Pangloss

What a horrible thing, that free exchange of ideas.

He likely would caucus with Democrats? What, are you reading tea leaves or something? And even if that were true, so what? How is that "not exactly what's best for the voters of Florida"? Are you saying that when the voters of Florida elect Democrats that this is bad for the state? What's so awful about letting the man caucus with whomever he wants to caucus with? Elected officials are beholden to the people who elected them, not to archaic political parties trying to maintain their grip on power.

Sarcasm doesn't suit you. And in this case it appears to be masking your point completely, at least from me. I completely agree that Democrats trounced Republicans in 2008, having participated in that very process myself, voting as I did for Barrack Obama and other Democrats. "Lie?" Wow, what bee flew into your bonnet? I don't think the majority of Americans are conservative in the sense of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity (always voting Republican). I think the traditional voting break down is typically seen as 40% Republican, 40% Democrat, and 20% independent. But at the moment I think it's probably more like 25% Republican, 30% Democrat and 45% independent (more of whom are currently planning to vote Republican than Democrat, mostly because they're pissed about the economy). But I think a general label of "conservative" applies to about 90% of Americans when viewed in contrast with what the typical SFN progressive or European citizen or progressive activist would LIKE to see. Americans are really pretty moderate, but if someone is so far to the left that even Barrack Obama seems conservative then they're not going to understand these shifts in voter activity because they don't understand how Americans think. So what does it mean that there are more people voting in Republican primaries than Democrat primaries for the first time in 80 years? In my opinion it means that the conservative side of the American psyche is more engaged than the liberal side at the moment. I think Americans are feeling much more aligned with conservative thinking than liberal-progressive thinking at the moment.

Yup. That is exactly what I'm saying, ydoaps, that these politically-correct progressives are convinced that conservatives are incapable of drawing intellectual distinctions -- he MUST have meant that he's so afraid of Muslims that he thinks they should be harmed before they can harm us. Or at the very least people will THINK that's what he meant, and they'll panic and go out and harm Muslims as a result of what he said. That's how far we've fallen. You can blame all that on the Fox News crowd if you like, but you'll be missing half the picture.

Here's an article talking about Soros' massive donation to NPR, which has enabled the hiring of 100 new reporters for 50 of its radio stations. I wonder if they come with ACLU membership cards and carbon offset receipts packed into their hemp wallets. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/21/billionaire-soros-pays-additional-npr-reporters/ "Watchdog", eh. I bet. Sounds to me like he wants to turn NPR into Media Matters for America, a partisan Fox News watchdog that openly exaggerates Fox News bias (just as the conservative Media Research Center does to the left). Oh, by the way, Soros also just donated a million dollars to MMA. Gee, what a coincidence. Love these George Soros quotes: Soros also founded MoveOn.org (of "General Betray Us" fame) and funded the now-defunct Air America (a more wretched hive of scum and villainy you will not find this side of conservative talk radio). -------------- I don't agree with bascule's assessment of Fox News Channel, but a point he's raised in the past that I believe to be valid is that Glenn Beck is different from other partisan commentators in that he is so much more over the top regarding his end of the world scenarios, crackpot conspiracy theories and so forth. Bascule acknowledged in previous discussion that he might be similar to some commentators on the left, and I believe we agreed that Anderson Cooper might fall into that category, at least with some of his statements and angrier shows that he's done. Anyway, I agree with him that a direct comparison between Glenn Beck and Michael Moore is not really fair to Moore. Which is not to say that I think Beck is completely without value. I think he makes the odd correct point now and then, and his overall message, at least his most recent one, sans crackpot theories, focusing on our choice between the progressive slide into socialism and the traditional American way of life, is eye-openingly astute. I don't share his fears, and I don't agree with many of his examples, but I think his general point is accurate, and more importantly, I think it reflects what a lot of Americans are thinking right now. Progressives really don't get this country. --------------- Here's an interesting illustration of just how much more engaged conservatives are than liberals at the moment. Thus far in 2010 about 33.8 million Americans have voted in primaries. Most of those voters were Republican. The last time that happened -- the last time Republican voters outnumbered Democratic voters in mid-term election primaries -- was eighty years ago. And the number of Democrats voting in primaries this year, as a percentage of the number of eligible voters, is the lowest ever. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/22/begley-the-psychology-of-voter-turnout.html

Is it just me or did these folks hit a home run with this idea? It seems like such a simple message, the idea that while your life may suck right now, it will some day get better. So simple, and yet, it seems to really touch on something powerful. IMO it even transcends the gay message and speaks to kids suffering from all forms of bullying. Some background here and the official web site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Gets_Better_Project http://www.itgetsbetterproject.com/?loc=interstitialskip President Obama recorded a message for the project which was posted today, putting it back in the spotlight. I don't think these folks can get enough attention -- it's just a great idea. What do you all think?

Republicans in Florida must be pretty mad about Charlie Crist, our current governor who is now running as an independent for US Senate against Republican nominee Marco Rubio and Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek. Apparently a state senate commission on elections has decided that it is time for the state to consider making it more difficult for people to do what Charlie Crist is doing. My question is: Why? What is so bad about allowing people to run for office as an independent? It turns out that my district's state senator sits on this commission, so I let her have an earful this morning in email (for whatever THAT's worth, sigh). Their reasoning (see article below) seems to be that it makes the state look bad, but I don't buy that argument. I think they're protecting the two-party system, and I think that stinks. What do you think? http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/21/1885302/charlie-crist-switch-to-independent.html

Thread moved per user request.

Ok, how about the Huffington Post, which just got a million-dollar donation to its investigative arm from George Soros? How about National Public Radio, which just got a $1.8 million donation from George Soros (on the same day that it fired Juan Williams)? Can we compare them with Fox News Channel?

Sure they do. And NPR chose NOT to censor Juan Williams when he espoused a liberal perspective. Not only on Fox News Channel, but in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Atlantic Monthly and Time magazine. For ten years they allowed this to take place. But the very first time he says something that sounds conservative on Fox News (late 2009), he gets a warning, and the second time he gets fired. Gee.

Maybe I misread you, but Juan Williams is no "crazy right-wing meanie". He's a liberal, who's used somewhat like Alan Combs, to ostensibly (and for the most part effectively) represent the other side. -------------- On a related note, I have a general comment regarding the censorship angle. The reason I find this accusation reasonable is that it fits the general socio-political environment. As I see it, and just to generalize horribly for a moment, the left is generally in the minority in this country -- it's a pretty conservative nation, on the whole (e.g. religion). So the progressive left, knowing that it's in the minority, relies upon the need to control the discourse to some degree. Open opinionating is viewed as dangerous and detrimental because if they can't control the message then they certainly can't fight the already-uphill battle of selling it to a generally-unwilling public. They've found over the years that Americans will accept soft-sell progressivism over time. Whether it's the Hollywood three-act story or the singleworkingmotherwithkids of the nightly news, there is no debate taking place -- it's all message, all the time. They like that approach because it works -- busy Americans can have their opinions gradually molded by an underlying progressive message. It never worked as fast or as well as progressives wanted it to, but generally speaking it did have an impact. But that America doesn't exist anymore. Conservative Talk Radio, the conservative side of the blogosphere, and Fox News Channel have leveled the playing field. Today's Americans still consume entertainment and news, but they're not as persuaded by the soft sell anymore. They'll happily watch an episode of CSI that "raises awareness" about global warming, then just as happily chuckle and move on, with no effect on their opinion whatsoever. Hollywood's still selling it, but nobody's buying anymore. I believe that fact has infuriated the progressive movement. They've lost the little toe-hold they had (which was far more than they'd ever rightly earned), and they can't stand the fact that the country seems to be so infernally stupid. I mean it MUST be stupid, right? They're not making the right decisions! Forget open discourse, we've got to take action! So yeah, when Juan Williams gets canned by an organization that regularly trash-talks tea party members, religious people and conservatives in general, and it fires him only after he appears to cross the line with a conservative-like statement, even though it conveniently forgot its own rules when he was passing the correct social message, YES that's an example of censorship. Anyway, that's how I see it.

Well in fairness Beck's not saying it's an act of government censorship. If he brought up the public funding angle I missed it -- he seemed more interested in George Soros and the Tides Foundation. Regarding NPR policies, the allegation is that they are being selectively applied. As usual Beck is spinning the issue to show a certain perspective, but I don't think he's completely out on a limb. That's the unfortunate thing about demagogues -- they start with a wee bit of truth, and if we dismiss that truth along with the falsehoods, we hurt ourselves even more than if we accept his exaggerations. Regardless, the "it was just a policy matter" thing isn't carrying water with liberals, much less conservatives. Just to add a couple more, Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters of The View spoke out against NPR today. This is notable because it was Goldberg who walked out on Bill O'Reilly in the first place (after she misunderstood something HE said), prompting the discussion that lead to Williams' firing. BTW, Karl Rove in one interview today (guess which network) called NPR "National Progressive Radio". (chuckle)

I see. I think that makes about as much sense as Glenn Beck blaming it on the Tides Foundation and George Soros.

How do you mean?

ABC News and CBS News lead with the story tonight. NBC News, often accused of liberal bias by conservatives, ran the story much later in their broadcast. ABC reported on liberals who are criticizing NPR; NBC in contrast compared Williams with more outrageous statements from other commentators and focused on conservatives voicing their support for Williams. (Anybody wonder why I prefer ABC News?) Anyway, that kind of attention is considered "primary focus" by the kind of establishment culture that tends to prevail at entities like NPR, as well as governments and corporations -- network attention elevates an issue. I wouldn't be surprised if NPR feels obligated to change its response in some way.

So really this isn't about bin Laden, right? It's about the rift in the Muslim world community between extremism and peaceful conformity? If so an adjustment to the thread subject line might be in order. I could add something to the sub-subject.

I gritted my teeth today and watched a bit of Glenn Beck to see what his reaction would be. It's not real surprising but some of the rhetoric was entertaining and possibly even insightful (as opposed to just inciting). His main point was: "Today, Juan Williams. Tomorrow, YOU." I loved this quote: "THIS is what the first amendment is for -- to protect free speech. Who needs to protect free speech that's not challenging? Galileo didn't need his free speech to be protected when he agreed with the church, he needed it when he disagreed. And as for Juan Williams, you may disagree with him. I do -- often times. But I respect him, he's a decent man. You can watch Juan express himself or not, it's your choice. That's what America is all about. You can watch him tonight, he'll be on Bill O'Reilly, because this network still believes in free speech on both sides." And this bit was pretty amusing, turning it into a tirade against progressives: "These people want to shut your speech down. Let me tell you something, if anyone tries to shut down Keith Olberman -- I find this guy reprehensible, wrong, easy to beat, but that' sa different story. But I stand shoulder to shoulder with him to defend his right to say the nonsense that he says. NEVER do I want him fired for what he says. My guess is he wouldn't do the same for me. But the difference here is that I am not a progressive. I believe the American people are smart, and in the end, they'll get it." He also pointed out that Williams was fired on the same day that George Soros donated $1.8 million to NPR. Don't know much about that one but it could be just some random Beck insanity. Nasty. NPR really stepped into it.

By the way, over 40 million Americans are now on food stamps.

This may be a good example of a story that separates the far left from the moderate/mainstream left, which seems to be lining up to condemn the firing. Far Left: Greg Dworkin at The Daily Kos: Christine Pelosi, Democratic Activist and daughter of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: Mainstream Left: Will Marshall, Founder of the Progressive Policy Institute: Kate Brown, Media Relations Manager, New America Foundation: Politico has started collecting some comments from around the Web and posting them here. Interestingly, many of the comments already posted on that page come from major universities and public policy centers.

Lemur, do you and I need to have another conversation about your posting habits? There are just too many unaccounted-for possibilities in that particular question. My hesitance to reply at length is due to the regular thrashing given to anyone around here who even hints at disagreeing with the "consensus" on global warming. I don't dispute global warming, I just don't share some of the extrapolations that seem to stem from it. In this case, I don't presently accept the phrase "straining the world's capacity to support current human populations". The world is a really big place. I think our arrival at global communication has caused us to forget our previous understanding that it's hubris to overestimate our impact on it. That having been said, the fact that we have an impact is clear. The problem is arriving at the correct assessment of that impact. That's produced a new hubris: Believing that we fully understand what our impact is. That new hubris is even more dangerous than the older one, IMO.

Fox News-like or not, what I'm saying is that to me these sound like justifications for why American conservatives fear the left. They sound like really good reasons not to allow the United States to become an entitlement society.

National Public Radio fired 10-year commentator Juan Williams yesterday over remarks he made as a guest on the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News Channel earlier in the week. Here's what Williams said: Williams says he was fired remotely, without even a face-to-face meeting. This comes following controversy over Bill O'Reilly's appearance on The View, which is what was being discussed when the comments were made. O'Reilly said on that program that "Muslims attacked us on 9/11", a factually accurate statement that he later clarified to mean "not all Muslims", but which prompted a walkout by Whoppi Goldberg and Joy Behar. Following his firing, Williams added these comments (same article): I think that while the comment could be called "bigoted", it's clearly not a case of promoting bigotry. He's not even promoting the fear he felt. He's defending it as logical, but he's not saying that it's a good thing. I think his firing had more to do with O'Reilly's View appearance, and the far-left ideology of National Public Radio. The justification of the firing is even stated outright as being due to inconsistency with their "editorial standards and practices". I think it has to do with their editorial position. From the same article: Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitutional applauded the firing, saying this: The problem with the above statement is that Juan Williams didn't say that all Muslims are criminals. In fact he said the opposite. He's NOT "defining a much larger group by the activities of that much smaller subset". He's simply pointing out that some people (including himself) sometimes have irrational reactions. Jacob Heilbrunn of the Huffington Post has a different take on it: This is political correctness in spades. It's also part of a massive hypocrisy. Here are some examples of overt and direct religious bigotry by NPR commentators that produced no reaction from that network whatsoever. Why? Because this bigotry was aimed at Christians. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2010/10/21/bozell-npr-firing-juan-williams-outrageous-congress-should-investigate What do you all think? Should Williams have been fired?

Are you advocating mandatory birth control? Also, how have you established that the demand is more than potential supply? Sure. It has not been established that we'll run out of resources before population becomes a problem, but yes, that's logical enough. Sure, that's possible. No, I don't believe that. Allows, perhaps, but the potential quality of life presently is far in excess of anything I'll ever experience (not possessing a billion dollars of disposable income), so I don't really see much benefit in increasing those "options". Yes.

This is no longer the case. A new poll Rand Paul is presently leading by about 5 points, down from 11 a month ago. http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-lexington/paul-s-poor-polls BTW, bascule was a big fan of Paul's father Ron, if memory serves.

So... maybe they moved so far to the left that when they moved back to the right it created stress. The people there were okay with some movement back to the right, but when they started losing major entitlements they started to get upset. Just joining the speculation here.