Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Anyone think we need PBS

That's a pretty embarassing analysis. Rush must have been on extra Oxycontin that day.

"You take Nader out, I think, it's Kerry may be at 51 and Bush at 44, something like that, but figure six points here."

He THINKS?

He's doing math with guessing games, hasn't looked at the conditions of the polling, and is instead tossing out conjecture?

Sorry - this is lame by any standards.

Now Rick, back to my question about PBS:

In the absence of divinely granted objectivity by what means do you believe bias can be measured in PBS or other sources.

On what, other than your say so, do you believe decisions should be based?

Incidentally there was quite a bit of debate in the Clinton era when Newt Gingrich unsuccessfully tried to zero out PBS.

Of course that was when Gingrich was in the senate before becoming a political pariah.

Yes, debate again initiated by the "right," not by the left. This doens't seem at all problematic to you, from a checks and balances POV? Congress funds CPB. As out representatives, don't you think BOTH sides would on occasion have something to not like. If one never seems to, that doesn't raise any issues in your mind?

If not, I'll accept the title of "Paranoid" for both of us.

Good old Newt. Speaking of private conversations between politicos, how do you suppose a conversation between Newt and Dean would go? Suppose they'd be fighting over the binky?

Actually, I don't expect Congress to debate each and every line item in every budget cycle. And this year the committee - including thhe republicans - were quite explicit that this was NOT a matter of PBS's programming.

So I don't know why you'd continue to suggest there was even a debate on content anyway.


And in the case of CPB, I believe it was established with internal controls (ie appointments balanced between administrations/parties) so that it would function as an independent entity - not a political football, thus necessitating LESS debate.

It doesn't surprise me that the GOP as currently configured is anti-PBS. But not because I think it's biased.

Heh, reading that I realize this "debate" has move out of the "interesting" category and into the "stream of consciousness" category. The whole shebang probably better belongs on the Spaceopoly forum

What was the last thing on PBS that was biased?

Well, on NPR...just about anything by Steve Inskeep.

I agree that we've set new highs for quibbling over minutia on this one. Well, y'all have... I've been playing the role of kibbitzing bystander on this one. But I've been super-busy too. Working 40 hours a week and taking 8 hours of computer programming classes and calculus doesn't leave much time for being a talking head on Legion World.

Oh pshaw. You mean you can't forego an interesting and lucrative career in the future to spend time bullcrappin' here with us?

Pffffffaaaaaagggghhhh!

*Cries out in a sterntonin, hambone manner much like that of bad theatre


"Revoke his membership, I say!"

"The majority of those polled".

Which says nothing about the intelligence, the dispostition, etc... of those polled.

So, you can have a poll where the majority of people believe the sun is green and the moon is made of bratwurst. Doesn't mean that the poll is worth a damn, does it?

One little question for you, Joe.

you said this:

"If bias can't be accounted how can it be shown to exist?

And if it can't be shown to exist how can it's presence be ""clear"?"

so, my question is...

does LOVE exist?

If you would, give the numbers that quantify it. The empirical data on what form it exists in. Solid, liquid, gaseous?

The thing about a democratric model is the intelligence, disposition, etc doesn't matter.

Nor does it matter to questions that are subjective in nature. The composition of the moon is not a subjective matter.

Polls are not useful for determining non subjective information. Polls are, however, quite good for gathering opinion. Whether you respect the opinion is another matter. And what you do with the opinion is yet another.

But please believe me when I say that while I support the democratic model 100%, a part of me would be delighted if there were an IQ requirement.

Love, to my knowledge, does not exist outside a purely subjective experience.

But please note, I did not ask if bias exists. I asked how it can be shown to exist, and how its presence can be "clear". This is something very different.

Whether someone loves or is biased is a subjective opinion. You may believe it, and you might be right or might be wrong. I don't think anyone can reliably tell whether someone else feels love or not.

And that goes back to my question: In the absence of divinely granted objectivity by what means do you believe bias can be measured in PBS or other sources?

On what, other than your say so, do you believe decisions should be based?

I don't know why these questions seem to pose such a problem.

But thats just it, Joe. Determination of bias can also be subjective, whether you like to believe that or not. Those that dont want to see a bias, or think that seeing a bias would hurt their side will never admit to it. Dan Rather will die being unwilling to admit that he was a huge proponent of yellow journalism. He is just incapable of admitting it. He would regain massive amounts of credibility if he did for honest and real, but he never will.

Bias isnt only something quantatative is my point. It IS often in the eye of the beholder, because people approach things from different angles in life.

Terri Gross hates conservatives. She doesn't think that that colors her interviews, but i have heard her use the smarmy "gotcha" attitude and way of interviewing, and no, im not talking about bill orielly's interview.

Steve Inskeep tends to use incredulity and disbelief as his major weapon in trying to drive his point home on things he believes in.

Sorry man, i never claimed to have divine whatever, but neither am i stupid, and yes, i can filter not only information, but tone, reason, and purpose into the equation as well.

You can keep demanding empirical data on bias all you like, you can keep saying it hasn't been shown all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that some people that think for themselves are able to see a bias, on BOTH sides. Just because some poll taker or some government group hasn't said that it takes place doesn't mean that it hasn't.

As for why a republican wouldn't publish it if it went against or for him in a poll, there are many reasons, not the least of which is backroom dealing to get something he needs from a member of another party. He may even have a beef against a member of his own party and want to stick it in and break it off, much like John McCain and everyone else.

Reality is reality. People have unconcious reasons for things, sometimes buried so deep they destroy their lives without ever knowing it. Not admitting picking up on a bias of someone else's would hardly register for some people.

I'd like to hear a definition of "people who think for themselves," actually.

Pretty simple. We don't fall in along party lines "just because". We are capable of reviewing as much information as we can find, both that given to us and that which we find on our own, and from there proceeding. We are able to come to a conclusion as to the 'good sense' direction to take. Notice, i said 'good', not common.

Believe it or not, and i doubt you will, lol, i have crossed 'party' lines on more than one occasion. I do believe in the freedom of speech, for everyone, not just the politically correct ones, because i believe in that quote "i may not agree with what you say, but i will defend unto death your right to say it!" to paraphrase. You see, letting the dumbasses and evil ones have their say identifies them, gets them out in the open, exposes them to scrutiny, and allows you to defeat their arguements with reason and logic.

Thats why i believe that dumbasses like the worshipers of satan get a right to speak and have their religion. For one thing, i think it ironic that they think about god a lot more than some supposed christians. Cause without God, there is no satan.

I do think the neo-nazi's should be allowed to march and preah their hate, because this gives us a chance to see just who are the weakminded, the stupid, the sorry ones, and to obliterate their arguements.

I do think that a drunken driver is no different from a guy that fires a gun into a crowd. I don't think that two years is enough for vehicular homicide. And yet, i don't think the states should have the power to require seatbelts for everyone just because the insurance companies pay them enough to cover their asses.

Like it or not, just because you identify more with the conservative side doesn't mean you march in lockstep, are a religious fanatic, or a part of "unsophisticated fly-over country".

The good thing about "fly over" country people, they tend to distill the bovine fecal matter out and get to the basics of the thing. We have a tendancy to not be paralyzed by "nuance". Thats for diplomats, not for the basic governing of the country.

The bad thing is that sometimes, some conservatives do tend to get a holier than thou attitude.

And i see the same thing on the left as well.

Its been a while, i was just going over some old threads and this one popped up.

Financial collapse. Called it.

Government realizing that tax cuts will help the economy? Hmmm, from what i hear, Obama has already gone back on his word and will NOT be raising taxes on the rich.

Still, all in all, this was one hellashishly fine debate.