AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > May > 25 > Entry
Should colleges fight intolerance by curbing hate speech?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
On campuses these days, “intolerance” is considered a grave offense. And hundreds of colleges have taken it upon themselves to stamp out this dreadful scourge by creating speech codes: rules that protect one student from hearing something offensive from another.
This, of course, is unconstitutional.
At first I was amazed that universities want to squash individual expression instead of protecting it. But looking at how speech codes are written and enforced, there’s a clear pattern. Most of the academics writing the codes appear to share the same predominantly liberal, secular, relativistic point of view, and to them, much conservative, religious or absolute speech seems deeply offensive.
For example, over the last few years, Georgia Tech shut down two “racist” and “offensive” College Republican protests against affirmative action and the Vagina Monologues. But when liberal critics began extremely personal and racist protests against the Indian woman leading the College Republicans – calling her a “twinkie bitch” (yellow on the outside, white inside) —the administration appeared to do nothing.
David French, head of the Alliance Defense Fund’s Center for Academic Freedom, is leading a lawsuit against Georgia Tech. He told me this is just one of hundreds of examples of tolerance gone wrong. “They are only allowing a broad range of speech that they are apparently sympathetic with,” he said. “That’s what is so ludicrous about these speech codes. You find unbelievably outrageous speech from the left side of the spectrum that is celebrated, but conventional conservative views are shut down as hate speech.”
The problem with trying to prohibit intolerance is that most of what gets defined as intolerance, isn’t. It’s usually just a different point of view — often, one that left-leaning people disagree with.
But in cases of extreme intolerance – such as true racism – universities should let the natural process of moral persuasion work. For example, an immigrant-hating racist will find himself isolated and ostracized by the mainstream. After he’s had his free-speech say, most people will angrily discount it, and his racist opinion will be discredited.
Allowing the marketplace of ideas to work is far better than allowing one ideology to define intolerance.
Rebuttal
Talk is cheap but it is far more expensive to jeopardize free speech with subjectivity.
Murder is considered immoral, but in a case of self-defense, it’s self-preservation. When defending a country at war, it’s a path to peace. Depending on the context, meaning changes. So it is with speech.
Academia may succeed in muzzling students in a classroom but they cannot change a their hearts. To do that, they’d have to change their minds. Christianity didn’t conquer Rome because censoring speech and belief was an effective strategy. But, unfortunately, you can stunt social change by passing laws and codes. And that is what Shaunti refers to when she mentions how one group’s bias can weild unfair control over another group’s fate.
Take a look at the exclusion of sex as a protected status in hate crimes in both the federal law, as well as many state laws, and you’ll see how college speech codes share the same well-meaning dysfunction. Both attempt political sensitivity by drawing attention to minority groups. It seems progressive to codify language among people from different walks of life. It seems progressive to tack on more prison time for biased-based “hate crimes.” Unfortunately, our own biased-based opinions get in the way.
Male on female violence is so prevalent, the Anti-Defamation League dropped sex as a sub-classification from hate crimes, according to research in “Hate Crimes: New Social Movements and the Politics of Violence.” You see, including sex as a hate crime, although appropriate, would have so “overwhelmed data collection efforts” that the original intent to spotlight violence against other minority groups would have been watered down by this sad but common theme in women’s lives.
I’m glad we can keep our crime statistics so tidy. Too bad our lives are messy. Day after day, we watch stories about women being killed like sport on television, we read about their tragic deaths in the newspaper and hear the tearful accounts by the victim’s immediate family. I call domestic violence a bias-based crime; others prefer to call it a “domestic dispute.” I call serial femicides misogyny; others consider it too prevalent to be given special consideration.
So what is hate speech? Nothing more than words, as subjective and biased as the laws that shape our biased laws and speech codes.
Comments
By Gary Harrison
May 29, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
David French is correct. The liberal left always wants to deny “freedom of expression” to anyone who doesn’t share their leftist leanings. I am not saying that either liberal thought OR conservative thought is wrong per se, just that EVERYONE should be allowed to express their views. That is not the case today where colleges are dens of liberal brainwashing. Professors are allowed to teach only the liberal viewpoint, only speakers who serve the liberal agenda are allowed to speak at many colleges. So what needs to be done is to allow a forum for anyone to express their views. So what if someone is offended? I am offended by viewss contrary to my own, too and get just as injured as anyone else (assuming that words can do actual harm). So where do my rights stop and yours begin? Just about ANYTHING anybody says is going to offend somebody. Get over it. Equal justice and liberty for ALL. Remember that?
By time for the truth
May 29, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
College lefties and far lefties impose their intolerant hate speech on everyone and screech like stuck pigs if anyone dares oppose them. The ultra leftist disgraced (academic?? haha) America hater Ward Churchill calls 9/11 victims “little Eichmans”, Anne Coulter (who admittedly is a religious zealout) is frequently attacked and shouted down by the far left, as are other sound conservatives like David Horowitz. Horowitz admits to being an uber-lefty associated with the racist/thuggish black panthers, but even he finally saw the error of his marxist ways. Even high school teachers are preaching their one sided anti-Bush poison in the class room - that geography lefty in Colorado should have been fired for his antics a while back.
So called peace studies and womens studies and black studies are simply tax payer funded leftist indoctrination sessions with a regimented mind set that tolerates NO objective or constructive criticism. Try factually/logically challenging a so called lecturer/commissar on these topics and see what grade you get!!
Its funny isn’t it how “hate speech” on left dominated campuses is almost always conservative or non leftist. Yet, as just one example, the apologists for arab/palestinian terrorism for decades hound and harras folks who stand up for the ONLY democracy in the middle east - Israel. Anyone who legitimately opposes racist quotas on campus - dishonestly and inflammatorily dubbed “affirmative action” to soften the racism involved -is called a racist/bigot. Note how liberal speech uses soft words like ‘activist’ but conservatives are ‘reactionaries’.
If the left dont get their way then leftist moral fascism and mob rule is way too often imposed - and the lefty run colleges rarely do much about it. See how military recruiters have been illegally abused and hounded on certain colleges/campuses.
The split between lefties and conservatives in lecturing staff is about 90% - 10% (approximately). Thus the pinko mind set is set in stone and perpetuated. Horowitz has documented 100 of the worst examples in his excellent new book.
Obviously pinkos, as well as conservatives, and libertarians et al have their right to free speech and freedom of ideas, but when the playing field is so far biased to one intolerant group its a recipe for intolerance.
By Markus
May 29, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
Time for Truth:
VERY well said and most eloquently put! You said everything I wanted to say.
In any event, listening to RAT radio, Air America, shows the hypocrisy of the jackass limpwristed left in this nation. They consider any speech they don’t agree with as “hate speech.” When someone like me goes looking for liberals and turns the rock over, said liberal always says “you’re just a hate-filled right wing nazi.”
Liberals love to throw words around like “lie” and “hate” so much that the meaning of the words themselves have become deluted and distorted. For example, Bush didn’t “lie” about the Iraq war. What he knew at the time he believed to be true (as did many Democrats like Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Hillary, etc.). A “lie” is knowing that what you are saying AT the time is NOT true. By the current definition of a “lie” by liberals, if you say you’ll meet a friend at 7pm at a bar and show up late, then you have LIED, irrespective of what unforseen consequences like traffic or an accident caused your “lie.”
Then of course we have the beloved “hate” definition from liberals. Anytime someone says something that liberals disagree with, it’s “hate” speech. But whenever jackasses like Howard Scream Dean say things like “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for” or “All Republicans are evil” [funny, how the hell can an agnostic liberal pig know about evil?] or “Republicans haven’t worked an honest day in their lives” then of course that’s not “hate” speech according to liberals.. that’s just “passionate speech.”
Nonetheless, countless times I’ve seen liberal-run forums and blogs shut up voices of conservatives. Wanna be a member of democratunderground.com? You’d better not slam a RAT then!
Then of course we have the pathetic liberal RATs on college campuses that like to throw pies in the faces of Conservative talkers like Horowitz and Coulter. Boy, just ONCE I wish I could show up and see that happen in front of me.. I’d chase the punk bastard down and pin his ears back like a hog.
By spiritraveller
May 29, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this
Wow, look at the conservatives saying “Liberals do blablablala” and “Liberals consider” “Liberals think…”
And patting each other on the back.
This column is disappointing. Shaunti gets an opportunity to do what Republicans love, which is to whine about liberals and pretend that conservatives are the victims even though they control all three branches of government.
Diane needs to take a clear position for crying out loud. Free Speech and hate crimes are only tangentially related if at all.
If some idiot frat boy wants to dress up in black face, he’s going to have to live with the consequences of being ridiculed for his own ridiculed. And those who are offended are going to have to accept the reality that they live in a society where some people like to make fun of their race, e.g. a racist people.
But by trying to regulate things that the government has no right to regulate, we ignore what is really going on in people’s hearts and minds.
ACLU doesn’t stand for American Conservative Liberties Union. But that group has been very consistent with its across the board defense of free speech. Who better than a black civil rights lawyer to represent a klansman wanting to burn a cross in his field?
You don’t win people over by towing the party line. You win them over by showing that you have integrity and that you are above their folly.
By time for the truth
May 29, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
Cheers for the kind words Markus … Dead Air America will soon enough be off the air - its only a leftist slush fund that’s keeping it going - almost no one listens to it. Funny how Rush gets 20 million a day - yet the haha pinko “truth” merchants can barely manage a sports talk rating in their very limited markets. IF??? their political analysis is so spot on - how come everyone is CONTINUOUSLY IGNORING THEM??? big smirk
As for spittraveller … what a load of self serving liberal bollocks (olde English for rubbish/nonsense). A few representative examples … The ACLU is overwhelmingly (far) left in active membership and funding. Its leftist national obsession with punishing the boy scouts for exercising their legal rights re: membership is despicable. Their shameful support/enabling of sickos like NAMBLA - for those who are unaware it stand for North American Man Boy Love Association - i.e. perverts who prey on boys and younger teens is enough to despise the ACLU forever!! Their occasional defence of vile bigots like the Klan is done so they can smugly say they occasionally defend “both sides”. The ACLU is also gleefully involved in law suits dredging out more VERY OLD Abu Ghraib (sp?) photos - for NO other reason than to further undermine the US military and Bush. NO purpose whatever is served by rehashing this story, it will simply further endanger US personnel. As for the ACLU’s vile anti-Christmas campaign. AS a non religious type the centuries old celebration of xmas with public Christmas trees, carols etc doesn’t bother or offend me at all. The ACLU is the ultimate leftist ‘fascist’ control group - cynically using leftist judges to IMPOSE what they could never ever manage through elections.
perhaps if this lefty actually addressed the incisive points made above instead of the usual self serving empty pinko/liberal sneers there might be some sense of debate here.
The unremitting venomous hate spewed out on so many leftist blogs is unbelievable - day after day after day … just irrational Bush hate. Now that is HATE SPEECH!! Legitimately criticising say black racist politicians like the McKinneys is just fair comment.
By Markus
May 29, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
@ spitlips traveller:
Once again you candyasses on the left show why you idiots can’t stay on topic. Once again you limpwrists on the left show why you can’t focus on the issue at hand. Once again, you jackasses on the left bring up the “race card” when clearly NO RACIAL ISSUE WAS EVER BROUGHT UP IN CONSERVATIVE SPEECH IN THE AFORMENTIONED!
I for one am SICK AND TIRED of you neomarxist socialist liberal butt pirates [means wallet stealer] on the left trying to shut out the voice of opposition and then attempt to inject a social form of justice like “race” in the matter.
So go ahead and hide under that sheet of blatant hypocrisy, because we all know you @ssholes on the left want to shut out the voice of your liberal socialist dogma indoctrination that you wish for this society to become a part of.
In short, you jackasses on the left can kiss my left @ss cheek.. I’ll say whatever the hell I want to, and there’s not a damn thing you people can do about it!
@ tft:
Liberal talk radio blows chunks. Randy Rhoades is a joke who only b!tches all day long about “Bush lies” [without ‘splaining why RATs voted for the war too], and all Al Franken talks about is what Rush said the previous day. In short, they are boring with no originality to get their point across. Both of those clowns remind me of a pull string doll that says the same thing over and over and over until you toss the damned thing in the trash. It looks like the free market [since Air America can’t get enough advertisement funds on it’s own] is soon going to flush that cesspool of liberal ignoranus hypocrisy right down the RAT hole.
BTW tft, did you used to have a handle “English Tory?”
By spiritraveller
May 29, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
“perhaps if this lefty actually addressed the incisive points made above instead of the usual self serving empty pinko/liberal sneers there might be some sense of debate here.”
Thanks for elevating the level of discourse. {sneer}
By Whiley
May 29, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this
What does pinko mean?
By GOB
May 30, 2006 08:12 AM | Link to this
Wow, looks like we missed a good time yesterday…
By Brian Curtis
May 30, 2006 08:27 AM | Link to this
Well, I’m glad to see that both Diane and Shaunti are in agreement for once. College “speech codes” are a ludicrous idea, especially in the one arena (universities) where ALL ideas, no matter how neoconservative or otherwise inane, should be permitted absolutely free expression and exploration.
Whiley: In this context, “pinko” means anyone to the left of Ann Coulter. Which, lately, includes about 70% of America, as well as many prominent REAL conservatives, such as George Will.
Spirit-Traveler has nailed the issue quite accurately. Anyone who has a problem with the ACLU defending the free-speech rights of even the most vile of organizations (such as NAMBLA) really has no understanding of what “free speech” actually means. They’d probably vote for an anti-flag-burning amendment in the same breath as they denounce those who would dare infringe on their sacred rights of free expression.
But then, brains have never been a qualifier for toeing the neocon line. In fact, they’re an active disadvantage.
-
Watch closely, everyone, as the tool-n-fool Bush supporters excoriate everyone for “getting off topic” while they rant about other blogs, schools, talk radio, the ACLU, gun rights, taxation, and any other fool thing that Rush beams into their heads. It can be quite entertaining, as long as you keep away from the bars and don’t try to feed them.
By I Heart time for the truth
May 30, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this
I think time for the truth is the smartest person alive with the most incisive points ever made…You pinkos would understand, what with the liberal media lies that you believe…
By Simon Bolivar
May 30, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this
Is it me or did Diane go wayyyy off of the topic? And did she have a point with what she was saying?
I am torn on the speech codes. On one side, they are bad because they stifle free speech and do not permit a viable debate. On the other side, I see how it could lead to more problems. If you have a guy on a platform yelling out how all liberals are pinkos, somebody is going to get a rock and throw it at him. Or if somebody thinks that polygamy is okay, and people trying to beat the crap out of him.
By The72John
May 30, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this
What is there to say on this topic? Free speech = good. Free exchange of ideas = good.
There are times when a campus has a responsibility to restrain the manner in which speech is delivered - they have a responsibility maintain a safe environment in which students can learn and exchange ideas - but the expression of ideas should not be curtailed.
Voltaire said it best, I do believe.
By GOB
May 30, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this
I am torn on the speech codes. On one side, they are bad because they stifle free speech and do not permit a viable debate. On the other side, I see how it could lead to more problems. If you have a guy on a platform yelling out how all liberals are pinkos, somebody is going to get a rock and throw it at him. Or if somebody thinks that polygamy is okay, and people trying to beat the crap out of him.
In those cases, the speech is legal, but the reaction isnt. We cant start banning legally protected speech because of what might happen.
By Whiley
May 30, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this
If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all. or, If you need to say something rude, say it with a kind voice & a smile.
By GOB
May 30, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this
I know this is off topic, but I have a question for any of our teacher friends that may be on the blog today…Is an interview for a teaching position pretty much the same as a normal job, or are their any specific questions I should expect to come up that are teacher interview specific? I have an interview tomorrow and want to be as prepared as possible…Thanks…
Now back to our regularly scheduled blogging…
By The72John
May 30, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
Good luck, Gob. I sometimes wish I had the patience required to be a good teacher - I hope things go well.
By Scalia
May 30, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
Gob:
Make sure that you can express how you would manage a classroom, what was your most challenging student and how did you turn that student around, and how do you keep the students engaged.
By Billy
May 30, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
All I know is that Shaunti got to use the word “b***” in her argument, but the filter won’t let it through when I post this…
By Jewish and Proud of It
May 30, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this
I wonder where those freak shows who posted yesterday went to college? I have been in the U.S. for almost a year as a guest of Kennesaw State University. I have not seen nor heard any of the things that they ranted about. In every class I’ve attended there have been lectures, learning, question and answer sessions, work and generally a free flowing exchange of ideas. Most students are interested in getting to class, learning and going home. I haven’t seen any protests against the war, Bush bashing, hate speech, suppression (sp?) of free speech, etc… Granted, that is just one of hundreds of college campuses across the country but are we really looking at protests on the scale of those during the Vietnam War? I mean really, you conservatives need to get a life, your party owns the government, talk radio, much of the media, a majority of the state legislatures, just how much more do you want?
By Scalia
May 30, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
I disagree about the liberal view being the only one presented at college campuses. Many of my professors at UGA were conservative. And despite Zack’s accusations that sociology being taught to brainwash, I had a sociology professor that informed the class that we would talk about the lower races, “blacks and native americans” in class. Two other black people in the class. All of the other students laughed.
And the only liberals that I encountered were in the arts majors. The majority of the business school professors and students were conservatives. Not to mention the frats and sororities being 99 percent conservative. The lunatics from yesterday should ride down Milledge Avenue and admire all of the Confederate flags outside of the frat and sorority houses and the confederate flag stickers on their trucks and SUVs and tell me if the liberal brainwashing is happening at that university.
By GOB
May 30, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
From what I have seen locally (KSU & UGA), it is the far right wing that is the most vocal with what would be considered hate speech. At the Tate Center (UGA’s student center) there was some preacher yelling at students almost every day (the kind that called any girl wearing a skirt a whore). Most people just laughed and made fun of them, but even when someone was respectful and tried to debate them, the preacher just shouted them down.
Before almost every home football game in Athens, there is a group that walks through Tate with their signs about fornicators going to hell, etc. One game they even held a mock crucifiction…good times all around.
The reality is that 99% of the student and faculity simply ignore these types of groups. In the more liberal states, it is probably the opposite (most would ignore the liberal protestors). Like John said, free speech is good. Its that simple.
By kimberly
May 30, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
JAP, good comments. One of the neocon tactics for retaining political power is to constantly wail and whine about the terrible “injustices” they endure daily at the hands of the [gasp] overbearing liberals who “shove their beliefs” down everybody’s throat. Uh-huh. As IF! Fortunately, this bad song is grossly overplayed, and people are tiring of it.
By Renee
May 30, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this
John - I think your 9:08 hits the nail on the head! Free speech and/or expression should not be curtailed, but all venues may not be appropriate.
By The72John
May 30, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this
JAP - there is a reactionary myth that colleges are a bastion of liberal indoctrination. To support this, they point to carefully selected stories of professors who are unable to perform their duties with the political neutrality that is a prerequisite of the job.
It is true that there are probably more liberal college professors than there are conservative ones, but the distribution is not nearly as one-sided as the reactionaries would have you believe. However, any professor worth his salt would never allow his personal political views to affect his grading or his treatment of students. That’s not to say that a professor shouldn’t feel free to discuss his views - if it leads to a free-flowing dialogue in a classroom, that’s a GOOD thing.
By GOB
May 30, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
Scalia - Thanks for the advice. You are dead on about UGA. It is remarkable how conservative the school is, considering its size. I dont recall a single prof giving a liberal spin on things. If anything, I had to filter the conservative spin. Usually, though, they were very objective and taught whatever the course was about.
By GOB
May 30, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
And by the way, Scalia, I think I might have had that same sociology prof…
By Scalia
May 30, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this
Probably GOB. Anyway, I hope that you do well at the interview tomorrow. When you walk in, you may be slightly nervous. But it’s not that bad. And teaching, despite the complaints, is really worth it. There is nothing like passing own knowledge to others, and sparking an interest in something they never would have liked.
By The72John
May 30, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
Those who are loudest in their condemnation of the so-called liberal indoctrination of the university systems are being disingenuous when they claim that their concern is for a balance of ideas. They aren’t concerned that conservative and liberal viewpoints aren’t (supposedly) being presented side-by-side, they’re concerned that liberal ideas are presented at all.
No one proclaims that the other primary educator and trainer of the 18-25 crowd, the millitary, is overly Conservative in it’s viewpoint. Even though the Commissioned ranks of the military skew even more heavily to the right than the ranks of college professors do to the left, there is no outcry for a balance of ideas there.
By Scalia
May 30, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
You are right, John with your 10:54 post.
By Earl
May 30, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this
Laws affecting free speech change while we debate it:
Breaking News: (AP) The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it harder for government employees to file lawsuits claiming they were retaliated against for going public with allegations of official misconduct.
By a 5-4 vote, justices said the nation’s 20 million public employees do not have carte blanche free speech rights to disclose government’s inner-workings. New Justice Samuel Alito cast the tie-breaking vote.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the court’s majority, said the First Amendment does not protect “every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job.”
The decision came after the case was argued twice this term, once before Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired in January, and again after her successor, Alito, joined the bench.
By Billy
May 30, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
I agree, JAP. Right-wingers complain about the leftist leanings of so much college faculty, but none of them ever stop to think about why that is. I mean, so what if 75% of college professors might be somewhat liberal? 75% of CEOs in the corporate worls are probably conservatives. It’s the nature of the positions.
My History professors were predominantly liberal. My economics professors? Predominantly conservative. My theory? Liberals are drawn to the teaching profession, especially higher education. Conservatives aren’t as concerned with expanding one’s world view. They are more about making money. Which is why the boards of directors of many companies are going to be predominantly conservative, and also why Economics can be a haven for them on college campuses. It’s all about the money.
I remember this one economics professor I had. He spent the whole first class talking about how economics was a science and how you had to be objective and not make value judgements about theories and blah, blah, blah. Then he spent the rest of the semester talking about how Keynesian economics is horrifically flawed and how the neoclassical theories are much better and we’d all be living in a perfect world if governments didn’t regulate anything or levy taxes.
Now, most of my History professors were obviously liberal, but they never rarely preached politics. Even the one who knew GWB back when he was a drunken coke-fiend. Try as we might, we couldn’t get her to say anything bad about him. The only way we could tell that they were liberal is through their interests. This new breed of conservative is not interested in expanding knowledge of other cultures and languages and belief systems. It’s not profitable and/or helpful to Jesus to learn about anything other than what’s in/on the Wall Street Journal and/or Faux News and/or the Bible. That sort of person is not going to be interested (or qualified) to teach most things in college.
I mean, by the time most people have studied a subject like History long enough to get their degrees, at the very least they have learned enough to acknowledge that they do not know everything, and that flies directly in the face of the present neocon ideology.
By The72John
May 30, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
We certainly can’t have government officials and employees letting their consciences carry them away. What are a few violations of international law and basic human rights when national security is at stake?
The Nuremberg Defense is no more valid now than it was half-a-century ago. Our current administration and the current neo-con hardliners would have us believe that it is more important to remain loyal to the policies of a particular administration than it is to remain loyal to the spirit of our Nation, to what we as a country claim to stand for.
We see can certainly see what effect stacking the court is going to have on our basic civil rights over the next couple of decades. Brush up on your Orwell, people. It’s no longer just fiction.
By Jewish and Proud of It
May 30, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
Another thing I don’t get is just how college professors inject their political views into a classroom discussion. I mean it would be possible to do so in a political science course or something along those lines but really how conservative or liberal can a zoology class be? I’m not exactly sure how you can fold “Bush is the greatest president ever” or “Tom DeLay needs to be strung up by his wingtip loafer straps ” into a discussion about the laws of physics or the quadratic equation.
By Billy
May 30, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
But then, brains have never been a qualifier for toeing the neocon line. In fact, they’re an active disadvantage.
Nail on the head, Brian. What was it Cheney said about people getting too much education? Does the administration have a problem with people learning to think for themselves? God forbid…
By lozen
May 30, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
Classic case of projection going on with these neo-cons… Show me how many times in history the liberals have burned books, murdered professors, and closed down institutions of learning. All you have to do is look at history to see who is really driven by hate and ignorance.
By The72John
May 30, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
Well, since they are ignorant enough to equate liberalism with Communism, they will probably claim that the Cultural Revolution was a liberal assault on education and free speech.
By Jack
May 30, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
Peace in the valley, people want to be free….
By Jewish and Proud of It
May 30, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
Amen Lozen, was Galileo imprisoned because he committed a “real” crime? No, he went against church doctrine. Perfectly normal, respectable women hanged or burned as witches because they went against church doctrine, stickers on textbooks because evolution goes against church doctrine. An ACT OF CONGRESS, for goodness sake against the wishes of a dying woman because it went against the so-called “right to life” doctrine of this administration. Exactly who’s freedoms are being infringed upon? Vile attacks against the ACLU for protecting what? FREE SPEECH! Keeping regular, reponsible, everyday average people from marrying just because of one thing, the fact they’re homosexual. Who’s freedoms are being infringed upon? Destroy thousands of acres of forest and brushland to make room for condos and shopping malls (so that Republican donating developers can get richer) at the expense of the environment our children and grandchildren will live in. Who’s freedoms are we infringing upon? Keeping smokers confined to their homes or very few select places to smoke. Who’s freedom is being infringed upon? Rehabilitated sex-offenders who have paid their debt to society being forced to live in very limited space or being driven out altogether. Who’s freedom is being infringed upon? Oh yes, you conservatives sure do have it bad because your not allowed to promote all of this stuff on a college campus. My what a terrible world you must live in.
By Zack
May 30, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Ms. Glass,
Remember that time you used the phrase “darn Christians”? That was an example of hatred toward Christians. Of course, you likely never would admit to the fact that that statement was a form of “hate speech.” Not being consistent in your thinking/”reasoning” is not new for liberals. Opposing homosexuality is NOT an act of hatred, and if enough people would speak up and out, the First Amendment wouldn’t be trampled on like this. I’m not against censorship. There indeed are many things that have no place being on TV, on the radio, in movies, on the internet, etc., etc.. Of course, the left-wingers of the world almost always defend this garbage. Brian Curtis, one area where you missed it last week on the topic of the government recording phone calls was the point about most Americans not being up to anything. I’m sure that’s probably true, but if the government has reasonable cause to think so-and-so is up to something, sure, the safety of the American people supersedes that individual’s rights, and you also wanted to say our country wasn’t founded upon the Bible. I encourage you to study history thoroughly and not just take everything you hear on the secular level at face value. My friend, sources are NOT always honest.
By The72John
May 30, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
Zack, you continue to erroneously claim that the country was founded on the Bible, even when presented with distinct historical evidence to the contrary. Where is YOUR proof, Zack?
By kimberly
May 30, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
JaP, regarding your 11:47, GET ‘EM! How I wish more Americans would express such passion for the truth! Where’s the outrage, people? Aren’t you SICK of what’s happening here? “Global warming is junk science, but creationism should be taught in science class.”
How bout this favorite of mine, “Global warming is fabricated by environmentalists who are LYING because.. um… well they just ARE. Oil executives pay people to refute these claims because they CARE about truth and the future of our planet, and not in the least about their own personal profits.” When do we stand up, collectively, and call B—-S—-?
By Archie
May 30, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
“Allowing the marketplace of ideas to work is far better than allowing one ideology to define intolerance.” Practice what you preach. No, colleges should not curb hate speech because we do have freedom of speech in this country,but you have to wonder when will folk get over racism. Why does a person want to engage in hateful speech against another race,gender, etc? The fact that there are speech codes on a college campus says something about the intolerant person moreso than the college.
By Brian Curtis
May 30, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
Especially your sources, Zack.
And the government’s “suspicion” is emphatically NOT a good enough reason to violate a citizen’s privacy; that’s why we have safeguards like bench warrants and the burden of proof built into our legal system. If they’ve got a reasonable cause, they need to SHOW IT before they snooop, not after. Freedom only exists where the powers of government are restricted.
The scaremongering tactics of “Terrorists are out to getcha! Let the government do whatever it wants or you’ll all be blown to bits, bwa-ha-ha-ha!” just aren’t working any more. Americans are tired of it, and we’re not going to put up with it.
By Billy
May 30, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
…if the government has reasonable cause to think so-and-so is up to something, sure, the safety of the American people supersedes that individual’s rights…
That’s the point, Zack. Reasonable Cause. Yes, if the government has just cause, they can tap the guy’s phone. That’s why the judge is there — to assess the cause for the privacy violation. Show me where judges repeatedly turned down requests where there was just cause for a wiretap. They haven’t been rejecting these requests.
Were you not here for the in-depth discussion of the Treaty of Tripoli a couple of weeks ago? The treaty that stated, unequivocally, that the U.S. was not a Christian nation? Yes, the founders were Christians. Yes, the nation is predominantly Christian. But the nation was not founded as a Christian nation. The founders were all white men, but you aren’t claiming that it’s a white, male nation. It’s the same thing. The founders being of a certain faith in no way means that the nation itself is religious in nature.
By Billy
May 30, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
BS!!!
By RF
May 30, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
and if enough people would speak up and out, the First Amendment wouldn’t be trampled on like this
That’s exactly what we’re doing, on both sides of the issues. Problem is, one side is willing to allow other opinions to exist and even thrive. The other side would completely squash any and all but its own narrow-minded herd who willingly parrot everything they’re told. One side uses reason and logic with a little bit of compassion for people thrown in. The other side uses fear, ignorance, and blasphemous manipulation of God and the Bible (which from its earliest interpretations was created for political gain and social control). Which group is which, do you know?
By Monica
May 30, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
GOB,
The principal and dept. chair will more than likely be together during your interview. Be prepared to answer how you would get students motivated to learn history (am I remembering correctly that you will be a ss teacher?), how to best use every minute of instructional time, your stance on heterogeneous or homogeneous grouping, and how you would handle a discipline problem. Look up the school website tonight and find out everyting you can about that school, and the system. Best of luck!!
By GOB
May 30, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
Thanks Monica. It is a new school that is opening this fall, so it will just be the principal that I am meeting with. I appreciate the advice.
By RF
May 30, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this
GOB- Monica’s advice is good. Just be sure to make eye contact and be confident. Take a portfolio or anything you have to highlight your work. A notebook with lesson plans, sample work, or any creative stuff you’ve done is always good (if you’ve had any experience with that in TAPP). Make sure you have copies of your resume too.
By Renee
May 30, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
JAP - Excellent, excellent, post at 11:47!!!
By Jack
May 30, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
What a non-topic this week. Shanti/Diane, you can do better than this. Geez….
By Jewish and Proud of It
May 30, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
Thanks for the words of encouragement Renee and Kimberly. I just can’t believe that the U.S. that I grew up yearning to experience is the one in which I find myself. There is such a feeling of discord that I can barely comprehend it. I always thought that America was a place of lofty ambitions, equal rights, tolerance and good spirit. It’s disheartening to see how far this country has spiraled downward, how cavernous the depths to which it has fallen. I hope and pray, for the good of America and of the entire world, that the omnious warning of a certain wise man does not come to pass. “A country divided against itself cannot stand.” I pray those words aren’t prophetic.
By GOB
May 30, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
Thanks RF.
By The72John
May 30, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
There is such a feeling of discord that I can barely comprehend it
JaP, if I was concerned before, I am more so now. If someone who has lived amidst one of the worst ongoing conflicts of our era can say this, then we certainly have a problem.
By Scalia
May 30, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
Yeah, I hate the way that the US has become a “You conservative, Christian nazi.” and “You liberal, whimpering, limp wrist pinko.” Come on people. We are all Americans and we need to work together to better the country. If you think somebody is a Christian, conservative, Nazi talk to them in a rational discussion or if not, move on to an issue that is important. UGA Bulldog fans are a mix of liberals and conservatives. We come together, though we may not share the same political beliefs, we both love the sport. Why can’t the same thing be brought to a higher level? Leave the crap at the door, and lets talk it out.
By GOB
May 30, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
Scalia - Glory, Glory…
By Jewish and Proud of It
May 30, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this
John, I’m not comparing the conflict in the US on the same scale as the one in my homeland. The conflict that I’m describing is really the reality of what I have seen versus my preconceived notions of what America should be based on the way America has been portrayed in my country. They are NOT the same. Not even close.
By Jack
May 30, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this
United we stand, divided we fall. Doesn’t look good does it?
By The72John
May 30, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
I don’t know - Tereshinski played OK in that one appearance last year, even though he wound up losing. Too many seniors gone. I am nervous…
By Jack
May 30, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
Go Bees.
By GOB
May 30, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
John - I dont see him lasting past the South Carolina game. He just doesnt have the arm…Still, we have a fairly favorable schedule…I see a 9-3 year…as long as the O-line shows up.
By The72John
May 30, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
Yeah, arms not great, but then the offense wasn’t tailored to his playing style, either. He scrambled pretty well for a stocky white boy.
By lozen
May 30, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
The dying gasps of a great experiment in individual liberty and freedom…
Shine, Perishing Republic
While this America settles in the mould of its vulgarity, heavily thickening to empire, And protest, only a bubble in the molten mass, pops and sighs out, and the mass hardens, I sadly smiling remember that the flower fades to make fruit, the fruit rots to make earth. Out of the mother; and through the spring exultances, ripeness and decadence; and home to the mother.
You making haste, haste on decay: not blameworthy; life is good, be it stubbornly long or suddenly A mortal splendor: meteors are not needed less than mountains: shine, perishing republic. But for my children, I would have them keep their distance from the thickening center; corruption Never has been compulsory, when the cities lie at the monster’s feet there are left the mountains.
And boys, be in nothing so moderate as in love of man, a clever servant, insufferable master. There is the trap that catches noblest spirits, that caught — they say — God, when he walked on earth.
-- Robinson JeffersBy GOB
May 30, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
Go Bees.
I knew there was something shady about you Jack…
By lozen
May 30, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this
So, the neo-cons think liberals are bringing down the country. Liberals think neo-cons are bringing down the country. The sad think is we all agree something or someone is ruining this country. And what we believe, we create. No, Jack it’s not looking good!
By GOB
May 30, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Very true John…And I think he is going to be replaced by another stocky white boy from Texas with a canon.
By Jack
May 30, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
All my friends went to UGA so I rooted for the jackets just to stir them up. Reggie Ball was the best wasn’t he? LOL
GOB. Who? Delay? Tough one to call.
By The72John
May 30, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
Very true John…And I think he is going to be replaced by another stocky white boy from Texas with a canon
I didn’t know Stafford was Catholic… ;-)
By GOB
May 30, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
Jack - Reggie Ball was the best for UGA…At least he is still around. That is good for a win.
By The72John
May 30, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
We need to stop the UGA conversation. I got a new HDTV last week, and I’m already drooling over the thought of college football on it.
By GOB
May 30, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
Sitting in section 119 is pretty HD too…September 2 cant come soon enough.
By The72John
May 30, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
See, now I have to beat you with a large blunt object. And possibly stab you. Maybe set you on fire.
By GOB
May 30, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
Yeah, nothing beats a gameday in Athens…the ONLY downside is that you dont get to watch the other games that are on, especially with so many 3:30 kickoffs…BUT, I am not complaining at all…
By GOB
May 30, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this
And if anything happens to me, I will make sure my wife knows who to blame…
By Jack
May 30, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
Duh. I thought you were talking election. Reggie is good for an interception at the worst possible time. He probably still has nightmares.
By The72John
May 30, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
You know, I’ve been seriously considering going back to school yet again, this time to UGA Law, and if you think that the possibility of Alumni tickets isn’t a factor…
By GOB
May 30, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
You should absolutly go for it…although you dont have to be an alumni to get tickets. You just have to “make a donation” to the athletic association. Luckily, it qualifies for most matching funds programs…we are already paid up for next year’s tickets.
By GOB
May 30, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
Duh. I thought you were talking election. Reggie is good for an interception at the worst possible time. He probably still has nightmares.
Yeah, we are really going to miss him next year.
By Vincent
May 30, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
I’m comforted to know that when an “immigrant hating racist” spouts HIS words, he will be ignored and then eventually he’ll learn his lesson. Whew! And all this time I thought women could be immigrant hating racists.
Some might ignore it, but that isn’t solving anything. The person saying the comments doesn’t go away, the person who ignores those comments thinks they go away.
So, the balance is in question? The anger comes from shutting down a Republican group’s protest against the “V**** Monologues”; and does nothing when the leader of the group is attacked by the liberal side. The non-secular side. The lefties, the bad, dark side.
So, I imagine it’s secular to censor theatre? I don’t understand why people get bent out of shape over different points of view. Over expression. I do agree that we enjoy freedom of speech and I’ve seen the “V**** Monologues” and found it to be as exciting as having hot needles shoved through my eyeballs, I do not agree that the same sanctions against the protest should have allowed condemnation of the Republican leader.
But, too often minority viewpoints are brushed aside or written off as wrong because they are minority viewpoints. And, sadly, the people defending the minority viewpoints lose focus on balance. But, when the scales are weighted heavily against the minorities, the muscles one develops defending those rights often grow a bit stronger than realized.
I dislike Rocky Road ice cream. I should be able to walk through a campus and shout that. Someone might not like the person who created Rocky Road ice cream. That’s the difference.
By Monica
May 30, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this
Yeah, nothing beats a gameday in Athens.
Amen, brother!! We took our five-year-old for his first game two years ago (when he was three). He screamed all the way to the car when it was over! We can’t quite afford season tickets, so we haven’t been as much as I would like. Maybe this season…
BTW, GOB, I know that same preacher you discussed - “holy hatred” was his message. He actually pointed at me one time and called me a “sperm-eater” and that my father didn’t love me because he allowed me to go to UGA. He didn’t know that I lived in a christian campus house, obviously! I think that guy’s main agenda was to get someone mad enough to hit him so that he could then sue that person. What a strategy. And I wonder why so many are turned off to Christianity… well, that guy is not an example of it.
By Mara
May 31, 2006 07:30 AM | Link to this
Am I the only one to see the irony in a conservative complaining that their point of view is being stifled? Isn’t it the conservatives who tell non-Christians to “sit down and shut up” when we demand equal time (and equal public funding) for our religions? Isn’t it the conservatives who labeled every anti-Iraq war activist as “traitors” and “buddies with Saddam” who “hate America”? Weren’t they the same ones who told me that even questioning the actions or motives of George Dubya was un-American? So now they’re whining that colleges aren’t giving them carte blanche to denigrate, demonize, and disrupt those who disagree with them. Fancy that.
Another point that may have been overlooked is the financial angle. Colleges and universities usually try to appeal to the broadest possible demographics and be welcoming to everyone. It seems the conservative side is screaming because their denunciations of gays, feminists, liberals, non-Christians and pacifists is not being subsidized or condoned by most universities. The cultural life of a school is often a reflection of their student body. A college that welcomes speakers who espouse misogyny, racism, or religious intolerance is probably going to have a hard time convincing women, minorities, and the moderate to spend tens of thousands on tuition to a school that they don’t feel welcome, or perhaps even safe. That speaks directly to the bottom line, something conservatives should be able to sympathize with.
Like Simon Bolivar who posted yesterday at 9:06, I’m torn on this. I think all views should have a right to be aired, but….when the point of the speech is not to open a dialog, or encourage the sharing of point/counterpoint, or exchanging ideas, then it is merely incitement and agitation. When I engage someone in a debate, I truly want to know how they justify what they are saying. I can usually see their reasoning, even when I disagree with it (except for religious reasoning, because…well…faith doesn’t depend of facts, truth, or reason and so…there ya are). While I do believe that all views should be aired, I don’t agree that all views deserve to be supported by schools of higher learning.
By Lyrazel
May 31, 2006 07:52 AM | Link to this
What planet are some of you from? Especially you two Shaunti and Diane!!! The problem is free speech on campus and just who makes the decision to allow/not programs or clubs, marches, shows etc? Its not the professors OR the students! Its the people who pretend they are involved in campus life—and are supported financially—its the Board of Regents, the Trustees and of course those who make significant donations! Deep pockets can sway a liberal university conservative! Stop fooling thyself to believe MONEY does not factor above the rights of student assembly and professors! Whoever donates most decides, folks. Limp-wristed liberal professors only WISH they had such power and dream such power in their quiet little cubicle offices!!! When policy is decided—them who control the money decide. Students dont have a say nor do professors whose tenure is always hanging on a limb! Professors must publish/research as well as teach so the University can claim credits. People who dont understand a professors role always blame them but in todays education job-field no professor is going to make waves just for students to have opinions mainly because if dismissed they may not get on another college. Professors are not pulling in the 800K salaries with all the perks of corporate executives! Those sitting on the board to make these free speech decisions of who gets/does not. So if you feel the college is far too liberal or conservative—dont blame the people who work, they are the peons—blame the ones who make the decisions—the Board! Same as it ever was.
Lozen, I was so impressed someone quoted Jeffers! He has been a favorite of mine since 70s!
By Monica
May 31, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
Here’s another thought: if you don’t like a college because it’s too liberal or too conservative, don’t go there!!
By RF
May 31, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
you know, there was a time Monica when common sense ruled and people simply didn’t go to a school if it didn’t fit their needs. Now, everyone expects the world to adjust to them. When did this country get so dang self-centered and selfish?
Are you in post-planning? We’re in exams and I just hope to live to see Friday when I can smile and send ‘em home to mama!!
By The72John
May 31, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
I don’t know the particulars of the things Shaunti describes, but it sounds to me like she’s comparing apples to oranges.
I can certainly see where a school would WANT to prevent students from demonstrating loudly and physically outside a play that they didn’t like, verbally assaulting paying patrons, disturbing the performance, or hindering peoples attempts to get into the theatre. I can also see why a school would NOT interfere with, say, a student-published paper or flyer that referred to the insulted woman in question as a Twinkie.
I don’t know that this is what happened, but it seems likely to me - I can’t imagine that students followed the woman around campus, surrounding her with signs and chanting “Yellow on the outside, white on the inside!”.
Just a thought…
By GOB
May 31, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
Here’s another thought: if you don’t like a college because it’s too liberal or too conservative, don’t go there!!
In theory this isn’t a bad idea, but in the long run will likely lead to even more polarization between the two sides. I have a cousin who was raised in a really conservative home, but went to Reed College in Oregon (a really liberal school). She hated it at first, but after a year, realized that being different isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and now she is really happy there.
I think there is a lot to be said for expanding your horizons and not just surrounding yourself with people exactly like you.
By Jack
May 31, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this
You must admit, other than FOX news & talk radio, the mainstream media is as left as it can get. Dems get a free pass and Reps get crucified. Deny it all you want, it doesn’t change the fact.
By The72John
May 31, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
You must admit, other than FOX news & talk radio, the mainstream media is as left as it can get. Dems get a free pass and Reps get crucified. Deny it all you want, it doesn’t change the fact
False. And just because you say “Deny it all you want, it doesn’t change the fact” doesn’t make that true, either.
The current right-wing demagogues have created the illusion of the liberal media by declaring that BALANCED means right-wing. Therefore, anything that isn’t skewed to the right is a liberal bias. If you don’t agree with everything the administration says, you must have a liberal bias.
It’s nonsense.
By Jewish and Proud of It
May 31, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
It’s often been said that there are three sides to every story: a view, an opposing view and the truth. Since when have Americans started paying more attention to the first 2 options and forgetting the 3rd? Why is there such lip service paid to opinionated versions of the truth rather than the actual truth itself? Is it because we, as humans, have a fundamental need to have our points of view validated at all costs and d-a-m-n the truth?
By GOB
May 31, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
You must admit, other than FOX news & talk radio, the mainstream media is as left as it can get. Dems get a free pass and Reps get crucified. Deny it all you want, it doesn’t change the fact.
Compared to Fox news & talk radio though, what isnt considered left? I think the reason it seems like republicans are getting buried right now is because they are the party in power. The media will always pay more attention the people who are in charge, which is how it should be. When Clinton was in the White House, I seem to remember a story or two about him and some intern…Maybe I am wrong though, I dont think it was that big of a story…
By lozen
May 31, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
Jack I just do not see the same thing you do. I think most media news people try very hard to be objective. Everyone who studies journalism learns that they have to be objective. I used to be one of those news people and I struggled at times to be objective about things I had a definite opinion about to my opinion out of it. Talk show hosts and comedians are not restricted in the same way; they don’t have to be objective but if they go too far they will get flak from sponsors, managment and the viewers. Can you please give some examples of the leftist bent of the mainstream media?
By The72John
May 31, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
JaP, I think much of that has to do with the popularity of post-modernism as a philosophy, and the politicization of the religious right.
Look at the recent abstinence education debacles: every reputable scientist or sociologist who has studied abstinence-only education has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is ineffective. The overwhelming weight of scientific proof favors this conclusion, yet religious-based special interest groups intervene in politics and insist that any discussion of it include someone from a very small community of biased “scholars” who insist that the findings of 99% of their colleagues are wrong.
The same is true of the Creation/Evolution debate, the Global Warming Debate (though that’s more big business than religion), and on and on and on. Junk science is given equal weight with REAL science because of influtential special interests groups.
It’s kind of like Galileo - he was right, but the Church declared him wrong because they wanted him to be wrong. We’re just seeing the modern version of it.
People don’t care about the truth if it threatens their narrow pre-conceptions or their pocketbooks.
By lozen
May 31, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel, good points this morning. However, Republican student organizations invite speakers to campuses. Democratic student organizations invite speakers. The various departments invite speakers. I don’t know that the Trustees or the administration has that much to do with who is invited to speak on a campus. David Horowitz isn’t disliked so much by many people because of what he says - it’s the way he says it and the rudeness he displays toward students who are much younger than he is. I used to be on the Tech campus at times and I was absolutely dismayed that the preacher who was so rude to the girls, calling them names and telling them they were going to hell, was allowed to be there! I do believe in freedom of speech but since when do we have to listen to people who are rude, embarrass others in public, and have nothing to say that anyone wants to hear? The girls had a right to be at school without being verbally abused by some ignorant preacher didn’t they?
By Jack
May 31, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
Chuck’s not here so I’m gonna try to play the DA until he comes back. Should be fun. Go easy, I’m just playing!
By cartoon free sex
May 31, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
http://cartoonfreesex.to.pl/freecartoonpornsexvideo.html free cartoon porn sex video
http://cartoonfreesex.to.pl/sexcartoonmoviefreewatch.html sex cartoon movie free watch
http://cartoonfreesex.to.pl cartoon free sex
http://cartoonfreesex.to.pl/cartoonhavingsexforfree.html cartoon having sex for free
http://cartoonfreesex.to.pl/freesampleofsexcartoon_movie.html free sample of sex cartoon movie
By The72John
May 31, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
Ok, Jack…we’ll play nice.
Maybe.
By Jack
May 31, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
The preacher was trying to instill values on these students who are in a sinful environment. Basic values are very important and since the professors don’t teach them, it is the preacher’s and parent’s responsibility.
By Jewish and Proud of It
May 31, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
I do believe in freedom of speech but since when do we have to listen to people who are rude, embarrass others in public, and have nothing to say that anyone wants to hear? The girls had a right to be at school without being verbally abused by some ignorant preacher didn’t they?
Excellent point Lozen, to take it a step further, I’d think those girls may have a little fear for themselves as well. I mean, a person shouting such horrid things at these women is just a stone’s throw away from assaulting them. After all, he’s already verbally abusing them, what’s to stop him from making the leap from verbal to physical? Just as you can’t yell fire in a theatre (if there isn’t one) because of the safety issues involved, why would a campus let a potentially dangerous individual freely roam said campus?
By Jewish and Proud of It
May 31, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
The preacher was trying to instill values on these students who are in a sinful environment
Hogwash! (although kudos to you because that’s exactly what the Chucks and Zacks would say, good DA’ing so far)it’s an impossibly wide chasm between instilling values and condemning people to h-e-l-l.
By lozen
May 31, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
So, the woman that owns AJC…. is she a liberal?
By Jack
May 31, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
Lozen Dear. I will try to dig some up. My view on most jounalists is likened to vulture scum. If it bleeds it leads ETC. I would never consider you to be in that catergory though. Were you doing that in the 60’s? I bet that was something. Lots & lots to write/talk about. Those were turbulent times indeed. (and a Texan kept us in V.N. when he knew JFK was going to pull out) We should maybe keep Texans from running for prez!
By Jack
May 31, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
If you do not follow the teachings of Jesus and lead a sinful life such as excessive drinking, smoking and sex, to save yourself you must accept Jesus as your savior. You may spend more time in Purgatory, but you will make it into Heaven.
By kimberly
May 31, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
Regarding these campus preachers that stand there and scream “Whore!” and “Whoremonger” at everyone: Among them on the Auburn campus in the 80’s was none other than Russell (Rusty) Yates. Yep, that’s right. The man whose wife, after years of being caged in his “righteous” marriage, went crazy and killed their kids. Yep. Good ol’ Rusty. Gee, why can’t I find me a good man like that?
By lozen
May 31, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
Very interesting Kimberly. The man hardly knew how many children they had probably, because it is the woman’s job to take care of the children, right? I agree with you that no woman in her right mind would have married him after that. I heard some woman being interviewed her post-partum depression the other day. She talked about how she had harmful thoughts toward her child until she was hospitalized and given medication for her chemical imbalance/depression. She even had shock treatments during her second pregnancy because she had to go off the meds. She had compassion for the Yates woman and, of course, did not think she belongs in prison!
By Chilao
May 31, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
anybody see Frontline’s HIV special last night? the group I could not remember, of the initial four high-risk groups, was Haitians.
on topic: and not sure where either Diane or Shaunti are even coming from there. LOL. Glad someone spoke up earlier for the ACLU, see, they even protect unpopular speech. Consider the concept of PC-ism the ultimate suppression of both free-speech and free-thought. Don’t think too highly of it.
But have always thought those Republican students who do those bake sales, against affirmative action, pricing cookies cheaper for minority students, well, a good comeback would be a cooking sale where the prices for the cookies reflect societal costs. in other words, some of the cookies would be mighty expensive, for, say, young black males.
and had to laugh outloud over 72John’s Catholic cannons. interestingly, two seconds before I read that, I was looking up how Easter Sunday can be calcultated each year, and ran across a Catholic canon from years ago that decreed any priest calculating Easter Sunday based on the Jew’s Passover should be ‘desposed’ (and not TOO sure what that meant, Joan of Arc being burned came to mind..LMAO)
By Chilao
May 31, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
if you do not follow the teachings of Jesus and lead a sinful life such as excessive drinking, smoking and sex, to save yourself you must accept Jesus as your savior. You may spend more time in Purgatory, but you will make it into Heaven.
Doing a real good job there, Jack, playing Chuck. LOL
By Jack
May 31, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
Hey Sweet Thing. Playing DA today. I’ll bet Rusty sleeps real good these days unless he drowns himself in alcohol.
By kimberly
May 31, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
Hey Jack. What other games do you like to play?
By Jack
May 31, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
Doctor comes to mind. Heehee..
By The72John
May 31, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
ran across a Catholic canon from years ago that decreed any priest calculating Easter Sunday based on the Jew’s Passover should be ‘desposed’ (and not TOO sure what that meant, Joan of Arc being burned came to mind..LMAO)
I guess it means they have to join one of the Orthodox churches. :-)
By Jack
May 31, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
BTW, medicine is totally unecessary. If you place your faith with God, he will heal all. Meds are just a way for the pharmasodical (sic) companies to get rich. If your appendix is about to burst just pray really hard and the lord will heal you. if he sees fit, he may take you from this life into the next one where you don’t need organs at all. Speaking of sex, it is for pro-creation only. It is a sin to enjoy it especially for women. Women should say no until marriage and are to do it only when the man wants to.God could have chosen to make it less desirable but he likes to test the will of man. Do not give in. Just say no.
By Jack
May 31, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
The previous post was more Zack than Chuck. I kind of miss Chuck. He’s ok by me. He adds balance to the blog and he does make good points at times. (plus it’s fun to read him & John go at it)
It was good to hear from Whiley yesterday. Thought she had abandoned us.
By The72John
May 31, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
pharmasodical
I’m sorry, but I can’t help myself…
This is just the worst misspelling I’ve ever, ever seen, and from someone who usually spells well!
I am shocked.
By Jack
May 31, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
I forgot to mention that men should be allowed to fish as often as they want and when they come home with the catch, the wife should be the one to clean them.
LMAO
By Monica
May 31, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
Okay, Jack, I know that youre’ playing DA, but you’re starting to scare me!!
RF, Hang in there! I am trying to clear off my desk so that I can go home for the summer. Yipee! Of course, I’ll be up here this summer; I’m a glutton for punishment.
By Jack
May 31, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
Yeah I know. I was in a hurry and I don’t think Zack can spell it either. LOL
I need to stop, I’m scaring myself!
By Jack
May 31, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
Phonics only go so far.
By RF
May 31, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
Monica- I’m a glutton for it too. I’ll be taking a class the last week of June and doing a summer institute here the last week of July. I always end up here a week before preplanning anyway so I can get my “nest” ready. That’s what makes us good at it, I suppose- we never really leave!! Enjoy the time off. I plan to spend as much of mine as possible hangin’ with my boys and wasting all the time we can together!
By Monica
May 31, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
RF, we must use the same itinerary! That’s my plan this summer. We are taking the boys to the beach the last week of June, and I’m teaching a graduation test remediation course in July. The rest of the time will be spent doing as little as possible!
By Jack
May 31, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
The sun was in my eyes too.
By GOB
May 31, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
Monica, RF, Scalia - Thanks again for the advice yesterday. The interview went well, and I should know something by the end of the week.
By GOB
May 31, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
Jack - you forgot the classic standby…It’s my first day
By Jack
May 31, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
Excuses are like butt holes, everybody has one. LOL
By Jack
May 31, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
GOB. I hope you get the job. teaching is an honorable profession. Try not to kill any of them.
By RF
May 31, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
Best wishes GOB. It’s an exhausting, demanding, and wonderful profession. You get addicted to it! (and a little vacation time in the summer isn’t bad either!!) It’ll wear you out, and some days you’ll wonder why you did it, but then those days hit when you absolutely know you couldn’t live without it.
By blablabla
May 31, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this
for some of you who were discussing the argued bias in the media, here’s an article from a recent study done at ucla. sorry for the long post, but here is the article from the ucla website. the study found that fox news was the fourth most centrist media source and that nearly all media centers swing to the left. while some might object to the methodology of the study, i thought i’d share the results.
here’s the link in case people want to view that as well.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
Date: December 14, 2005 Contact: Meg Sullivan ( msullivan@support.ucla.edu ) Phone: 310-825-1046
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper’s news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.
These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.
“I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican,” said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study’s lead author. “But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are.”
“Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left,” said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.
The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.
Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker’s support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where “100” is the most liberal and “0” is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.
Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.
Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo’s method assigned both a similar ADA score.
“A media person would have never done this study,” said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. “It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don’t think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches.”
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume” and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
The most centrist outlet proved to be the “NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.” CNN’s “NewsNight With Aaron Brown” and ABC’s “Good Morning America” were a close second and third.
“Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill,” Groseclose said. “If these newscasters weren’t centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators.”
The fourth most centrist outlet was “Special Report With Brit Hume” on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC’s “World News Tonight” and NBC’s “Nightly News” to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.
“If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox’s ‘Special Report’ as ABC’s ‘World News’ and NBC’s ‘Nightly News,’ then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news,” said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.
Five news outlets — “NewsHour With Jim Lehrer,” ABC’s “Good Morning America,” CNN’s “NewsNight With Aaron Brown,” Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume” and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.
An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS’ “Evening News” and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.
Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC’s “World News Tonight,” NBC’s “Nightly News,” USA Today, NBC’s “Today Show,” Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR’s “Morning Edition,” CBS’ “Early Show” and The Washington Post.
Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.
Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.
“One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites,” said Groseclose. “Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media.”
Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.
“By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet,” Groseclose said. “Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post’s. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8).”
The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.
“No matter the results, we feared our findings would’ve been suspect if we’d received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided,” Groseclose said.
The results break new ground.
“Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers,” Groseclose said. “Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians.”
By blablabla
May 31, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
how did the interview go, gob? well, i hope.
By Jack
May 31, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
Bla is lined up for the hardest job. Count on the child to do the opposite of what you think they will do and you will be OK.
By GOB
May 31, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
Thanks Jack, RF and Bla…It did go well.
By blablabla
May 31, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
Bla is lined up for the hardest job. Count on the child to do the opposite of what you think they will do and you will be OK.
thanks for the sage advice, jack. basically it sounds just like how i set my expectations of my wife. HA!
By The72John
May 31, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
Interesting study, but it doesn’t prove deliberate bias. It shows that news tends to reflect the qualities perceived by the public to be liberal. If a writer writes objectively, and the objective writing tends to favor a moderate left point of view, is the writing biased?
Schools of Journalism teach integrity and objectivity as two of the most important qualities of a good Journalist. If, as this study claims, nearly all journalists skew slightly to the left, we are left with two conclusions - A) All journalists abandon those tenants as soon as they leave school, and against basic common sense all decide to lean to the left or B) objective fact tends to align more with “liberal” ideas.
By Renee
May 31, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
Good luck GOB! More power to you. It takes a special person to be a teacher, and only the people willing to take on the committment should be in the profession. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case.
In accordance with that, thanks RF, Monica and Scalia for all your good work.
I’ve been in and out today, lurking, but wanted to drop in and say hello!!!
Hope all is going well with Mrs. Bla, and Baby on the Way Bla.
RF, when school is out, does that mean we won’t be seeing you until August??
By kimberly
May 31, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
Bla, clearly you can link, so why the long c&p? Your long-winded post did not address the real problem with “journalism” today, which is that the reporters, editors, managers, publishers, and the corporations that own their sorry a—es, are WHORES whose main criteria is “will it make us money?” followed by “will this upset our advertisers?” and “will the Boss blame us if the Republicans lose and don’t make his tax cuts permanent?” These “jouralists” accept money to tell one side of the story in their little PR fluff pieces they pass off as news, and distract us with meaningless crap like Brittney’s marriage, while telling us NOTHING of what our government is doing with our money in our name. They spend a LOT of time telling us who is “undermining” our government by asking questions… questions THEY should be asking, but don’t. They’re whores, Bla. They’re undermining America with their sleazy, one-sided garbage. But it’s NOT “Liberal!”
My favorite example: $BILLIONS paid to Halliburton and its subsidiaries for which they had insufficient validating documentation. And the Pentagon said, “Hey now, these numbers don’t add up.” This story hit the front pages for about 15 minutes. AT THE SAME TIME, we got full frontal, rear, and sideways penetrating coverage, in video, audio, quotes, and multiple live intervies, from some guy named Dobson whose little group of “concerned” a—holes had an issue with Sponge Bob Square Pants teaching children not to hate gay people. On EVERY freaking media outlet in the country. For WEEKS!
Missing tax dollars and bad audit trails: 15 minutes, max. Sponge Bob, the cartoon character: FIVE WEEKS min. Brittney & Branjelina’s babies: Anyone wanna guess?
Right Bla. The media’s liberal bias is about as intact as Clinton’s virginity. Give us a shout when they stop fellating this crime-ridden administration and actually start doing their jobs again.
By GOB
May 31, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
As someone who has gone through J-School, I think John’s explanation is a very accurate one.
By RF
May 31, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
Renee- I’ll be popping in and out. I have online classes this summer, so I’ll be checking in some, I’m sure. Can’t live w/o my blog buddies for too long! We’re planning on spending as much time as possible at home with a couple of short vacation trips (can’t afford any long ones!!LOL)
By RF
May 31, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
Bla- is all well with mom and baby bla? Get plenty of rest now— you won’t get any for a long time once junior arrives!
By Mara
May 31, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
Interesting article Bla. Personally, I find the ADA score a bit suspect. If you recall, John Kerry was rated as the “most liberal member of the Senate” not because he actually was the most liberal, but because his average was skewed. Even so, I don’t understand how they equate the ADA of a lawmaker with an equal bias in the media. If I’m reading this correctly, they say the evidence of media bias is that they call Frist a conservative republican but they don’t call Louise Slaughter a liberal democrat. They cite the Cato Institute as “right-leaning” but call the Center For American Progress a mere “think tank”. It doesn’t seem like a very thorough review though. I note they mention Time, WaPo, NYT, Newsweek, NPR and others, but I don’t see anything that could be called “right leaning” the way these are considered “left leaning”. Where’s the American Spectator, the Free Republic, the Indianapolis Star, Washington Times, and NewsMax’? As far as I can see, they didn’t even look at publications that reflect the right so how could they possibly state, unequivically, that a liberal bias exists? Though I suppose it’s only to be expected. After all, they only looked at “major media outlets” and I suppose it is only to be expected that the successful outfits are more liberal than not. :^)
By Jack
May 31, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
Hey Kim. Just figured out how to make a fortune. We could make and sell Ken Starr dart boards. LOL
By blablabla
May 31, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
kimberly - sorry to have wound you up so much. don’t shoot the messenger. the intent of the study was not to determine the underlying “problem” that you believe exists with journalism, but rather to determine if bias in the major media outlets exist. quibble with the methodology all you want, (you won’t hurt my feelings) but the result the study came to was that bias exists.
john - you’re correct, the study certainly doesn’t prove DELIBERATE bias. personally, i’m more concerned with a source being biased, period, than being biased on purpose. and i think that illustrates part of your discomfort in saying that media sources are biased - they’re trained to be objective in journalism school. i’m sure most journalists out there do their level best to be objective, but they can’t help bringing their own personal biases into their reporting. i don’t view that as a failure of the journalism school to instruct them properly, but more a factor of human nature.
is it unreasonable to believe that if over 80% of journalists lean left and vote left, their reporting will tend to be left of center, even when they think they’re being objective?
mara - i too thought the ada score was the most suspect part of the study. and note the closing line…Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians. i thought that was ironic since i’d call politicians a lot of things before i’d call them a “known commodity”.
After all, they only looked at “major media outlets” and I suppose it is only to be expected that the successful outfits are more liberal than not. :^)
you mean like air america? ;^)
By Chilao
May 31, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this
I suppose it is only to be expected that the successful outfits are more liberal than not
thank you Mara, can we add progressive as well. LOL
I get USNews and World Report, and while they are nowhere near as conservative as they were years ago, they can hardly be considered liberal. More than once I have ‘fumed’ over their conservatism. and just see Mort Zuckerman’s views on any of the roundhouse TV shows.
He’s liberal?
Now Newsweek, liberal, sure I can agree there.
By blablabla
May 31, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
thx, renee & RF. mrs bla is doing well and is starting to get pretty big. we go over to wendy’s quite often to get her cheeseburgers. she rented one of those at-home sonograms so she can listen to the little one’s heart anytime she wants. this has gone a long way toward reducing the “do you think everything is ok?” questions which, of course, is a question i can’t possibly answer since this is her first pregnancy and i’ve obviously never been pregnant. that’s a pretty cool machine. we did find out about a month ago that it’s going to be a girl, so i’m excited about that. i’d like to have a boy at some point too, but the order doesn’t really matter to me. we’ve agreed on a name, so everything seems to be going well and we’re just on cruise control waiting for her to arrive. i’m excited to meet her. in one of the ultrasound pictures we had a few weeks ago, she was waving at us.
By The72John
May 31, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
I think you deilberately overlook my point - that journalists are, in fact, being objective, and that that objectivity tends to favor a moderate left position.
By blablabla
May 31, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
chilao - did you see zuckerman’s comments in last week’s edition? pretty scathing commentary on the country’s finances. the words liberal and conservative didn’t come to mind in reading it, more like: spot on correct.
By Brian Curtis
May 31, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
I agree with the bias claims.
Journalists who do their jobs are reporting reality—and as Stephen Colbert has pointed out, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
By blablabla
May 31, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
I think you deilberately overlook my point - that journalists are, in fact, being objective, and that that objectivity tends to favor a moderate left position.
no, i noticed it, but i tossed it out as being an obviously biased position.
objectivity tends to favor a moderate left position?objectivity is uninfluenced by personal or emotional positions. by definition, to say objectivity favors the left is to say objectivity is not objective. stop trying to kid yourself.
By kimberly
May 31, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
Bla, I have to agree with John and Brian. Not trying to shoot the messenger, but when a journalist actually DOES his or her job and reports the facts, and those facts make this President look bad. Then that journalist and that story are called “biased.” The FACTS make this administration and their right-wing supporters look bad. Hence the corporate incentives for Fox “news” to hire hacks like Hannity to fellate them while pretending to be balanced and letting Colmes speak once in awhile. If the FACTS made this administration look good, they wouldn’t need O’Really yelling at his guests to “shut up!”
By blablabla
May 31, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
subtle humor, brian. well done and appreciated.
By GOB
May 31, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
John - I think if you re-stated your point, incorporating the Colbert quote “that journalists are, in fact, being objective, and reality tends to favor a moderate left position,” you would be better understood. I think there is a quibble over objectivity not being dead center.
I understand the point you are making, and agree but that might clarify it a bit.
By The72John
May 31, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
If the objective position happens to align more with the position that is perceived as being left of center, is that bias?
Is that better for you, bla? My argument is not unreasonable - you are choosing to dismiss it on semantic grounds because your own personal bias says that the left is wrong.
I once heard an editor of the NYT - oh, I know, SO liberal - say that sometimes, “balance” is nonsense, that there ARE facts. It is intellectually dishonest to give credibility to something like Creationism when science so clearly disproves it, as an example. If reporters report those facts, and those facts happen to reflect the world view put forth by those left of center, then who is lying?
You also have to ask yourself - what is the motivation to shape the truth? Corporations and their “Expert scientists” certainly have a vested interest in shaping facts. The religious right and their “legitimate scientists” certainly have a vested interest in shaping facts. What vested interest does a journalist have?
You might ask yourself which is more reasonable: Do only left-leaning people become journalists, or do journalists tend to become more left-leaning because of their experiences and the things they experience? Are they shapers, or are they shaped?
By Stephen Colbert
May 31, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
This is all nonsense anyway. We need to focus on the real threat to America….Bears!
By blablabla
May 31, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this
kimberly - don’t misread my comments as defending those that accurately portray the president, his supporters, his handlers and his apologists in a negative light for their mistakes when criticisms are deserved. lord knows i have plenty of criticisms of this administration. i believe whole-heartedly in a free press that can criticize whatever they think should be criticized. but i also whole heartedly believe in objectivity, and think it’s a hard commodity to come by when 80% of reporters, or more, vote democratic. i reject the notion that objectivity is left leaning. true objectivity is free of personal bias.
By Billy
May 31, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this
Also, Bla, it could be that the “liberal” thinktanks and other organizations cited by the subjects of the study are cited more often because they are correct more often. Sean Hannity might mention a stat he got from the Heritage Foundation. Then Alan Colmes cites a liberal source. Then Hannity says, “No, you’re wrong.” Then Colmes cites another source. Hannity says he’s wrong. Colmes cites another source. Hannity calls him a Commie. Colmes cites another source. Hannity calls him a pinko pillow-biting tree-hugger. Colmes cites another source. Before you know it, there’s a 5-to-1 liberal-to-conservative count. Well, anyone who’s ever watched Hannity & Colmes knows that that show isn’t liberal.
And what if John Gibson is getting his panties in a bunch about something said on CBS News? Is it counted as a liberal reference whenever he mentions it? Or even when legitimately citing perceived liberal sources? Hannity would practically have an orgasm on-air were a liberal source to have a conservative opinion on an issue. Then he and others would repeat it constantly with “Even the (insert liberal medium here) agrees with me!” Would this drive those shows to the left on the scale?
I’m not saying that that is what’s happening. I’m just saying that I’m taking those results with a grain of salt.
By cartoon free porn
June 1, 2006 05:52 AM | Link to this
http://cartoonfreeporn.to.pl/freecartoonpornsexvideo.html free cartoon porn sex video
http://cartoonfreeporn.to.pl/freecartoonporngameonline.html free cartoon porn game online
http://cartoonfreeporn.to.pl/freefuturamaporncartoon.html free futurama porn cartoon
http://cartoonfreeporn.to.pl/freecartoonpornmovieclip.html free cartoon porn movie clip
http://cartoonfreeporn.to.pl/freedisneycartoonporn.html free disney cartoon porn
By Chilao
June 1, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this
blah - no, on Zukerman’s comments, I have yet to get thru the last two weeks. out of town, etc etc etc. LOL
By blablabla
June 1, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this
Is that better for you, bla? My argument is not unreasonable - you are choosing to dismiss it on semantic grounds because your own personal bias says that the left is wrong.
no. that’s not true. the way in which you’ve re-worked your position makes much more sense and is far more reasonable. i don’t have a bias that says the left is wrong. i’m rarely that simple on anything.
the thing i would agree with the most is the NYT editor. the facts are the facts. they themselves are objective and unbiased, by nature. those facts may support the position of a certain viewpoint, but that doesn’t make those facts, or the reporting of those facts, biased.
however, the choosing of which facts to report, the “spin” applied to those facts, the “conclusions” drawn about those facts that are reported to us, and the juxtaposition of facts to create cause-effect relationships that don’t exist, are all choices that are made along the way. i don’t think it unreasonable to have a lot of the facts contain leftward spin on them when over 80% of your journalists vote democrat.
and if you have to ask me what vested interest a journalist has in shaping the “truth” than you probably haven’t asked yourself the same question. katie couric, everybody’s favorite topic in the news the last month or so, has never done much to hide her personal political views. and people like ann coulter, maureen dowd, sean hannity, etc, etc. are they “journalists” or are they political hacks, because they sure aren’t objective? i think you’re the one being intellecutally dishonest if you think these people don’t realize they can alter the public’s perception of the “truth”, or have a vested interest in doing so. that is precisely why journalism schools try to teach them to be objective.
By The72John
June 1, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this
i think you’re the one being intellecutally dishonest if you think these people don’t realize they can alter the public’s perception of the “truth”, or have a vested interest in doing so. that is precisely why journalism schools try to teach them to be objective
You create a paradox between your two positions with these statements. If, as you claim, the media wields such power, and if, as you claim there is a “bias” to what it reports, then how do you explain the current Conservative climate of the country?
Surely if the media has as much influence as you suggest here and if they are as biased as you suggest, then the world would be full of liberals and we would all be much happier for it.
You predicate your argument on the assumption that journalists ARE biased, that they are letting personal convictions color their facts. You mention spin and conclusions, but you yourself are choosing to draw a conclusion from the study you cited. There are multiple possible explanations for the data collected in the study - you are chooising the explanation that journalists fail to excercise the restraint and integrity that is presumably instilled in them during their training.
And just to clarify, when speaking of journalists, I certainly don’t mean any of the people you have named, on either side of the political spectrum. They are glorified op-ed folks pretending to be news men.
By kimberly
June 1, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this
Standing and applauding 72John’s 9:30.
By Jack
June 1, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
“You must admit, other than FOX news & talk radio, the mainstream media is as left as it can get. Dems get a free pass and Reps get crucified. Deny it all you want, it doesn’t change the fact.”
So true I had to say it again.
By Jack
June 1, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
“how do you explain the current Conservative climate of the country?”
People are FINALLY realizing how full of bull Hollywood and the media really are. Americans are tired of getting political correctness shoved down our throats.
By The72John
June 1, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
O rly?
Give us some examples, Jack, if it’s so true. Or maybe you just perceive it to be true, therefore Republicans getting excoriated jump out and you gloss over negative articles about Democrats?
Yeah, I’m thinking that’s it.
By Brian Curtis
June 1, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this
Quote from bbb: “I don’t think it unreasonable to have a lot of the facts contain leftward spin on them when over 80% of your journalists vote democrat.”
Really? So those reporters—the ones who vote 80% left—are not only
1) Incapable of acting professionally (i.e., they MUST let their personal feelings show in their work),
BUT ALSO
2) Are the actual decision-makers on which stories are broadcast, which facts get printed, which items get the most airtime, etc.
That latter point is especially puzzling to me; I could’ve sworn it was editors, directors, and CEOs who call the shots at media organizations, rather than the grunt reporters. And whose parties do you think the CEOs attend—-Democratic or Republican?
By Brian Curtis
June 1, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
Repeat it all you want, Jack, it doesn’t make it true.
Just as Bill Clinton if he got a “free pass” from the mainstream media sometime. Or ask Gore if he got “fair & balanced” coverage in 2000.
The “liberal media bias” is one of the far-right’s favorite flogging points—but it’s pure fiction, made up to justify White House organs like Faux News.
The goal is only secondarily to push right-wing propaganda. The primary purpose is to discredit the very CONCEPT of objective media, so that anything they disagree with can be readily dismissed as “partisan hack-work.”
By lozen
June 1, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Human beings are all biased (we see everything through our personal filters, expectations, and past experiences) and journalists are no exception. However, journalists are taught to be objective in their work whereas most humans are not taught that. Most of the journalists I’ve known have been open-minded and curious about many things. Of course that makes them “librul” which is oh so bad, right! It’s because they’re educated, and see what really goes on in the world that they are mostly democrats!
….quibble with the methodology all you want, (you won’t hurt my feelings) but the result the study came to was that bias exists……????? Since when does the result not depend on the methodology?
By lozen
June 1, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
Can someone tell us what are Katie Couric’s personal political views? How about Diane Sawyer? Matt Lauer? And Good Morning America does unbiased news reporting? i didn’t even know they did news!
By kimberly
June 1, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
Dearest Jack, did you say this eight years ago when they crucified our elected President over a GIRLFRIEND scandal was none of our business anyway? When this left-wing media gave you every sordid detail of a private stain on a dress, did you say, “Yes, this is real news every American needs to know!” or did you say “Gee, this media is so far to the left! I wish they’d stop coddling this guy and ask some hard-news questions, like: Did she fondle his nutsac before taking it deep!”
Please re-read John’s post. If the FACTS don’t support the rah-rah agenda of the right, does that make the news “left?” BTW, you’d probably enjoy CNN in the morning with Soledad O’Brien. They cannot even report the simplest of news items without condescending commentary. I totally want to hurl.
By lozen
June 1, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
Brian and 72John you’re both incredible. So are you Kimberly.
When I was doing news, the Peace Pilgrim came thru the area. I thought that was truly important and wanted to go and cover that. The news director said “nope” and sent me to cover the opening of a new emergency room at a hospital! The reporter does not choose what story to cover. And Brian is right: CEO’s of large news comglomerates do go to parties and play golf and contribute to political campaigns. Who do you think they socialize with?
Jack, just because you say it more than once does not make it true esp. since you never have listed any examples of your “claim”.
By Jewish and Proud of It
June 1, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
There’s a certain chap on ML’s blog by the name of Andy who posts at least a dozen links to a dozen different news articles from a dozen different publications crucifying Democrats or liberals EVERY SINGLE DAY. At least a dozen! and all of that usually before 9:00 a.m. Biased? You make the call.
By kimberly
June 1, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
Lozen, I’ve often thought Katie and Matt were whores. But it’s true that the producers, managers, and editors have a lot of control over what “stories” air and how much time they’re given. I hope to see some integrity from Katie at CBS, but not holding my breath.
JACK, Dan Rather was crucified for not thoroughly verifying a memo that made the President look bad. HELLO? To this day, NO ONE reports serving with him in the Ala Air Nat Guard. NO ONE. What was the “news story?” Why, it was that Rather’s a “^*&%^%$# LEFTY!” The AJC reported the “news” that consersvative bloggers threw a party the night he resigned. And the memo was never proven to be fake. What happened to the actual story? It was spun right out of the news. Think about it. (Also, please answer the question: Did you say the same thing about the media when they hung Clinton out to dry over his bad pecker decisions? Yes or no?)
By The72John
June 1, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
Brian has identified the true rationale behind the “liberal media” hype. By declaring that the news is biased, it’s possible to discount anything it says that you don’t like. The same is true of the “Hollywood is run by liberal elitists” line. Any movie or program that is made that casts the Conservatives in a bad light is dismissed as just more liberal bias.
Yet - when an actor “comes out” as a Conservative, he is invited to every convention, fetted at every fundraiser, trotted out anytime the Republicans feel the need for a little extra hype, and even invited to run for office. Double standard? You betcha.
Here’s a news flash for people - and it’s not biased in the least. Artists of all stripes have been engaging in social and political commentary for as long as they have existed. That’s part of what art, in whatever form, does. So when George Cloony makes a movie with a message you don’t approve of, he isn’t “meddling in things he shouldn’t be”, he’s doing what people like him have done since the Greeks. Deal with it.
By blablabla
June 1, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
no, john, there is no paradox in those statements. just because the media wields influence, and most of the journalists swing to the left, does not mean a conservative tilt in the country is unachievable. nor does the existence of a conservative lean in the country mean a liberal bias in the media cannot or does not exist. you assume a cause-effect relationship that i do not. i believe this is because you think i ascribe more influence to the media than i actually do, but i can’t read your mind.
You mention spin and conclusions, but you yourself are choosing to draw a conclusion from the study you cited.
of course, the study says the media is biased. unlike the rest of you, my conclusion is that they study is probably correct.
if you want to reject the conclusion of the study, that’s fine, but where is your proof that the media is objective? that they are not biased?
There are multiple possible explanations for the data collected in the study - you are chooising the explanation that journalists fail to excercise the restraint and integrity that is presumably instilled in them during their training.
you’re right, i choose that explanation because we see journalists fail to exercise that restraint you speak of all the time.
brian, you mention that the liberal lean of the media is “pure fiction” from the right. fine, i’m willing to believe you, but please provide me your link to a recent study showing there is no bias in the media. i’ll be happy to read it. but without it, your statement is no more accurate than telling jack, “repeating it doesn’t make it true”.
the thing i’m noticing is that none of you appear to be willing to accept that there might be bias in the media, even though so many of you acknowledge that personal biases can come into play because we’re all biased at some level by our personal experiences. where is the liberal open mind i treasure so much?
if it is so obvious to everyone that bill o’reilly fails to be objective, why do you guys have such a hard time realizing the same fault in dan rather? he did it all the time. so did peter jennings. so does couric.
By GOB
June 1, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
katie couric, everybody’s favorite topic in the news the last month or so, has never done much to hide her personal political views. and people like ann coulter, maureen dowd, sean hannity, etc, etc. are they “journalists” or are they political hacks, because they sure aren’t objective?
Would anyone on here argue that the people you listed are anything other than political hacks? They are all opinion writers, so by default, shouldnt be expected to objective.
By The72John
June 1, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
JaP, please don’t invoke the names of those people. The trolls we’ve been plagued with the last two mondays are bad enough without adding more people like him to the mix.
By GOB
June 1, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
of course, the study says the media is biased. unlike the rest of you, my conclusion is that they study is probably correct.
Yesterday you said that you thought the methodology was suspect. So it seems like you belief that study was correct has nothing to do with the study itself, but with your pre-concieved opinion going in.
the thing i’m noticing is that none of you appear to be willing to accept that there might be bias in the media, even though so many of you acknowledge that personal biases can come into play because we’re all biased at some level by our personal experiences. where is the liberal open mind i treasure so much?
I dont think anyone is saying there is no bias in the media. Many of us just dont happen to believe that the media as a whole have a bias.
If it is so obvious that there is a liberal bias in the media, will you or Jack, or anyone else please provide some examples of the blatant liberal bias of the media?
By Brian Curtis
June 1, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
BBB, I notice you haven’t addressed the points I made, so here’s a reminder.
To believe that “the mainstream media is liberal” based on the study of reporters’ voting habits, you have to believe that
Now, are you suggesting that either or both of those are true? If so, do you have anything to back it up?
By The72John
June 1, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
No, Bla, the conclusion of the report was that more of the news reported seems to align with the positions of left-of-center politicians. I’m not contesting that conclusion.
What I am contesting is YOUR conclusion that this alignment is the result of either a deliberate or unconscious bias on the parts of journalists, rather than simply being a result of the facts lining up more regularly with the positions of more liberal politicians.
We’re back to the myth of balance. If a fact is a fact, then providing an “alternative viewpoint” that belies the facts is, to repeat myself, intellectually dishonest. However, the current post-modernist confusion of opinion and fact allows the conservatives to claim that something isn’t balanced if their “viewpoint” isn’t inserted even when the facts do not support their viewpoint.
By kimberly
June 1, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
CNN’s morning show this morning: News item about Hugo Chavez I did not hear over my Sonicare. Newsperson #1 “Chavez is a loose cannon.” Newsperson #2 “He certianly is. He’s an agitator.” From the CNN website, no “loose cannon” stuff, but the following paragraph: “The United States accuses Chavez of destabilizing the region and earlier this month President Bush said he was concerned about the erosion of democracy in Bolivia and Venezuela.”
Whore “reporters” saying what the government WANTS them to say. Not a single fact in sight to back this up. All we know now is that we’re supposed to loathe and fear this Chavez guy, the country of which most dumbass Americans can’t even identify on a map, because education initiatives are underfunded by a government that WANTS us to be stupid.
By RF
June 1, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
The party in the majority always claims media bias, and I can see why they would. As a whole, we’re all about “scandal”, and news reporters give us what we want and what sells. It isn’t bias as much as it is the fact that negativity and suspicion sell papers and get viewers. And one bad story or article generates a lot more conversation and debate than a good one. So, decisions are made about what to report based on what viewers and readers appear to want, and what makes money for the news provider.
By lozen
June 1, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this
Yeah Kimberly! Read an article from a small southwestern newspaper (better news coverage than AJC, IMO) about Chavez spending billions on guns, helicopters and planes as tensions grow between his regime and the U.S. Now, why on earth would he do that? Has the U.S. ever attacked another country without good reason? He must be an agitator!
By blablabla
June 1, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
perhaps we need to take a step backwards, john.
No, Bla, the conclusion of the report was that more of the news reported seems to align with the positions of left-of-center politicians. I’m not contesting that conclusion.
that’s not true. the conclusion of the study was that bias existed and they were quantifying it. pls re-read the first few sentences of the article.
What I am contesting is YOUR conclusion that this alignment is the result of either a deliberate or unconscious bias on the parts of journalists, rather than simply being a result of the facts lining up more regularly with the positions of more liberal politicians.
this is true. i personally think that personal bias comes into play in the media. but when you say that you disagree with the conclusion that the media contains bias, you are not only disagreeing with my conclusion (about why it exists) but the conclusion of the study (that it does exist).
now i could be right, and i could be wrong, but if i’m so crazy to think personal bias is evident in the media, why do you guys all call it “faux” news? why are you all so certain that fox is so biased, if it’s not obvious to you?
gob - to answer your question about my comments yesterday… in an attempt to be fair, i mentioned a part of the study referenced in the article that struck me as odd. whether everything was done “scientifically correct” is beyond my ability to say. i’m not a scientist and i don’t do studies for a living.
as for your desire for an example media bias, the study was conducted over the last ten years. for every example i could give you about a dan rather or katie couric, you could give me one about somebody else on the right. running down memory lane accomplishes nothing. that’s why they did the study, to provide a comprehensive examination of the media. in my mind, the study itself is the example you ask me for.
brian - as for your questions. i go with choice one: They are incapable of professionalism (separating personal feelings from doing their jobs). this is CERTAINLY NOT an absolute and in fairness, it doesn’t happen all the time. but it’s not uncommon to see this in the major media outlets.
and honestly, i think you presume that the ceo or the “person with authority” at whatever broadcasting company has more influence and control over what comes out of [insert media personality]’s mouth than that person really possesses. a lot of media personalities have quite a bit of rope in the production of the show. the example that sticks to mind is the katie couric interview with a reagan biographer a few years back. i’m sure the editors, directors and producers knew in general what she was going to ask, but probably were unaware of some of the more pointed questions she was going to ask, or how some of those questions were phrased.
and brian, you have responded to my questions (at least not as i type this): if you are so sure that the liberal bias is “pure fiction” where is your backup for this? i gave you my study, where is yours?
By blablabla
June 1, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
because education initiatives are underfunded by a government that WANTS us to be stupid.
kimberly, i would definitely agree with that. a bunch of sheep can be easily led, by either political party.
By blablabla
June 1, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
gotta go folks, i’ll pick up the discussion with y’all manana. have a good one.
By The72John
June 1, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
this is true. i personally think that personal bias comes into play in the media. but when you say that you disagree with the conclusion that the media contains bias, you are not only disagreeing with my conclusion (about why it exists) but the conclusion of the study (that it does exist)
The very use of the word “bias” in this context is weighted. This study makes no attempt to establish causality, which would be required to establish bias. As I said, it merely indicates that a greater percentage of the news aligns with a liberal position. That does not indicate bias.
Conservatives are more likely to endorse “intelligent design” than liberals. Does that make accepting the scientifically established Theory of Evolution biased? No.
By I HATE JESUS FREAKS
June 1, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
You know what I hate. Stupid Jesus freaks. I wish we could just kick all these sorry azz miserable out of the country. Jesus freaks are tearing this nation apart. All the dumb creation talk is just plain STUPID.
Is it any wonder that most Jesus freaks come from the south? I really feel that inbreeding has caused this total disconnect from reality.
Its ugly seeing Jesus freaks parade about college campus’s holding their stupid bibles praising each other, give me a break.
Oh, don’t even try to confront them, they will start with the typical Jesus freak whine “We are so crucified”. Blah, blah, blah, SHUT UP ALREADY!!
Please all you dumb hillbilly Jesus freaks stop embarrassing yourselves.
By I dislike NON-JESUS FREAKS
June 1, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
I really dislike all of the non-Jesus freaks who whine about us Jesus freaks all the time-as if EVERYTHING wrong with this world is somehow OUR fault! Get over yourselves and stop tearing us down for actually BELIEVING in something besides our own egos.
You live for today and I live for eternity. You whine and I rejoice. You argue and tear down and I build people up. It’s the NON-Jesus freaks that are destroying our world…you guys are going to hell in a handbasket. (Don’t blame us…we warned you!!!)
Have a blessed day!
By The72John
June 1, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
Its ugly seeing Jesus freaks parade about college campus’s holding their stupid bibles praising each other, give me a break
Mmm…if you’ll just move your apostrophe in “campus’s” to the beginning of the sentence and insert it into “Its”, you’ll be one step closer to having written a comprehensible and structurally correct rant.
And you know that old Chinese proverb: The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
By I dislike NON-JESUS FREAKS
June 1, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
So, if you hate Jesus freaks does that mean you also hate Jesus? That’s a pretty strong statement…are you sure you want to make it?!
Some day every…and I mean EVERY knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesis is Lord. (Won’t that just be a kick in the pants!)
By The72John
June 1, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
I love trolls.
“I dislike”, a few questions for you:
Who, exactly, are you “building up”? The gays you bash? The non-Christians you condemn? The people not exactly like you that you scorn and ridicule?
Why does is the only alternative to Christianity, in your mind, worshiping one’s own ego?
The “non-Christians destroying the world” thing - does that extend to all the various Crusades, Inquisitions, wars, Pogroms, massacres, burnings, persecutions, repressions, etc. etc. etc. done in the name of Christianity?
Just asking. Hey, and thanks for bringing up religion for us. The topic was getting stale.
By The72John
June 1, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
Who is Jesis, and are his followers nicer than the ones who follow Jesus? I may be interested in receiving his newsletter.
By Jack
June 1, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
Hi Hon. That 11:15 makes me want to sweat. Dan also went over to Iraq and kissed Sadamns butt.
By GOB
June 1, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
Who is Jesis, and are his followers nicer than the ones who follow Jesus? I may be interested in receiving his newsletter.
I think it may be an evil twin…Kind of like Garthe (who drove Goliath) was the Michael Knight…
By I dislike NON-JESUS FREAKS
June 1, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
does that extend to all the various Crusades, Inquisitions, wars, Pogroms, massacres, burnings, persecutions, repressions, etc. etc. etc. done in the name of Christianity?
To answer The72John…the above mentioned instances were all carried out by the apostate Roman Catholic church. They do NOT now, nor have they EVER, represented Christ or His followers. Christians have no “pope”…we follow the real Christ. It’s ok John, you obviously don’t know the real Christ so how could you know which false Christs are out there. But hey, thanks for playing. You get the consolation prize behind door number 2…a lifetime supply of religious tracts and a free bible. (smile)
By Mara
June 1, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
DARN!! I missed Bla by an hour or so. I’ve been poking around the “innernets” looking at assorted analysis (analysi?) of this study. As one would expect, the most thorough dissection was made by the lefty blogs and the most rapturous lauds were from the right. Since I do have a problem with the studys methodology, which directly leads me to suspect their conclusion, I’ve chosen to provide a link to the most technical of the detractors, the Language Log website. Check it out here http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002723.html
It gets a bit technical at first but tones down toward the end. Well worth the time to read.
the money quote: The model’s prediction of the probability for a given congressperson to cite a given think tank is the exponential of the congressperson’s utility for that think tank divided by the sum of the exponentials of their utilities for all think tanks. Because of the exponentials, the numbers assigned as valences — and the resulting utilities — will need to be much more tightly clustered if we want to get a reasonable amount of probability mass distributed over less-favored think tanks. But the basic mathematical fact remains the same: think tank ideology, according to this model, only matters to liberals. Or to put it another way, the more liberal the congressperson, the more weight they give to ideology; the more conservative they are, the closer they come to paying attention only to “valence”, i.e. ideology-free quality.
*Now, I freely admit that I’m not a social scientist. I’m not used to thinking about this particular kind of model, and maybe there’s something obvious that I’m not seeing here. If so, I’m sure that someone will point it out to me. *
By I dislike NON-JESUS FREAKS
June 1, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
Ok, smartguy-you know I meant JESUS. (One point for you I guess. I mistyped one letter…ya got me!)
By The72John
June 1, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
GOB, everybody knows that the only appropriate Knight Rider twin/evil twin comparison is KITT/KARR.
I am deeply disappointed.
By I HATE JESUS FREAKS
June 1, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
Please save the “religously correct” statements for your self praise fests. College is for learning, not a place to entertain fantasyland Jesus freaks.
A couple of weeks ago I interrupted one of the praise fests being held in a pubic space at the UGA. I wanted to know why they give themselves a waiver to their sins like divorce, but put others down for their sins. These Jesus freaks had a fit. They wouldn’t let me talk. They shouted me down. Then they formed a circle and started praying, when I reminded them that their Jesus speaks out against public prayer they went ballistic!
And why do you object to the phrase “Jesus freak”? “Evangelical”, give me a break, lets bring back Jesus freak!! You’re a bunch of freaks!!! Stop with the religously correct terms.
I don’t hate Jesus, I HATE JESUS FREAKS. Freaks.
By Mara
June 1, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
Could “I HATE JESUS FREAKS” be Zack attempting to post D.A. so that tomarrow he can come back and whine about how anti-christian libruls are, since only one person (I hate…) called him on it?
Question for “I hate…” - Do you love Jesus? How do you know? Obviously, unless you have a secret time machine, you’ve never met him…so how do you know? Maybe you mean that you love his teaching? Or that you love the idea of Jesus, all that “son of god” or “messiah” stuff? Frankly, it freaks me out that y’all proclaim that you “love” a guy you’ve neither met, seen, talked to, or corresponded with. It’s like me stating that I love King Tut. You may love Jesus’ teaching, but how can you love him?
By The72John
June 1, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
To answer The72John…the above mentioned instances were all carried out by the apostate Roman Catholic church. They do NOT now, nor have they EVER, represented Christ or His followers. Christians have no “pope”…we follow the real Christ. It’s ok John, you obviously don’t know the real Christ so how could you know which false Christs are out there. But hey, thanks for playing. You get the consolation prize behind door number 2…a lifetime supply of religious tracts and a free bible. (smile)
I’m afraid your history is lacking…not surprisingly.
Another question:
As the Catholic and Orthodox churches represented the only practicing versions of Christianity (with a few small groups like the Coptics thrown in) until the Reformation, from whence did your “proper” church spring?
In what way is the Catholic Church “apostate”? The word means to abandon one’s faith…I think perhaps you mean “heretical”. The Church may have practices with which you disagree, but they are not apostate in that they continue to worship the same deity as you.
As for attributing all of the evils done by Christianity solely to the Catholics, well…that’s simply not true. Protestant denominations have happily slaughtered others different from them as well. Just ask all the Mormons who went west during the Expansion.
By GOB
June 1, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
John - Do a google image search for “Garthe Knight,” and you may not be so disappointed. Besides, I was only 4 years old when Knight Rider was on the air…
By kimberly
June 1, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
Hi Jack. It’s June in Georgia. Time to sweat. So…. did you have the same complaints about the lefty media when they were hanging Clinton by his ‘nads and describing every sordid detail of his penile dalliances for the whole world, as if it were a treasonous crime? Well, did ya? How did you feel about the “news” back then? Did you think that was (a) good reporting (b) a hatchet job, or (c) not nearly hard-hitting enough? And are these the same people who print Rove’s talking-point excuses, verbatim, for the administration’s crimes instead of asking the tough questions (Helen Thomas excepted)? What SHOULD they be doing, in your opinion? (You probably love Soledad more than me, doncha?)
By Godless Heathen
June 1, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
Take your ghost stories somewhere else!
By Randy
June 1, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
I love Jesus Freaks. But we really aren’t freaks, all 2.2 billion of us. We have the correct view of eternity, you are worried about some useless information you might learn in college and maybe use 5% of that information in real life. Wow some of the people on this site aren’t Christian, but why does Christianity bother you so much??? Buddists, Wicca other religions etc don’t bother you. Why do people always choose one side or the other when it comes to Christianity??? Maybe because it’s the only REAL one!!!
By I dislike NON-JESUS FREAKS
June 1, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
When you ask Him into your life He makes His presence known to you. It’s hard for someone like you (non-spiritual) to understand what this means.
Once He makes Himself known to you there is no room for doubt and you have the spiritual proof you need to follow Him.
By RF
June 1, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
It’s not religion that bothers people, it’s the haughty, judgmental, ‘we’re better than you’ attitude that many so-called christians shove into our faces that makes it appear we dislike christianity. I’m a saved believer myself, but I find many christians here to be an embarrassment to God. HE never forced himself on anyone or looked down upon them. I like any religion that teaches love, patience, and respect, including christianity in its intended form. In your earnestness, you defame and blaspheme God and make him seem hateful, spiteful, and just plain mean. I grew up hearing that description applied to the devil, but what do I know?
By Chilao
June 1, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
Just ask all the Mormons who went west during the Expansion.
or all the Anglicans (or for that matter all Non-Puritans) under Oliver Cromwell.
By Brian Curtis
June 1, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
BBB: Here’s a starting point, from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2848
The problem seems to arise from the study you cited—which analyzes the personal political views of reporters—and the conclusion you jump to: “Therefore, the stuff they report will automatically be biased.”
THAT’s not based on any study; it’s purely your personal opinion.
By I dislike NON-JESUS FREAKS
June 1, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
I think it’s the “bash all the Christians yet accept all other religions” attitude that sets some of us Christians off. We get tired of the disrespect and bashing. You tolerate Muslims and Buddhists yet bash us and call US freaks.
I’ll gladly be called a freak for Jesus. If you knew Him you’d understand. I would lay down my life for my faith-that’s how REAL He is to me.
John-I don’t have the time or the inclination to give you a history lesson on the Catholic church or Christianity. You wouldn’t believe me anyway. (I won;t lose sleep over it though.)
By GOB
June 1, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
Why do i get the feeling that I HATE JESUS FREAKS and I dislike NON-JESIS FREAKS are one person, trying to stir things up?
By The72John
June 1, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
Well, Randy, most Wiccans and Buddhists (though, you DO realize that lumping a religion that predates Christianity together with a faddish New Agey religion shows your ignorance of other religions) don’t go around telling everyone else how horrible they are, how sinful they are, and how they are all going to hell. They also don’t try to force their discriminatory beliefs into law.
Of course, the Wiccans do have a very appealing central belief: “And it harm none, do as you will”. See, Randy, this says that you should take responsibility for your own behavior, and that the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong is not some patriarchal, stern Deity but an understanding of the effects of your action.
That requires being a little more free-thinking than you are, though. I doubt you could handle it.
By Mara
June 1, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this
Randy, actually it’s because people like you keep insulting me, my intelligence, my moral character, my social conscience, my lifestyle and my own religious beliefs. And if that weren’t insulting enough, your ilk keep trying to put your religious views into the laws and legislation that are supposed to apply to all Americans. And I don’t see any Hindu, Wiccan, Muslim, pagan, Atheist, Agnostic or Buddhist doing the same, OR pounding on my door begging me to give up my evil ways and turn to the ONE TRUE religion…theirs. Your strident insistance that YOUR religion is real and all others are lies does not come accross as “faith” but stubborn hubris and sinful, arrogant, exceptionalism. You people are annoying, rude, pushy, judgemental, hypocritical, and just plain rabidly mean. THAT’S why I don’t like Jesus Freaks, though I do have a great deal of respect for Christians like Monica, Jack, JBM, Renee (who’d I forget?)and oh, yeah…Julia. :^) Those people are christians…I dunno what you are.
Anyway, it’s been real y’all. I’ll try to catch up tomorrow…XXOO
By CLINTON SUX
June 1, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this
How many Democrats does it take to screw in a light bulb?
None…they’re too busy screwing the American people!
By Randy
June 1, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
Let me apologize to all the non-Christians from us “Jesus Freaks”(really where I come from you non-Christians are the freaks). I want to apoligize to you guys because we apparently have hit a “nerve”, we have reminded you that you haven’t taken care of the most important thing in life, your eternal destination. Why else would you have such a strong reaction to this information. So you have my sincere apology, but put yourself in our shoes, how could we live with ourselves if we didn’t tell you the truth. On the other hand I want to say thank you for your overwhelming reaction. As that confirms my faith totatly. Think about it, if no one reacted to your belief(Christianity) I might start doubting it myself(but using common sense, I would soon come back to it, the universe appeared out of thin air in the beginning without help, PLEASE). So have a great day and one day maybe you will get tired of fighting against the love and truth of Jesus and live a happier life, or maybe not.
By The72John
June 1, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
I think it’s the “bash all the Christians yet accept all other religions” attitude that sets some of us Christians off. We get tired of the disrespect and bashing. You tolerate Muslims and Buddhists yet bash us and call US freaks
Lol, what did the Buddhists ever do to anyone? They are the most peaceful and tranquil people in the world. And seriously - your victim complex is hilarious. People don’t bash CHRISTIANS, they bash Fundamentalist A***** Evangelicals who are so busy persecuting their neighbor they don’t have time to love him.
John-I don’t have the time or the inclination to give you a history lesson on the Catholic church or Christianity. You wouldn’t believe me anyway. (I won;t lose sleep over it though.
Hmm…which do I think is more accurate…the education I have received over 34 years of being the son of a PhD European Historian, or…you…. Sorry…I’m gonna have to go with my dad.
By GOB
June 1, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
At least we can count on some good comedy from Randy each week. You can set your watch to it.
By The72John
June 1, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
Why do i get the feeling that I HATE JESUS FREAKS and I dislike NON-JESIS FREAKS are one person, trying to stir things up?
Well, I had the same thought, but hey. It’s fun!
I want to apoligize to you guys because we apparently have hit a “nerve”, we have reminded you that you haven’t taken care of the most important thing in life, your eternal destination. Why else would you have such a strong reaction to this information.
I call this the “Turtle” defense. When confronted with the suggestion that it is actually your own intolerance and bigotry that creates negative feelings about your religion, you stick your head back into a shell and pretend that it is the powerful truth of your words that has made others angry.
By GOB
June 1, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this
John - I just saw that Garthe Knight showed up a season before KARR, so I think he has to be an acceptable evil twin reference.
By Way2GoRandy
June 1, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
Great job Randy! These guys can’t handle the truth. (Picture Jack Nicholson,”You can’t handle the TRUTH!”)
Take a stand brother…be proud and say it loud! The truth will prevail!!! God bless you for speaking up.
By lozen
June 1, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
Don’t ya just love em? Anytime anybody comes on this blog with “I LOVE jesus. I BELIEVE in jesus. Jesus is my life and I would lay down my life for jeeeeeessus!” they are so mean- spirited, ignorant, belligerant, creepy and irrational. Even if I hadn’t grown up in the south “the bible armpit of the world” and even if I hadn’t realized what hypocrites these people are when I was six years old, I wouldn’t want anything to do with them or their belief system just from listening to them and their blather on this blog. You people drove me away from religion. Thank ya! If you are the fruit of the jeeeeeesus tree, whew, just let me keep away from that tree!
By Way2GoRandy
June 1, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
If we use the “turtle defense” then you must be using the hornet defense…you try to sting everything and everyone in sight that you don’t agree with.
Mad as a wet hornet…John and his ilk. Mad because they can’t prove God isn’t real. Mad because others (billions) have found the truth. Mad because they want to believe what their daddy taught them instead of learning the truth.
By Randy
June 1, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
72John has attacked something someone has said again, he is good at doing this, he never provides any facts to back up his points and never has any proof our points are incorrect. He just comes up with his “turtle” defense and others. What a great game to play, attack others while never proving anything you say. Keeps him in his lifestyle though.
By The72John
June 1, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
Ah, but Garthe Knight was not Michael’s actual twin! KARR, on the other hand, was the first version of KITT!
Ah hah!
By Way2GoRandy
June 1, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
lozen-You obviously are lost and in need of help. I hope you find it one day. Take the blinders off before it’s too late. I have not said one mean thing nor has Randy. You are a very misguided fellow. I hope you and your wife and family find Christ one day.
By Randy
June 1, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
Your right they can’t handle the truth. The truth makes you change, give up excessive drinking, drugs, deviant lifestyles and being self centered. You exchange them for happiness, a true connection with the creator of the universe and an eternal destination. It’s really like when my wife use to be a legal secretary for a insurance attorney, someone would have a claim that could get them 2 or 3 hundred thousand dollars and many would settle for 5 thousand if they could have it today. They would sign off on it for the money right then, that’s the way I see it with non-Christians. They want what they want now(drugs, homosexual lifestyle etc)and are forfeiting their eternal destination. Weak.
By Jack
June 1, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this
Clinton was ok. He didn’t do anything JFK didn’t do but get caught. I do NOT like Soledad at all. Or any of the other talking heads. Some are nice to look at, but that is the extent of my interest. When Ken Starr was going after Bill my thoughts were B.F.D. He was better than Uncle Jimmy. At least he didn’t have to get the UN’s approval to act in our best interest.
I could be in a freezer and you still make me want to sweat!
By The72John
June 1, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this
If we use the “turtle defense” then you must be using the hornet defense…you try to sting everything and everyone in sight that you don’t agree with
Only those who attack first, dear fanatic. Perhaps if you spent less time being a raving, self-righteous bigot, you wouldn’t be attacked so much.
72John has attacked something someone has said again, he is good at doing this, he never provides any facts to back up his points and never has any proof our points are incorrect. He just comes up with his “turtle” defense and others. What a great game to play, attack others while never proving anything you say. Keeps him in his lifestyle though
What facts do you want me to provide other than the evidence of your posts? Do you actually delude yourself into believing that people’s dislike for your kind of religion is due to the veracity of your words?
And what does “Keeps him in his lifestyle” mean, Randy? This is nonsensical, even for you.
Mad as a wet hornet…John and his ilk. Mad because they can’t prove God isn’t real. Mad because others (billions) have found the truth. Mad because they want to believe what their daddy taught them instead of learning the truth
Prove God exists.
By Way2GoRandy
June 1, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
Great point Randy. I think it’s funny how they try and try again to bash all things Christian. They just don’t see how hilarious they really are. There is only one truth when it comes to eternal life. (Not all the various religions can be right!) Yet we are ridiculed for telling people the truth.
If I saw a building on fire and did not warn people not to enter the building then what kind of person does that make me? I guess i should keep my mouth shut and let the people enter the building??????? (I don’t think so!)
Same difference.
By GOB
June 1, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
He might not have been a genetic twin, but once Michael Knight had his face reconstructed, he was Garthe’s physical twin (minus the super-cool mustache, of course). I think you could make a strong argument that Garthe was actually the original Michael.
So there…
By GOB
June 1, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
I dont think my last post went through…
Michael may not have been Garthe’s genetic twin, but after his facial reconstruction, he was his physical twin (minus the super-cool mustache, of course). You could even argue that Garthe was the original Michael.
So there…
By GOB
June 1, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
Sorry about the double post…
By Renee
June 1, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
Mad as a wet hornet…John and his ilk. Mad because they can’t prove God isn’t real. Mad because others (billions) have found the truth. Mad because they want to believe what their daddy taught them instead of learning the truth.
Nobody is “mad” because they can’t prove God isn’t real, or because others have “found the truth”. Your statement, Randy, is so juvenile, it’s kind of comical (not really, but kind of). If you “know the truth”, good for you. Troop on. But I don’t give a rat’s behind what you do, or don’t believe in, agree with, or anything else.
It is you, “Christians” that come on here every week spewing hatred, and berating people every time you get a chance. Get a life why don’t you. If you love God, and God is your life, you should have NO time to worry about what a nonbeliever or a homosexual is doing on an AJC blog.
Personally, Randy, you are no better, no more “God-like” than anyone else. But you continue patting your back and ranting and raving with your child like preaching if you like, and this is the response you will CONTINUE to get. At least from me. It’s might funny that a new poster comes and THEN Randy. Fishy huh???
By lozen
June 1, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
Randy,I thought christians were supposed to be humble. We have the correct view of eternity, you are worried about some useless information you might learn in college and maybe use 5% of that information in real life.
No, I believe the jews, or the agnostics or the atheists, or the deists, or the buddhists might have it right Randy. Or maybe the new agers (a lot of them believe in jesus too you know) have the correct view. But then again maybe the Egyptions had the real, true gods and goddesses. Or maybe it was the Greeks who worshipped the true gods. Or maybe it was the Romans. Yeah, that’s the ticket - the Romans. Then again maybe it was the Druids! Of course, you don’t even know what they believe or how they practice their spirituality; you said once you had no interest in reading books about buddhism or islam. You are simply ignorant Randy. And your view of god is infantile and ignorant Randy. Bless your little ignorant heart, you’ll see.
By The72John
June 1, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
touche, Gob…touche.
And to the fundie evangelicals…
It’s that kind of arrogance that makes people not like you. People tell you they don’t want to hear your proseltyzing, yet you continue to force it on them. Your arrogance and lack of consideration for your fellow man is boundless. You claim that you act from compassion, yet you really act from a sense of personal superiority.
By Way2GoRandy
June 1, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
Renee-You obviously have the same issues as that lozen fellow. We hit a nerve with you as well. Don’t blame the people that want to save you from a burning building. Don’t blame us when you ignore the warnings and go into that burning building and the roof collapses on you. It will one day be too late to turn to God. Don’t let it happen to you or your husband and family. God bless you…may you learn the truth one day soon.
By The72John
June 1, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
It’s might funny that a new poster comes and THEN Randy. Fishy huh??
Nah, Renee…at least the new fundy knows how to put spaces between paragraphs.
By Way2GoRandy
June 1, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
OK John, I give up…go into that burning building if you must. Just don’t get mad later and try to say that no one warned you.
By Randy
June 1, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
Renee, I didn’t write the statement you are referring to(mad because they can’t prove God exists).
Iozen, you need to quit blaming Christians on your relationship with the creator, that’s something you are responsible for. It’s not my nature to be humble, we all fall short, don’t we.
By Randy
June 1, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
72 John, You got that one wrong, it isn’t me.
By Randy
June 1, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
Yea and they can spell 2.
By Disco Inferno
June 1, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
Burn baby burn! Burn baby burn! Burn baby burn! Burn baby burn! Burnin’!
To mass fires, yes! One hundred stories high People gettin’ loose y’all gettin’ down on the roof - Do you hear? (the folks are flaming) Folks were screamin’ - out of control It was so entertainin’ - when the boogie started to explode I heard somebody say
Burn baby burn! - Disco inferno! Burn baby burn! - Burn that mama down Burn baby burn! - Disco inferno! Burn baby burn! - Burn that mama down Burnin’!
Satisfaction (uhu hu hu) came in the chain reaction (burnin’) I couldn’t get enough, (till I had to self-destroy) so I had to self destruct, (uhu hu hu) The heat was on (burnin’), rising to the top, huh! Everybody’s goin’ strong (uhu hu hu) And that is when my spark got hot I heard somebody say
Burn baby burn! - Disco inferno! Burn baby burn! - Burn that mama down, yoh! Burn baby burn! - Disco inferno! Burn baby burn! - Burn that mama down Burnin’!
Up above my head I hear music in the air - I hear music! That makes me know there’s (somebody) a promise somewhere
Satisfaction came in a chain reaction - Do you hear? I couldn’t get enough, so I had to self destruct, The heat was on, rising to the top Everybody’s goin’ strong That is when my spark got hot I heard somebody say
Burn baby burn! - Disco inferno! (Aah yeah!) Burn baby burn! - Burn that mama down Burn baby burn! - Disco inferno, yeah! Burn baby burn! - Burn that mama down Burnin’!
I just can’t stop When(till) my spark gets hot Just can’t stop When my spark gets hot
Burning, burning, burning, burning…
By lozen
June 1, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
See that fire over there. That proves there is a god!
By The Freak
June 1, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
Le Freak
(CHORUS:) Aaahh Freak out! Le Freak, C’est Chic Freak out! Aaahh Freak out! Le Freak, C’est Chic Freak out! Aaahh Freak out! Le Freak, C’est Chic Freak out! Aaahh Freak out! Le Freak, C’est Chic Freak out!
Have you heard about the new dance craze? Listen to us, I’m sure you’ll be amazed Big fun to be had by everyone It’s up to you, It surely can be done Young and old are doing it, I’m told Just one try, and you too will be sold It’s called Le Freak! They’re doing it night and day Allow us, we’ll show you the way
(CHORUS)
All that pressure got you down Has your head spinning all around Feel the rhythm, check the ride Come on along and have a real good time Like the days of stopping at the Savoy Now we freak, oh what a joy Just come on down, two fifty four Find a spot out on the floor
(CHORUS)
Now Freak! I said Freak! Now Freak!
All that pressure got you down Has your head spinning all around Feel the rhythm, check the ride Come on along and have a real good time Like the days of stopping at the Savoy Now we freak, oh what a joy Just come on down, two fifty four Find a spot out on the floor
(CHORUS)
By The72John
June 1, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
OK John, I give up…go into that burning building if you must. Just don’t get mad later and try to say that no one warned you.
I guarantee you that the surprise will be on your end.
By Michael J
June 1, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
Lovely is the feelin’ now Fever, temperatures risin’ now Power (ah power) is the force the vow That makes it happen It asks no questions why (ooh) So get closer (closer now) to my body now Just love me ‘til you don’t know how (ooh)
Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough
Touch me and I feel on fire Ain’t nothin’ like a love desire (ooh) I’m melting (I’m melting) like hot candle wax Sensation (ah sensation) lovely where we’re at (ooh) So let love take us through the hours I won’t be complanin’ ‘Cause this is love power (ooh)
Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough
Heartbreak enemy despise Eternal (ah eternal) love shines in my eyes (ooh) So let love take us through the hours I won’t be complanin’ (no no) ‘Cause your love is alright, alright
Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough
Lovely is the feeling now I won’t be complanin’ (ooh ooh) The force is love power
Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough Keep on with the force don’t stop Don’t stop ‘til you get enough
By Netbanker
June 1, 2006 05:14 PM | Link to this
Hey kids! Back from a mini-vacation. I have to admit to whining about why I’m not independently wealthy and have to work when I hit the Perimeter traffic this morning. As if I have any right to whine in life…that’s what happens when you don’t watch the news or read a paper in 5 days…you blissfully lose touch with all the crappiness in the world.
Diane must have had some good crack to smoke when she ‘responded’ to the topic question. My reaction was pretty much…”Huh? What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?” Free speach is a good thing, but sadly people put that right ahead of decorum or respect for others such as some of the funeral protestors.
Been trying to catch up on blog and work so here’s my really fast feedback
RF, Monica, Scalia, and Chuck-in-abstentia…congratulations on surviving yet another year (and being just crazy enough to keep coming back for more.) . Thank you for your dedication to a tough job.
GOB…good luck with getting the new job!
Jack…YIKES!! Wayyyy to good at DA.
JAP…your observations are sadly on target.
Kimberly…everything you said!! Go girl! My vote is tiara to you!
Bla…glad to hear all is still going well.
72J…go get ‘em, boy!
By kimberly
June 1, 2006 05:17 PM | Link to this
Dear Lord, please save me from Your followers, for they do not resemble You. Amen.
By Renee
June 2, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this
Bathtub Test
It doesn’t hurt to take a hard look at yourself from time to time, and this should help get you started.
During a visit to the mental asylum, a visitor asked the Director what the criterion was which defined whether or not a patient should be institutionalized.
“Well,” said the Director, “we fill up a bathtub, and then we offer a teaspoon, a teacup and a bucket to the patient and ask him or her to empty the bathtub.”
“Oh, I understand,” said the visitor. “A normal person would use the bucket because it’s bigger than the spoon or the teacup.”
“No.” said the Director, “A normal person would pull the plug.” “Do you want a bed near the window?”
By Mara
June 2, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this
not a single post by 9:09?! Must be a server problem. I’ll check back later…
By Netbanker
June 2, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this
Good one, Renee. I must not have lost it yet this morning because I got the right answer. Please check back around noon.
Is it time to go home, yet?
By GOB
June 2, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
This is quite an exciting morning on the blog…
By RF
June 2, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this
Mother of GOD!!! Could this day go any slower??? Last exam day, and the little munchkins are ‘bout on my nerves!
Now that I’ve vented, GOOD one Renee!! LOL I picked the bucket!! Last day of school I’m surprised I didn’t go for choice D- jump in, go under, and wait until the allllll go away!! LOL
By Renee
June 2, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
Unfortunately, no, but I’m counting the hours down.
By Netbanker
June 2, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
Hmmm…what’s going on today? So far we have one of the Bambi’s, Ms. Glitter-horn, and Mr. Glitz-hooter. We’re one dancer shy for our dance off and no one else is here to cheer us on and tuck $10 bills into our g-strings.
By The72John
June 2, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
It’s Friday - I just can’t muster up the necessary sense of outrage, acrimony and partisanship.
By lozen
June 2, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this
Hey Mara, Netbanker and Renee. TGIF! Renee that was a good one. Isn’t it amazing how our minds work (or don’t)! So Net, give us some good investment tips.
By Renee
June 2, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
Looks like my Bambi partner is here! Dance off can begin!!
Hi lozen.
By Netbanker
June 2, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this
This ‘joke’ is visual so follow the link
http://www.chooseyouritem.com/jokes/wfhm.html
By RF
June 2, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this
Give me until noon, and I’ll be dressed and ready. The pre-lunch crowd just doesn’t tip well, you know?
By Chilao
June 2, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this
Good one Renee.
Net - funny; seen the one done in PhotoShop where the man’s contortionist head is, well, up there. LMAO Reserved for senior mgmt often.
jokeless today, ill-prepared.
By Chilao
June 2, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this
yeah, I picked the bucket too. However if I was STANDING there and not reading it, probably would have pulled the plug. we HOPE..LOL
By Mara
June 2, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
Morning all. Thank goodness it’s friday. I’m too pooped to dance so I’ll just do the comedy thing instead…and awaaaay we go (waka,waka, waka…)
Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore were in an airplane that crashed. They’re up in heaven, and God’s sitting on the great white throne.
God addresses Al first. “Al, what do you believe in?”
Al replies, “Well, I believe I won that election, but that it was your will that I did not serve. And I’ve come to understand that now.”
God thinks for a second and says “Okay, very good. Come and sit at my left.”
God then addresses Bill. “Bill, what do you believe in?”
Bill replies, “I believe in forgiveness. I’ve sinned, but I’ve never held a grudge against my fellow man, and I hope no grudges are held against me.”
God thinks for a second and says “You are forgiven, my son. Come and sit at my right.
God then address Hillary. “Hillary, what do you believe in?”
“I believe you’re in my chair
By kimberly
June 2, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
NetB, Good one! I have shared that joy with many others this morning!
By blablabla
June 2, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
nice, net. luckily i had my door shut before that link played.
By Jack
June 2, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
“Kimberly…everything you said!! Go girl! My vote is tiara to you!”
You get my vote too. I’ll bet you look good wearing only the tiara too! Heehee
By blablabla
June 2, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
The problem seems to arise from the study you cited—which analyzes the personal political views of reporters—and the conclusion you jump to: “Therefore, the stuff they report will automatically be biased.”
it’s not MY conclusion that the media is biased, it was the conclusion of the study. i happen to believe their conclusion is probably correct, but that doesn’t change that the result of the study was that the media contains left-ward leaning bias in it. it’s not like i took those facts and “jumped to the conclusion” that there is bias in the media. the scientists who did the study came to that conclusion based on their data.
surely you see the difference.
and i read the article you posted. i thought it was very interesting - thanks. but a funny thing occurred to me while reading it - the article provides all these examples of how journalistic integrity is and can be breached by outside influences. to a large degree it corroborates my assertion that, try as they might to be objective, there is bias in the media caused by a whole host of potential factors.
john,
This study makes no attempt to establish causality, which would be required to establish bias.
i don’t know why you believe causality is required to establish that there is bias. most of the time, before establishing “why” something exists, you first must understand that it does exist. the study seeks to confirm the first part, that bias does exist.
asking why the earth is round is secondary to determining that the earth in fact, is round.
By blablabla
June 2, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
mara - i thought that was a really cool article. thanks for digging it up.
By Brian Curtis
June 2, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
BBB: The point is that the study you cited DIDN’T demonstrate that media reporting is biased; it simply measured the voting habits of the reporters. That’s not the same thing.
But enough of this. Today is Joke Friday!
By GOB
June 2, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
and i read the article you posted. i thought it was very interesting - thanks. but a funny thing occurred to me while reading it - the article provides all these examples of how journalistic integrity is and can be breached by outside influences. to a large degree it corroborates my assertion that, try as they might to be objective, there is bias in the media caused by a whole host of potential factors.
The examples in that article illustrated how big a role that advertisers play in the content of the news. Only large advertisers have that kind of clout, so you have to ask yourself who do large advertisers generally support. It isnt the liberal left. The conclusion of the study you posted, and which you have said you agree with, is that the media has a liberal bias. It seems odd to point to examples of the exact opposite to try and prove your point.
By Billy
June 2, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
Bla — asking why the earth is round is secondary to determining that the earth in fact, is round.
But the Earth, while round, is not perfectly spherical. And any “liberal” bias in the media, while possibly existent, is not as pronounced as the study makes it out to be. I (and most other liberals here) are freely admitting that the majority of news personalities on TV and reporters for newspapers and magazines may vote Democrat. What we object to is the assertion that their personal political leanings in some way equals a bias of such a massive scale, large enough to overcome the political leanings of the media owners and CEOs.
And the article with the critique of the study did not seem to corroborate your point. If anything, it raised doubts about the existence of bias. At the very least, the bias found by the study was overstated. Until the study is refigured using the model suggested by the author of the article, for all I know there’s actually a greater conservative bias in the media.
By Brian Curtis
June 2, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
&THINGS THAT NEVER HAPPENED ON STAR TREK
The Enterprise runs into a mysterious energy field of a type that it has encountered before.
The Enterprise goes to check up on a remote outpost of scientists who are all perfectly all right.
The Enterprise comes across a Garden-of-Eden-like planet called Paradise, where everyone is happy all the time. However, everything is soon revealed to be exactly as it seems.
The crew of the Enterprise discover a totally new lifeform, which later turns out to be a rather well-known old lifeform, wearing a silly hat.
The crew of the Enterprise are struck by a strange alien plague, for which the cure is found in the well-stocked sick-bay.
An enigmatic being composed of pure energy attempts to interface to the Enterprise’s computer, only to find out that it has forgotten to bring the right leads.
A power surge on the Bridge is rapidly and correctly diagnosed as a faulty capacitor by the highly-trained and competent engineering staff.
A power surge on the Bridge fails to electrocute the user of a computer panel, due to a highly sophisticated 24th century surge protection feature called a ‘fuse’.
The Enterprise ferries an alien VIP from one place to another without serious incident.
The Enterprise is captured by a vastly superior alien intelligence which does not put them on trial.
The Enterprise gets involved in an enigmatic, strange, and dangerous situation, and there are no pesky aliens they can blame it on in the end.
The Enterprise is captured by a vastly inferior alien intelligence which they easily pacify with candy.
The Enterprise is involved in a bizarre time-warp phenomenon, which is in no way connected with the 20th century.
Somebody takes out a shuttle and it doesn’t explode or crash.
A major Starfleet emergency breaks out near the Enterprise, and some other ships in the area are able to deal with it to everyone’s satisfaction.
The shields on the Enterprise stay up during a battle.
The Enterprise visits the Klingon Home World on a bright, sunny day.
A major character spends the entire episode in the Holodeck without a single malfunction trapping him/her there.
Picard walks up to a replicator and says, “Coke on ice.”
Counsellor Troi states something other than the blindingly obvious.
Mood rings come back in style, jeopardizing Counselor Troi’s position.
Worf actually gives another vessel more than 2 seconds to respond to one of the Enterprise’s hails.
Wesley Crusher makes some friends of his own age for a change.
The warp engines start acting up a bit, but then seem to sort themselves out after a while without any intervention from boy genius Wesley Crusher.
Guinan forgets herself, and breaks into a stand up comedy routine.
Data falls in love with the replicator.
Kirk (or Riker) falls in love with a woman on a planet he visits, and isn’t tragically separated from her at the end of the episode.
The Captain has to make a difficult decision about a less advanced people which is made a great deal easier by the Starfleet Prime Directive.
An unknown ensign beams down as part of an away team and lives to tell the tale.
Kirk gets into a fistfight and doesn’t rip his shirt.
Kirk doesn’t end up kissing the troubled guest-female before she doesn’t sacrifice herself for him.
Scotty doesn’t mention the laws of physics.
By Doubter
June 2, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
Can we please have some intelligent discussion today about Christianity? I’d like for the more intelligent Christians to speak on the topic. I am going to tell you a couple of the reasons why I don’t buy the resurrection story. By that I mean the tales in the Gospels, of Jesus physically rising again from the grave. In the Bible, Thomas refused to believe so wild a claim without physical proof and he was depicted as no less righteous. We have as much right, and ought to follow his example. He got to see and feel the wounds before believing, and so should we. I haven’t, so I can’t be expected to believe it. And this leads me to the second reason why I don’t buy the resurrection story. No wise or compassionate God would demand this from us. Such a god would not leave us so poorly informed about something so important. If we have a message for someone that is urgently vital for their survival, and we have any compassion, that compassion will compel us to communicate that message clearly and with every necessary proof—not ambiguously, and not through unreliable mediaries (such as the writers of the Bible) presenting no real evidence.
By Doubter
June 2, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
I do not know any of these jokes. Sorry.
By lozen
June 2, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
Mara, the Hillary joke is very funny. Why do people hate her so much? I read an article yesterday that said Laura Bush told some group she spoke to that she is a feminist! Hillary has never claimed to be a feminist. Hillary stood by her man like a good woman is supposed to do.
By Garthe GOB
June 2, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
Doubter - You are thinking too much. The important thing is to feel that Jesus rose from the dead. It doesnt make sense logically, but with your faith, you can be assured that it happened. You will know in your gut that it is true when you really ask Jesus to help you…
By lozen
June 2, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
Brian, a couple of other things never seen on Star Trek: Women wearing long pants while Kirk, Spock, and all the men wear tight, sexy little shorts. Humans meet aliens far superior to them and the aliens tell them exactly how inferior they are. Guest woman from another planet tells Kirk, “I wouldn’t kiss you if you were the last man in the universe.”
One of my favorite episodes was the one where they found people from earth frozen at death floating out in space. They cure them and return them to life. There’s the rich man who keeps demanding they return him immediately so he can check on his wealth. They keep trying to tell him nobody needs money anymore because everything you need is there for you. The other one is when Troi’s mother visits and takes Worf’s son to the world where bubbles laugh and everyone sits in the hot tub.
By Billy
June 2, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
I dislike Laura Bush. I used to have a more benign view of her. She was the deep tan to GWB’s malignant melanoma. Then came last year’s White House Correspondents’ dinner. Her joke about him milking the horse? “And what’s worse, it was a male horse.” I have a problem with that comedically. Let the audience make the connection on it’s own. A male horse? Male=wang. It’s too easy. Make them work for it. She should have said, “It wouldn’t have been that big a deal, but we just have the one stallion.” That would’ve been funny.
By Doubter
June 2, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
Garthe GOB, Most people don’t think at all, and look at the world that results from that. How can a person with a brain think too much? I felt sure my wife loved me and it turned out she didn’t, so I’m not sure we can trust our feelings so much. Do you just say to yourself, “I WILL believe, I WILL believe,” this thing even though it does not make sense? Is that what faith is? How can I ask a dead man to help me? If I did this in public or at my desk at work, wouldn’t they call the mental hospital?
By The72John
June 2, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
Bla -
To suggest that bias exists because stories tend to favor one political spectrum rather than the other first requires that you believe that objective truth does not exist.
The study, let me say it just one more time, proves only that there are more stories that favor the left-wing point of view than the right-wing point of view. The conclusion that this proves the existence of bias is flawed because it denies the existence of objective truth and instead believes that there really are two sides to every story. There aren’t.
Causality is absolutely important. There are two options: reporters are shaping facts to fit their personal beliefs, in which case one could say that “bias” exists, or reporters are simply reporting objective truth, and the truth hurts.
By lozen
June 2, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
I think Laura Bush looks as if she’s on tranqs all the time. I can see why she would have to be too.
By The72John
June 2, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
Humans meet aliens far superior to them and the aliens tell them exactly how inferior they are
Apparently you’ve never seen any of the “Q” episodes…
By lozen
June 2, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
I don’t think doubter is thinking too much. Why is it we’re supposed to be rational and use our brain until it comes to religion? Then we are supposed to “just believe it.” That in itself makes no sense.
By lozen
June 2, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this
No matter how many religious people claim there is historical proof of jesus, it is not true. There is absolutely no historical proof that the man called jesus lived. The virgin birth - never happened - goes totally against nature. That virgin birth story was claimed by many religions of that superstitious time though.
By lozen
June 2, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
72, you’re right. I forgot about Q; never liked Q and didn’t watch those episodes.
By kimberly
June 2, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
Lozen, I also like the episode where they unfreeze the people and cure them. One man immediately wants a drink and to watch a baseball game. He says, “I’m sure the Braves are still figuring out new ways to lose.” Hahaha! (It was filmed pre ‘91 of course.)
By The72John
June 2, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
I’m also mystified that the invention of the holodeck didn’t bring civilization to a screeching halt…I mean…y’all know what I’m thinking, don’t pretend you don’t.
By Doubter
June 2, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
The important thing is to feel that Jesus rose from the dead. Are you saying it isn’t important whether it really happened or not? Why is it important to feel that Jesus rose from the dead? Do you believe he rose physically or spiritually or was it merely symbolic to the early Christians?
By lozen
June 2, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
Yeah, give me a holodeck please! Plato was so far ahead of his time! If I could just live my fantasies in the cave/holdeck! Reality, what a concept.
By lozen
June 2, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, I’d forgotten that he mentioned the Braves. What a mind Rodenberry had. I’ve always loved shows about space. No good ones right now though.
By blablabla
June 2, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
three points on this and then i’m done.
gob - brian’s article illustrated lots of examples of outside influence that impact reporting, not just advertisers. these outside influences fly directly in the face of those (on this blog) that stated earlier this week that journalists are capable of remaining completely objective from influences, be they external, or internal/personal. your point really only talked about advertisers, and (i) they’re not the only important influence, and (ii) they don’t all align themselves with the political right, not by a longshot. most companies that advertise want everybody to be their customer, not just the lefties or the righties.
billy - i was talking about brian’s article, not mara’s that runs the critique of the study. i think with that in context my comments may make more sense to you.
while the critique is certainly helpful, scientists argue all the time about methodology and underlying flaws, etc., usually based on whatever ideological bend they have. i would caution you to completely discount the findings of the study out of hand based on one critique, but that’s your choice.
john - we’ll have to agree to disagree. if the study is so obviously flawed as it relates to the “objective truth”, these guys wouldn’t be real scientists. forgive me if i have a hard time tossing out the findings of the study for being flawed just because you say they are.
while i believe causality is very important, to ask yourself the question “why does bias exist?” you’re making the assumption that bias does exist. so the ultimate question is does the bias exist - that was the goal of the study - to determine if it exists and quantify it somehow. i think you put the cart before the horse when you talk first about causality.
sorry for the serious talk, now back to your regularly scheduled light friday afternoon reading.
By blablabla
June 2, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this
Q was fantastsic. i loved how he would get in trouble with the “continuum” from time to time. and the actor that played the part was just perfect, i thought. he never did much more than bit stuff after that.
By blablabla
June 2, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
so who would win in a battle of identical enterprises: kirk and the original crew, or picard and the next generation gang?
By Mara
June 2, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
I can’t believe that you didn’t like Q. He was so wonderfully amoral and amusingly omnipotent. Loved the episode where the Continuum punished him by making him mortal and he had to try and do things as mortals do them. What a riot!!
People hate Hillary because a) she’s married to Bill, b) she is a woman who doesn’t know her place is behind her husband, c) she dared to step out of her “place” with the healthcare reform thing, and d)she has her own opinions and isn’t afraid to accept new info and revise those opinions. Many call it “triangulating” but I call it updating the relavent data.
Doubter - It’s better that you don’t know the jokes. Jokes are always more amusing the first time you hear (read?) them!
By Billy
June 2, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
Bla — OK, I see you were talking about a different article. My opinion still stands, however. I don’t see this as a lone critique. It is a glaring example of a mathematical error. Unless the rerun the data using proportional equations, I have to discount it.
By Jack
June 2, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
Lozen. People dislike Hillary cause she is transparent as hell in her qwest for power. her seate seat is just a stepping stone to the big cherry (White House) If she had the gonads to be prez, she would have kicked Bill out on his a*. i hope she gives up her seat in the senate to run and loses by a landslide.
By RF
June 2, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
bla- for sheer guts, the original Kirk would win. Picard would win on strategy and style. He always stayed cool. I began to doubt the federation though after they reinstaed him after the Borg thing. I would have just retired then. He never had to fist fight a superstrong reptilian being, so Kirk has him on physical fighting. Actually I think the new crew would have a decided advantage because of Data, although I bet Uhura could kick some major butt if you got the sister mad!!
By RF
June 2, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
Mara- I loved it when Q made Riker a member. I would have soooooo gone for it. All that power and freedom to use it!
By Brian Curtis
June 2, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
Being German, I try to save the occasional German jokes I run across. Here’s one. (You may have to know a bit of English—or German—culture to get this one.)
—
An English couple have a child. After the birth, medical tests reveal that the child is normal, apart from the fact that he is German. This, however, should not be a problem. The doctors assure the anxious parents that there is nothing to worry about.
As the child grows older, he dresses in lederhosen and has a bowl haircut, but all his basic functions develop normally. He can walk, eat, sleep, read and so on, but for some reason the German child never speaks. The concerned parents take him to the doctor, who reassures them that since the boy is perfectly developed in all other areas, there is nothing to worry about. “The speech faculty will blossom eventually,” he tells them.
Years pass. The German boy enters his teens and still doesn’t speak, though in all other respects he is fully functional. He attends school, gets good grades, does his chores, and so on. But his English mother is still saddened by his silence.
One day she calls the boy, now 17, down to the kitchen for lunch. She puts a bowl of tomato soup in front of him and goes into the next room to listen to the radio.
To her astonishment, the German boy appears in the doorway and says, “Mother—-this soup is a bit cold.”
The mother is astonished. “All these years,” she exclaims, “we assumed you could not speak. And yet all along it appears you could. Why? Why did you never say anything before?”
“Because, mother,” answers the boy, “up until now, everything has been satisfactory.”
By GOB
June 2, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
Apparently my evil, mustache wearing twin posted earlier…
By blablabla
June 2, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this
RF - data does create a huge advantage, but kirk had spock, and his quick-thinkig analysis of khan’s strategies in ST2 (“his patterns indicate two dimensional thinking”) was critical in saving them all.
speaking of kirk, has anybody else seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVbv6r_tKnE&search=Shatner%20Rocket%20Man
absolutely hysterical.
By kimberly
June 2, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
Bla, you said, “advertisers…. don’t all align themselves with the political right…. want everybody to be their customer, not just the lefties or the righties”
Yes, they want us ALL to buy their products, but back up a minute. What are the two biggest advertisers on any national network news program? (1) pharmaceutical companies (2) car companies. Anyone disagree with that? Okay, now back up to the last Presidential election. How would those advertisers have fared under a Democratic-led administration that might have (1) restricticted Pharm-lobby-enabled price gouging, and vetoed the current restrictions on importing drugs from Canada, and (2) started DIS-incenting companies with tax penalties who outsource manufacturing jobs? And of course the tax cuts and amazing lobbying influence these industries receive under Republican rule are things they’d HATE to give up! Big business loves Republican rule, and networks leaned HARD to the right, from what I saw. HARD. (Dan Rather didn’t, but then, he’s out of work as a result, isn’t he?)
By kimberly
June 2, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis: Sehr Gut! Haha! Das verstehe ich. Der Junge hat nicht gesprechen, weil er kein Probleme hat! SEHR DEUTSCH! Bestimmt. Haha!
By blablabla
June 2, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
kimberly - the short answer is they’d still be spending tons of money on advertising, regardless of who is in the white house. and another point i would make is that it’s a HUGE assumption to say that kerry would have done the opposite of gwb as it relates to prescriptions or job outsourcing had he been elected. campaign promises, as i’m sure you know, mean little. but yes, i would concur that in general “big business” prefers gop lawmakers.
By Brian Curtis
June 2, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
Which means that if there’s any particular bias in the media to worry about, it wouldn’t be pro-left or pro-right, so much as pro-corporate.
By Chilao
June 2, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this
my surname is German, got that one, did I. LOL this more a vocal but give it your best shot.
Japanese steel makers, war over, no longer making tanks, etc, decided to design an automobile. Of course, then and now, they were getting all their ideas from German automotive engineers.
Finally a car was ready to come off the line, but they still had not come up with a good name for it.
Japanese engineer calls his German counterpart and exclaims “Quick, we need a name for our car and we need it right now, the cars are ready”.
German engineer replies “Dat soon?”.
By Chilao
June 2, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
for you youngsters, Nissan was previously Datsun. I actually think they were originally Nissan Mfg. but created Datsun for their car line, eventually reverting to Nissan.
By GOB
June 2, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
but yes, i would concur that in general “big business” prefers gop lawmakers.
Then doesnt it seem odd that the mainstream media (which is now owned by a handful of some of the biggest corporations on earth) would be so overly biased towards the left?
Yesterday you said that you thought journalists were unable to seperate their personal views from their reporting. Do your personal political views control how you perform your job on a daily basis? I know the company I work for does some things that I dont agree with, but I dont stop doing my job because of it. How are reporters any different?
By kimberly
June 2, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
Hey, isn’t pro-corporate one of the bastions of fascism? I mean, especially when the government puts corporate rights and privileges ahead of individuals? Just curious.
By The72John
June 2, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
How are reporters any different
Because reporters are obviously part of the vast left-wing conspiracy that, in concert with the Gay lobby, is all-pervasive yet utterly ineffective in accomplishing any of the goals that it allegedly seeks. However, any and all attempts to criticize the conservatives can be laid at its feet and dismissed because of its obvious bias.
Is this an appropriate time to roll my eyes?
By Netbanker
June 2, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
Jack…your statement about why people dislike Hillary is about as pure a commentary on the double standards applied to the behaviors of men and women as exists. Damn near anyone who runs for President is all about the power and prestige of the job. Would anyone but an egomaniac really want that job?
I do find it odd that conservatives (who are more likely than liberals to self-identify as christians) give Hillary such a hard time about her standing by Bill during Monica-gate. Shouldn’t her standing by her man make her a role model in their eyes? She honored her marriage vows on the ‘for worse’ part she forgave, and they moved on. How much more family values can you get given conservatives are constantly wailing about the state of the family and marriage? I’m not a Hillary fan by any means, but I think she handled that entire episode with grace given that dealing with spousal infidelity is difficult enough without it being a major news topic.
Lordy do I wish I had a replicator and a holodeck right about now. I could use a good stiff one (of both kinds)!
By GOB
June 2, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
How are reporters any different
Because reporters are obviously part of the vast left-wing conspiracy that, in concert with the Gay lobby, is all-pervasive yet utterly ineffective in accomplishing any of the goals that it allegedly seeks.
Well, I meant besides all of that, of course. I mean, who doesnt already know all of those things?
By Netbanker
June 2, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
Very cute Chilao. I didn’t make the connection between Datsun and Nissan although I recall Datsun cars. Well guess that definitely puts me not in the ‘youngsters’ camp.
What’s kind of bizarre is that things really haven’t changed all that much in the halls of power in the past 150 years or so. Back then big business really meant the individuals or families who owned the businesses and they used their dollars to peddle (i.e. purchase) influence in Washington. In general they were more concerned with how to protect and grow their wealth than the welfare of the country and its citizens. Laws have been passed to give the appearance of addressing the influence peddling, but at the end of the day the game is still the same. What has changed is that a ‘common’ man or woman no longer has a real chance of gaining entree to the halls of power because it requires so damn much money to run a campaign. The secular golden rule is the one that is followed.
By Netbanker
June 2, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
Gay lobby, is all-pervasive yet utterly ineffective in accomplishing any of the goals that it allegedly seeks
Helloooo?! We’re not ineffective (stamping foot), we’re working on gay time!
Actually, we’re the power behind the insideous plot to distract Americans with major issues like out of control fuel prices, off shoring jobs, high cost of pharmaceuticals, outragous federal deficit, illegal immigration, et all so that we can slip through civil equality legislation. Apparently we “misunderestimated” the general population’s stupidity because the damn idiots aren’t paying attention to the correct issues! Oh well, being catty and evil since they won’t give us the equality we want we’ll completely destory the country as retribution! mwahahaha!
By blablabla
June 2, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
gob -
Then doesnt it seem odd that the mainstream media (which is now owned by a handful of some of the biggest corporations on earth) would be so overly biased towards the left?
as i said yesterday, or the day before (can’t remember), most prominent media personalities have a lot of rope in how they conduct themselves on air. i don’t think the ceo has a whole lot of control over what a media personality says (at the time the words come out of somebody’s mouth). furthermore, if the entire mgmt of a broadcast company is conservative, and the anchor is liberal, but gets great ratings, that mgmt team will more than likely overlook the occasional slip-up (intended or otherwise) where the anchor’s personal feelings come to the fore. for a lot of people money is thicker than politics.
Yesterday you said that you thought journalists were unable to seperate their personal views…How are reporters any different?
i didn’t mean they do this all the time, gob. they’re not different - just like anybody else, they slip up or get cute.
By Netbanker
June 2, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
Ray Nagin, the mayor of New Orleans, was asked his views on Roe vs. Wade.
He said he didn’t care how people got back to their houses.
By blablabla
June 2, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
Because reporters are obviously part of the vast left-wing conspiracy that, in concert with the Gay lobby, is all-pervasive yet utterly ineffective in accomplishing any of the goals that it allegedly seeks. However, any and all attempts to criticize the conservatives can be laid at its feet and dismissed because of its obvious bias.
john - do you really think that i, or most other conservatives, really believe that?
By blablabla
June 2, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
I’m not a Hillary fan by any means, but I think she handled that entire episode with grace given that dealing with spousal infidelity is difficult enough without it being a major news topic.
i thought she handled it with relative grace as well, net. now if i could only believe her motivation was her wedding vows…
By Jack
June 2, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
Yeah. Stand by your man. Would you if you were in her shoes? Would she have had he not been a high profile politico? Doubt it.
By Zack
June 2, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis—Has there ever been a time in your life when you’ve sought the truth, or have you always been ignorant about it like you are now and offensive toward those who dared to disagree with you?
The same question goes for several others on here, and you know who you are.
As for hate speech on college campuses, believe it or not, the statement that homosexuality is unnatural is not an example of “hate speech.” Homosexuals can’t reproduce, for one thing, and yet people act like homosexuality is natural.
Professors across the country have taken numerous shots at Christianity over the years. Even though these comments are invalid, not everyone in college, unfortunately, realizes that. Indeed, college is an area where propaganda is preached all the time. The Diane Glasses of the world would never admit that there’s such a thing as “hate speech” against Christianity, but people like her aren’t the least bit objective.
In fact, there’s very, very little objectivity out there. I’m conservative, and I’ll be the first to admit that the Fox News Channel is anything but fair and balanced. It should be deemed, “Unfair and unbalanced.” It would be wonderful is republicans would concentrate on fighting abortion and gay rights and not trying to push the exploitative right-wing economic agenda on us all.
Also, isn’t it strange that Al Gore won Florida and then lost it—-and that this state has Bush’s brother as its governor? Isn’t it strange that, according to what I heard, a 2004 vote for John Kerry resulted in an automtic, computerized response telling you to click here to confirm your vote for George W. Bush?
I like Bush better than Kerry, but in our less-than-objective world, I thought I’d be a breath of fresh air.
By The72John
June 2, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
john - do you really think that i, or most other conservatives, really believe that?
Well, since the idea of the so-called liberal bias is used to dismiss just about every single anti-Conservative statement of any shape, form, or fashion, then yes - I do actually think that most Conservatives believe some variation of the above.
By RF
June 2, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this
*Ray Nagin, the mayor of New Orleans, was asked his views on Roe vs. Wade.
He said he didn’t care how people got back to their houses.*
ROFL!!
I’m outta here. The kiddies are gone for the summer!!!! Have a wonderful weekend all- we’ll holla at ya Tuesday!
By GOB
June 2, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
i didn’t mean they do this all the time, gob. they’re not different - just like anybody else, they slip up or get cute.
For there to be a bias that is obvious enough to get noticed on the scale that the study you cited says, it wouldnt just be isolated incidents of reporters slipping up. So if you are arguing that there is in fact a major liberal bias in the media, you are saying it happens all the time.
By GOB
June 2, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
Yeah. Stand by your man. Would you if you were in her shoes? Would she have had he not been a high profile politico? Doubt it.
Do you really believe that this was the first time she found out he had cheated on her? She was a succesful lawyer on her own long before he got got to the White House.
By blablabla
June 2, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
For there to be a bias that is obvious enough to get noticed on the scale that the study you cited says
you guys don’t seem to notice it, unless it’s fox news. that’s funny. maybe it’s not as obvious to you as you think it should be, because, due to your viewpoint, it flies right you unnoticed.
john - I do actually think that most Conservatives believe some variation of the above.
that’s too bad; we’re further apart than i would have hoped. personally i think there’s a gap in positions between believing there is a slight leftward bias in the media and a vast left-wing conspiracy over the news. my opinion is that the former exists, but certainly not the latter.
i’m out everybody - have a good weekend.
By Brian Curtis
June 2, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
quote from Zack: *Brian Curtis—-Has there ever been a time in your life when you’ve sought the truth, or have you always been ignorant about it like you are now and offensive toward those who dared to disagree with you?
The same question goes for several others on here, and you know who you are.*
Actually, the same goes for you, Zack. In your insistence that your faith somehow grants you special access to The Truth, and your arrogance condescension in telling anyone who disagrees with your guess that they’re “ignorant” (or, in Randy’s version, “hiding from the truth”), you truly display what effect religious zealotry has:
to defame everything good about the religion and turn people away from it in a desperate drive to never, under ANY circumstances, become Anything Like You.
My background is in the sciences, Zack; by profession and inclination, I’ve been a truthseeker for much of my life. The difference between us is that YOU think you’ve arrived at the truth without a shred of logic or evidence to back it up; I don’t make that claim.
So give it a rest, because at this point you’re just embarrassing yourself and making REAL Christians look bad.
By The72John
June 2, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
you guys don’t seem to notice it, unless it’s fox news. that’s funny. maybe it’s not as obvious to you as you think it should be, because, due to your viewpoint, it flies right you unnoticed.
So, when Fox News had a calendar that said “X # of days until George Bush re-elected”, that was…what…reasonable?
that’s too bad; we’re further apart than i would have hoped. personally i think there’s a gap in positions between believing there is a slight leftward bias in the media and a vast left-wing conspiracy over the news. my opinion is that the former exists, but certainly not the latter
I’m having a hard time keeping a straight face on this, Bla…I don’t necessarily think that YOU believe that there is a vast conspiracy, but how many times do you think the phrase “The liberal media” comes up in mainstream conservative news outlets? How often in a day’s time do you think that reports that reflect badly on the Bush administration are dismissed out of hand because they come from “the liberal media”?
By Netbanker
June 2, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this
Jack…I can say I would have done the same as Hillary, because in fact I have dealt with this issue in my own relationship despite my partner not being a high profile politico or even being wealthy. It’s far easier to cut and run than work out difficult issues. There must be something more to their relationship than most of us give them credit for becuase they’re still married. When it comes down to it sex isn’t as much a betrayal of marriage vows as is emotional infidelity.
RF…have a good weekend! I’m hoping to spend some time reliving my vacation by lounging with friends around the pool on Sunday.
By kimberly
June 2, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
Und wo kann eine Frau solche Mann wie Ihnen finded?… Ein Mann der Wahrheit sucht? Es gibt doch so wenig….
By Netbanker
June 2, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
Kimberly…if I weren’t a gay man, I think I could be in love with you and I know my family would approve since you seem to be one of ‘the people.’ On Mom’s side that is German and Dad’s Hungarian/Slavic. A Polish coworker just gave me a menu for Patak-Bohemia European Meats & Sausages in Austell after we were talking about good slavic and germanic foods. They’re in Austell so I’m thinking it could be a reason for a little road trip to check out their wursts and kielbasas.
By kimberly
June 2, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this
Mmmmm…. Sooo… I should hang out by the wursts & kielbasas and see what pops up? HAHAHA! Gimme a schnitzel so big it hangs off the plate on both sides. {;-D
By Netbanker
June 2, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
Have a good weekend everyone!