L, I’m going to take only one issue at a time since you triggered some frustrations of mine. I’ve bookmarked your blog, but if you’re starting law school I don’t see how you’ll have time to blog much. I will be very interested in your response to your Constitutional Law class because there were some heavy Constitutional issues in Obama’s campaign for which fiberal professors will make passionate excuses.
I don’t think you’ve been a smart ass but I do think you frequently wrote like a typical assumptive liberal. If I am correctly inferring from your meaning, of assuming only one side of the political spectrum can be considered intellectual, or you in this case, then I would definitely agree. Liberals are sometimes the most condescending and assumptive blokes alive. There are intellectual positions on all sides of any given issue. As an example, when I was a TV news anchor I had to constantly fight two problems. First was polarization and the second time-telescoping.
Polarization forces a reporter to only use opposite sides of an issue to appear unbiased while ignoring any other interpretation or impact on that issue which distorts it by eliminating certain gray areas by definition. It goes on today and the news media have dumped any pretense of being even semi-unbiased. It was particularly obvious in the McCain/Obama campaign coverage. The ombudsman for the W-Post admitted the paper’s bias in her coverage analysis, and, in my opinion she was way to forgiving of the Post’s reporting.
Time telescoping is a different matter but has a similar impact to polarization. If, for example, an individual has three car accidents in 40 years of driving and the third one was serious and the person is possibly at fault, and if TV news reports all three accidents in one 30 second story, it make it appear that the person is a reckless driver by telescoping time from 40 years to 30 seconds. An unfair distortion.
Both of these problems were evident in the campaign, to the exclusion of other frequently more fundamental Constitutional issues, ACORN and illegal fund raising being two. They both are critical because they would and will destroy the nature of our electoral system. Polarization eliminated serious discussion of ballot box stuffing by ACORN and Obama’s connection. The biased media diverted the discussion to an us vs them mentality, not how ballot box stuffing and illegal fund raising distorts the Constitutional electoral process. Some places had more votes than were registered in a precinct and Democrat election officials are finding votes in Minnesota that ghosts cast.
Will hit on some other issues you brought up later. This was a first reaction and to continue would be too lengthy. I want to make a few comments about your uncle and my opinion of the underlying liberal and conservative paradigms.
3 comments:
L,
I’m going to take only one issue at a time since you triggered some frustrations of mine. I’ve bookmarked your blog, but if you’re starting law school I don’t see how you’ll have time to blog much. I will be very interested in your response to your Constitutional Law class because there were some heavy Constitutional issues in Obama’s campaign for which fiberal professors will make passionate excuses.
I don’t think you’ve been a smart ass but I do think you frequently wrote like a typical assumptive liberal. If I am correctly inferring from your meaning, of assuming only one side of the political spectrum can be considered intellectual, or you in this case, then I would definitely agree. Liberals are sometimes the most condescending and assumptive blokes alive. There are intellectual positions on all sides of any given issue. As an example, when I was a TV news anchor I had to constantly fight two problems. First was polarization and the second time-telescoping.
Polarization forces a reporter to only use opposite sides of an issue to appear unbiased while
ignoring any other interpretation or impact on that issue which distorts it by eliminating certain gray areas by definition. It goes on today and the news media have dumped any pretense of being even semi-unbiased. It was particularly obvious in the McCain/Obama campaign coverage. The ombudsman for the W-Post admitted the paper’s bias in her coverage analysis, and, in my opinion she was way to forgiving of the Post’s reporting.
Time telescoping is a different matter but has a similar impact to polarization. If, for example, an individual has three car accidents in 40 years of driving and the third one was serious and the person is possibly at fault, and if TV news reports all three accidents in one 30 second story, it make it appear that the person is a reckless driver by telescoping time from 40 years to 30 seconds. An unfair distortion.
Both of these problems were evident in the campaign, to the exclusion of other frequently more fundamental Constitutional issues, ACORN and illegal fund raising being two. They both are critical because they would and will destroy the nature of our electoral system. Polarization eliminated serious discussion of ballot box stuffing by ACORN and Obama’s connection. The biased media diverted the discussion to an us vs them mentality, not how ballot box stuffing and illegal fund raising distorts the Constitutional electoral process. Some places had more votes than were registered in a precinct and Democrat election officials are finding votes in Minnesota that ghosts cast.
Will hit on some other issues you brought up later. This was a first reaction and to continue would be too lengthy. I want to make a few comments about your uncle and my opinion of the underlying liberal and conservative paradigms.
NG
Post a Comment