously, I'm going to bed now.

Heh. I still owe Rainmaker a thoughtful post about something he posted yesterday... it's just easier to come up with the one liners. :)

Getting Acorn out of the Census business is the real upside here.

Cool on the misreading. I will drop it.


As far as adding them up, I really don't care to prove their influence in closer to $1 billion than $52 million. I am pretty sure anyone not directly involved would agree with me. I guess we will wait and see but not many non-partisans visit this thread. (We have people like MBBF or Flasch who really reach and claim they are, but we really don't have many people without a talking point opinion on this)

Hmmmmm, to think I was going to go to bat for you. :p

Let's just call a spade a spade. ACORN helped out the Obama campaign, both directly and mostly indirectly. Obama kept them in his good graces as a result. Republicans didn't like it and a couple of them decided to do a recorded sting to nail ACORN and minimize their legitimacy. Funding was removed.

ACORN played politics and got burned by another group of individuals playing politics. What's so surprising about this?

You racist bastid.

;)

Because the previous administration was so terrible, everything is permissible now.

:thumbsup:

This is possibly one of your best posts ever.

Damn, you beat me to the Dept of Interior joke :D

SI

So, uh, what do they do that's bad- other than apparently give tax advice to hookers? Yeah, that's pretty damn bad but doesn't seem to be what you're getting at. I honestly have no idea

SI

read an interesting article in time magazine (latest issue maybe?) yesterday - "Is Glenn Beck bad for America" where it talked about how much $$ Beck has made off of peddling fear (in many cases too it's not even fear that he actually believe in - I think they had one quote in there from him that talked about how he thought Obama had done a good job so far at one point and such). It's all about $$$. Limbaugh, O'Reiley, Olbermann, Beck...it's all about building a "brand" so that they can have TV shows that get good ratings, and write books, and have websites and etc. and rake in the cash. And yes, 3/4 of the people I listed there are on the "right" but it's also an undeniable truth that the those on the right have done a better job on building up those "brands" and stoking the fear (in many cases because of what the fear is, and what the levers they can play on are, as well as the target audience). They don't believe a lot of what they're selling, and all it does is drive the ordinary people further apart and ensure that special interests and big corporations continue to control government and that these commentators on both sides get rich off of promoting divisiveness.

It's entertainment masquerading as news. Unfortunately there's a very large portion of America that views it as just news and since they self-select what they watch/read, it by-and-large reinforces their uni-dimensional views. In the end, what these echo chambers do is serve to erase the ability to critically think. Arguably that's to the detriment of the country as a whole.

True, and if you replaced "entertainment masquerading as news" with "news masquerading as entertainment", I'd think you were talking about the Daily Show. Especially the part about reinforcing their uni-dimensional views and erasing the ability to critically think.

*yawn*

Have you watched the Daily Show since Obama took over? He's been pretty good at pointing out his fuck-ups. Keep carrying the cross, however.

And there's the uni-dimensional view, right on cue.

Daily Show sheep are no better than FoxNews sheep. The only difference is one prefers humor and moral superiority, and the other prefers to be angry. Different paths to the same intolerance of others.

Let's not forget how Al Franken parlayed this into a Senate seat. Both sides have their Limbaugh's...

I wasn't saying that they didn't. I made sure to point that out - while also acknowledging that one side seems to have significantly more of them who are more commercially successful

Have you watched the Daily Show since Obama took over? He's been pretty good at pointing out his fuck-ups. Keep carrying the cross, however.

edit: Incidentally molson, I do see the irony in you accusing others of uni-dimensional, non-critical thinking when you ignore the substance of a post so you an post the bullshit you want to. You used to be a good poster in here who I agreed with most of the time - when did you become so bitter?

I used to never watch the Daily Show during the first six years or so of the Bush administration, it was very bitter and cheap. Now it's become much more interesting to me because it echoes my "They're all fucking morons" belief about media and politics. But hell, I guess that is a uni-dimensional point of view.

Whether or not I agree with you about the Daily Show, the point is perfectly valid. The variety of news and quasi-news sources available to the average American these days (let's not forget websites, ala Drudge or DailyKos) means we can select the viewpoint we want, have our own views reinforced, and call it a day.

No, I don't know how we change this. Either the citizenry wants to be engaged and informed, or they don't. I'd say the evidence is pretty clear that the average American citizen does not.

:confused:

I'm not sure what led you to turn this into a partisan thing. I was quite clear in my initial post that both sides have a place in this. And flere's comment was entirely non-partisan. So I'm not sure what led you to turn around and take a general statement and turn it into a specific comment about one program.

I really wish you hadn't though, as now it is doubtless going to distract from actually discussing the idea and result in more partisan, back-and-forth sniping.

They had a 3 hour discussion on a local KC radio show on a similar topic. The question was where do you go if you just want to get the news without any political bias? I'm not sure they ever did identify a site/news organization that currently does that. I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist.

i'd argue that if they don't want to be engaged and informed they don't deserve to vote.

course then you'd have to set qualifications of what "engaged and informed" means and how to judge it.

maybe just a simple chart at polling stations like all of those websites have that summarizes each candidates views on all the issues (in the candidates own words) so that people had to look at that before they voted?

it's not perfect, but honestly more and more i'm starting to think this is the way to go, in some form.

And never has in 200+ years.

i agree. i think as far as looking for "news without political bias" my shorthanded way would be to watch the network newscasts (abc, nbc, cbs) - while recognizing that while "decent" they don't tend to be very in-depth or hard-hitting (just generally speaking i can't recall a major network newscast ever speaking poorly of the current administration - in this healthcare debate, after Katrina, anything involving Iraq or Afghanistan, etc.). They don't really have a lot to say, but as far as a general "what's going on" that is good for a quick fix. Note that I'm not speaking about their newsmagazines, but more about their nightly news broadcasts.

You could also read foreign newspapers online - bbc or english-language japanese papers and stuff, but the coverage you get there will tend to be even more spotty. But that takes a lot of work.

Would you just look at the worms all over this floor? Who the hell opened that can??????

:D

me!

see - my views are complicated...i don't fit easily into a box.

i also think that we shouldn't have bilingual classrooms or bilingual schools. at all.

and i'm strongly in favor of "path to citizenship" being the maximum concession to make to all existing illegal immigrants (make them show up somewhere to register or get documents), and deportation for all undocumented illegal immigrants after a specified date.

If you required people to be informed and engaged to vote, then I wonder what % of the voting public would come anywhere close to qualifying.

Democracy is messy as hell.

well fuck em. if they can't make the effort to be informed and engaged then they shouldn't get to vote.

kudos. everything you said...spot on.

This is a probably going to be a controversial thought, but I've often wondered (cue JiMGa) if we wouldn't be better off with an authoritarian system. China, for instance, can accomplish so much without all the political bullshit that stops stuff from happening here in the States.

Of course, I can recognize the downsides of such a system, and that they probably would outweigh the pros, but it's still something I've thought about occasionally.

edit: The main thing would be that in the US politicians will very rarely do anything that is politically unpopular, but often politically unpopular things are the best thing for the country.

Yeah, check out the Oklahoma HS students' results after being given an immigration test.

September 2009 Volume 16 Number 9 - Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs

Dola,

What I find to be extremely odd is that more students know what the Bill of Rights are than who our first President was? Not that an overwhelming amount knew the Bill of Rights...but still...how do they NOT KNOW the first Pres?

It blogs the mind that anyone in this country could not know who the first president is. I just cannot understand that.

Democracy is only a recent invention in this country. Keep that in mind. There used to be rules about who could and could not vote.

There are still rules.

It wasn't so long ago that we had such a system, essentially, in teh original days of the country. People would vote for their local state legislatures. Those legislatures would vote for the senators. The electoral college elected the president, and often the Congress would be the final arbitrator of that. The culture was such that for the most part the "educated and informed" made all the decisions for the rest. The things you talk about are the things the founding fathers were concerned about, and made a system designed to avoid having the mass of people run things.

It blogs my mind too. Who hasn't heard of Benjamin Franklin? Sheesh.

Hey that sounds pretty good. Now is there a way we can do this without using any of the current Congresspeople? ;)

Why do you think better informed would equal better outcomes?

Have you been to China? It's got it's good points, but I sure as hell would rather live here than there.

Yes, you must be 18 and a citizen. Am I missing any? Not a felon maybe?

As pointed out above though it used to be a far smaller percentage of the populace that could vote.

Daily Show isn't a news show. It's a comedy show. It would be like calling The Onion a newspaper. The show is on the same channel as South Park.

Cable news networks give the image that they are trusted news sources. Watch the commercials that play during O'Reilly and Olbermann. "Most Trusted Name in News", "Fair and Balanced". The Daily Show is satire and makes no effort to look like a legitimate news agency. These pundits act as journalists and treat their shows as respected news outlets.

It's akin to comparing National Review or The Nation to The Onion.

I think Bloomberg is probably the best for it, although most would find it boring and it's not in a ton of homes.

I know that's the line, but I don't buy it, and yes I've seen the show.

It's a humorous news commentary show. They do what the do well, and they're successful. And no matter what you want to call them, it is a huge source of news for people in their 20s, and it indoctrinate them into a specific way of thinking, by selling the drug of moral superiority. And the show, individually, isn't as powerful as say, Rush Limbaugh, but its just reflective of that kind of young liberal youth culture in the U.S. right now. We're smart, you're a moron. We're wonderful and moral, you're evil. We want to help the world, you want to destroy it (and we need to save it from you). It's just an example of the mindset that just drives me crazy and that I really didn't see a lot of until I moved to a super-liberal city. That kind of poisoned me, and now I see that smugness everywhere, and I just hate how nobody respects anyone's opinion anymore - the goal, taught by these types of shows, isn't to disagree, it's to invalidate their opinion and the actual people on the other side as unworthy. That's the strategy - don't make it about the issue, make it about their underlying flaws as people that make their opinion not worthy. They're racists, they want to control your lives, they're backwards, they're uneducated, whatever. Obviously, those people are out there. And it's not enough to just say, "well, I'm not talking about everyone", because the entire spirt of those validity attacks are to invalidate the OPINION, whether or that a given person has reached that conclusion reasonably.

In shows itself in this message board all the time, that mindset.

The reason this discussion is even happening is because you and DaddyTorgo will make the global statements like "Cable news networks give the image..." which are all-encompassing, and then pick your examples from the conservative groups. If he had called out Franken as one of his examples, and you had included CNN, we'd all be agreeing on the same points and be fine.

And don't even try to argue CNN as a true news source. They are selling T-Shirts of their headlines on their main web site, which helps give their headline writers an incentive to be witty and funny instead of accurate.

Except he just pointed out that the Daily Show has been pointing out Obama's mistakes as well. You just flew by that and ignored it, perhaps because it wasn't convenient for the response you wanted to give? If you want to insult people and call them sheep then maybe you should bother to read their posts and respond to what they actually say.

Of course bias has always existed in news media from the days of the first newspaper (or before), but I'd argue that there have been cycles when the major outlets at least tried to aspire to a certain level of objectivity.

Having said that, we're clearly on the down side of a cycle away from objectivity, largely because objectivity doesn't drive ratings/issues sold/page impressions.

I question how much it matters, though. I mean, it's kind of a chicken-and-egg scenario. Did the appetite for echo chambers masquerading as news media create said echo chambers, or did exposure to echo chambers fuel an appetite for more from an intellectually lazy populace? It probably matters little because the information from which one can make objective judgments exists more readily today than ever before, thanks largely to the Internet. You can read 100 different takes on a subject, understand the bias/angle of each, and come to a judgment based on that composite, after all. But how many people can be bothered?

I always end up hating this discussion because I invariably agree with Jon that the people shouldn't be allowed to rule themselves. However, rule by "elites" hasn't been so hot, either. For instance, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson are probably smart guys, but they still let the financial system blow up. There are plenty of other examples, of course.

So we're increasingly left with an imperfect democracy, with any aspect of moderation under assault by diametrically-opposed camps who will do anything to get their way. At least we can say it will be interesting to see how long the tolerance for this kind of political theater can exist and whether or not there's a return to (some sort of ) moderation in politics in the future.

I hate to point out the obvious but.... isn't that the nature of politics when it is played to the lowest common denominator on both sides?

Hell, not even the lowest common denominator.

This is pretty much why I keep coming back to the Terminator/Matrix hybrid future which has computers make all judgments and eliminates all bias only to then turn on "us humans" and judge that we, ourselves, are inherently too flawed to be occupying the planet and subsequently kills us all or enslaves us for eternity.

I prefer the I, Robot version which eliminates the negative second part of your future. They just benignly sit behind the scenes and make sure things run okay.

And of course I mean the book version, not the movie version which was closer to your plot above.

hey - i included Olbermann in my examples. i'm frankly not familiar at all enough with the work of Franken to include him, so I didn't.

and i would certainly included CNN in a list of "cable news networks" (in fact when talking about them earlier i think i did).

so you can go ahead and agree with me then.

Maybe they learned from THE TRUEST HISTORY BOOK EVER WRITTEN and answered John Hanson.

=

I think the general fragmenting of the television audience has a lot to do with it. Good ratings today, especially for cable news, would have been disastrous rating thirty or forty years ago. News had a broader audience, but also needed to appeal to a broader audience. As the level for good rating has declined, most television news organizations have worked to solidify a core audience, wither through politics or sensationalism.

IMO it's much the same as Congressional redistricting where the need to reach a broad audience has diminished and in some sense is counterproductive.

I agree!

The key problem here is that I don't know much about Olbermann and didn't realise he was on "the other side", so I missed that one. I've tuned most of these folks for the last several years, so my knowledge of the talking heads goes mostly to Limbaugh / O'Reilly / Franken from like 8 years ago.

Geez! Go with what gstelmack said- check out Asimov's "I, Robot". That's much more what you're describing and came over 50 years ago ;)

Handy: Even now, he sulks in his tree house like Achilles in his tent!
Everyone else: {blank stares}
Handy: ...Achilles?... The Iliad?... It's Homer?... READ A BOOK!

SI

That's true, and flere (I think) supported your opinion, and I agreed with his opinion, adding that IMO, the Daily Show was a major example of this, though the deception of entertainment/news is reversed from the more conservative examples.

Yet of the three opinions expressed - mine, I guess because it mentioned only a liberal show, was attacked as somehow not being as valid as the 1st two opinions. Rainmaker at least expresssed disagreement with the point, which I appreciated, but whereas you and ronnie just went after the underlying validity, even though in that post, I specifically agreed with what flere said about the conservative shows.

I think so.

I just think the Daily Show is a big example of that. There's certainly enough voices here to remind us all the conservative shows are guilty of this, which I agree with.