I mean, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to understand how attacking a soverign nation in the middle of an already unstable region, occupying it indefinitely and causing the sorts of abuses that we are, would cause people to want to fight back against us.
And it's almost shocking that the number of people who have put 2 and 2 together is as low as 56%. It's shocking that the number of people who still believe in George Bush's skewed, unrealistic view of the situtation is as high as 36%. We need an informed electorate. I think the first thing to do to inform people is get rid of 24 hour news networks except for C-span and make people read 3 newspapers a day, each from a different country. Then they should listen to NPR. Maybe that's a little time-consuming. But people should go out of their way and spend time getting informed. I know a lot of people who are apathetic to anything that happens on a scale larger than their own front yard and it's disheartening. But spend time. Get informed and inform others.
I think people I know find me annoying because I start so many conversations with, "Did you hear what happened..." And then I'll finish the sentence with something I read in the news, heard on NPR or watched on C-span. (and I have to admit I'm a C-span junkie. When the senate is in session that is what I watch and listen to while I work. It's good times.)
7 comments:
Really, to be honest, I don't see a slant in NPR. I think NPR is as middle of the road as it gets. I mean, Diane Rehm had Rick Santorum on yesterday and the interview was run exactly the same way as she would have interviewed Ted Kennedy. I just don't buy "liberal bias" on NPR. I listen to NPR alot. Probably 10 or 15+ hours a week. Sometimes more, I'd doubt less. And sometimes there are things on that just annoy the piss out of me becuase I think they get a guest on that does add too conservative or liberal a slant. But that's in the guest. But I think that NPR is more fair on these people because they give them a much longer and in depth platform to speak from. And NPR is WAY more civil than pundits on television. It seems more calm.
I mean, what is NPR's agenda? It seems to me it's to inform people. I mean, what's Car Talk's agenda? Or Fresh Air's agenda? I think NPR serves as a way to inform people on way more than politics, it offers insight to lots of things. And alot of it is straight news. From the BBC no less, which I find way more reliable than the American media. What was NPR's agenda behind making the Star Wars radio dramatizations?
I don't think people look at the whole picture of what NPR does. How is science Friday with Ira Flato "biased?" I've never heard Neal Conan berate a guest on talk of the Nation and he often invites people he doesn't seem to agree with.
I truly don't believe there is any concerted bias at NPR.
As an avid NPR listener, i also have a hard time detecting this "Liberal bias" that so many people talk about. I listen to it because of their constant and relevant news and their utter lack of matress commercials. I think it is of the utmost importance that news does not rely on corprate sponsorship in order to keep afloat. That is where bias comes into the equasion. You can't get something for nothing, right? I could be wrong, but I would theorize that the reason that so many conservatives feel that there is so much bias at NPR is because they are more in depth than your average network news cast, and so much of their neo conservative platforrm and ideology simply crumbles under close scrutiny. Again, that is just a theory, I'd love to hear any others.
Yes. I have to agree with Elias on the mattress commercial business. NPR and C-Span have cured me of commercial television and radio. I can't stand listening to anything approaching a commercial anymore. I love how NPR's commercial breaks (aside from the sponsor plugs) is just the news.
Fuck commericals.
To be honest, I think that's a good thing. Why not talk to the people who are actually affected by legislation, as opposed to the people that are merely enflamed by it? Also, I don't feel like I'm that "liberal." I feel independent. But I feel like NPR doesn't go out of it's way to belittle people or their opinions (with the exception of Terry Gross, that one time, with Bill O'Reilly) and that although they don't exactly give equal time to every issue, they are balanced.
Take for example: Global warming. If you were to put on one scientist that beleived in it and another that didn't, that would seem balanced to a lot of people. But that would be way over-representing how much of the scientific community believes that global warming is poppycock. For actual balance you'd need 9 scientists to outweigh the one. So, balance is also in the eye of the beholder.
But my original point extended far beyond just news and politics. I think that NPR goes out of it's way to encourage programming that enriches us culturally as well. I've learned alot of things about a lot of different cultures thanks to NPR and I think it makes me a more understanding individual.
Also, what's wrong with nationalized Civil Unions? Sounds like a good thing to me.
Also, I don't think you're dumb. I admire the fact that you would come here and argue with us.
I can actually understand your argument against same-sex marriages. I don't agree with it, but it's one step above most arguments against it I hear. I think the thing it promotes is stability and fairness. Most of the rights granted aren't merely tax shelters or credits or incentives. What about power of attorney, medical decisions, inheritance, child custody, general happiness etc. All of these issues seem just as important, nee more important, than tax issues. It's not like there are so many tax paying homosexuals that would suddenly stop paying taxes if they recieved a modest tax incentive for marriage. And if that's your problem, advocate those rights, to make your heart swell like the grinch, but demand that they don't get the tax incentives. At least you'll be mostly for that happy feeling.
I mean, there are studies, although I can't site them off the top of my head and I might be wrong, that explain why allowing them civil unions and marriage incentives would actually be a boon to the economy. I'll have to look for those...
I just think a citizen of this country has the right to pick who they want to marry, as long as that person is a consenting adult. Two men have the right to get married, but only if those two men marry a woman? Why not each other? Who cares.
There are studies out there that prove that giving homosexuals the right to civil unions would be a boon to the economy. Maybe I said that before, I don't remember. We've been on this topic for a long time...
Post a Comment