Back for More

Sorry for the long absence. It's been a crazy week.

A comment on my "Liberal Romper Room" post elicited a lucid and reasonable response from "Sparkey." I highly recommend reading it. I don't agree with much of what she says, but the level of discourse is commendable.

I appreciate anyone who can make a point in this manner, even if I disagree with it. Her point that liberals also find it difficult to have a civil conversation with those on the right is not lost on me. I know there are many people who share my beliefs who can't keep that kind of a discussion on an emotionally mature level. Occasionally, I'm one of those people. When somebody challenges or assails your passionate beliefs on how things ought to be, it's difficult not to lash out in anger. All my life, I've had difficulty in controlling my emotional responses. This blog is part of an effort to do that better. So with that in mind, here's what I have to say about Sparkey's remarks.

First, more than anything else, Sparkey reinforces my opinion that most liberals are good people who have just been force-fed the liberal line all their lives, and don't know any better. That's honestly not meant to be condescending, because I used to be one of those people. Growing up, my parents called themselves Democrats, and so I naturally thought Democrats were on the right side of everything, even though I had no clue about what they believed. My parents were pretty young at the time, and later came to see things differently, but my indoctrination had begun. It was reinforced by the occasional news and political coverage that I did pay attention to. Looking back, I can see that what I was watching was just as slanted as what you see on the news today. The media back then did their best to do to Reagan what they're doing to Bush now… make him look like some weird combination of an inbred moron and a scheming, evil dictator. And because I watched it without question, I disliked Reagan. But I was young and stupid.

Interestingly, it appears that Sparkey thinks liberals are at a disadvantage in the media game. She says "I think (liberals) should have done what the Republicans did back in the 80s and early 90s - established an immense base of power by investment in and development of their own media outlets in radio, television, etc."

I'll give her a pass on the notion that the Republicans have established an immense base of media power for themselves. But she ignores the fact that Democrats have had their own immense base of power for years in the mainstream media. That media base of power continues today, and it's probably the biggest reason why an ultra-liberal candidate like John Kerry can get even 48 percent of the vote in a national election. If it weren't for liberal cheerleading (for Kerry) and undermining (of Bush) this election would have been a blowout of McGovern-esque proportions. It's a serious blind spot on the part of Sparky and most liberals to think otherwise.

Most people get their news from CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, USA Today, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press and Reuters. That's what you call the "mainstream media." And if that's the only place you get your news, you're getting a one-sided version of the story. On one level or another, those are all outlets that acknowledge themselves to be liberal. Surveys of people who work in these outlets indicate that they're better than 90 percent liberal.

They're all a little more hesitant to admit that their liberalism creeps into their news coverage, but it's true. They all allow the occasional conservative "commentator," but liberal thought dominates everything they do. If you get your news exclusively from those sources, you're being trained to be a liberal, and you're being trained to oppose conservative thinking. You can reject that premise if you wish, and continue your training.

Or you can think for yourself. Do a little reading on the conservative side of things, and decide if the other side is really as evil and wrongheaded as we're being made out to be. See my links over there if you'd like some suggestions. If you're truly interested in hearing both sides of things, a good place to start would be to read some specific examples of how the media is biased toward the liberal point of view. The best place I know to do that is the Media Research Center.

Responding to my assertion that liberals have lost it when they start talking about secession and civil war, Sparkey dismisses it by saying: "Both sides have represented themselves poorly in the past, and I am sure both will continue to do so in the future. Do you embrace those such as Michael Savage, when they say things like "I hope you get AIDS and die!"?

Well, of course not. I don't know much about Michael Savage, but what little I do know leads me to believe he's either a crackpot nutcase, or he's just trying to generate shock value entertainment like Howard Stern. In either case, I'm not really interested in what he has to say. When I made the statement about liberals and secession, I was talking about liberals that are a whole lot more mainstream than Michael Savage. Consider this from MSNBC Senior Political Analyst Lawrence O'Donnell, when asked about secession:

"Well, I'm not, uh, a proponent of it but what I've pointed out, which is separate and apart from the election result, is the dynamic that can make a discussion of secession over the next 20 years or so for certain states somewhat more serious than it is now, and that is the fact that the blue states pay for the federal government. Every single blue state pays more into the federal government than it receives from the federal government in federal spending. Virtually all of the red states, all but three of the red states, collect money from the federal government. They are, in effect, welfare recipients."

So you've got a "Senior Political Analyst" of a major cable network saying that he's not personally in favor of secession of the blue states, but trying to stir up people to think about it, and generating class division and resentment in the process. Hey, way to be a "uniter, not a divider," Larry. But even Lawrence O'Donnell has a certain fringe element about him. It's not like MSNBC has more than a few thousand viewers every night. When I talk about liberals going off the deep end, I'm talking about major networks like CBS using faked documents to try to defeat George Bush. How can anybody believes CBS gives unbiased coverage after that? I'm also talking about major, influential media figures and elected Democratic officials saying things that are just plain nuts.

So I'll wrap this thing up by asking Sparkey and other liberals if the following people are more mainstream and influential than someone like Michael Savage, and if they embrace comments such as these:

Former CBS Anchor and "the most trusted man in America," Walter Cronkite, on CNN’s Larry King Live, October 29, saying that he believes Republicans were working with Osama Bin Laden to manipulate the results of the election:
"I have a feeling that it [the bin Laden tape] could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I’m a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, that he probably set up bin Laden to this thing."

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, implying that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks:
"We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?"

Senator Ted Kennedy, asserting that the Iraq war was a fraud cooked up by George Bush and other Republicans for political and financial purposes:
"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud. My belief is this money is being shuffled all around to these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to send in troops."

Former Vice President Al Gore, saying that the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison is what should be expected when Republicans are in power:
"What happened at that prison, it is now clear, is not the result of random acts of a few bad apples. It was the natural consequence of the Bush administration policy."

More Gore:
"(Bush) promised to 'restore honor and integrity to the White House.' Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon."