Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama wins!

Obama wins! (Page 7)
Thread Tools
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-justice-department-documents-show-huge-increase
Yep. Thanks, that reminds me to cut them a check.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 02:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post

Where is your evidence the public doesn't care?
Bush's re-election? This goes for the Patriot Act as well...
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post

Yep. Thanks, that reminds me to cut them a check.
Does it bother you that money buys political outcomes, and that political outcomes seem to be financial arms races?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 03:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Does it bother you that money buys political outcomes, and that political outcomes seem to be financial arms races?
Supporting the ACLU is buying a political outcome? I also send cash to the National Wildlife and Arbor Day foundations, is that problematic? I don't give a dime to super-PACs and only send the max individual limit to candidates. I'd say that's a good indicator of my feelings.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To clarify: where are all the stories which failed to get readers and hence led to the decision to give it less coverage?.
You presume that this is the process that media uses to choose its ledes. It isn't, especially since the coming of the internet- most of today's broadcast and news media don't do their own reporting, they pick up on stories that are trending locally, on the internet, or have proven viewer appeal. In other words, those of us who are concerned with our civil liberties simply aren't a large enough market to drive the story. Either we drum up some more interest, or we'll be stuck preaching to the choir in some obscure internet forum.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
It appears to me the general editorial position was not to cover it in the first place.
Obviously.

However, the more accurate description would be that someone picked up the story and pitched it, but the news management staff looked at where it was trending, and passed on it in favor of a more 'interesting' story.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
This. But you'd be mistaken to say that the lesson was learned- faith is stronger than reason, so the same people who gave us a left-wing Mainstream Media Conspiracy (TM) are hardly going to say "gosh, a lot of people reject my fundamental beliefs, maybe I should question them." It will be much easier to create alternate (and likely more nefarious) reasons that explain the loss as the failure of something other than the truth (that is, what they believe to be true) of their policies.
Clearly, as evidenced by this statement from Ryan

[Quote name="Paul Ryan" url="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/ryan-surprised-by-voters-in-urban-areas/"]
In the interview with the television station, Mr. Ryan said he did not think that the nation’s voters had rejected his long-standing ideas for how to restructure the nation’s budget and cut spending.

“I don’t think we lost it on those budget issues, especially on Medicare — we clearly didn’t lose it on those issues,” he said.[/quote]
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 04:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Does it bother you that money buys political outcomes, and that political outcomes seem to be financial arms races?
Now that's just a ridiculous thing to say.
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Clearly, as evidenced by this statement from Ryan
Yep. The left always seems to forget that such beliefs are self-reinforcing- and while they might call it delusional, they are deluding themselves if they think that the far-right is going to wake up and readjust their thinking. Already we're seeing pundits talking about how the right has learned its lesson, and can't help but move to the center now that the facts are in.

But that's not how it works: members of the libertarian faith will not change their religion because they lost an election any more than a Catholic would; if you don't like them, you're stuck with waiting for them to die out. Instead, the Tea Party types appear to be falling back on the argument that Romney wasn't their guy anyway, so his loss proves nothing. If we had a 'real' conservative, they argue, he (or she- nah, just kidding) would have won.

There's a lot of fight left in the far-right, and a lot of money in their coffers. If anything, the best the left can hope for is that the Tea Party types will continue to raise their voices, that Republicans will pledge their fealty to Grover Norquist, and the party will put forth more Ryan/Santorum/Huckabee style candidates, and thereby scare the crap out of independent voters.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 09:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
You presume that this is the process that media uses to choose its ledes. It isn't, especially since the coming of the internet- most of today's broadcast and news media don't do their own reporting, they pick up on stories that are trending locally, on the internet, or have proven viewer appeal. In other words, those of us who are concerned with our civil liberties simply aren't a large enough market to drive the story. Either we drum up some more interest, or we'll be stuck preaching to the choir in some obscure internet forum.
Obviously.
However, the more accurate description would be that someone picked up the story and pitched it, but the news management staff looked at where it was trending, and passed on it in favor of a more 'interesting' story.
I don't think the New York Times has quite given up on the idea they get to decide what's trending.
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2012, 10:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't think the New York Times has quite given up on the idea they get to decide what's trending.
An excellent example of the free market at work.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 12:49 AM
 
I don't follow.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 12:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
Yep. The left always seems to forget that such beliefs are self-reinforcing- and while they might call it delusional, they are deluding themselves if they think that the far-right is going to wake up and readjust their thinking. Already we're seeing pundits talking about how the right has learned its lesson, and can't help but move to the center now that the facts are in.
But that's not how it works: members of the libertarian faith will not change their religion because they lost an election any more than a Catholic would; if you don't like them, you're stuck with waiting for them to die out. Instead, the Tea Party types appear to be falling back on the argument that Romney wasn't their guy anyway, so his loss proves nothing. If we had a 'real' conservative, they argue, he (or she- nah, just kidding) would have won.
There's a lot of fight left in the far-right, and a lot of money in their coffers. If anything, the best the left can hope for is that the Tea Party types will continue to raise their voices, that Republicans will pledge their fealty to Grover Norquist, and the party will put forth more Ryan/Santorum/Huckabee style candidates, and thereby scare the crap out of independent voters.
Education is almost always the answer. Over here, you can no longer exclusively home school your children. They have to attend a 'proper' school for at least a few years. A policy like this would do America no end of good but I don't see it being passed in any of the places that actually need it.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 02:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Education is almost always the answer. Over here, you can no longer exclusively home school your children. They have to attend a 'proper' school for at least a few years. A policy like this would do America no end of good but I don't see it being passed in any of the places that actually need it.
I'm home schooling until she's 12, by then she will have had 7-8 years of martial arts.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 02:17 AM
 
Weren't you a professional educator at some point in the past?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 03:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Weren't you a professional educator at some point in the past?
Sure was. I even took some real courses and have a state educator license.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 04:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
Yep. The left always seems to forget that such beliefs are self-reinforcing- and while they might call it delusional, they are deluding themselves if they think that the far-right is going to wake up and readjust their thinking. Already we're seeing pundits talking about how the right has learned its lesson, and can't help but move to the center now that the facts are in.
But that's not how it works: members of the libertarian faith will not change their religion because they lost an election any more than a Catholic would; if you don't like them, you're stuck with waiting for them to die out. Instead, the Tea Party types appear to be falling back on the argument that Romney wasn't their guy anyway, so his loss proves nothing. If we had a 'real' conservative, they argue, he (or she- nah, just kidding) would have won.
There's a lot of fight left in the far-right, and a lot of money in their coffers. If anything, the best the left can hope for is that the Tea Party types will continue to raise their voices, that Republicans will pledge their fealty to Grover Norquist, and the party will put forth more Ryan/Santorum/Huckabee style candidates, and thereby scare the crap out of independent voters.
Education is almost always the answer. Over here, you can no longer exclusively home school your children. They have to attend a 'proper' school for at least a few years. A policy like this would do America no end of good but I don't see it being passed in any of the places that actually need it.
That reply seems like it came totally out of nowhere. Was anyone involved in this election even home-schooled? Was this just a satire of the hardline right looking for a magic bullet scapegoat issue to solve, that went over my head?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 05:20 AM
 
Would it be terribly stereotypical* to say that a good many of the Tea Party crowd are also part of the homeschooling crowd? "We don't want our kids learning about evolution or history, we don't want them turning gay, or not having enough Jesus in their day." Of course the other side of the homeschooling movement are overeducated folk who think schools aren't good enough.

*I have a facebook friend who is a self-declared barracuda momma, regularly threatens to homeschool, has a food bunker and raises chickens to prepare for future armageddon, and after the election proclaimed: "Ok, now it's time to get my concealed-carry permit."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 05:54 AM
 
ProTip: raise German Shepherds.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 06:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Education is almost always the answer. Over here, you can no longer exclusively home school your children. They have to attend a 'proper' school for at least a few years. A policy like this would do America no end of good but I don't see it being passed in any of the places that actually need it.
So you still get some indoctrination into thinking stoopid.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 06:23 AM
 
Even if all those who make $250K and up give up all their bucks to pay down the deficit, it still won't get close.
Why doesn't the current admin understand that severe cuts in spending must be made?

The stupid entitlements for all sorts of shit, and program after program supposedly to help the poor have been a waste.
Perhaps removing all supports might be an incentive?

Lets go over the cliff and see!
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 06:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Would it be terribly stereotypical* to say that a good many of the Tea Party crowd are also part of the homeschooling crowd? "We don't want our kids learning about evolution or history, we don't want them turning gay, or not having enough Jesus in their day." Of course the other side of the homeschooling movement are overeducated folk who think schools aren't good enough.
That's basically it. No offense to other parents, you did your best to raise and educate your kids, but I have the time and inclination to give her my undivided attention through her adolescent years, and I'm making the most of it. "School" for her started months ago, and by the time she's a teen we want her to be in college.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 06:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So you still get some indoctrination into thinking stoopid.
How did you avoid get indoctrinated, BadKosh?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 08:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That reply seems like it came totally out of nowhere. Was anyone involved in this election even home-schooled? Was this just a satire of the hardline right looking for a magic bullet scapegoat issue to solve, that went over my head?
This is my suggestion as to what might work as a long term plan to try to reduce the numbers of ultra conservatives. More about the voters than the candidates.


Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Would it be terribly stereotypical* to say that a good many of the Tea Party crowd are also part of the homeschooling crowd? "We don't want our kids learning about evolution or history, we don't want them turning gay, or not having enough Jesus in their day." Of course the other side of the homeschooling movement are overeducated folk who think schools aren't good enough.
*I have a facebook friend who is a self-declared barracuda momma, regularly threatens to homeschool, has a food bunker and raises chickens to prepare for future armageddon, and after the election proclaimed: "Ok, now it's time to get my concealed-carry permit."
Thats the assumption I'm working from, though its not really an assumption as your friend illustrates well. Also, I saw Jesus Camp.


Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I'm home schooling until she's 12, by then she will have had 7-8 years of martial arts.
I wasn't really thinking about Martial Arts but I certainly wish I'd started them earlier and stuck with them longer so good on you.

I don't have a problem with the concept of homeschooling in the same way that communism seems like a good idea on paper. People who use it to prevent their kids being exposed to information and ideas are abusing the privilege not only of homeschooling but of having kids to my mind.


Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So you still get some indoctrination into thinking.
Fixed.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 10:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
How did you avoid get indoctrinated, BadKosh?
I read books on propaganda when I was still in 7th grade. Part of the reading I did studying magic. Misdirection, advertising, perception etc. I still hear all those sentences that are opinions stated as fact. I also look at things within a chronological time frame.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 10:15 AM
 
I find the assumptions about the Tea Party (Taxed Enough Already) are ignorant.

I have been around lots of people from all types who are stupid, have irrational ideas and missing large amounts of useful information.
It crosses political types. From the idiots thinking the Bible is literal, to those who think Obama was going to pay for their mortgage. The tin foil hats with their lack of hard scientific background who believe in flying saucers, 9/11 conspiracies, and such also are entertaining, but sad.

Its not just the formal education, but what effect the media and now digital distractions have on growing minds. the media also plays into this. All of it has been a detriment.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 10:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That reply seems like it came totally out of nowhere. Was anyone involved in this election even home-schooled? Was this just a satire of the hardline right looking for a magic bullet scapegoat issue to solve, that went over my head?
This is my suggestion as to what might work as a long term plan to try to reduce the numbers of ultra conservatives. More about the voters than the candidates.
I guess we found one of those liberal conspiracy theories. That didn't take long

A grand total of 3.7% of American children were home schooled this year. Tell me, what fraction of ultra conservatives do you think are captured by this demographic, and what fraction of that fraction do you think will change (in the right direction)?


Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Would it be terribly stereotypical* to say that a good many of the Tea Party crowd are also part of the homeschooling crowd? "We don't want our kids learning about evolution or history, we don't want them turning gay, or not having enough Jesus in their day." Of course the other side of the homeschooling movement are overeducated folk who think schools aren't good enough.
*I have a facebook friend who is a self-declared barracuda momma, regularly threatens to homeschool, has a food bunker and raises chickens to prepare for future armageddon, and after the election proclaimed: "Ok, now it's time to get my concealed-carry permit."
Thats the assumption I'm working from, though its not really an assumption as your friend illustrates well. Also, I saw Jesus Camp.
Your prime example is someone who threatens to homeschool?


People who use it to prevent their kids being exposed to information and ideas are abusing the privilege not only of homeschooling but of having kids to my mind.
That's exactly what religious zealots say about Atheists who want to prevent their kids from being exposed to religion. They're wrong then, and you're wrong now. You'll just have to come to terms with the fact that you don't own other people's children.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 10:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I read books on propaganda when I was still in 7th grade. Part of the reading I did studying magic. Misdirection, advertising, perception etc. I still hear all those sentences that are opinions stated as fact. I also look at things within a chronological time frame.
Out of curiosity, where do you parents fall in the political spectrum? Do they believe schools indoctrinate as well?


Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I find the assumptions about the Tea Party (Taxed Enough Already) are ignorant.
I have been around lots of people from all types who are stupid, have irrational ideas and missing large amounts of useful information.
It crosses political types. From the idiots thinking the Bible is literal, to those who think Obama was going to pay for their mortgage. The tin foil hats with their lack of hard scientific background who believe in flying saucers, 9/11 conspiracies, and such also are entertaining, but sad.
Its not just the formal education, but what effect the media and now digital distractions have on growing minds. the media also plays into this. All of it has been a detriment.
Here's the worse problem: While we have more information available than ever, thanks to the internet, it's also easier than ever to shield yourself from dissenting opinion (Are we not guilty of that from time to time on this Mac centric forum). So how do you save society from itself in that regard?
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 10:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't follow.
I'll try to summarize: you wrote that the Times hasn't "given up on the idea they get to decide what's trending." Why should it when the free market has given it that right? After all, the Times earned its position as the nation's most reputable paper through 150+ years of free and open competition. Time and again, the public has turned to the Times not only for raw information, but also for opinion. So, in the sense that people actively seek out the Times' commentary, it absolutely has the right to decide what's trending, and the nothing more than the free market has given it that right.

I wonder if you're not suggesting a chicken-or-the-egg argument, i.e., that the public focuses on whatever the Times says is important, and therefore the Times controls the agenda of public discussion, which explains why the Times is held in such esteem. This would have been a stronger argument in 1900, but today it holds no merit whatsoever.

In other words, the secret to the Times' influence does not lie in its holding the reins of public opinion- rather, let me suggest a review of the earlier discussion about Nate Silver's election predictions. Isn't it much more reasonable to say that people turn to the Times because, as in Silver's case, it gets the story right?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 10:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Out of curiosity, where do you parents fall in the political spectrum? Do they believe schools indoctrinate as well?
Not really, at least not until the last 10-15 years. My cousins both have lots of kids and both my parents commented at different times about 'the education system' in regards to them.


Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Here's the worse problem: While we have more information available than ever, thanks to the internet, it's also easier than ever to shield yourself from dissenting opinion (Are we not guilty of that from time to time on this Mac centric forum). So how do you save society from itself in that regard?
Not only shield, but buy into total BS from all sorts of places and all sorts of subjects. My current favorite is from an audiophile site and the opinions stated as fact really are irritating. I don't have any solution except to put the media under strict control over labeling content, and having people who wrote the stories have to have their names on it. Lets label news/media stories as fact, opinion, biased opinion(political hate speech), fluff(hollywood reporting) and speculation and nonsense(waste of time BS). its tough to remove politics from our lives as it does affect our lives. How do you keep news readers honest? How do you keep politicians honest - other than the 2nd amendment? Advertisers might need to be mixed up in all this, for either funding idiots, or dropping shows due to content.
When you catch a media liar in the act.......what then? Fire them? Fine them and their media outlet? Make them correct their story on the air. Allow the damaged party to sue the advertisers?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 10:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
" ... the Times earned its position as the nation's most reputable paper through 150+ years of free and open competition.
Most reputable? Opinion stated as fact.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 10:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I don't have any solution except to put the media under strict control over labeling content, and having people who wrote the stories have to have their names on it. Lets label news/media stories as fact, opinion, biased opinion(political hate speech), fluff(hollywood reporting) and speculation and nonsense(waste of time BS). its tough to remove politics from our lives as it does affect our lives.
A regulatory argument strikes me as surprising from your side of the political spectrum both in being made or accepted.

I'm only passingly familiar with it, but I believe the now retired fairness Doctrine might apply here.

Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
When you catch a media liar in the act.......what then? Fire them? Fine them and their media outlet? Make them correct their story on the air. Allow the damaged party to sue the advertisers?
I think the bigger problem is even getting consensus on what a lie is nowadays. All this information available to us, but facts have become fluid, infinitely arguable and inscrutable things.

But again, I don't see anti-government types endorsing such legislation, and of course the media will lobby heavily against something that might affect their ratings and therefore their profit.
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 10:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Would it be terribly stereotypical* to say that a good many of the Tea Party crowd are also part of the homeschooling crowd? "We don't want our kids learning about evolution or history, we don't want them turning gay, or not having enough Jesus in their day." Of course the other side of the homeschooling movement are overeducated folk who think schools aren't good enough.
For many, it's very much true, and offers some insight into the motivations of that crowd. There is a very strong bunker mentality that runs through the libertarian wing of the right- the idea that pretty much everything (what most folks call reality) threatens not only their way of life, but also the fundamental tenets of their faith. So, they withdraw as much as possible and hunker down, surrounding themselves with a 'reality' that is much more amenable to their beliefs.

Of course, it would be stereotypical to say that all of them thought that way- although the Tea Parties are primarily libertarian movements, they appeal to a range of viewpoints.

On the other hand, left-leaning types don't homeschool so much, probably because they don't buy the 'rugged individualist' metaphors that frame thinking on the right. Rather, they choose 'alternative' schools that offer a suitably far-left curriculum. Here and here are a couple of examples I've run across here in Texas.
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 11:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Most reputable? Opinion stated as fact.
That's all you could take from that? A little hairsplitting?

Wiki "paper of record"- it's a fact.

Now, I understand that reputation is, in one sense, entirely up to one's opinion- and this is the point that you choose to split hairs on. But in any social arena- any industry, any area of study- reputation is quite discernible. In the newspaper industry, the Times is on top, no matter how much the right hates it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
I'll try to summarize: you wrote that the Times hasn't "given up on the idea they get to decide what's trending." Why should it when the free market has given it that right? After all, the Times earned its position as the nation's most reputable paper through 150+ years of free and open competition. Time and again, the public has turned to the Times not only for raw information, but also for opinion. So, in the sense that people actively seek out the Times' commentary, it absolutely has the right to decide what's trending, and the nothing more than the free market has given it that right.
I wonder if you're not suggesting a chicken-or-the-egg argument, i.e., that the public focuses on whatever the Times says is important, and therefore the Times controls the agenda of public discussion, which explains why the Times is held in such esteem. This would have been a stronger argument in 1900, but today it holds no merit whatsoever.
In other words, the secret to the Times' influence does not lie in its holding the reins of public opinion- rather, let me suggest a review of the earlier discussion about Nate Silver's election predictions. Isn't it much more reasonable to say that people turn to the Times because, as in Silver's case, it gets the story right?
How is the wiretapping story "not right"?

I mean, in the objective Nate Silver sense. Or are our wires still crossed?
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 11:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
How is the wiretapping story "not right"?
I mean, in the objective Nate Silver sense. Or are our wires still crossed?
I think our wires are crossed. I'm not sure what you mean by 'not right' in this case: in the sense that wiretapping did or did not exist, that it was morally correct, or that it was not reported properly?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 11:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
That's all you could take from that? A little hairsplitting?
Wiki "paper of record"- it's a fact.
Now, I understand that reputation is, in one sense, entirely up to one's opinion- and this is the point that you choose to split hairs on. But in any social arena- any industry, any area of study- reputation is quite discernible. In the newspaper industry, the Times is on top, no matter how much the right hates it.
Who even reads it anymore? Look in a good new source and get back to us on how many subscribers have bailed on the old opinion rag. Ask yourself why that is.
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 11:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Who even reads it anymore?
About thirty million people every month. As for the actual print version: only about a million people daily, down from about 1.4 million in its peak, but that's the same for all news publications. Why? The same market forces affecting all other newspapers.

Also, please tell me what a "good news source" is.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 11:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
I think our wires are crossed. I'm not sure what you mean by 'not right' in this case: in the sense that wiretapping did or did not exist, that it was morally correct, or that it was not reported properly?
What did you mean by it?

You said the Times holds its position because it gets it "right". Like Silver.

How does the wiretapping not fit into this equation? You seem to be saying it's because it won't sell. I'm saying the Times has enough pull to choose what sells. It's not the Times exclusively either. 60 Minutes can do that too.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 01:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post

About thirty million people every month. As for the actual print version: only about a million people daily, down from about 1.4 million in its peak, but that's the same for all news publications. Why? The same market forces affecting all other newspapers.
Also, please tell me what a "good news source" is.
Fox and Friends?
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You said the Times holds its position because it gets it "right". Like Silver.
Ah, now I get it!
In that case, I mean that Silver got it exactly right, that is, the election results turned out to match his predictions almost perfectly.

My point is that Silver doesn't work for the Times by accident- a good part of the paper's position at the top comes from its ability to hire superb reporters, and that sort of intelligent, accurate reporting is why people read it.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
How does the wiretapping not fit into this equation? You seem to be saying it's because it won't sell. I'm saying the Times has enough pull to choose what sells. It's not the Times exclusively either. 60 Minutes can do that too.
No, they cannot. It was certainly in the days of Hearst and Luce, maybe even possible 40 years ago, but, nobody has that much pull today.

As for wiretapping:

As I mentioned earlier, the wiretapping story has run on several occasions- as a simple search of the Times website will show.

Here's one from October 2010 that describes the Obama administration's efforts to increase electronic surveillance.

Here's another one printed 9 days later.

Here's another from the day after that.

If anything, three such pieces within 10 days indicates that the Times was indeed trying to push the story- but it clearly generated little interest.

Do another search, and you will find editorials that oppose the Obama administration's handling of domestic surveillance, such as this one from a month ago, and this one from last year.


Now, since we have proof that the Times did cover the story on multiple occasions, and was in fact highly critical of the Obama administration's attempts to increase wiretapping, what does this say about the claim that the Times has as much pull as you say?

Either it has no such pull, or it does, but somehow cleverly engineered its coverage in order to whitewash the whole thing. Which is more likely, and more reasonable?

Now, you might say that the Times did not give enough coverage to the issue, that it should have been in all caps, in the biggest font they have, on the front page every day- but that is more a reflection of your priorities than it is of the reality of things. The reality is that the Times is as beholden to its consumers as any other corporate entity: if it continues to push stories that do not interest its readership, then it won't survive.

In other words, the general public didn't care enough, so the coverage has remained minimal: it's not a conspiracy, it's the free market at work.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 04:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
"Obama Quadruples Warrantless Wiretaps" won't sell?
Maybe a president can get away with stuff so long as that stuff is what the other party usually pushes for in the first place. The Ds don't want to bash Obama, and the Rs don't even think of warrantless wiretaps as a bad thing.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 09:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
Ah, now I get it!
In that case, I mean that Silver got it exactly right, that is, the election results turned out to match his predictions almost perfectly.
My point is that Silver doesn't work for the Times by accident- a good part of the paper's position at the top comes from its ability to hire superb reporters, and that sort of intelligent, accurate reporting is why people read it.
No, they cannot. It was certainly in the days of Hearst and Luce, maybe even possible 40 years ago, but, nobody has that much pull today.
As for wiretapping:
As I mentioned earlier, the wiretapping story has run on several occasions- as a simple search of the Times website will show.
Here's one from October 2010 that describes the Obama administration's efforts to increase electronic surveillance.
Here's another one printed 9 days later.
Here's another from the day after that.
If anything, three such pieces within 10 days indicates that the Times was indeed trying to push the story- but it clearly generated little interest.
Do another search, and you will find editorials that oppose the Obama administration's handling of domestic surveillance, such as this one from a month ago, and this one from last year.
Now, since we have proof that the Times did cover the story on multiple occasions, and was in fact highly critical of the Obama administration's attempts to increase wiretapping, what does this say about the claim that the Times has as much pull as you say?
Either it has no such pull, or it does, but somehow cleverly engineered its coverage in order to whitewash the whole thing. Which is more likely, and more reasonable?
Now, you might say that the Times did not give enough coverage to the issue, that it should have been in all caps, in the biggest font they have, on the front page every day- but that is more a reflection of your priorities than it is of the reality of things. The reality is that the Times is as beholden to its consumers as any other corporate entity: if it continues to push stories that do not interest its readership, then it won't survive.
In other words, the general public didn't care enough, so the coverage has remained minimal: it's not a conspiracy, it's the free market at work.
That's one story and two blog posts, none of which are about warrantless wiretapping.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2012, 09:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Maybe a president can get away with stuff so long as that stuff is what the other party usually pushes for in the first place. The Ds don't want to bash Obama, and the Rs don't even think of warrantless wiretaps as a bad thing.
Wouldn't that be flat-out bias then?

"We have an important story, but Dems don't want to hear bad things about their guy. Kill the story."
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2012, 06:42 AM
 
I suppose I prefer Ryan's delusion to Romney's hypocrisy.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-young-voters/

Saying that he and his team still felt “troubled” by his loss to President Obama, Mitt Romney on Wednesday attributed his defeat in part to what he called big policy “gifts” that the president had bestowed on loyal Democratic constituencies, including young voters, African-Americans and Hispanics.
Tax cuts, increased military spending, deregulation, however are not gifts bestowed upon Republican constituencies.


“Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people.
The contraception thing is hilariously overblown. And the guy who implemented Obamacare as governor criticizing it as a gift is just ludicrous. Does implementation at the state level negate it's gift status or something? Is it really a gift if the parents have to pay to have the 26 year old on the insurance?


But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”
You might want to shut-up about that, as your party is strongly considering revising its stance.


Of course, I'm sad he didn't slander the asians that turned out 3-to-1 against him.
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2012, 09:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That's one story and two blog posts, none of which are about warrantless wiretapping.
Oh, I get it now, you prefer to split hairs. In that case:

1. I gave you two articles and one blog post, not one article and two blogs.

2. In any case, I didn't know that blog posts don't count. Since you seem to have very narrow criteria regarding what counts, the burden is on you to explain them.

3. Apparently, you also require that the exact phrase "warrantless wiretapping" must appear in the article. In that case there are only several dozen articles, blog posts, and editorials- and that's counting only those printed after Obama took office. Since I'm not sure what your criteria are, it's up to you to tell me why none of those are legitimate.

4. I notice you did not comment on the editorials, of which there are dozens- perhaps you prefer to handwave them because that would be terribly inconvenient for your argument?


In any case, my argument still stands: either the Times does not have the pull you claim it has, or it does, but somehow has cleverly engineered its coverage in order to whitewash the whole thing. Which is more likely, and more reasonable?
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2012, 10:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I suppose I prefer Ryan's delusion to Romney's hypocrisy.
From the historian T. R. Fehrenbach:

"It is desperately hard for men to accept that there is a direct path from the highest ideals to the torture chamber- for no man who accepts with his whole heart can fail equally to reject with his whole being."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2012, 10:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
Oh, I get it now, you prefer to split hairs. In that case:
1. I gave you two articles and one blog post, not one article and two blogs.
2. In any case, I didn't know that blog posts don't count. Since you seem to have very narrow criteria regarding what counts, the burden is on you to explain them.
3. Apparently, you also require that the exact phrase "warrantless wiretapping" must appear in the article. In that case there are only several dozen articles, blog posts, and editorials- and that's counting only those printed after Obama took office. Since I'm not sure what your criteria are, it's up to you to tell me why none of those are legitimate.
4. I notice you did not comment on the editorials, of which there are dozens- perhaps you prefer to handwave them because that would be terribly inconvenient for your argument?
In any case, my argument still stands: either the Times does not have the pull you claim it has, or it does, but somehow has cleverly engineered its coverage in order to whitewash the whole thing. Which is more likely, and more reasonable?
My mistake about the blog/article ratio. I must have hit the blog link twice.

I never said blog posts don't count. I just don't expect them to be counted equally.

If I require the phrase "warrantless wiretapping" it's because that's what's being discussed. You claimed they covered it, gave me examples of them not covering it, and now you bitch me out for not wanting to continue after making me read articles not related to the discussion. I'm not sure what you expect.

You threw "wiretapping" into the search field and what comes up are articles about how the administration wants the law to keep up with technological advances in telephony.

So we have the administration trying to keep up with technology, and the administration massively expanding spying on people without oversight.

I'd say one is objectively more important than the other. No? Wouldn't one expect the more important story to come up somewhere in the top hits?
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2012, 11:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I never said blog posts don't count. I just don't expect them to be counted equally.
And this matters why? Even if you had refused to admit blog posts as legitimate, there are several other articles.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
If I require the phrase "warrantless wiretapping" it's because that's what's being discussed..
If you honestly think that the exact phrase "warrantless wiretapping" must be included, then you either struggle with reading comprehension, are a victim of framing, or are more interested in winning the interwebs by splitting hairs. Or perhaps you are used to reading right-wing websites that use fewer words and simpler sentences? In any case, as I pointed out, there are several dozen articles that use the phrase: it's your job, not mine, to demonstrate how they amount to the Times' not covering the story.

I notice that you continue to ignore all of those editorials that demolish your main argument. I'll reiterate:

Either the Times does not have the pull you claim it has, or it does, but somehow has cleverly engineered its coverage in order to whitewash the whole thing. Which is more likely, and more reasonable?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2012, 11:14 AM
 
I'm not interested in continuing this discussion if you can't maintain basic civility.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2012, 12:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I suppose I prefer Ryan's delusion to Romney's hypocrisy.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-young-voters/
Is there anyone here who is still in denial that Romney is only honest behind closed doors with his plutocratic buddies?

How about that tax credit for your stupid dancing mule? Is that a gift too?

EDIT:

I think Erza Klein nailed this:
Romney doesn’t voice these opinions in public. He knows better. But so did the voters. That’s what you see in the overwhelming rejection Romney suffered among African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and young voters. They sensed that Romney fundamentally didn’t respect them and their role in the economy, and they were right.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/15/from-the-47-to-gifts-mitt-romneys-ugly-vision-of-politics/

I think Bob Jindal nailed it as well, and logically linked it to Romney's 47% comment:
“No, I think that’s absolutely wrong,” said Governor Jindal, a rising Republican star who is Indian-American, speaking at an RGA meeting in Las Vegas. “Two points on that: One, we have got to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote.”

“And, secondly,” Jindal continued, “we need to continue to show how our policies help every voter out there achieve the American dream, which is to be in the middle class, which is to be able to give their children an opportunity to be able to get a great education. … So, I absolutely reject that notion, that description. I think that’s absolutely wrong.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/1115/Romney-blames-gifts-on-election-loss.-Bobby-Jindal-says-Wrong!-video

America, you really dodged a bullet on this candidate. No one wants Marie Antoinette for President.

Remember when I said conservatives and Republicans were gonna shun Romney worse than Bush? That's gonna happen faster and meaner than anyone could have expected.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:02 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,