Captain's Quarters -

I find it ironic to say the least that Durbin is proposing that best decisions are made by a fully informed public at a time when a stealth immigration bill is being pushed through in violation of all normal lawmaking principle.

Also the left is free and has no restriction from creating liberal or progressive voices on the radio.
Their chosen method and how they package it which fails in the marketplace should not be blamed on the right for their own failure.

Gee, what a surprise.

Today's Democrat Congress consists of far left, intolerant (of Americans), elitist, stupid, selfish men and women, who don't care about this country or the people who live here.

The only thing even remotely "liberal" about them is that they favor unmitigated license and high crime rates.

These are people who think nude dancing is constitutionally protected, but political speech that they disagree with is not.

Nothing good will come out of the Democrat Congress and anyone who hopes that something will, is either ignorant or delusional.

What's truly frightening is that these lunatic left criminals might soon have control of all three branches of government, which means they will likely move to stamp out all dissent, period.

It's the kind of people Congressional Democrats are. Walking, talking piles of manure.

The Fairness Doctrine is stupid. You can't force people to be reasonable.

...and if you disagree...according to some, you are "unreasonable".

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story,. . ."

It's a fallacy right from the get go. There are not two sides to any issue, there are multiple ones.

"I find it ironic to say the least that Durbin is proposing that best decisions are made by a fully informed public at a time when a stealth immigration bill is being pushed through in violation of all normal lawmaking principle."

An excellent point, as is the Cap'n's observation of just how pathetic your arguments must be if you have to try to force people to listen to them (and even more pathetic is that even then people will still reject the agruments by simply walking away).

Aside from once again bringing about the end of AM radio, the only things that resurrecting the "Fairness" Doctrine will achieve are:

1. Silencing political speech under the guise of "promoting" it;

2. More needless government overreach and interference with the free market of ideas; and

3. Settting a precedent for what the donks no doubt anticipate will be the next round: regulating, if not silencing, Internet speech.

Scratch a liberal, and you'll find a totalitarian underneath. Q.E.D.

This is classic left-think!

Step one is always an avalanche of bogus "studies" to prove that a free media market either doesn't exist or fails to yield "optimal" results. That's why the CAP report focuses on structure and ownership, and rigs the data to force the desired conclusion. Look for more "studies" to follow and all of them will use the same methods to push the same notion; freedom doesn't work!

Step two will undoubtedly be more bogus studies to illustrate the "damage" done by an overzealous dependence on a "broken" market mechanism. Same methodologies to force the same conclusions; freedom doesn't work!

Step three will always be Federal Government intervention to "restore a sensible balance" and repair the damage done by the aforementioned over dependence on a "broken" free media market.

The entire process is founded on the notion that liberal left ideas are inherently enlightened and virtuous, and that if a free media market doesn't result in widespread acceptance of that "truth", then obviously something must be wrong. After all, no one of any substance or intellectual acuity could possibly doubt that, once expressed clearly and frequently, liberal left ideas would inevitably be accepted as true and good. Therefore, given the stubborn resistance to these "truths" and the failure of Air America, it must be clear to everyone of good conscience that freedom doesn't work!

There won't be any increase in liberal talk radio. The Fairness doctrine will be used to turn off conservative talk radio. It is time to start calling the liberals what they really are: tyrants.

The spectrum of hosts and shows at NPR range from centrist to very liberal.

They have conservative voices on all the time on NPR, mostly when they bring in people to discuss the news.

When discussing issues of the day, NPR almost always provides both sides on an issue. They are the standard by which to go by.

What the Fairness Doctrine aims to do is create programming akin to NPR where stations give opinions from both sides on big topics of the day. I just don't think you can force stations to do that. It's like invading a country to install democracy.

"Imbalance" is self-correcting if you just let the market work. The whole talk radio phenomenon is exactly that--a market self-correction to a glaring imbalance. If the news departments of ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS were a little more balanced twenty-years ago, Rush Limbaugh might still have just an afternoon radio show in Sacramento, heard nowhere else. If Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin (or Dan Rather for that matter) want to see who created conservative talk radio, they should look in the mirror.

There are not two sides to any issue, there are multiple ones.

But a lot of times in American politics, things get boiled down to being for or against something... like the Immigration Bill or pardoning Scooter Libby.

conservative on what standard.

I remember an old stalinist that I used to debate declaring that known socialists were conservative. And compared to him, they were.

The idea that NPR routinely covers both sides of an issue is laughable. The idea that it fairly covers both sides is so far from reality that only someone lost in the depths of liberal dementia could believe it.

At best, NPR would spend 25 minutes giving the liberal perspective, then in the last couple of minutes they would give a, here's what the idiots on the other side believe synopsis of what liberals think conservatives believe.

It is more than clear that this "congress" made up mostly of old men and women needs new blood. Unfortunately, most of the "new" blood will end up being brainwashed tinfoil hatted leftist loons raised and educated in the most uber liberal institutions of the past thirty years. This is what we have come to. This is the future, only worse! We need, I strongly believe, a third party to begin to balance the insanity that has been the "congress"in the past forty years. Barring that, we can look towards an Islamist country in the next 50-100 years. By the time even the left wakes to the terror, it will be too late. It is the greatest shame that the first and only experiment of its kind, America, is ceasing to exist even as I type this.

"Scratch a liberal, and you'll find a totalitarian underneath"

Well said and to the point; sums up what I think of the 'Fairness Doctrine' and NPR.

The good ol' USA is well down the road to totalitarianism. That the Capt. rebuts totalitarian bull with facts symbolizes the assymetric nature of the conflict. They are winning. Like the Jihadists, the totalitarians among us are patient; they endure. They will win.

I'm not really qualified to express an opinion on whether NPR has a decidedly liberal 'slant' or not these days. The last time I was an active listener was during the Bork SC confirmation hearings. I tuned in to NPR which carried the entire process. The coverage was so over the top, sneeringly, and smugly hostile towards Bork - - nothing even REMOTELY resembling objectivity or balance, I stopped listening after that. I mean, come on (was it Nina Totenberg? I can't recall now) can't you at least make a TINY token attempt to hide your complete distaste for Bork?

Oh, I did tune in to the news a few times, by accident while scanning the channels on my car radio, over the next few years. My last time was during the Clinton's first term....and I caught a couple of minutes concerning some legislation being pushed by Clinton. I recall the typical fawning, uncritical tone used for Clinton..."President Clinton vowed to stay above the fray and reiterated his committment to seeing through passage of much needed reforms in the..........but meanwhile, over on Capital Hill, 'partisan bickering' continued unabated, with republican attacks on....."

I commented to myself.....'yep, Noble Saint Bill.....and it is always the Pubs who engage in 'partisan bickering' .......guess nothing has changed," and I promptly changed the channel.

Haven't listened since. Perhaps now they make more of an attempt to be objective and balanced. Somehow I doubt it.

As for the Fairness Doctrine, the Shamnesty debacle should have taught all of us, once and for all, that there are really no Repubs and Dems on Captial Hill. Just incumbants. And the Pubs have been getting SO hammered by conservative talk radio over Shamnesty, don't be surprised if a lot of THEM end up supporting measures to silence the radio voices who connect with the "base" who are so up in arms over Shamnesty. Do you think John McCain/Feingold, who is getting SLAMMED by conservative voices would resist shutting them down? Ya think?

I'll try not to say "I told you so" when the RINO Party of America and the Socialist Party of America combine forces to attempt to ensure that ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/NPR are once again our only source of information outsight the internet. With Shamnesty, they are getting some decent practice on 'bipartisan cooperation,' aren't they

An unnoticed so far side of the “Fairness” doctrine is that it would in effect force to attach a liberal point of view to ANY other. Implementation obviously wouldn’t work as intended, so next we could create a “Fairness Office” to look for the “real fairness”. If such office would decide, that it couldn’t be reasonably achieved on some topics, we would most likely have to drop both sides from the air…
In fair language it would be simply called censorship. But intentions are always, always, oh, so noble…

Lew: YES.

...and according to Shipley...the Captain's "Guru" lefty. NPR is the example. "Fair and Balanced"...and he says: "You can't force people to be reasonable."

If you disagree you must be unreasonable.

What the Fairness Doctrine aims to do is create programming akin to NPR where stations give opinions from both sides on big topics of the day. I just don't think you can force stations to do that. It's like invading a country to install democracy.

And you wonder why I think you lie, Tom. (rolls eyes) You are mischaracterizing this, and you are doing it on purpose. No, its not like that at all, and I am not going to let you get away with it. You are trying to conflate two separate issues, thinking you'll get a smart little barb in and no one wlll notice. Think again. This is not like overthrowing an autocrat where people have had no voice in their government for decades and allowing them a democratic choice. This, to the contrary, is just the opposite. This is taking away choices which currently exist. The Founders believed that the ability to have a choice in government is a God-given right, not something and thus democracy cannot be "installed" Government cannot impose God-given liberties which are the inherent right of all men and women; and like all liberals, you inevitably reveal with your words your contempt for this idea, whether you realize it or not. This is not like "invading a country and installing democracy". This is like instituting sharia law.

Either you believe in the free market or you don't. Once again, the "progressives" have chosen the side of totalitarianism in the so-called best interest of the people.

About a year ago NPR released a study attempting to prove they were fair and balanced.

It tried to break it down by number of conservative , centrist and liberal guests and total programming minutes.

However it was a faulty study in that many they cast as centrists were clearly in the liberal to extreme liberal camp.

The study they did was purely bad data and manipulation of it to reach a desired result.

Johnny,

My point with the "installing democracy" comment was, you can't force people to do the "right thing."

I don't think anyone would disagree that multiple view points on the radio would be a bad thing. Just as I don't think many Americans would argue that an Iraqi democracy would be a bad thing.

Problem is, when you try and force people to do either of those things, you get push back. It's no longer that act of "free people" but of people doing so because of a law or because a large foreign military force is patrolling the streets. People don't like to be forced to do things and they're going to rebel against something that's ultimately good.

Trader:
¡No me diga!

Two points:

1.) If there's a lack of "balance" in talk radio, its because the market won't bear it. And the market is the "We the People" making our choices known.

2.) If Sens. Durbin and Feinstein are really worried about "fairness", I'd suggest they go after their toadies in the MSM.

"People don't like to be forced to do things and they're going to rebel against something that's ultimately good."

Very nice. Too bad it doesn't stop the lefties from figuring out new ways to spend money (that isn't theirs)...welfare, education, AIDS, medicare etc etc....those are all things that are "ultimately good"? Will people like Tom really became a man of his word...and stop trying to force us to be "good"? ....or does that concept only go for non-Americans?

welfare, education, AIDS, medicare etc etc

That's why we debate these issues and have people run for spots in our representative government on issues like these.

Also, there's a difference between funding AIDS research, providing government-funded medical care and education.

These things aren't the government telling people what to do. You don't have to send your kids to public schools. You don't have to take part in medicaid.

Now, you may argue that they are taking YOUR money to pay for those things. Yes, the government is. But, that's the price of living in a country like ours. Taxes are inevitable. And noone is going to like everything our tax dollar goes toward (see the Iraq war).

Tom, I'm not going to belabor this, but the problem with your argument is that you assume that one of the oldest civilizations in the world, one from whom many of the current ideas of human rights originated,would not have chosen a representative republic in the absence of Saddam Hussein. Not only is that view insular, its racist, too.

And that is where the obfuscation comes in, Tom. No one is "forcing" the Iraqis to do anything, and you know it. On the contrary. Iraqis, previous to the trademark evil Chimperor BusHitler IraqNam invasion (Trademarked, of course). were being "forced" not to vote, were being "forced" to accept Saddam Hussein as President for Life, were being "forced" to curtail their freedom of speech, press, assembly, and not to mention "forced" to often also curtail their lives at the whims of this nut and his hellspawn sons. Somehow, all those things that people were being "forced" to do then, which I might add, we stopped, never bothered you.

In contrast, no one "forced" Iraqis to write their constitution the way they did, no one "forced" almost 90% of Iraqis to go to the polls, twice. No one "forced" Iraqis to do so even in the face of threats of violence, or even at all. No one "forced" Iraqi women to run for office, when they had not done so.

So, knowing that, when you raise the specious canard that we "installed" democracy, it is revealed to be either a) gross ignorance or b) a lie to buttress a failing argument about why you are opposed to the war. That notwithstanding, people in this country ARE, as you said, being "forced" to accept on radio a point of view which is freely available if sought, and one, that I would think, if popular, would easily be marketable in the marketplace of ideas.

Tom, be opposed to the war. That I can respect. There are plenty of reasonable, legitimate reasons to do so. You shouldn't have to make stuff up or repeat tired, oft refuted talking points to do it, though.

Johnny,

Are you for fucking real? I'm sorry for the language, Ed, but I try my best to be even-kealed on here and debate topics. But to call me racist for my post above... I'll respond to your idiotic post later johhny, in the meantime, go fuck yourself.

You don't have to send your kids to public schools.

No, you don't. You just have to spend a lot more money. And yet, liberals also oppose school choice. Wonder why that is?

Well...there you have it...

Wow...and this whole time I thought ol' Ship would save a tirade like that for someone who called him something really "bad" ....like "faggot".

"That's why we debate these issues and have people run for spots in our representative government on issues like these"

Wasn't Bush re-elected....during the war?

Lol. Guess I struck a nerve there, huh, Tom? And just so you know, Tom, I understood your point, which incidentally, I agree with. I was just saying that you were intentionally using a hyperbolized and illegitimate example to do it.

And your hysterical, drama-queen response notwithstanding, Tom, the argument that an oppressed people are incapable of creating a representative government themselves without having it "installed" by the Western world, is ...yes, that's right, Tom...inherently (gasp) racist. That doesn't make YOU a racist, Tom, nor did I accuse you of such, despite your self-righteous indignation. But you should at least realize when you are duped into using the same arguments by those who are.

But you know how the old saying goes: "When the shoe fits........tell the person to go fuck himself."

Have a swell day, tiger. Lol.

Air America tanked because the ideas it tried to spread had no audience.

In short: it sucked.

And since the people won't listen to "reason", well, we'll just make sure they get some anyway.

You know, for the children.

Poor widdle Tom Shipley.

Being called a racist is hard.

But Tom, why don't you take your own advice? Earlier you said, "You don't have to send your kids to public schools."

You're right Tom. You do have to pay outrageously high school taxes though, for "schools" that undermine the values parents attempt to teach their children.

And you have the "choice" to pay even more, so your kid doesn't become, well, Tom Shipley, gaffo, dave, tommynut or one of the other kind, tolerant lefties who regularly use profanity on this forum.

So Tom, you don't have to take offense at being called a racist.

Lousy, Democrat run public schools cost me at least $1500 a year.

How about you pay me $1500 for the right to call me a racist?

(I think I'm going to get the same reply johnny got. )

Throwing the racist term out there when someone is trying to discuss things rationally is just the lowest of lows. I've already had to withstand you constantly calling me a liar, and the racist label was just the last straw.

First off,
Tom, the argument that an oppressed people are incapable of creating a representative government themselves without having it "installed" by the Western world, is ...yes, that's right, Tom...inherently (gasp) racist.

This is NOT my argument. I don't know if you're dumb or didn't read what I said, but it is in no way my argument. In fact, I'm arguing exactly the opposite.

First of all, what is happening right now is infact the US attempting to install a democracy in Iraq. We appointed our guys to run the show, who then brought in their own guys to write a constitution. The US put the people in place who wrote the Iraqi constitution. NOT the iraqi people.

My point is that a democracy has to come from within. There has to be a popular will of the people -- a movement that leads to it.

If there was anything like that, it dissipated after the US invaded and installed their guys to run the show. People are more loyal to militias than they are to the US backed government. The current government is NOT the people's government. And you're seeing that manifest in the strong and persistent insurgency.

In no way did i ever say or insinuate that Iraqis were not capable of installing their own democracy. For you to read what I said as being racist is... I don't know... it's stupid and dishonest and I've had enough of your idiotic attacks on me. I'll debate you on issues til the cows come home, but when you repeatedly call me a liar then a racist, well, damn right I'm going to tell you to fuck off.

Oh, and Tom, that;s for demonstrating more eloquently than I ever could how so-called "progressives" deal with ideas opposed to their own:

1) Mischaracterization
2) Hyperbole
3) Profanity

To your credit, though, you did, at least for now, avoid #4: censorship/call for me to be banned/"fairness doctrine".

Good for you!!

Shifting back to the topic at hand: the Fairness Doctrine, to be brutally honest, it is a bald faced effort at silencing a very vocal and influential means of dissent. And no, it is not limited to left wing legislators--Trent Lott's recent proclamation as regards the immigration bill that we should shut up and listen to our betters came through loud and clear to me.

Tom, you're right in that people will push back if the Fairness Doctrine is initiated: Other venues will be used--the internet, satellite radio, etc.; but we're already seeing efforts on the part of the FCC to extend its reach into other venues as seen by its statement that it has the right to regulate cable television as well as broadcast. It's a short reach from there to satellite radio and the internet.

As regards the 'unbiased' nature of NPR, I'm sorry, I have to disagree strongly with that statement: through tone, inflection, story priority, and through time alloted to commentators, you can readily see that NPR does tilt noticeably towards the left--not to mention how far slanted Pacifica Radio is.

What I am seeing here--and what frightens me, to be brutally honest, is the trend this Congress is showing with both its ramrodding of the immigration bill over the overwhelming objection of Americans from all across the political spectrum, and this movement towards resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine. Both of these acts show me that we are dealing with a Congress that no longer considers itself to be the representatives of the people--rather, it seems to me that it is taking the position that it is a ruling elite--in other words, an oligarchy. This is an incredibly dangerous development--one that could well bode ill for the future.

Be careful of what you wish. They (Dem Congress) may very well expand the Fairness Doctrine to more than just talk radio.

In fact they will demand TV, newsprint, old media to be "fair". And we get the current output, plus nutroots.

I don't know, I think NPRs news coverage is pretty even. The only way I can see it as biased is maybe in story selection, but I still don't know about that.

Their tone is as straight forward as you can get. A recent story example was a story on how the military handles psychological problems among soldiers and whether it's an issue that's really taken seriously among the military. NPR sat in on a military training session on the topic, interviewed mulitiple members of the military as well as outside psychiatrists. It was very straightforward, non-biased and very informative report. They do this all the time.

I also recall a story on the school board (in PA, I believe) that was voted out of office because they made intelligent design part of the science curriculum. It basically was a story on the debate whether it should be included or not. NPR interviewed someone opposed and someone for it being included. they showed both sides of the argument with zero insinuation as to who was "right" or "wrong."

If you don't believe me, turn on your local NPR station today. I think you'll find it more balanced than you think.

Don't forget many public radio stations that carry NPR for 6 hours a day ((often repeating both morning and afternoon editions) ) also carry:

- As It Happens (Leftist CBC content)
- Fresh Air (Terry Gross's unhinged half-hour of hate balanced with a half-hour of celebrity fawning)
- BBC (who has recently confessed to having lost all objectivity)

Our local NPR affiliate spends more than 70% daily on leftist coverage, balanced with a few hours of jazz and local content. While it's certainly inappropriate telling a private station owner what to program, taxpayer-subsidized stations such as KIOS in Omaha definitely deserve the Fairness Doctrine.

Oh, red! What a card! Like a Dem congress would ever apply FD to NPR! Nope, the moonbats think that it's already "balanced."

Again, Tom, methinks thou doth protest too much. And your response to my "attacks" on you are telling in and of themselves.. You are using intentionally misleading and dishonest arguments, one of which was racist, to support a point of view you seem to be having difficulty defending. That you cannot or refuse to accept that is not my problem, Tom, as is obvious for all to see. But a lie of omission is still a lie.

Despite your denials, when you insist that the US "installed" the Iraqi government, and continue to omit the point that they have had two elections with over 80% turnout, which even the Carter Center viewed as free and fair, then you are saying by default one of two things: either a) at this point the Iraqis, despite free elections which they have already had, are incapable of creating democracy and one had to installed for them, or b) we are overriding the actual wishes of the Iraqis by installing a democracy, which presumes their actual wishes would be something other than what they voted for, which was representative government. The same arguments were made in WWII regarding the Japanese and the Germans. They were racist then, they're racist now. Again, that doesn't make you a racist, even though you hilariously took it that way. But you should understand exactly what it is you're saying. Why do you think you're an exception to that?

If you want to argue that iraqis made choices, but only from the ones we give them, then that, while still not entirely true, is an acceptable point of debate. But that has not what you argued. And if Iraqis used those choices, that Constitution, (which by the way, Tom, if you had bothered to read it, has a clause for revision by the elected Parliament) to form their own government, whether that is an Islamic theocracy or an atheistic totalitarian state, Tom; while you and I would disagree with that, in my opinion, that's their business. But Iraqis HAVE had the opportunity to do that, and yet they haven't, Tom.

My point is that a democracy has to come from within.

True enough, but that's not what you are arguing. You're arguing that it hasn't, with no evidence other than you're ideology, and in the face of two free elections which everyone viewed as fair.

But you didn't even rise to the occasion to argue that, Tom. No, you just said we installed democracy" which for the reasons I stated above, all of which you unsurprisingly ignored...is horseshit. And, Tom, the fact that you continue to insist this in the face of all the obvious evidence to the contrary, and in the context of your obvious intelligence, then yes, Tom, one must conclude that you are indeed lying.

I'll debate you on issues til the cows come home

Oh, so that was what "go fuck yourself" was? lol.
Hey, great, glad to hear it. Try to do it without using canards, hyperbole, or regurgitating arguments which are inherently racist, though. Again, my previous assessment stands.

Oh, and switch to decaf, Tom.

Remember though, you, as admittedly am I, do look at bias through the lens of our own perceptions. To you, NPR might be an unbiased source while FOX would be incredibly biased and vice versa for a conservative--FOX would be the unbiased venue while NPR would be slanted. The key here is the language used in the reporting: how are conservatives referred to for instance? Is someone such as Victor Davis Hanson, for example, described as a published author and scholar or is he described as a 'conservative pundit'? Both statements are true, but which one carries a greater gravitas? Which one do you think NPR or ABC etc would use? As regards tone, I have heard what could be best described as a snide tone used by some NPR commentators as regards conservative figures and positions.

Actually, I don't have a problem with a newspaper, news channel, etc. having a slant--provided they're honest about it. All you have to do is read most 19th and early 20th century newspapers and you'll immediately see just how 'objective' these news sources were. The thing was, everyone knew where they were coming from. Personally, I always try to get my news from a variety of sources. I hit here and the other blogs such as Hot Air, I also hit Kirsten Powers' site, Moderate Voice, and other sites from the center and left. I get my news from my local paper, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, Fox, CNN, and yes, NPR as well--time permitting of course.

The point here is though, that liberal talk radio by and large fails because the left's ideology does not really play well with the opinions of the majority of the American population--especially those Americans who live in what is sometimes called "flyover country". But the reasons for why I think that is the case would call for a whole new thread of discussion all together.

Tom Shipley sez:

"I don't know, I think NPRs news coverage is pretty even. "

LOL. Even NPR's own ombudsman admitted in 2003 that their news coverage was tilted to the left:

excerpt:

http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/2003/030314.html

"March 14, 2003

Are Some Ideas Too Uncomfortable for NPR?

By Jeffrey A. Dvorkin
Ombudsman
National Public Radio

Are there points of view that should not be aired on NPR? Many listeners have written to say that NPR is playing it far too safe by putting on an "acceptable" range of ideas on when discussing the potential hostilities with Iraq.

The issue around pro and anti-war opinion is the case in point. As listener Larry Krengel writes:

I have no problem with criticism. It is healthy when it is (as it generally is on NPR) well-informed. I encourage your exploration of opinions from all political alleys. Yet, when you repeat multiple times per hour the same anti-administration bite -- disguised as a program promo -- it seems that you are advocating, not advertising.

I am not set in the Bush camp, but I am strongly American. Please hire and fire as necessary to provide a healthy, objective observation and interpretation of world events.

Please do not abandon your skeptical approach to the events of the day. (I'm sure you won't.) But please give the establishment point of view its due also.

Mr. Krengel raises an interesting issue for all media -- not just NPR. It is about which ideas and which voices are considered "acceptable" -- both by NPR and its listeners.

'Not All Anti-war Voices Are on the Left'

In the case of the possible war with Iraq, the story does not seem to break down into left vs. right. But there seems to be an emerging trend of pro-war and anti-war. People from the right tend to be more pro-war -- but not exclusively. The opposite holds for the anti-war side. There are conservatives who oppose going to war for a variety of reasons.

NPR has interviewed many voices on whether a war against Iraq is in the best interests of the Middle East and of America.

On the anti-war side, we have heard from anti-war civilians and even one anti-war American diplomat.

Since the beginning of February 2003, on Morning Edition, we have heard anti-war opinions from Russell Martin, Fawaz Gerges, Trudy Rubin, Kevin Phillips and James Reston. Pro-war commentaries have come from Austin Bay and Matt Miller.

All Things Considered has had anti-war commentaries from Peter Gershwin, Fenton Johnson and Alexs Pate. Pro-war voices have included Ken Adelman and Ken Harbaugh.

There seems to be an imbalance of anti-war voices on NPR, thus proving Mr. Krengel's point."

Please note: This sentence originally said "pro-war" and has been corrected to say "There seems to be an imbalance of anti-war voices on NPR, thus proving Mr. Krengel's point.")

To be fair, I don't listen NPR enough anymore to be able to tell, but I don't recall a particularly leftist point of view, except perhaps when I had the misfortune to catch the "Dianne Rehms show" or the "Tavis Smiley Show"

I am more concerned with NPR being federally funded in general. Taxpayer dollars should not be going towards this, regardless of their ideology.

As for the Fairness Doctrine, I'm sorry, I think that genie is out of the bottle. I agree with everyone here, but I just don't think it will fly, no matter how fervently it is supported in Congress. Information is too readily available, and I don't think they will be able to surmount the groundswell of very, very public opposition to this, not to mention, I would suspect, numerous Supreme Court challenges, possibly led by Hushed Rush himself. Nope, I think this is political suicide for any politician that tries it.

True enough, but that's not what you are arguing.

Yes it is. Two elections does not a democracy make. It's funny that you cite mischaricization as one of the "tactics" of liberals, when that's all you've done with the arguments I've made.

See the italicized line above. You're telling me what I'm saying is not what I'm saying.

Invading Iraq to enstall a democracy is inherently an undemocratic action. ANd it's an especially doomed operation when the country that does the invading is held in such contempt by the region it's entering. We had good intentions. But those intentions don't mean anything when people see American soldiers patroling their streets.

Yes, people voted in the elections. But what has happened since then? They've joined militias. They've joined the insurgency. The sunni/shi'ite division in Iraq has greatly widened. They HAVE NOT come together as a unified country.

Sure, they voted. Why wouldn't they? Voting is easy. Comprising, standing together, fighting for the government is hard. And they haven't done that since the votes because there was never that unity to begin with.... there was never that movement. It was all at the instigation of the Americans. And as the Iraqi public tires more and more of the Americans, the support for the government they installed lessens.

One more thing, don't take my argument then tell me it could only mean one of two things, both of which are racist views (I also like how you split hair by saying I have a racist opinion but am not a racist... how kind). Talk about mischaricterizing another person's arguments. Seriously.

Johnny, You rock! What’d you do…eat TWO bowls of Wheaties this morning?

But: "Nope, I think this is political suicide for any politician that tries it."

I heard much the same about the shamnysty deal. But where are we now...?

Sure, they voted. Why wouldn't they? Voting is easy.

Car bombs, suicide bombers, death threats if you happen to have a purple finger, yeah, voting is easy in Iraq...

Let's recall that Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) gave the game away in Jan. 2005:

Talk radio has become dominated by shows that are "right wing, even neo-fascist," he said, adding that even the best newspapers gave readers a "con job" by reporting false information fed by the administration.

"This should make every single citizen in America deeply concerned," he told conference attendees. "What lies will they tell in the future to jeopardize this democratic republic or even end this democratic republic? That is the objective of many of those involved."

How far might the left want to push this?

Asked whether a Fairness Doctrine for newspapers is worth considering, particularly in cities with only one major newspaper, Hinchey responded, "It is, but the big thing now is for television and radio. The primary focus is on the broadcasting system, because that is where most Americans get their news." Partisan newspapers is nothing new, he added, noting that Colonial Era publishers attacked both Jefferson and Madison.

Isn't it nice of Tom to declare that funding of his welfare is just the price we have to pay to live in a democracy.

But he is willing to allow us to not benefit from these programs if we really object.

Anybody who openly declares that any race of people just can't handle democracy, as you have done Tom, is a defacto racist.

I'm not surprised that you have convinced yourself otherwise. But your words have convinced most of us.

"Voting is easy."

Yeah, HERE it is. Not so much so in Iraq. Funny then that they turned out to cast their choice in far greater proportion than we typically do here in the USA.

Anybody who openly declares that any race of people just can't handle democracy, as you have done Tom, is a defacto racist.

Are you kidding? Man, there are some idiots on this site.

Mark, please cut and paste where I say a race of people cannot handle democracy.

What I have said is that the way the US has gone about trying to bring democracy to Iraq has made it nearly impossible for democracy to take hold in Iraq.

My reasonings have nothing to do with race and I have not once said Iraqis are incapable of having a democracy. I just believe that our actions in invading Iraq have put the cause of democracy back in Iraq, not furthered it.

Think about it. Who are the heroes of the American Revolution? Washington, Hamilton, Paul Revere... these are Britons who revolted against their government and formed America.

Some republicans have this pipe dream that George Bush is going to be the hero of Iraq for generations to come. Well, I have news for you all, it's a hell of a lot more likely that Al-Sadr will be revered in Iraq in 200 years than George Bush. The Iraqis have not chosen this form of government. It was installed by America.

Yes, people voted, but actions speak louder than votes. And the chaos we see in Iraq today is due in large part to the US trying to force democracy on Iraq.

"And the chaos we see in Iraq today is due in large part to the US trying to force democracy on Iraq."

Chaos?

Tom obviously prefers the peaceful rape rooms, the VX gas labs, the chemical munitions factories, the children's prisons and the execution chambers of Saddam.

Tom is another far left proponent of "peace". The "peace" of the jackboot trampling the peasant, the "peace" of those terrified by their own government and the "peace" of the unmarked grave.

Dictators only need a few men willing to batter and bully the population into submission, but they need millions of the Tom Shipleys of the world, little weaselly useful idiots who excuse the behavior of the dictator and seek to appease him.

Donk,

You mean little weasly useful idiots like Ronald Reagan???

Gee Tom, I don't recall Reagan pining for the day when a deposed dictator was in power.

You, on the other hand, must cry yourself to sleep each night with your thumb in your mouth, hugging your little Saddam doll.

Good one, Donk. What time does your mom pick you up from computer lab?

"What time does your mom pick you up from computer lab?"

About the same time your Maddrass kindergarten lets out. Perhaps we can carpool.

ND. LOL. So true.

I propose the "Monty Python Fairness Doctrine of 2008" (as described in the "All-England Summarize Proust Competitiont"):

"We couldn't immediately find anyone to provide political balance, so we'll just give the microphone to the girl with the biggest t*ts."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8rhIw_9ucA

Actually, I prefer this video of the 2008 Democratic Party candidates. But which one is Mrs. Bill Clinton?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMSic0V-Xww

Actually, I prefer this video of the 2008 Democratic Party candidates. But which one is Mrs. Bill Clinton?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMSic0V-Xww

Someone needs to tell the Liberal Socialists that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of Religion and Freed om of Speech - but NOTHING IN THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION guarantees Socialism a permanent slot or segment in our Government - or the Socialists the right to kidnap and torture an audience and brainwash them - they have NO GUARANTEED QUOTA of our government.

THEY HAVE TO EARN THEIR AUDIENCE AND THEIR VOTES from legal citizens, who are still alive.

Scratch a liberal, and you'll find a totalitarian underneath. Q.E.D.

Posted by: Gaius Livius at June 27, 2007 8:36 AM
**********************

Well, YEAH! SO BLOODY DUH!!!

Since Liberals are openly STALINISTS, whether they "forgot" to inform themselves of that fact, or not:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
--Norman Thomas in 1969, former U.S. Socialist Party Presidential Candidate

CURRENT DEMOCRAT PLATFORM

(Stalin's ) Communist Goals (1963)
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963

Extremely telling, when you post the entire agenda, and the Liberals who CLAIM they are not COMMUNISTS or STALINISTS will not bat an eyelash, or tell you which STALINIST ITEMS OF THE AGENDA they stand firmly AGAINST....

AND KEEP ON WORKING FULL FORCE FOR THE ENTIRE PLATFORM.

Have yet to witness one of them recoil in horror, AS I DID WHEN I FIRST READ IT.

Will people like Tom really became a man of his word...and stop trying to force us to be "good"? ....or does that concept only go for non-Americans?

Posted by: swabjockey05 at June 27, 2007 9:55 AM
***********************

And we all know exactly what these Liberals think constitutes a "good" Conservative American, don't we? DEAD.

OOPS! Oh , gee, how do they extract TAXES from DEAD Americans?

At best, NPR would spend 25 minutes giving the liberal perspective, then in the last couple of minutes they would give a, here's what the idiots on the other side believe synopsis of what liberals think conservatives believe.

Posted by: MarkW at June 27, 2007 8:56 AM

*************************

NOT EVEN IN ITS ENTIRE HISTORY have there been 25 minutes of Conservative OR FOUNDING FATHERS' perspective on NPR or the ENTIRE NEA program - ALL PUT TOGETHER.

Just like when they give $265 million to Planned Parenthood for legal expenses to sue America, and another huge amount to the ACLU, do they give MATCHING FUNDS to ACLJ and to PRO-LIFE groups for lobbying and legal fees to sue America in THEIR behalf?

SO LOL!

Socialists in the Dim and GOP act like THEY HAVE AN INHERENT RIGHT to dominate our Govt.

Ok, I can’t let this go. Calling someone racist (or, I’m sorry Johnny, saying someone has racists views), is a serious thing (at least for me). I don’t take it lightly, and I’m not going to let Johnny get away with calling me one when I in no way made any racist remarks.
Now, Johnny, you accuse me of mischaracterization in a post. But that’s exactly what you did with my argument.

Here’s the exact point you did it:

you assume that one of the oldest civilizations in the world, one from whom many of the current ideas of human rights originated, would not have chosen a representative republic in the absence of Saddam Hussein. Not only is that view insular, its racist, too.

Now, read again the post you responded to:

My point with the "installing democracy" comment was, you can't force people to do the "right thing."

I don't think anyone would disagree that multiple view points on the radio would be a bad thing. Just as I don't think many Americans would argue that an Iraqi democracy would be a bad thing.

Problem is, when you try and force people to do either of those things, you get push back. It's no longer that act of "free people" but of people doing so because of a law or because a large foreign military force is patrolling the streets. People don't like to be forced to do things and they're going to rebel against something that's ultimately good.

Where in there do I assume Iraq would not have chosen democracy in absence of Hussein? I don’t. No where. It’s not even implied.

What I say is that because we invaded and set up our own government as a groundwork for a democracy (all the while our troops around patrolling the cities of Iraq), we are in essence forcing a democracy on Iraq. They didn’t ask us to come in and do this… we decided to do this. We didn’t take out Saddam then leave and let the Iraqis to figure out what they want to do with their country, we stayed, set up the provisional American government who then appointed Iraqis to write a constitution. The decision for an Iraq to become a democracy was an American one, not an Iraqi. That’s just a fact.

If we hadn’t invaded, I would hope we kept pressure on Hussein, fostered any democratic movement inside Iraq so that when Hussein was weak enough, there could have been an internal movement toward democracy. Whether that could have happened was made a moot point with the invasion.

So, again, Johnny, you mischaracterized my views as racist (I still challenge you to show me the exact words I used that made you believe my views were racist). Then accused me of mischaracterization. I honestly don’t know how or why you did this. I won’t make any assumptions about this.