For Example, Gaute

When I said, "No matter what they believe, the people they hate (yes, they are more than capable of that) have to come down on the other side of that argument (political or not) whether or not said argument is partisan, moral, etc.," I was mostly referring to what LaShawn Barber was saying about Bill Cosby's comments. If you are not familiar with that, here are her comments on the matter. Since LaShawn agrees with Cosby's remarks about responsibility, literacy, and examples set by leaders of the black community, she, being a far-right religious conservative, believes that liberals, democrats and everyone in between disagree with Cosby's remarks.

I never wrote in detail about what Cosby said because I was under the impression that if I said what I believed on this matter, I could be pegged a racist, despite the fact that I agreed with what LaShawn and Bill Cosby both said. I find myself on diametrically opposite sides of LaShawn on many topics, but not this one. I am white, she is not. She is a Conservative, I certainly am not. But, her and her alliance peg me as a bleeding heart liberal -- which couldn't be further from the truth.

I believe in fair taxing across the board, a flat tax; I believe in small government; I believe that the government's place is in governing, not moral issues (there are certain exceptions) and certainly NOT RELIGION; I believe that abortion is a moral issue, but the opposition to abortion is a religious one and therefore a government should not rule against abortion; I believe that there should be much tougher laws protecting the environment including TRUE clean air and water acts, TRUE desire to wean the United States off solely gasoline or diesel automobiles; a TRUE policy adheering to guidelines in the Kyoto Protocol; the abolition of Affirmative Action within the near future; and definite acts in order to significantly decrease the need for and amount of people on welfare.



Regarding Cirular Arguments by Conservatives on Media Bias

I work in New York City, possibly the biggest media market in the world. People have always called the NY Metro area quite liberal, and we natives pride ourselves in that (being logical people). Many of the major cities in the United States are considered very liberal, like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago and Liberal, Kansas.
Yet, in New York, there are only two radio stations that weren't far to the right. Even on Sports Radio, with Don Imus on WFAN, we get terribly skewed news and opinion. It's taken far to long to get Air America on the radio, and they get attacked every day by Rush Limbaugh, Hannity and Colmes, Bill O'Reilly and everyone else on cable TV news. Let's ask a simple question: where do most people get their important news daily? Radio? Print? Online? TV? Although the numbers for people looking for news online is increasing immensely daily (due to the following reason), the majority of people get their news from TV.

There are several polls that portend that the amount of journalists who voted democaratic proves indisputedly how liberal the media is. This is faulty logic for numerous reasons. If the majority of people are getting there news from TV, and the majority of the TV stations are owned by huge corporations with more interest in conservative audiences, how are journalists, who never get the final call, headline, or time slot/page number swaying the public more than Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity? They aren't.

It can't be argued that the majority of the celebrity 'journalists' are very wealthy and earn a significant amount of money. Who would they have voted for and support if their money is more affected by a candidate who coddles their bank accounts and stock options; a candidate who supports less diversity in media ownership?

"Under normal circumstances, journalists get both sides of the story. This is a basic rule of thumb that every journalist knows, and is taught in every Journalism 101 class. It doesn't matter if you're liberal or conservative; it is widely considered unethical to present only one side of the story."

I believe this statement is true. Print journalists have integrity and prevent most stories in an even handed and balanced light. So... recently, if a story does not fall in the favor of what the Conservative's than they purport the story and media to be liberally biased. That's common sense.

Could anyone really argue that what is happening in the world now is good, right, or even promising? Promising maybe, but things in general are certainly not going well. Is this the so-called liberal media's fault? NO!

Here is what LaShawn thinks:

"In fact, I find some white liberals to be quite condescending people. I can see right through their phony "compassion" and "I'm very tolerant, aren't I?" façade. They hide behind a "progressive" ideology, which they seem to think is something noble or superior...

Samuelson believes that "sorting of audiences by politics" is why conservatives don't like CNN, and that poses "dangers." Liberal journalists don't trust us to pick our own news sources. They see the decrease in newspaper circulation and the success of FOX as dangerous and partisan."

Who is more biased, Fox News or CNN? I think even CNN often tosses softballs to the right and caters to them as much as the left. When the Iraq war started, they were so blindly for whatever Bush said they looked foolish (to those who don't suffer them gladly). They didn't question anything -- god forbid! CNN's not unpatriotic. Fox News is, well, it's Fox News.

So in a logical equation, here is an argument: If the reports on the news look negative towards Bush, the war and Conservatives then the reports are liberally biased.

A different equation: If reports on Bush, the War and Conservatives are negative then what's going on is negative.

Which argument is more sound?

I for one believe in Occam's Razor as a truth infinite. There are always exceptions to every rule, but for the most part, solid logic and good reasoning usually prove correct.

For a minute there, I lost myself... (more some time this weekend)