This is not a post about President Barack Obama. Let us assume we can take him at his word concerning his relationship with William Ayers, the present day professor who admits to being a member of the Weather Underground and to bombing buildings.
This is a post about William Ayers. There is no statute of limitations for a murder charge. Please read this http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2219320/posts and comment as you see fit.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Why expose my eyes and ears to that?
Someone asked me why I am posting (on the left side of the page) internet links to the right and the left? It is really as simple as that I believe in hearing both sides of any story. I pray that any and everyone of us can see the difference if given the chance. My concern about echo chambers and group think has much to do with those who never risk hearing those they have been told are wrong.
I have twice been told that I am wrong because "You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh". I told them that I listened to a wide variety of opinions, but was sure they never listened to Rush Limbaugh. I have also heard and read a large number of left leaders and talk show hosts say they "never watch Fox News, because fox just lies and pimps for the right". They "never watch" and I'm supposed to believe they know what they are talking about. Sorry, but that tactic lost its effect in junior high school and if someone never watched a left-leaning show and said they knew what was on them, I'd be just as skeptical.
Left-right is not the real issue. I recently found myself amazed that I agreed with William Greider of The Nation when he wrote that "If Wall Street gets its way, the "reforms" may further consolidate power and ratify a corporate state--a grotesque hybrid that combines the worst aspects of socialism and capitalism. The reform ideas announced by Geithner (Treasury Secretary Geithner) would plant the seeds by creating a "systemic risk" regulator, presumably the Federal Reserve, to oversee the largest, most politically adept banks and financial firms that qualify as "too big to fail."
Greider felt we were risking much by consolidating the power of the government and Wall Street. He is on the left and I believe those thoughts are respected on the right. The important point is not right or left, rather it is right or wrong.
I have twice been told that I am wrong because "You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh". I told them that I listened to a wide variety of opinions, but was sure they never listened to Rush Limbaugh. I have also heard and read a large number of left leaders and talk show hosts say they "never watch Fox News, because fox just lies and pimps for the right". They "never watch" and I'm supposed to believe they know what they are talking about. Sorry, but that tactic lost its effect in junior high school and if someone never watched a left-leaning show and said they knew what was on them, I'd be just as skeptical.
Left-right is not the real issue. I recently found myself amazed that I agreed with William Greider of The Nation when he wrote that "If Wall Street gets its way, the "reforms" may further consolidate power and ratify a corporate state--a grotesque hybrid that combines the worst aspects of socialism and capitalism. The reform ideas announced by Geithner (Treasury Secretary Geithner) would plant the seeds by creating a "systemic risk" regulator, presumably the Federal Reserve, to oversee the largest, most politically adept banks and financial firms that qualify as "too big to fail."
Greider felt we were risking much by consolidating the power of the government and Wall Street. He is on the left and I believe those thoughts are respected on the right. The important point is not right or left, rather it is right or wrong.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
On liberal bias
In our culture, as I noted in my introductory post, it was 50 years ago when we moved from conservatism being politically correct toward and now into an opposite state of liberal political correctness. This has become especially obvious in our media and higher education.
A number of polls taken by institutions such as Pew since the 1990's have invariably shown professors and teachers to identify themselves as liberals and democrats at rates from 60 - 90 per cent. On our college campuses conservatives invited to speak have been shouted down, hit with pies and even refused the right to appear. Though some have protested the speaking appearances of those on the left, this level of censorship of their speaking engagements has not occurred.
The overall status of the media bias has been similar, with polled journalists considering themselves liberals and democrats by wide margins. Studies of the reporting done on politics in the media have also reflected this bias.
Bernard Goldberg has written a couple good books on the subject. Like myself, he states that 50 years ago he considered himself a liberal and has changed his point of view over time. He also shares my concerns over the danger this bias poses. Repeatedly over time I have read headlines on news stories which have a left tilt. In addition, Associated Press and New York Times articles not identified as opinion pieces are loaded with the reporter's opinions.
This is just bad journalism, inserting opinions when the who, what, when, why and how are called for and some believe this shabby approach accounts for a lot of the loss of newspaper circulation. The editorial and opinion pages are fair game, as are talk and opinion shows on television. But TV news reporters are more and more frequently inserting their opinions into their reports.
I had so much respect for Tim Russert, because he resisted the urge to wear his opinions on his sleeve. Instead he thought about what were the best questions to ask each guest and was widely respected as a result. This seems even more important in the classroom, where facts and opinions should not be confused, especially considering the relationship teachers have with their less experienced students. We've objected when youth movements have been propagandized by evil regimes. We should not look the other way because we are sure the propaganda is benign.
A person whom I view in an opposite light from Russert is Keith Olbermann, who though he is exercising his right as a talk/opinion show host to give you his slant, insists he is only giving you the true facts, not opinions. In addition, each show he has a number of guests. I have never seen him have one guest on who was not in tune with his echo chamber. Al Gore's approach to global warming is the same. He only speaks at places friendly to his point of view, will not debate those opposed to his views and has frequently stated there is no debate, the science is settled.
I have noted my concern over echo chambers, where everyone agrees on the issues and no one dares to challenge the accepted mantra. Once you believe you know all you need to know, you will guarantee you learn nothing more and are frozen in time with your opinions. If that wasn't a good idea 50 or 100 years ago, why is it a good idea now?
A number of polls taken by institutions such as Pew since the 1990's have invariably shown professors and teachers to identify themselves as liberals and democrats at rates from 60 - 90 per cent. On our college campuses conservatives invited to speak have been shouted down, hit with pies and even refused the right to appear. Though some have protested the speaking appearances of those on the left, this level of censorship of their speaking engagements has not occurred.
The overall status of the media bias has been similar, with polled journalists considering themselves liberals and democrats by wide margins. Studies of the reporting done on politics in the media have also reflected this bias.
Bernard Goldberg has written a couple good books on the subject. Like myself, he states that 50 years ago he considered himself a liberal and has changed his point of view over time. He also shares my concerns over the danger this bias poses. Repeatedly over time I have read headlines on news stories which have a left tilt. In addition, Associated Press and New York Times articles not identified as opinion pieces are loaded with the reporter's opinions.
This is just bad journalism, inserting opinions when the who, what, when, why and how are called for and some believe this shabby approach accounts for a lot of the loss of newspaper circulation. The editorial and opinion pages are fair game, as are talk and opinion shows on television. But TV news reporters are more and more frequently inserting their opinions into their reports.
I had so much respect for Tim Russert, because he resisted the urge to wear his opinions on his sleeve. Instead he thought about what were the best questions to ask each guest and was widely respected as a result. This seems even more important in the classroom, where facts and opinions should not be confused, especially considering the relationship teachers have with their less experienced students. We've objected when youth movements have been propagandized by evil regimes. We should not look the other way because we are sure the propaganda is benign.
A person whom I view in an opposite light from Russert is Keith Olbermann, who though he is exercising his right as a talk/opinion show host to give you his slant, insists he is only giving you the true facts, not opinions. In addition, each show he has a number of guests. I have never seen him have one guest on who was not in tune with his echo chamber. Al Gore's approach to global warming is the same. He only speaks at places friendly to his point of view, will not debate those opposed to his views and has frequently stated there is no debate, the science is settled.
I have noted my concern over echo chambers, where everyone agrees on the issues and no one dares to challenge the accepted mantra. Once you believe you know all you need to know, you will guarantee you learn nothing more and are frozen in time with your opinions. If that wasn't a good idea 50 or 100 years ago, why is it a good idea now?
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Please post your comments
As I post on more topics, please comment on them, as this can become a thread of discussion on the topic of the post. I believe in the value of a variety of viewpoints and in what I may gain from hearing them.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Friends and family
Though this post isn't about a cell phone payment plan, as with that plan, these are the people closest to us as we travel through our lives. Blood is thicker than water, and I have wondered at those who do not maintain close relationships with their siblings, parents or children. What do they miss out on, and of what treasures do they deprive their family members?
Still, I'm afraid in even this I can not be certain. For there are nearly seven billion of us living our lives on this planet and how many have lived throughout the ages? Each of us has seemingly lived our own unique existence and I have often wondered how we can truly understand what and why anyone else has felt, or what they believe. Many have been put upon in horrible ways by their closest family from a young age and others have been deprived by fate of ever experiencing a family and the benefits I, and others, have come to cherish.
From the time I can remember considering my good or bad fortune concerning family, I have believed that I have been incredibly blessed and have been thankful to the God I believe holds such fates in his hand. I have tried to be a good member of my family, deserving of the love and decency which has surrounded me. In many ways I feel I have failed, and I could not tell you whether this is just an example of my being too hard on myself or a necessary honesty. Yet, I know I have done some things right and for that I am grateful. For it is said that whom the gods would destroy, they would first make mad, and I feel that my disregard for or bad treatment of my family would be a sign of my insanity.
Perhaps similarly, Emerson said that the only way to have a friend is to be one. Again, I believe I can recognize quite a few failures on my part over the years mixed with genuine efforts to be a good friend to a number of souls I have met. These people have rewarded my efforts. I look back fondly at times, but also have moments where my thoughtless behavior haunts me.
Friendship has never meant finding a duplicate of myself and I don't think that would work well even if I did. But shared principles matter and almost must play a role in why friendships develop between people. Still, it has always seemed wise to me to try to remember a line from an old Pink Floyd song.... "If I was a good man, I'd understand the spaces between friends." This may actually explain a point I made in my introductory post where I am not looking for friends who are merely echo chambers for my point of view. In fact, I've often envied the idea of being able to have long conversations with a friend who at times challenged my beliefs and left me with something to ponder.
Such would be a good and worthy use of this blog.
Still, I'm afraid in even this I can not be certain. For there are nearly seven billion of us living our lives on this planet and how many have lived throughout the ages? Each of us has seemingly lived our own unique existence and I have often wondered how we can truly understand what and why anyone else has felt, or what they believe. Many have been put upon in horrible ways by their closest family from a young age and others have been deprived by fate of ever experiencing a family and the benefits I, and others, have come to cherish.
From the time I can remember considering my good or bad fortune concerning family, I have believed that I have been incredibly blessed and have been thankful to the God I believe holds such fates in his hand. I have tried to be a good member of my family, deserving of the love and decency which has surrounded me. In many ways I feel I have failed, and I could not tell you whether this is just an example of my being too hard on myself or a necessary honesty. Yet, I know I have done some things right and for that I am grateful. For it is said that whom the gods would destroy, they would first make mad, and I feel that my disregard for or bad treatment of my family would be a sign of my insanity.
Perhaps similarly, Emerson said that the only way to have a friend is to be one. Again, I believe I can recognize quite a few failures on my part over the years mixed with genuine efforts to be a good friend to a number of souls I have met. These people have rewarded my efforts. I look back fondly at times, but also have moments where my thoughtless behavior haunts me.
Friendship has never meant finding a duplicate of myself and I don't think that would work well even if I did. But shared principles matter and almost must play a role in why friendships develop between people. Still, it has always seemed wise to me to try to remember a line from an old Pink Floyd song.... "If I was a good man, I'd understand the spaces between friends." This may actually explain a point I made in my introductory post where I am not looking for friends who are merely echo chambers for my point of view. In fact, I've often envied the idea of being able to have long conversations with a friend who at times challenged my beliefs and left me with something to ponder.
Such would be a good and worthy use of this blog.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
This second part of my first introduction (below) is simply to add that I have found that most of my old friends live in an echo chamber. I still consider them friends, but they have told me that they rely on a select few sources for their news and opinion. Those sources have all been liberal.
If someone only listens to Rush Limbaugh and gets their info and opinions from that source, they will be a conservative. The opposite is also true, but my friends from the old days do not seem to see this.I did some work for a person who worked at a big hospital research facility. After our discussion of politics, he told me he had heard that people held my views, but he had never met anyone who did. Still, he did not feel he was only hearing one side of the story.
I will not be surprised or offended by people's views expressed here. I only hope the people who express them have not just repeated something without having tried to see if there was more to the story. This is not personal, rather it is important for the same reasons it was important in late-1700's America.
If someone only listens to Rush Limbaugh and gets their info and opinions from that source, they will be a conservative. The opposite is also true, but my friends from the old days do not seem to see this.I did some work for a person who worked at a big hospital research facility. After our discussion of politics, he told me he had heard that people held my views, but he had never met anyone who did. Still, he did not feel he was only hearing one side of the story.
I will not be surprised or offended by people's views expressed here. I only hope the people who express them have not just repeated something without having tried to see if there was more to the story. This is not personal, rather it is important for the same reasons it was important in late-1700's America.
My generation
I came of age in the middle of the United States' "cultural revolution", the late 1960's and early 1970's. Though the 'revolution' has continued since then, this was the heart of the rebellion. Sex, drugs and rock-and-roll and not trusting anyone over thirty were the mindsets and I have to admit that not many were able to resist the groupthink.
Abortion had just become legal due to Roe v. Wade and the pill had just made the scene. "I am curious yellow" was actually shown at your neighborhood movie theater and Timothy Leary became an almost acceptable university professor. Revolution was indeed in the air and no one seemed willing to continue with the 'status quo'. I was totally immersed in this revolution.
As we move into the 21st century, it is easy to see some of the results of this revolution, and this will be part of the focus of this blog as we go forward. But, there is an angle relative to the sixties and this time which I feel is overlooked. Prior to the sixties, political correctness existed from the other side, the conservative side, and no one could break any of the taboos about a list of social facets without suffering greatly at the hands of the majority. The reason most often given for our revolution of 40 years ago was that we could think for ourselves; we did not need to all follow the same marching orders, choose your own hair length and points of view.... in short, there was no need for us to regurgitate the same 'groupthink'.
My problem in 2009 is that I believe my generation rejected the politically correct guidelines they felt were repressive and embraced the opposing views in our society, which happened to be those of the left. At that point they rested and have not tried very hard to be sure they are on the right page. They are now part of the "new flock" and content that they chose the 'right' direction years ago.
This would all be okay if you could trust anyone implicitly, but just like hackers or hustlers of any kind, when you fix one leak they will come at you another way, with the goal of taking advantage of or controlling you. I have been on a constant media and financial market scouring mission since the mid-1990's and, truthfully, I do not know anyone else who has taken this approach. I understand why others do not try to access a constant variety of opinions and aspects of what is going on, but I have found they are then subject to the same few voices to tell them what is going on.
This may indeed show how I am crazy, but it also allows me to hear many points of view. I listen to the Air America types and the Fox News team, as well as MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh, CNN, Glenn Beck, Larry Kudlow and PBS (like NewsHour with Jim Lehrer or the BBC). I hear things most people never hear, and I'll finish this piece with an example of this. Several days after the 9/11 attacks I was listening to Terry Gross (the show Fresh Air) on National Public Radio and she had Michael Moore on as a guest. He was saying we should not attack Afghanistan (the Taliban) over Osama bin Laden, because we would just be trying to control pipelines through Afghanistan and we should exercise "restraint". In 2003, when we were going to invade Iraq, I heard Michael Moore on the Howard Stern Show, saying that he was against the invasion of Iraq, but reassuring Howard that, indeed, he had been all for the invasion of Afghanistan, as it was justified. This baloney was most likely heard by few considering the different shows on which Moore had been on.
I welcome any comments on this and future posts. The process here will be to deal with general philosophies as well as current events. The goal will be to truly understand life, overall and how it is immediately playing out. Rob
Abortion had just become legal due to Roe v. Wade and the pill had just made the scene. "I am curious yellow" was actually shown at your neighborhood movie theater and Timothy Leary became an almost acceptable university professor. Revolution was indeed in the air and no one seemed willing to continue with the 'status quo'. I was totally immersed in this revolution.
As we move into the 21st century, it is easy to see some of the results of this revolution, and this will be part of the focus of this blog as we go forward. But, there is an angle relative to the sixties and this time which I feel is overlooked. Prior to the sixties, political correctness existed from the other side, the conservative side, and no one could break any of the taboos about a list of social facets without suffering greatly at the hands of the majority. The reason most often given for our revolution of 40 years ago was that we could think for ourselves; we did not need to all follow the same marching orders, choose your own hair length and points of view.... in short, there was no need for us to regurgitate the same 'groupthink'.
My problem in 2009 is that I believe my generation rejected the politically correct guidelines they felt were repressive and embraced the opposing views in our society, which happened to be those of the left. At that point they rested and have not tried very hard to be sure they are on the right page. They are now part of the "new flock" and content that they chose the 'right' direction years ago.
This would all be okay if you could trust anyone implicitly, but just like hackers or hustlers of any kind, when you fix one leak they will come at you another way, with the goal of taking advantage of or controlling you. I have been on a constant media and financial market scouring mission since the mid-1990's and, truthfully, I do not know anyone else who has taken this approach. I understand why others do not try to access a constant variety of opinions and aspects of what is going on, but I have found they are then subject to the same few voices to tell them what is going on.
This may indeed show how I am crazy, but it also allows me to hear many points of view. I listen to the Air America types and the Fox News team, as well as MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh, CNN, Glenn Beck, Larry Kudlow and PBS (like NewsHour with Jim Lehrer or the BBC). I hear things most people never hear, and I'll finish this piece with an example of this. Several days after the 9/11 attacks I was listening to Terry Gross (the show Fresh Air) on National Public Radio and she had Michael Moore on as a guest. He was saying we should not attack Afghanistan (the Taliban) over Osama bin Laden, because we would just be trying to control pipelines through Afghanistan and we should exercise "restraint". In 2003, when we were going to invade Iraq, I heard Michael Moore on the Howard Stern Show, saying that he was against the invasion of Iraq, but reassuring Howard that, indeed, he had been all for the invasion of Afghanistan, as it was justified. This baloney was most likely heard by few considering the different shows on which Moore had been on.
I welcome any comments on this and future posts. The process here will be to deal with general philosophies as well as current events. The goal will be to truly understand life, overall and how it is immediately playing out. Rob
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)