Tags: 
Categories: 
Living in a time of clear division in which a President faces choices that will mold our country in a permanent and lasting way. Abraham Lincoln reunited the country with force when he faced the United States greatest crisis since independence. Today President Obama faces a country that is equally divided and equally fragile. Obama is no Lincoln and I am fearful for the future of our great country.
Right about now many liberals reading this just had their heads explode because it is simply unconscionable! How can I compare slavery and all that went with that dehumanizing practice with anything happening today? Anything else I write at this point will be ignored, attacked, dissected and lambasted before I actually have time to flesh out my argument, and THAT is the problem. We no longer take the time to hear people out, to think about what is being said or to actually enter into intelligent discussion. This failure to communicate is simultaneously broadening the political divide and making it more difficult to govern and providing greater opportunity for graft and corruption. Elected officials increasingly rely upon the unwavering support of their base even if they are “caught” by the other side. They simply assume that their followers will discount news reported by the opposition. There are a series of communication issues that plague both parties:
1. Our Perspective Dictates Our Perception -
I love my wife with all of my heart and trust her completely, but we can both hear the same sentence and think that it means completely different things – and WE get along and communicate. Whether it is Big Bird, Benghazi, immigration or abortion folks hear the same words and instantly put their own meaning on them. This predisposition of interpretation makes meaningful discussion virtually impossible. I have tried to engage people on this site on each of those topics and often we simply reach impasse because we cannot bridge the difference in perception gap. I find this particularly frustrating when it involves factual events and not simply opinion. People simply have a remarkable ability to discount and filter out facts that are inconsistent with their core beliefs which form their perceptions.
2. Our Peers Reinforce Our Belief System
We tend to hang out with people we like, and we tend to like people with similar beliefs. This can have an exponential impact on entire industries as those with differing values either opt out or are forced out. Conservative professors are often marginalized or even mocked by university faculties that nationally self-identifying in percentages multiples above the general population. (Faculty self-identification) The liberal domination of the media is so measurable (89% voted Democratic) it is really no longer in dispute. Scott Stenholm, a staff writer for HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” contributing writer for The Daily Beast and the Huffington Post recently commented on Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan’s comments that there is a liberal media bias,
Ryan and other conservatives have a valid argument that, for decades, the mainstream media has been liberally biased. . . . As a liberal myself, I am proud that the news media often leans left. The fact that it is their sole purpose to intricately monitor our laws, our lawmakers, our wars, our allies and enemies, our domestic and foreign policy, our current events, only makes me confident that I am leaning the right way. . . . So while the ‘liberal media’ does not seem to be having a dramatic effect on ideology it does beg the question — shouldn’t the country be leaning in the same ideological direction as the people who cover this stuff for a living?
This “birds of a feather” phenomenon is not the exclusive domain of liberals or the left and my own bias has probably led me to use the above examples. I believe that it is simply human nature to hang out with people of similar views to our own. The downside of this is that we lose perspective and reinforce our own already existing bias.
3. Proliferation of Media Sources Allows Continued Bias Reinforcement
Even 25 years ago our sources of information were pretty limited. Local newspapers, local and national television, local and national radio. ”Cable options” basically meant CNN and Al Gore had not yet spread the internet to the world. I can still remember my very liberal dad swearing to the world every morning as he read that “*#$# conservative Santa Ana Register.” We would talk about what he was reading and why he disagreed. These same conversations took place everyday at offices, schools, churches and neighborhoods.
Today you can hand select your news source from hundreds of radio and television news choices and more than thirty million websites available (I know, when I first started this blog it was ranked more than 30 millionth). Each and every human on earth can literally hand-pick their source(s) of news. No one ever has to read something that is inconsistent with their own perceptions or with the views of their peer group. Obviously, not everyone behaves this way as is clearly demonstrated by the comments to this blog which actually lean toward the left. Unfortunately I think that most folks don’t “cross over” on their news intake and most of those that do simply do it to demonstrate their superiority to those “on the other side.” I feel fortunate here at Thinking Right because it feels like we generally get real thinking rather than the typical three or four word “opposition” response.
4. Combination of Personal, Peer and Media Perceptions
What is becoming toxic in our society is the combination of normally existing personal bias, reinforcement of these views by peers and then cementing these developing beliefs through constant bombardment by self-selected media output. This virulent combination produces a society of people who think that “I am right and you are wrong” all of the time. This belief is confirmed by reassuring friends and a constantly supportive media. Now solidified as “absolutes,” ANY contrary opinion can now be easily tossed aside as simply wrong. Facts that don’t stack up as consistent with “absolute” can simply be tossed aside as wrong and with just a little effort can be crafted as “crazy” or “paranoid.”
This leaves our country in a deeply disturbing place. You have multiple groups of people with radically different views that are completely convinced that everything they say and think is correct and that all contrary facts and opinions are incorrect. Not the best environment for productive and rational discussion. This could not come at a worse time as our country is facing yet another precarious nation and planet threatening series of crisis. Can’t really talk about global warming because each side has twisted the terminology and the concepts making it impossible to discuss practical policy. Can’t really talk about the economy because one side sees the other as “greedy” while the other side is viewed as “parasites.” Can’t talk about abortion because one side is says it is murder and the other says it is only about the woman’s body. The list goes on and on.
What can be done about all of this? Try thinking for yourself. Try challenging views you assume as being absolutes. Easier said than done, isn’t it?
HotAir
“One can only see what one observes, and one observes only things which are already in the mind.” – Alphonse Bertillon
Maybe I am an exception, but I willfully seek out the points of view that not only contradict my own but also the ones that never even occurred naturally to me. Many of my political views are very painful for me as they boil down to a dim view of human nature and an overwhelmingly sad and disgraceful take on human history. I want to know what makes people tick. I seek the contextual clues that shed light on how persons define their terms as they state their opinions. If I find someone who is passionately arguing the opposite side of an issue from my own I am pleased as this is the best way to test the integrity of the planks in my platform. My experience in the field has led me to believe that truly conservative-minded people are not afraid of the opposing point of view and will not seek to stifle its expression. Conversely, I see ‘progressives’ and ‘liberals’ perpetually censoring, blocking, deleting and otherwise attacking and suppressing dissident opinion and those who deign to express it. This of course is not universally or absolutely the case but I could list dozens of liberal blogs and facebook pages and websites that have banned me without a hearing and blocked my further comments when I was guilty of nothing more than openly challenging a premise or ideal. When a person speaks out against Israel or the undue influence of the plutocratic pro-Zionist lobby more often than not you are instantly labelled a racist or an anti-Semite. And if you counter this knee-jerk nonsense by confining your sources strictly to the writings and opinions of Jewish Americans who are openly critical of Israel and its grabby, bloodthirsty policies then they simply block you and delete you anyway. I’m fine with that because it shows me that I am on the right track and that the chink in the armor of Zionism is a dreadful fear of open discussion and the Truth. If they won’t even let you talk you have already won the argument. Let these vultures preach to the choir.
Ha ha ha! You need to add SATIRE to the tag on this story, how else can you explain the following comment?;
” I have tried to engage people on this site on each of those topics and often we simply reach impasse because we cannot bridge the difference in perception gap. I find this particularly frustrating when it involves factual events and not simply opinion. People simply have a remarkable ability to discount and filter out facts that are inconsistent with their core beliefs which form their perceptions.”
Readers (including myself) have CAUGHT YOU numerous times spreading easily fact-checked FALSEHOODS. Those falsehoods are NOT due to a difference in “perceptions” but out and out lies.
You’ve spread those falsehoods on Fast and Furious, Benghazi and on Obama’s background.
You are part of this problem Geoff Willis, although like your LIES, you’ll never see it or admit it.
Joe, you are kind of making my point. I have not been “caught” on anything and I stand by any of the factual allegations that I have made. On the few times that I have been challenged and had things wrong, I have admitted my mistake – but that has never been on anything significant. One of the parts of the puzzle that I did not add was about catching the tiniest of errors (which often aren’t even errors) and then using that to argue that the entire opposing opinion is completely wrong.
Where have you admitted your mistakes? Certainly not on any of these lies I’ve caught you in;
1) On Fast and Furious you said Issa had only “paused” his investigation, it isn’t true and you have yet to PROVE IT or apologize.
2) On Benghazi you said that officials had “unequivocally watched the attacks in real time” when I pointed it out to you as being false you a) ignored it, then b) modified it, and then c) tried to defend it by saying Charlene Lamb “observed” the audio. You were not only caught in a brazen lie, but a ridiculous one and still, NO MEA CULPA OR APOLOGY.
3) You said that Obama had “sealed” his college transcripts, both Snoopy D and I pointed out that that is simply NOT TRUE and again, nothing from you.
You are not honest in your assessment of yourself, so it is not surprising that you aren’t honest with others either.
YOU’RE JUST A PARROT OF RIGHT-WING TALKING POINTS.
Right or wrong, you don’t care, as long they slime Obama and or the left.
So please stop pretending that you’re some independent thinker, you really aren’t fooling anyone but the nutters.
Joe, you have an interesting way, just like your beloved President of answering the question you want to answer regardless of the question actually asked. You say that I “never admit my mistakes” and then put the burden on me (with close to 200 posts on this blog) to catalogue them. I have addressed each of those thee particular “accusations” in the specific post. What is interesting is that you will never answer the specific questions asked in the articles: 1) Obama’s Administration intentionally walked guns into Mexico that were used to kill hundreds of people – AG Eric Holder has simultaneously withheld hundreds of thousands of pages claiming executive privilege (meaning that the documents were reflective of internal senior official and/or Presidential discussions) AND argued that the AG and the President had no knowledge of the fatal operation – explain? 2) Benghazi – see immediately above. 3) The post was about the hypocrisy of Michelle and Barack Obama claiming that “we are one of you” when they have lived a privileged life unavailable to most people and have actually had every advantage notwithstanding poor performance. Snoopy is correct that the records are not “sealed” and I already admitted in the comments to that post that I got that part wrong, but it is also very true that none of Obama’s academic (or many other) records have ever been released and that the President has never consented to their release.
I really think that both of your comments make my point that there isn’t enough dialogue and folks continue to beat the same old drum regardless of the facts, will change the subject to meet their needs and will simply be unwilling to listen to any contrary argument.
The problem here is that you seem to think that you shouldn’t be held accountable FOR WHAT YOU WRITE.
I didn’t make those claims, you did and YOU WERE WRONG AND NEVER ADMITTED IT.
Fact checkin’ Geoff (someone’s gotta do it).
This is your mea culpa on Obama’s sealed records;
“The only topic of any relevance to my discussion deals with the release of the school transcripts which even your “fact checker” admits that Obama has refused to release. Not at all consistent with what I wrote. The rest I never even raised.”
Where did you admit that you got something wrong?
Geoff-
Advocating falsehoods as “facts” and then backing off from them when you are caught is responsible the first time, perhaps the second time. When you make it a pattern of behavior you begin to look like a propagandist seeing what the public will swallow. This works directly against what you are trying to say here.
You have also missed a vital point. Humans make social and political decisions emotionally first and then will try and select facts to support that emotional decision. This is one reason it is so hard to change political opinion with factual evidence.
David, my point is that I don’t believe that I have ever advocated “falsehoods” and then backed off. One of the classics of the left is to tell the huge lie unsupported by any facts and then when the right tries to rebut the left latches onto the smallest of errors and yells “wrong.” I am sure that there are instances in which it happens the other way around, but in this campaign it seemed like the huge obvious lies (Romeny killed my wife) were met with either non-reponses or simple shrugs whereas Romney would say something that was generally correct and the left would call him the “biggest liar in history.” Oil production on federal property being ca classic example of where Romney was correct, and the Obama would rephrase the question or answer a different question and then yelled liar about Romney.
” One of the classics of the left is to tell the huge lie unsupported by any facts and then when the right tries to rebut the left latches onto the smallest of errors and yells “wrong”.”
Your claim that officials “watched” the Benghazi attacks in “real time” is not some “small error” it was the heart of your case against the Obama administration, you claim they knew what went down immediately and that was how.
WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO LIE ABOUT THIS?
For someone who coined the term “Obama Murdergate” and who engages in hyperbole ALL THE TIME like saying “Obama … yelled liar about Romney” makes this whole article the height of HYPOCRISY.
YOU are part of the problem.
Joe, the fact that you read an article that says individual bias of both sides combined with peer reinforcement and media self-selection makes discussion more difficult for both sides is an attack on the left is ironic. You try to rely on the difference between monitoring. watching and listening to the attack in Benghazi somehow is the crucial difference that explains why the Obama Administration lied to the public for three weeks. There is evidence that there were two different drones dispatched to provide video feeds of the attack and that one or both may have provided live video feeds to either the intelligence community or the defense department. My “lie” was reporting that when that information was first released. It has still not been released whether either drone was able to provide live video although there has been confirmation that at least an hour of footage from the second drone was watched live. The rest of the information about the activities of the two drones is simply “unreleased.” Keep on clinging to that distinction.
Who wrote ” UNEQUIVOCALLY, watched in real time”?
NOT ME.
Trying to wiggle out of YOUR LIE again?
Try answering the question, did they watch the attacks in real time or not?
Listening to an individual under attack, describing chaos over the phone is a far cry from “watching” the event unfold and so would any information gleaned.
When trying to find the truth in a situation having someone SPREAD LIES isn’t helpful, but it is EXACTLY what you and your right wing brethren do. Throw enough sh*t on the wall and see what sticks.
Furthermore, the Obama administration DIDN’T LIE for three weeks, that’s is just more crap cooked up in the fevered brain’s of right wing nuts on a witch hunt.
Joe, the Obama Administration said for three weeks that they thought that the attack in Benghazi was a “spontaneous” uprising resulting for the release of an offensive film. THAT is a lie in that they knew immediately that the Benghazi attack was a coordinated terrorist attack. They lied.
One thing at a time.
Why don’t you address my question?
FACT: Admin. Launched An Investigation Into The Attacks, Saying It Was Avoiding Speculation …… And Never Foreclosed The Possibility Of Terrorism While Conducting The Inquiry
AP: The Obama Administration “Is Investigating Whether The Assault On The U.S. Consulate In Libya Was A Planned Terrorist Attack.” Within 48 hours of the attack on our Libyan consulate, the Obama administration launched an investigation into whether the violence was a result of terrorism. From The Associated Press:
The Obama administration, roiled by the first killing of a U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years, is investigating whether the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a planned terrorist strike to mark the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and not a spontaneous mob enraged over an anti-Islam YouTube video. [The Associated Press, 9/13/12]
Obama on Benghazi: “No Acts Of Terror Will Ever Shake The Resolve Of This Great Nation.” Speaking from the White House rose garden the day after the attack in Benghazi, President Obama said:
OBAMA: No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done. [The White House, 9/12/12]
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/09/26/myths-and-facts-about-the-benghazi-attack-and-p/190150#g
Joe, here is where the arguments devolve into meaninglessness. Your Obama quotes are taken out of context are come from remarks where he was generally talking about the 9/11/01 attacks and not about Benghazi. As detailed in all of the Benghazi timelines, Obama, Rice, Clinton and Jay Carney all repeatedly said for weeks that it was NOT a terrorist attack but a spontaneous response to the vile movie. A full two weeks after Obama made the out of context statements you reference he and his staff repeatedly contradicted those statements by saying that it was NOT a terrorist attack for a full two weeks after your referenced statements. He either lied then, lied now or, most likely, lied both times.
Puhleeese, GW. When did your argument devolve into meaningless? Without seeking out transcripts to every statement made by every administratioin “official”, I did find this link to a CNN timeline of some statements. The first admission of a terrorist attack comes from Matthew Olsen on September 19, Carney the next day. Even without a Mayan calendar, Sept 19 is 7 days, not “weeks” or “two weeks”. I do see a lot of language in the first week like “investigation”, and “evidence” and “based on the information we have” and “cautious about drawing conclusions”…you know, let’s get some facts before throwing inaccuracies out there. Since precision of verbiage is your battlecry, never once did any of those you cited say it was NOT a terrorist attack. Your claims are like an insurance company relying on the first person to call in after a traffic accident being the accurate report before the police or claims adjuster or witnesses or other party to the accident submit their statements or reports and the facts are known.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/libya-attack-statements/index.html
P.S. I agree that the President’s Rose Garden remark contextually was referring to general terror attacks, not the Benghazi incident. Did your “head explode”, GW?
Funny, but the out of context comments are YOURS;
Obama’s REAL COMMENTS ON 9/12/12;
“Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”
Now, here is your biased and twisted version;
In his speech in the Rose Garden on the day following the attacks, President Obama first blamed the video for the attacks and virtually apologized for the First Amendment, “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” The President then spoke for several minutes and then addressed his personal commemoration of the anniversary of the 9/11/2001 attacks:
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourn with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.
It was following this statement that President Obama said ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” (Entire Transcript of Speech)
In the context of the Administration statements to the public for the next two weeks it makes much more sense that these statements were in reference to either the 9/11/2001 attacks or to “terror” in a more general sense than the President calling the Libyan attacks “terrorist attacks.”
Hey joe…ya think we’ll hear any walking back or admission of being wrong on the “two weeks”, “weeks” or “three weeks” admission of Benghazi being a terrorist attack? I’m not even sure what GW’s position is on when it was admitted since he’s stated 3 different time periods for an admission, none of which are the actual time of 1 week.
Guess I better stay tuned to Fox for “the truth” since that CNN is so biased with their quoting of actual people on actual dates.
GW, you represent the height of hypocrisy and the double standard. On the one hand you “hear” what wasn’t “said” (Romney killed my wife) by inferring what your bias told you to.
You also attempt to link a PAC ad to the Obama campaign as being one-and-the-same when that too is factually inaccurate, and then you assign the ad to Obama as an Obama lie. The ad was interpreted by the right using implied/inferred and not on what specifically was said. Even now you claim the ad was “met with either non-reponses or simple shrugs” when even the left media lambasted the ad harshly. I’ll just call your interpretation of media, as well as the public’s, response to the ad a mischaracterization instead of the lie that your biased brain allowed your fingers to type.
Then you turn around and claim Romney was “correct” based on exact specifics of the precise words he said while ignoring the generalities of HIS statement to force a desired notion. You pick the nits of your candidate to claim “truth” but not the opposition candidate (again, not even his ad).
The Romney “lie” was in the deception and connotation of his remark using precisely cherry-picked information for the statement he made.
“oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land”
This year – meaning 2012 – yet the year wasn’t over and production not tallied. One could easily argue a blatant lie of “this year”. So do we look at 2011 as “this year”? Ok.
2011 was in fact down over 2010 “on federal land” overall. However, it was up on onshore federal land. Why not use that figure? It was down on offshore production though. Why? Deepwater Horizon ring a bell? Deception….cherry picked for “accuracy” and to control the debate using a very specific statistic to connote a “decline”, and specifically the result of policy, under the boogieman’s watch.
Well what about previous years…or even an average under the bad man’s reign of terror? Oh wait…production on “federal land” was up 2010 over 2009 and up 2009 over 2008. And the three year average was up overall too, and even up over the meanie’s predecessor. And would Romney dare let on that production was down 4 out of 5 years under the last years of the Bush presidency? Heck no! Why the “lies of omission”?
So you see, Romney was more interested in cherry-picking one singular, hard sought out data point to deceive and try to make the economy destroyer in the White House appear to be curtailing oil production and causing an energy crisis.
In your zeal to be “right”, you concentrate on the technicalities of Romney’s carefully and purposefully crafted language to support your candidate’s righteousness while choosing to use inference to lambaste your opponents.
Your bias more than just over-shadow your ability to engage in discussion. It blinds you to exploration of facts…unless it’s a ‘technically correct” fact.
Let’s not even review the “welfare” lies from the Romney camp – which was a direct Romney approved ad, not from a PAC.
From Phillip Zane:
The assumption that you begin with is plainly wrong. Why do you even start out that way? You claim in your first paragraph that the Union today is as divided and as fragile as it was when Lincoln was elected. Lincoln won a majority of the Electoral College after he, a Republican, ran on a platform that called for the abolition of slavery. See it here (and this is cool): http://cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html. Note that it was the abolitionists (the Republicans) who emphasized “states’ rights.” In 1860, “states’ rights” meant the right of a state not to return fugitive slaves. States’ rights are absent from the Democratic platforms of 1860 (they are printed here in easy-to-read format http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/1860_Election_Platforms.pdf). The only issues relating to states’ rights that appear in South Carolina’s Ordinance of Secession are the right to secede (go here; this, too, is cool: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:South_Carolina_Declaration_and_Ordinance_of_Secession.djvu), and, of course, a criticism of the free states’ refusal to return fugitive slaves. South Carolina seceded, and some but not all of the other slave states followed, because the Republicans had promised to outlaw slavery and had announced that they would prevent any new slave states from being admitted to the Union. With a number of territories ready to become states (Kansas joined as a free state in January of 1861; Nevada was admitted to the Union during the war), abolitionists would soon outnumber pro-slavery votes in Congress. Slavery was doomed. Eleven states seceded and fought and lost a bloody war to keep their slaves.
The pressing issues of the 2012 election seemed to include taxation and healthcare. We argued about whether the income tax should be slightly more progressive, not as progressive as it was under Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Reagan, but more progressive than it was under Bush fils. We argued over whether the federal government can force people to have health insurance. I note that Canada and all of the democracies of Western Europe have various national health insurance schemes; in 1860 none of those countries still had slavery or serfdom. And I note further that the federal government already pays approximately 55% of all healthcare costs in the US through Medicare and Medicaid. About 16% of Americans had no health insurance at all in 2011. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/data/incpovhlth/2011/highlights.html.
Obama has largely avoided the social issues of the day. He embraced gay marriage when Biden forced his hand, but he did not make this a campaign issue. He avoided gun control completely even when tragedies in, among other places, Arizona, Colorado, and Wisconsin, invited him to address at least limiting assault weapons or the size of gun clips. Abortion entered the debate only when the Republican Platform (see page 13 and 14 under “The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life”: http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf) and a gaggle of candidates made clear they would forbid in vitro fertilization, prohibit medical intervention to save the life of a mother if it endangered a fetus, and force a teenage girl to bear her rapist’s child.
Your opening paragraph suggests, therefore, that you would go to war over increasing the marginal tax rate on income over $250,000 by a couple of points and ensuring that the percentage of Americans covered by either federally funded programs or private health insurance increases from 84% to 100%.
Really? No? Then why even suggest it?
One of the problems with political discourse in the United States today is that it is full of ridiculous hyperbole. I think we agree about that. Somehow Obama is a communist, fascist, atheist, Muslim who attends Jeremiah Wright’s church with Bill Ayers. Romney is, well, feel free to insert here whatever ridiculous things you’ve heard left-wing blowhards (not me) say about Romney. My son insisted on booing whenever we saw a Romney sign during the week before the election and listed a number of reasons Romney must be a bad man. I tried to explain that Romney is a fine man with whom we disagree about what is best for our country; we would probably like him if we got to know him. But Christopher is not strong on subtlety. He’s nine. We, however, are adults. Let’s try to change the rhetoric. Let’s not say foolish or inflammatory things. Let’s let Limbaugh and Ed Schultz twist in the wind. Forget them. Let’s be different. It’s not 1860. It’s 2012, and we have come so far from slavery that a black man is president.
Kudos for choosing a title that describes you to a “T”, GW. Of course we all know this article is meant to be yet another veiled attack on liberals and the liberal ideology as shown by your imposing false impressions on liberals using negative terms (“liberals reading this just had their heads explode” and continuing the attack on liberals with “Anything else I write at this point will be ignored, attacked, dissected and lambasted before I actually have time to flesh out my argument, and THAT is the problem [with liberals].”) Perhaps a simple “challenged” would suffice instead of negative connotation forced upon liberals. Isn’t that what you’re seeking – discussion and communication? Why must you set the “tone” with attacks on liberals at the outset when neutrality should be the tone? You are part of the problem and hardly part of the solution with this tactic and you broaden the divide by being antagonistic out of the chute.
Most of your article describes human nature and it’s hard to argue known human traits. So as traits that humans possess, I can say I agree with you. However, your break from logic is that strongly held convictions can be marginalized as “predispostions” rendering them “meaningless” and “biased”. What you’re really trying to say is that unless you agree with me, your opinions and strongly held beliefs have no value unless and until you come around to my views.
In Point 2, you gave the readers the most lamest of links to “support” your contention that conservatives are marginalized or mocked. “Faculty self identification” is a pay site if you want to read past the article that stops mid-sentence. What little I was able to read only showed self-identification of professors and did not address the “leaning” of the curriculum. Sure you can argue the teaching “methods” might be left leaning but the political affiliation of a professor does not determine the content of the course study required.
Also in Point 2 was a link you used to parrot the “liberal media”claim with a “measurable 89% voted Democrat”. I hardly think a study from 1996 indicts media as “liberal”, with one statistic cherry picked from a site called “cybercollege” that doesn’t even show the author of the “article” you linked to. Are we now to research Goldberg’s book ‘Bias’ to find out who the “most journalists” were in the study from 1996? Of course this says nothing of how they reported but only their party affiliation. Does “voting for a Democrat for President” indicate how many were actually Republicans or the reason(s) for how they voted? What about 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 Presidential elections? You may want to read a little further in that blog post, or letter to the site or whatever that “article” is and you’ll see that it portrays the media as more conservative than liberal. But your seeking out information that confirms your bias is duly noted. Well not actually in this case as there was only one nugget you quoted while ignoring the rest that actually disproved your cry of “liberal media”. 30 million sites and this is the best you could do to support a claim? Meh!
Lastly, I take issue with your characterization of those who do “cross over on their news intake” as doing it to “simply demonstrate their superiority”. Now you may be guilty of that but how dare you impose that insult on others? Demonstrating superiority as a motive for being informed? Really!?? Don’t tell me you consider that “real thinking” by you.
I’ll close with making one request: Please stop marginalizing strongly held convictions as mere biases. Impasse does not make you right and me wrong…or vice/versa. You’re entitled to be as misguided as you want…LOL. At least we agree that human nature plays a role in our political beliefs, just as it does in picking out a shirt at the store or choosing the color of our next car. I like red cars but I’m not wrong for liking red because you don’t like red.
P.S. There’s no reason to be “fearful for the future of our great country”, Henny Penny. The boogieman in the White House won’t destroy it no matter the claims to the contrary.
“Snoop” I’m going to tell you the truth. No one cares what you have to say. No one even read your posts. Why? Because you are a yellow little anonymous troll hiding behind a ‘handle’ and running your big fat troll mouth. There is a place for people like you – its called ‘craigslist rants and raves’ which is clearly where Mr. Willis picked you up like an STD because he promotes his posts by placing his links there. Go back where you came from. PS – Nobody cares what you have to say on craigslist either. Troll.
Thank you for not reading.
No problem.
Awwww…you did read my post. Does that make you “no one” [sic]?
I did not read your post. I got an email that you were being a smart ass and I responded in kind. And no, reading your anonymous yellow drivel does not make me ‘no one.’ My income and social status do that.
Cool. You “didn’t” read another one so you “wouldn’t” know how to respond. What self-control you have.
This is why the founding fathers gave us a Republic, ruled by law, not by opinions of men. There is a right and a wrong; but we don’t believe that anymore. It’s all relative, we say; but that is nonsense. Men are corrupt by nature and cannot unite for a noble cause unless their hearts are touched by God. They then realize that if they don’t look out for others, tell lies or half truths, or if they only look out for themselves, then there is a God that will ultimately seek justice. That helps men to hold the line and have discussion to find a solution that works, i.e. the founding fathers in the great compromise.
Amen.
G.W. What does it feel like to be held to a higher standard of truthfulness than the president of this country ?
Just because you don’t get a “truth” that you desire does not mean it’s not “the” truth.
“the” “truth” “Obama” “lies”
We’ll await your citations while playing ‘Final Jeopardy’ theme on endless loop.
What is “I will close Gitmo” circ: 2008
Congressional opposition for $100, Alex.
What is “Always someone elses fault” .
Harry Truman , he is not .
Sen. Byron Dorgan D. stood on the floor of the senate and stated “If this bill passes it will destroy our country as we know it ”
clue, it was during the 90′s and Clinton signed it ,, yet its still Bushes fault !
Things the President Never Said for $100, Alex.
And we’ll caution today’s contestants that the topic is “Obama’s Lies”. Judge GW has already cautioned on “changing the subject”.
Congressional opposition , can we say executive order, B.O. has bypassed congress with anything else his heart desires, and Quoting Sen. Dorgan is NOT changing the subject, B.O. says its Bush’s fault,
That in and of itself is a LIE ! Dem. Sen. Dorgans Statements prove this economic mess was set in motion before Bush took office before
“B.O. has bypassed congress with anything else his heart desires.”
Kurt’s Lies for $100, Alex.
“B.O. says its Bush’s fault”
Things the President Never Said for $200, Alex.
Score is now $-500 for Kurt.
It is too bad that the discussion on this posting has gotten so far away from the subject. Geoff, you have hit the nail on the head. We have become split into two groups where even the facts are different. And that makes any rational discussion or debate of the issues next to impossible.
The question becomes, what can be done about it? I’m not sure this is a problem that has an answer. I suppose it might help a bit to bring back the fairness doctrine, but I don’t think that will ever happen. I don’t expect Rush Limbaugh to allow intelligent liberals onto his show to debate the issues anytime soon (Rush would lose badly). And people who have strong biases are usually uncomfortable listening to those on the other side, so won’t make the change on their own.
One additional factor that may have contributed to this problem is the gerrymandering of the last few decades. Politicians want to create districts that are “safe,” meaning there are a high enough percentage of voters from their party in their district that they are sure to win re-election. To win election, all they have to do is to appeal to their base. This creates an environment where those on the extreme right or extreme left have an advantage over those in the center. And their extremism validates the extreme beliefs of their supporters.
By allowing those of all beliefs to post on your blog, what you are doing is a step in the right direction. Allowing liberals to post may scare away some of your potential audience, but you are doing the right thing. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the kind words Roger. I do find it curious that so far that a plurality of commenters here are from the left, but I view that as a good thing in many ways. I do get personal communication from readers asking “how I put up with them,” but the entire point of doing this is to encourage open discussion. I think that part of the problem with the Washington Post piece is that they genuinely do not think that Susan Rice or the Administration did anything wrong when she spoke on those five Sunday shows. If you start with that as a premise, then the congressional letter must be a pretext for something else (in their minds). In the absence of any other rational reason that they (the Post Editorial Board) can see, then it must be racist. Of course their position completely discounts the relevance or even the existence of any issues regarding Benghazi, but as you have seen from the responses here, there are a number of intelligent people who think that Benghazi was handled properly.
What gives me hope is that I was old enough during Watergate to watch this same phenomenon unwind in th ugliest of ways. If there was a cover-up, if there were stand down orders during the battle, if Generals were fired for ordering timely support to the battle then there will evenutally be accountability. It may take a couple of years, but it will happen.
I don’t know how we bridge this gap and at lease gain common ground on the facts. I know you cite Rush Limbaugh, but I find both Ed Shultz and Rachel Maddow completely unwatachable. I found the behavior of Andrea Mitchel unconscionable during the campaign when she was caught red handed splicing together tape that incorrectly made Romney look out of touch and then refused to make any retraction let alone an apology.
Personally I try to mix up my news sources. I like O’Reilly because he always has the left represented in the argument and always gives them a shot. I have had a lot more respect for Anderson Cooper since he would not back down from a lying Wasserman. There are good reporters out there still reporting the news the best they can, but there is going to have to be some kind of journalistic revolution to really reverse it.
I know it is probably growing tiresome, but I truly believe that we are living the the dark times of the Committee of Un-American Affairs, only this time it is called the era of “Political Correctness” and it will take a jolting and socially difficult time like the 1960′s to snap us out of it as a country.
Home run! Great slugging with that aneswr!
The biggest problem in todays politics is misinformation. The lies come out of CNN, FOX NEWS, blogs and crazies. Then the uneducated believe them. How many republican today believe Obama is a Muslim, or that he was not born in the USA. When opinions are expressed as fact by a so called news source then spread by others as fact we all lose. What we need to do is unite and solve issues not lie and create them. We have 4 years of Obama left and sorry to tell you 8 more of Clinton. By the way I am a republican a Regan republican which in no way represents the republican party of today. Quit crying get together and put up a viable candidate that represents the people and I will vote for them. But looks like I’ll vote Clinton in 2116. Republican party get rid of the crazies. Obama does not want to take your guns, your freedom or give your money away.
hello there and thank you for your info – I’ve certainly picked up something new from right here. I did however expertise a few technical issues using this site, since I experienced to reload the site a lot of times previous to I could get it to load correctly. I had been wondering if your hosting is OK? Not that I am complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will often affect your placement in google and could damage your high quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords. Well I am adding this RSS to my email and could look out for much more of your respective interesting content. Make sure you update this again soon.
There’s definately a lot to find out about this subject. I like all of the points you have made.