My email inbox was filled today with requests from donations for all of the Democratic congressmen I've mailed in the past few months as encouragement to pass the health care reform bill (albeit with a public option, but we can't get everything we ask for all at once).
Not sure I'll be contributing to all of their campaigns, but I did find something today that is worth donating money to:
A Ticket for Rush
I encourage all of you to do the same!
Just a little levity from Indiana...
Showing posts with label Conserativism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conserativism. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Monday, October 12, 2009
NFLPA Commits Penalty on this Block
You may not agree with Rush Limbaugh on many of his opinions (although I am not sure I can dignify his utterances as opinions), but the NFLPA's attempt to oppose his bid to buy the St. Louis Rams is misguided. While Rush has certainly been a lightning rod for controversy with his commentary, and his opinions on Donovan McNabb and Barack Obama have clearly rankled African-American NFL players, the only difference between him and the NFL owners is that his points of view are well-publicised. And yet his political leanings may be quite in line with those of most NFL owners and players; a list of recent campaign contributions by NFL teams has been compiled here. Not surprisingly, the donations are skewed heavily to the Republicans; the party long-identified with lower taxes for the highest-earning Americans is significantly supported by some of the highest-earning Americans (i.e. professional athletes and their team owners). Of course, the reasons for the support may be beyond simply financial reasons. Thus the NFLPA may want to take a look at the true political leanings of its current ownership before it tries to block Limbaugh and his group from purchasing the Rams simply because of his bloviations.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Most Polarized Electorate Ever?
A recent Pew Research Center study showed a wide partisan gap in President Obama's approval ratings. The news media immediately seized upon this, declaring Obama the most divisive president ever. Hyperbole aside, is this really a logical conclusion based on this data?
I disagree with this line of thinking. Rather, I think the polls better reflect what's been happening to the American electorate: right or wrong, this is the most polarized and partisan electorate in memory, and there may not be much President Obama can do about it. This is most clearly reflected by the shift in news media coverage in the last decade or so.
I grew up watching CNN, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and other network news programs which all covered the news in a neutral manner (truly "fair and balanced"). In the last decade or so, there has been a marked shift in coverage: many news programs have opted to lean politically left or right. This isn't some media conspiracy to get you to pick a side; you want this coverage, and this is bourne out in the ratings: MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Fox's Bill O'Reilly host the most popular news programs in their time-slot, shows which offer clear opinions in one political direction.
(By the way, is anyone else disturbed by this report? There are way too many people buying into the factually dubious bilge propagated by Fox. And yes, this blog leans a particular direction too!)
TV news isn't the only indicator: conservative radio is wildly popular across the country, while liberal radio continues to make in-roads in this market. Even newspapers have adopted such ideology (e.g. the New York Times versus the Chicago Tribune). People no longer want to hear all the news, presented in an even and unbiased manner, or all the sides of an opinion; they want affirmation of their opinions.
Whether this is a good thing remains to be seen, but it may better account for the polarization of the American electorate. There's no doubt some of Obama's ideas may not appeal to conservatives, but at least he more faithfully subscribes to his political principles than the Bush administration (an exercise in political versus ideological contradictions). The bottom line in all this: the Obama administration won the election, and at the very least the majority supports his ideas to bring a new direction to American legislative policies. We should remember that all of us stand to benefit should he succeed.
UPDATE: This article is along similar lines, published in yesterday's NYTimes.
I disagree with this line of thinking. Rather, I think the polls better reflect what's been happening to the American electorate: right or wrong, this is the most polarized and partisan electorate in memory, and there may not be much President Obama can do about it. This is most clearly reflected by the shift in news media coverage in the last decade or so.
I grew up watching CNN, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and other network news programs which all covered the news in a neutral manner (truly "fair and balanced"). In the last decade or so, there has been a marked shift in coverage: many news programs have opted to lean politically left or right. This isn't some media conspiracy to get you to pick a side; you want this coverage, and this is bourne out in the ratings: MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Fox's Bill O'Reilly host the most popular news programs in their time-slot, shows which offer clear opinions in one political direction.
(By the way, is anyone else disturbed by this report? There are way too many people buying into the factually dubious bilge propagated by Fox. And yes, this blog leans a particular direction too!)
TV news isn't the only indicator: conservative radio is wildly popular across the country, while liberal radio continues to make in-roads in this market. Even newspapers have adopted such ideology (e.g. the New York Times versus the Chicago Tribune). People no longer want to hear all the news, presented in an even and unbiased manner, or all the sides of an opinion; they want affirmation of their opinions.
Whether this is a good thing remains to be seen, but it may better account for the polarization of the American electorate. There's no doubt some of Obama's ideas may not appeal to conservatives, but at least he more faithfully subscribes to his political principles than the Bush administration (an exercise in political versus ideological contradictions). The bottom line in all this: the Obama administration won the election, and at the very least the majority supports his ideas to bring a new direction to American legislative policies. We should remember that all of us stand to benefit should he succeed.
UPDATE: This article is along similar lines, published in yesterday's NYTimes.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Just when you think the world can't get any more stupid...
...I think we are running out of adjectives to describe the ignorance in the Republican party.
In the video, Representative Joe Barton, of Texas, questions Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Laureate, about where oil comes from (a question any 4th grader could easily answer). A stunned Chu tries to explain this without insulting the intelligence of everyone present (little did he know, there was no intelligent life present).
What is even more stunning - Barton assumes Chu's hesitation to carefully phrase his words as meaning he is somehow puzzled by the question (did I mention he is a Nobel Prize winner?). If people can get dumber than this, then just shoot me now, please.
In the video, Representative Joe Barton, of Texas, questions Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Laureate, about where oil comes from (a question any 4th grader could easily answer). A stunned Chu tries to explain this without insulting the intelligence of everyone present (little did he know, there was no intelligent life present).
What is even more stunning - Barton assumes Chu's hesitation to carefully phrase his words as meaning he is somehow puzzled by the question (did I mention he is a Nobel Prize winner?). If people can get dumber than this, then just shoot me now, please.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
'Twas the night before teabagging...
Brilliant stuff from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann:
More tea-bag humor from the Rachel Maddow show yesterday, which had Conservatives hot and bothered today.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
More tea-bag humor from the Rachel Maddow show yesterday, which had Conservatives hot and bothered today.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
More Conservative Stupidity
Idiots.
I have a rebuttal, but Krugman says it all here.
What's ironic is the original Boston Tea Party, the inspiration for this travesty, protested a tax cut for the East India Company, which the British government was trying to prop up by giving an unfair advantage.
Anyway, this Slate writer has a great suggestion: let's rename the Republicans the U.S. Teabagging Party.
One can only anticipate what the U.S. Teabagging Party has in store next.
Perhaps a protest of illegal immigrants with a nationwide "Do a Dirty Sanchez" day?
Or perhaps protest vegetarianism by a "Tossing Your Salad" day?
I have a rebuttal, but Krugman says it all here.
What's ironic is the original Boston Tea Party, the inspiration for this travesty, protested a tax cut for the East India Company, which the British government was trying to prop up by giving an unfair advantage.
Anyway, this Slate writer has a great suggestion: let's rename the Republicans the U.S. Teabagging Party.
One can only anticipate what the U.S. Teabagging Party has in store next.
Perhaps a protest of illegal immigrants with a nationwide "Do a Dirty Sanchez" day?
Or perhaps protest vegetarianism by a "Tossing Your Salad" day?
Friday, March 13, 2009
Excrement from the Right
Charles Krauthammer, come on down! Your columns continue to provide me with blog-fodder. His latest piece, "Obama's Science Fiction", is in tone more reasonable than his previous swill, but no better in content (except to fertilize my lawn with, perhaps). I didn't want to be merely reactionary in this space, but the recent spate of conservative bilge has prompted my hand.
Krauthammer continues to assume scientists lack moral values. I can't credit him with authorship of this; I've heard these arguments from the right for years, and Bush made it part of his public policy. I find the following statement particularly vapid.
"Science has everything to say about what is possible. Science has nothing to say about what is permissible."
Actually, scientists agonize over ethical decisions all the time. In fact, it's a fairly significant component of all grant applications, which provide the lifeblood of scientific research (that's money). However, this is the usual argument from conservatives, that morality and science are mutually exclusive. While oversight of all major decisions is important, and I think ethical review boards have a lot of value, the implication that people intelligent enough to author such research lack the same brain power to consider ethical implications is hogwash. Of course, there is always a small minority that ruins things for the rest of us, although the South Korean researcher a few years ago who claimed to have cloned humans successfully was proven to have made a fake claim.
It's also worth mentioning the Obama plan doesn't allow federal funding for unfettered stem cell research. Government funds cannot go to expanding the number of stem cell lines; rather, they can go towards experiments involving lines that have been obtained from privately-funded research. This was what was banned by Bush, and was effectively the United States' stem cell policy under Clinton.
The impression one gets from reading Krauthammer is that he opines that Bush's arguments (if they can be justified as such) were substantive and "morally serious" while Obama's are flippant. If that's indeed the case, perhaps the Post should consider a stricter drug-testing policy for its employees.
Krauthammer continues to assume scientists lack moral values. I can't credit him with authorship of this; I've heard these arguments from the right for years, and Bush made it part of his public policy. I find the following statement particularly vapid.
"Science has everything to say about what is possible. Science has nothing to say about what is permissible."
Actually, scientists agonize over ethical decisions all the time. In fact, it's a fairly significant component of all grant applications, which provide the lifeblood of scientific research (that's money). However, this is the usual argument from conservatives, that morality and science are mutually exclusive. While oversight of all major decisions is important, and I think ethical review boards have a lot of value, the implication that people intelligent enough to author such research lack the same brain power to consider ethical implications is hogwash. Of course, there is always a small minority that ruins things for the rest of us, although the South Korean researcher a few years ago who claimed to have cloned humans successfully was proven to have made a fake claim.
It's also worth mentioning the Obama plan doesn't allow federal funding for unfettered stem cell research. Government funds cannot go to expanding the number of stem cell lines; rather, they can go towards experiments involving lines that have been obtained from privately-funded research. This was what was banned by Bush, and was effectively the United States' stem cell policy under Clinton.
The impression one gets from reading Krauthammer is that he opines that Bush's arguments (if they can be justified as such) were substantive and "morally serious" while Obama's are flippant. If that's indeed the case, perhaps the Post should consider a stricter drug-testing policy for its employees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)