BellGab.com Archive

These are the people who are condemning the party to a generation of irrelevance.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/10/christian_delusions_are_driving_the_gop_insane/

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/10/glenn_beck_scream_at_your_children_until_they_believe_in_god/

Religion belongs in a person's heart and deeds, not in MY face. So, while I can agree with most of Bachmann's and Beck's Constitutional positions, I think it is divisive to bring their personal religious beliefs into the political arena. I don't believe there is anyone on any media that revolts me more than does Beck, though Chris Matthews runs a really close second...

However, I also believe that what Beck does is no different that what many on the left do, or vice versa depending on how you need to couch it. And that is, to place one line of thought, and by default, themselves, superior to all that disagree while treating those that do disagree as if they are misinformed intellectually challenged children.

Muslim mass-murders do kinda the same thing except that they decapitate you when you do not comply. Oops, was I not allowed to say that?

Quote from: bateman on October 10, 2013, 06:04:09 PM
These are the people who are condemning the party to a generation of irrelevance.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/10/christian_delusions_are_driving_the_gop_insane/

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/10/glenn_beck_scream_at_your_children_until_they_believe_in_god/

Quote from: bateman on October 10, 2013, 06:04:09 PMThese are the people who are condemning the party to a generation of irrelevance.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/10/christian_delusions_are_driving_the_gop_insane/

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/10/glenn_beck_scream_at_your_children_until_they_believe_in_god/

Heh. Right. Because Salon is where I go when I want to get a reliable, dead-straight take on social or political conservatives, Republicans or Christians. Because I want to get such information from a publication which, from all available evidence, has never employed a single person who could be described thus.

Quote from: Sardondi on October 10, 2013, 10:05:38 PM
Heh. Right. Because Salon is where I go when I want to get a reliable, dead-straight take on social or political conservatives, Republicans or Christians. Because I want to get such information from a publication which, from all available evidence, has never employed a single person who could be described thus.

They're both linked to other places though, not Salon-produced pieces.

Salon is just like walking through Congress - it leaves you feeling like you need a shower and some lye soap. But then again, the words journalist/journalism, and fair/honest, have no place in the same sentence, anywhere.

I believe that in some fairytale in a long forgotten school book, it was implied that journalism was supposed to report facts, as objectively as possible. Today, journalism is a complete fraud; the intent being not to inform people, but to mislead them.

Quote from: bateman on October 10, 2013, 10:07:32 PM
They're both linked to other places though, not Salon-produced pieces.

QuickKarl, you said, "Today, journalism is a complete fraud; the intent being not to inform people, but to mislead them."  I suspect that a big part of the problem is that the notion of a truly objective media is quaint and overly romanticized.  I see very little genuinely objective news nowadays.  Salon certainly has a bias, as do Slate, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, NewsMax, RedState, Rush Limbaugh, MSNBC, Fox, etc., etc., etc.  Some will deny this.  Some will insist, "Well, MY news source is beyond impeachment; my news source is unbiased and fair."  And yet no one is able to hold up such a news source without a great chorus of voices attacking it.   For everyone who thinks Democracy Now has no agenda, there is someone who believes The National Review has no agenda.

I think that all of these sources, however, are in the business of making money (pleasing its audience).  Follow the dollar....

I think it was Citizen Kane that imbibed in me, my cynicism toward journalism and journalists...

I'm not sure what disturbs me more: journalism, journalists that pretend to be objective, or the readers/viewers that thrive on it and use it as an excuse to regurgitate bile.

Quote from: West of the Rockies on October 11, 2013, 12:49:20 PM
QuickKarl, you said, "Today, journalism is a complete fraud; the intent being not to inform people, but to mislead them."  I suspect that a big part of the problem is that the notion of a truly objective media is quaint and overly romanticized.  I see very little genuinely objective news nowadays.  Salon certainly has a bias, as do Slate, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, NewsMax, RedState, Rush Limbaugh, MSNBC, Fox, etc., etc., etc.  Some will deny this.  Some will insist, "Well, MY news source is beyond impeachment; my news source is unbiased and fair."  And yet no one is able to hold up such a news source without a great chorus of voices attacking it.   For everyone who thinks Democracy Now has no agenda, there is someone who believes The National Review has no agenda.

I think that all of these sources, however, are in the business of making money (pleasing its audience).  Follow the dollar....

Quote from: West of the Rockies on October 11, 2013, 12:49:20 PM
... I think that all of these sources, however, are in the business of making money (pleasing its audience).  Follow the dollar....

But newspapers, magazines, and even radio are dying, and TV news ratings have dropped steadily and considerably, while 'right-wing' outlets have thrived - Fox news is doing well, the talk radio shows are doing well, web sites like Drudge are doing well.

For the papers, some of the loss of revenue is due to on-line advertising and free ad sites like Craigslist, but they are also losing tons of subscribers.  It seems clear a lot of people don't want what they are selling (media bias), and do want to hear more from the other side.

Since they just keep on, and have only gone further to the Left with the rise of Obama and the 'Progressives', it seems clear it's not about money.  They are ideologues, and operate as wholly owned subsidiaries of the 'Progressive' wing of the D Party to the point of having the same talking points each day.

Quote from: Quick Karl on October 11, 2013, 03:22:57 PM
I think it was Citizen Kane that imbibed in me, my cynicism toward journalism and journalists...

I can pinpoint when my conversion occurred.  I was at home when CNN was reporting live from Columbine.  They were broadcasting pictures of the school and students hoping one of them would be shot live on national television while they simultaneously blamed video game violence for what was happening.  You have to wonder how many of the million viewers realized that what they were tuned in to see (the possibility of a live killing of a school kid) was infinitely worse than a video game and heavy metal music.  At that instant my opinion of news stations and so-called journalists dropped through the floor and has never recovered.  They are a necessary evil to get information on what is happening in the world and nothing more.

Quote from: West of the Rockies on October 11, 2013, 12:49:20 PM
QuickKarl, you said, "Today, journalism is a complete fraud; the intent being not to inform people, but to mislead them."  I suspect that a big part of the problem is that the notion of a truly objective media is quaint and overly romanticized.  I see very little genuinely objective news nowadays.  Salon certainly has a bias, as do Slate, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, NewsMax, RedState, Rush Limbaugh, MSNBC, Fox, etc., etc., etc.  Some will deny this.  Some will insist, "Well, MY news source is beyond impeachment; my news source is unbiased and fair."  And yet no one is able to hold up such a news source without a great chorus of voices attacking it.   For everyone who thinks Democracy Now has no agenda, there is someone who believes The National Review has no agenda.

I think that all of these sources, however, are in the business of making money (pleasing its audience).  Follow the dollar....

Having followed news for well over 40 years I can say from personal observation that there's no question the coverage is far more partisan today than in the 50's and 60's. It began changing of course with Watergate in the early 70's when journalism became some kind of social calling and a way to "change the world" instead of way to make a living by finding events of broad interest and writing reports of them for publication. Of course there was never some golden age in which perfect men and women acted like emotionless machines in covering the news. But it used to be that reporters - and most educated adults - had no difficulty in being able to put personal opinions aside and write an unbiased, factual account of events. Newsmen took great pride in their ability to hide their personal opinions, and tried hard to hide their own views to the point that their own colleagues couldn't tell what they personally felt about an issue. That shit is gone for good. The very idea of a Journolist, in which far-left liberal reporters organized so that they they might shape and manage the news to suit their personal and political agendas, would have outraged reporters and newsmen of the last generation.

Today's media's is also unable to look at itself honestly. The mainstream media insists that it is objective and unbiased. That's simply ludicrous. At first they really believed it, but with the coming of Obama and the grotesque partisanship they joined him in, even they don't believe it now - they just won't admit it.

But it is not just the coverage which is grossly slanted - it is that there the msm maintain a de facto censorship of valid, indeed blockbuster, stories, but which for various reasons they feel are too sensitive or harmful to their party to cover at a particular time (sometimes cover at all). It is the old "how would they have covered this if it involved Bush" test - which the msm fails virtually every time.

Finally, if there any profession in which some 95% of the members were either Republicans or agreed with their policies, the left would be bleeding from the eyes for it to be destroyed. And yet that is the news media - except that over 95% of its members are either registered Democrats or agree with Dem policies. So let's dispense with the silly business about "there's no bias here". The media is riddled with it. It's just that the left likes it the bias of the media as currently configured. Which is a shame. Because the worm turns.

Quote from: Sardondi on October 11, 2013, 04:29:33 PM
Finally, if there any profession in which some 95% of the members were either Republicans or agreed with their policies, the left would be bleeding from the eyes for it to be destroyed.

You mean like the banking industry.  Yes, you are correct.  Break it down.

Quote from: Sardondi on October 11, 2013, 04:29:33 PM
And yet that is the news media - except that over 95% of its members are either registered Democrats or agree with Dem policies. So let's dispense with the silly business about "there's no bias here". The media is riddled with it. It's just that the left likes it the bias of the media as currently configured. Which is a shame. Because the worm turns.

It is amusing how you condemn it for being so without understanding how it got to this point.  What is it about journalism, acting, and academia that allows the left to dominate and pervade all aspects of it? Of course  there is a left bias in these career fields and I 'm not surprised you don't understand it.  For shits and giggles I'd love to see if anyone gets it.

NWIT, can you say Bernanke, Geithner, Lew, Paulson, Blankfein... I could go on, probably for a few hours...

Quote from: NowhereInTime on October 12, 2013, 07:34:44 AM
You mean like the banking industry.  Yes, you are correct.  Break it down.

Quote from: Quick Karl on October 12, 2013, 09:21:01 AM
NWIT, can you say Bernanke, Geithner, Lew, Paulson, Blankfein... I could go on, probably for a few hours...

All those names together read like the Animaniacs singing their names.

As to this thread's original point, who here thinks that its clear and long-standing alliance with conservative Christianity has been/is beginning to harm the Republican brand?  The party has ridden this connection to lots of success, but as more extreme elements come out, is the alliance becoming more of a burden?

You ask an intriguing (and loaded) question, Nowhere...  I know that research suggests that the voting block members of the Republican and Democratic parties are roughly equally well-educated.  (I suspect different studies reveal different results.)  The careers you mention (journalism, academia, acting) are more-or-less humanities-based fields.  My understanding is that engineering and finance tend to attract conservatives in larger measure.  I would be willing to bet a few dollars that the hard sciences (physics, for instance) tend to attract or perhaps produce atheists.  I daresay that a majority or least plurality of atheists probably run pretty liberal (or at least a lot of right-wing pundits say as much with their "Godless/commie/pinko moonbat" rhetoric).  Therefore, JUST having a humanties-based academic background is not enough to explain political allegience.

Further still, it would be interesting to see how those with just (or less than) a high school education vote.  At the risk of dabbling with racist theory here, it would not surprise me if black voters with just a h.s. education vote Democratic while white voters with just a h.s. education go Republican. 

Nonetheless, it is a very interesting question!

It is simply beyond astounding to me, that there are humans walking this planet that lay blame for every wrong and evil in the Universe on Republican and/or Christian shoulders, as if mere association with the Democrat party is an indicator of high intellect, honesty, and infallible political philosophy, in spite of the glaring facts to the contrary...

Quote from: Falkie2013 on October 12, 2013, 10:47:49 AM
All those names together read like the Animaniacs singing their names.

It is, indeed, beyond stupid for anyone to blame all ills on any one party or group.  Of course, the blame game goes both ways with people on both sides making big money be selling books that point the finger of blame at conservatives or liberals.

I agree, unconditionally.

Nevertheless, as a simple, down-to-Earth human, it is hard to resist responding to unsubstantiated irrelevant allegations - I just can't help it...

Any allegation that I, or others that I perceive to be sincere regardless of their position, have arrived at social and political philosophies due to a lack of intelligence or education, or because of seething hatred, racism, greed, a desire to oppress, lack of empathy and/or compassion, a compulsion to poison the environment, or any of the other myriad absurd accusations typically excreted in reply to a sincere argument, is tiresome and sure to meet with a response.

If recent political history is any indicator, tactics are in dire need of change.

Quote from: West of the Rockies on October 12, 2013, 11:41:53 AM
It is, indeed, beyond stupid for anyone to blame all ills on any one party or group.  Of course, the blame game goes both ways with people on both sides making big money be selling books that point the finger of blame at conservatives or liberals.

I also think that those "clever" sayings, such as "If you are young and vote Republican, you have no heart; if you are mature and vote Democratic, you have no brain" are divisive, reductionist drivel.  Beware the easy answer.

Religion in my view (and it will be when I'm king, okay?) should be eradicated; if believing in aliens landing in the back garden and exploring all your orifices, and having a good seeing to, is the hallmark of loop the loop thinking (and I happen to think it is), then so is the belief that the indoctrination preached about a supreme invisible being masquerading as 'education'; under pain of eternal damnation if you don't believe, is worthy of uncritical thinking.

That politicians of all colours use it as a hook to try and persuade the masses of their propriety is frankly insulting and laughable to those of us who don't need or desire such a crutch to 'prove' their worth. That those who do the loudest evangelism are held to be salt when the same are later to be found wanting when their own self aggrandising morality is called into question, when their options for explanation are limited as they're caught with their pants around their ankles.
Hypocritical, bullying, pompous, sanctimonious assholes.

Not that I feel strongly about the topic you understand.

You are doing precisely that which you accuse your adversary of doing.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on October 12, 2013, 12:08:07 PM
Religion in my view (and it will be when I'm king, okay?) should be eradicated; if believing in aliens landing in the back garden and exploring all your orifices, and having a good seeing to, is the hallmark of loop the loop thinking (and I happen to think it is), then so is the belief that the indoctrination  preached about a supreme invisible being masquerading as 'education'; under pain of eternal damnation if you don't believe.

That politicians of all colours use it as a hook to try and persuade the masses of their propriety is frankly insulting and laughable to those of us who don't need or desire such a crutch to 'prove' their worth. That those who do the loudest evangelism are held to be salt when the same are later to be found wanting when their own self aggrandising morality is called into question, when their options for explanation are limited as they're caught with their pants around their ankles.
Hypocritical, bullying, pompous, sanctimonious assholes.

Not that I feel strongly about the topic you understand.

Quote from: Quick Karl on October 12, 2013, 11:57:58 AM

Any allegation that I, or others that I perceive to be sincere regardless of their position, have arrived at social and political philosophies due to a lack of intelligence or education, or because of seething hatred, racism, greed, a desire to oppress, lack of empathy and/or compassion, a compulsion to poison the environment, or any of the other myriad absurd accusations typically excreted in reply to a sincere argument, is tiresome and sure to meet with a response.

I am hard pressed to remember anyone here calling you any of those descriptors. But you do go on about them like you are bloodied and yet righteously stalwart in your positions.

I find it hard to dismiss all the ecological disasters around the globe since the inception of the industrial revolution that haven't by definition "poisoned" the environment. I also know that business without regulation has no mechanism to refrain from such behaviors. If people as a group are not aware they may not actually  be guilty, but they are complicit. The same way with inequalities in standards of living. But as long as our lifestyle isn't too compromised how much do we care if others are suffering? well, as long as we don't have to think of it, and certainly not pay for it. So is greedy accurate? probably but unaware greedy is probably more the case.

Does it revolve around political ideologies? I think so, but not as much as I did 20 years ago.

Quote from: Quick Karl on October 12, 2013, 12:11:28 PM
You are doing precisely that which you accuse your adversary of doing.

I did qualify it by saying 'when I'm king'.. I'm not averse to being a compassionate dictator. 

Quote from: NowhereInTime on October 12, 2013, 07:37:31 AM
...  What is it about journalism, acting, and academia that allows the left to dominate and pervade all aspects of it? Of course  there is a left bias in these career fields and I 'm not surprised you don't understand it.  For shits and giggles I'd love to see if anyone gets it.

You mean aside from old fashioned blacklisting of anyone that's not Liberal/Left?

Quote from: Paper*Boy on October 12, 2013, 01:07:25 PM

You mean aside from old fashioned blacklisting of anyone that's not Liberal/Left?

Not to mention the blacklisting of any possibility of connection to communism.

Quote from: Paper*Boy on October 12, 2013, 01:07:25 PM

You mean aside from old fashioned blacklisting of anyone that's not Liberal/Left?

Wasn't there a certain gentleman called McCarthy who decided that actors/ directors/ writers/ producers/ poets/ artists were communists, because he said so? Naaaa...couldn't happen.

Hey, Tailgunner Joe was a great American!

Actually though, there is an on-going effort to resurrect Joe's reputation here in the states.  We do live in interesting times.

It always surprises me when I see an anti-blacklisting comment. I mean, we blacklist times ten today. If you say the slightest politically incorrect thing on the internet--much less get photographed attending a neo-Nazi or Klan rally--you'll have a hell of a time finding meaningful employment if the employer comes across it in a Google search. Perhaps rightfully so, I don't think anyone wants to see the Nazis or the Klan gaining power and influence again.

That said, Communism was, by far, the most deadly ideology ever concocted by man. The 20th century's biggest murderer was not Hitler, as bad as he was. It was Stalin. Pol Pot, Mao, also both mass murderers. Yet communism gets a pass, for some reason, as though none of that happened. By all rights it should be up there with Nazism on the list of distasteful condemnable ideologies.

Somewhere between the end of McCarthyism and now, I guess public television has made enough emotive documentaries about Hollywood blacklisting that it "stuck" in the public mind as some kind of atrocity, when in fact it was a response to real atrocities that now seem forgotten.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on October 12, 2013, 02:17:02 PM
Wasn't there a certain gentleman called McCarthy who decided that actors/ directors/ writers/ producers/ poets/ artists were communists, because he said so? Naaaa...couldn't happen.

Well, they actually were communists. 

You do realize the Communist Party USA did exist and had a good number of actual real live members and sympathizers.  Many of them were US government officials and were loyal to the Soviet Union, including Alger Hiss.

Quite a bit of information from the files of the old USSR became public after the Soviet Union collapsed, and it verified much of what had been suspected.

The Entertainment Blacklist denying employment to screenwriters, actors, directors, musicians, etc, because of their political beliefs or associations started before Joe McCarthy's hearings.   Right after the war, when our Soviet wartime allies were gobbling up eastern Europe (along with Tito in the Balkans, Mao in Asia, and others), on the march worldwide, and had the bomb thanks to the Rosenbergs, was a fearful time in America. 

It wasn't that long after FDR had the Japanese rounded up.  It's easy to look back an criticize from a modern day perspective.



None of it excuses the current de facto blacklist of the professions mentioned - academia, 'journalism', entertainment.

Are you suggesting there is not a vast left wing conspiracy in those professions and that they are open-minded and welcome contrasting ideas and facts that challenge their own?...

Quote from: Paper*Boy on October 12, 2013, 05:09:00 PM
None of it excuses the current de facto blacklist of the professions mentioned - academia, 'journalism', entertainment.