NBC Puts Another Nail In Big Media Coffin from The Rolling Barrage
I waited a bit to post about the NBC/NASCAR fiasco. I'll declare that the staging of news is one tactic that makes my skin crawl and writing about it soon after learning of the memo, via the lovely Michelle Malkin,... [Read More]

Tracked on April 7, 2006 9:07 AM

Boogity, Boogity, Boogity!

OK I'll bite!
Just what the heck would be the purpose of this?

Oops. Hit post too soon.

I think someone should call Mr. Bergis and get his opinion on this:

Mr. Bergis Nascar Prank

Damn, that link is dead.

This one works.

Mr. Bergis Nascar Prank

Bigotry and Nascar in the same sentence? Say it isn't so! Next they will be looking for opposable thumbs at those dynamic events.

Its all part of the real conspiracy, namely that Liberals feel so guilty about Western society that
they will do anything in their power to undermine
our moral and impose on us the false guilt that they
feel.

The fact that this may weaken us against a mortal enemy who will destroy all that Liberals stand for
does not concern them because Liberals are too
stupid to see into the future.

If they really want to see discrimination, they can try sending a western person into the muslim
dominated ghettos in places like Sweden, France or
Holland.

Here's betting that not one of their setup job will be beheaded by the extermist ignorance nascar
crowd.

In fact, I suspect they will have to stage displays of prejudice to fulfill their already decided upon hypothesis.

NBC Dateline - isn't this the same program that faked the exploding pick-up truck story about a dozen years ago. The producer wanted to show how dangerous the fuel tankplacement was on a popular pick-up but after many on camera test collisions, the damned trucks just didn't want to explode. What to do? I know he said, lets rig the trucks with ingiters, that'll look good on TV - and that's what they did. Too bad they got caught. Credibility problem with this group perhaps?

But looking for anti-semitism, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism (just keep adding the typical Leftist anti-isms) at say, an NHL game or a Coldplay concert, or a "gay pride" nudie parade organized by the NDP in CANADA, would be.......?

I see, if we define bigotry and hatred as meaning X, we can get away with practically anything ourselves. What did Orwell say?--you could sell slavery if you defined it as freedom.

The Left is the enemy of freedom and liberty.

PGP,let me tell you what the purpose is...to further push the stereotype created by MSM that ONLY whites are bigotted and create sympathy for the poor Muslims being oppressed in Iraq and Afgan.This will nicely undermine the support for the war in Iraq.

Let's see them put hidden mikes and cameras on on some openly gay christians and see how they are treated in a Muslim country.Oops,guess we already know the answer to that one.

My advice to those who have said that the left in North america is "THE ENEMY" as much as any terrorist has been to get a life and tone down the rhetoric....I'm slowly realizing that they may have a valid point...

Perhaps they could go looking for anti-semitism in American academia. There's an interesting article in today's National Post regarding Walt & Mearsheimer's (JFK school of government at Harvard) anti semitic screed. It's a veritable modern "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and heartily endorsed by the usual suspects incl David Duke -- Democrat and (former?) Klansman.

When NBC has completed their sting lets send Dan Rather over to the palistinian territories, then Syria, Saudi Arabia and 10 other middle east shitholes dressed like a Dale Earnheart fan, at night with hidden mikes and cameras.

Courage!

I'm all for this kind of manufactured "news".
It will hasten MSM's loss of audience share and advertising revenue.

Eventually these producers of lefty propaganda could find themselves working with their more traditional medium.
That being; taping protest and rally posters on telephone poles and bus shelters.

I think they should try the same thing here...within the Liberal Party Leadership Convention. Even if they don't find racism and hypocrisy, maybe they'll snag some immigration/campaign volunteer bribes or a some new U.N. scams.

This reminds me of the wave of Muslim killings and bashing that were supposed to sweep the USA after 911. Remember how all the networks warned about it, and told us to expect it. Then, when virtually nothing materialized, they just quietly slipped away.

The MSM is by and large leftist, and it will do anything to promote a Leftist Utopian view of the world. Why would anyone be surprised at a stunt like the NASCAR bigots search? Since 911, the MSM has literally come out of the closet, giving almost daily examples of bias that favors the left. And, as the general population moves the right, the MSM becomes ever more shrill, and shill in its bias.

Thank god for the internet!

The MSM is by and large leftist, and it will do anything to promote a Leftist Utopian view of the world.

Yes...Viacom, General Electric, Time Warner and Bell are notorious leftist organizations. None of you folks who harp on about this have explained how promoting the destruction of Western capitalism is in the interests of these media stakeholders.

I suppose it wouldn't be nearly as interesting to video muslims living a fully integrated life in the US. Or, non-muslims treating their muslim neighbours with respect, friendship or just plain good-neighbourliness (if that's a word).

MSM conveniently ignores the other side of their made-up story.

'Just goes to show how hard up the MSM is for the fodder they're looking for. Wouldn't you think they'd realize how transparent they are and what idiots they look?

'Problem is, the entitled members of the MSM are so arrogant and such navel gazers, they actually have no concept that we're watching them. A little like the kid in the classroom who thinks that just because the teacher's walked to the back of the room she, the teacher, doesn't see him/her talking BECAUSE THE STUDENT CAN'T SEE THE TEACHER. There's a big difference, though, between a kid who isn't at the developmental stage where s/he can conserve ("if I can't see the teacher, she's not there") and supposed grown ups who populate our media.

'Not sure whether to laugh or cry. Oh, what the
heck: LOL :~) :~) :~)

sounds like that evil "profiling" all the lefties love to hate so much

Yes...Viacom, General Electric, Time Warner and Bell are notorious leftist organizations. None of you folks who harp on about this have explained how promoting the destruction of Western capitalism is in the interests of these media stakeholders.

I do love a good meme, but it would help if you were able to back up your supposition with fact. As I can.

Political donations of the companies you mention in the '06 election cycle:

Time Warner: $691,906 73% to Dems & 27% to Reps
Viacom: $250,887 55% to Dems & 45% to Reps
GE: haven't found that info yet

So, you were saying?

Truth Seeker, the fact that these corporations own the networks does not mean that they dictate the content of the networks. They own them to make money and as long as they are profitable, they won't interfere. The fact is that most journalists have a socialist bent and report from that position. Once the networks start losing money due to loss of viewership or readership due to people turning away from them after they are exposed, then the corporations will take notice and put people in charge that will try to win them back with fair and balanced reporting.

1. The Dems talk a good game to appease their "base" but are hardly the socialists you claim them to be. In addition, you'll probably also find that News Corp. contributed more to Dems than Reps, and we know where Mr. Murdoch leans. The fact that they contribute to both parties means favour trumps ideology.

2. You didn't answer my question about how an anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-corporate agenda (as many here attribute to the MSM) is in the MSM's best interest. How do they benefit from it? You can be sure that if the board and shareholders felt they were being hurt by what was going out on the air, things would change in a heartbeat.

Gerogey:

The crux of the whole debate is how do you define "fair and balanced reporting?" EVERYBODY has a bias, including the reporters and the viewers. The viewer will judge bias based on his/her own worldview. If the reporting is to the left or right of you, you will perceive bias. For every nugget from MRC you throw at me, I can throw back one from Media Matters. Let's face it - nearly every item that people discuss on blogs like this comes from a source that makes no claim to be either fair or balanced, but happen to adhere to a conservative viewpoint. So in the end are we talking about transparency rather than "fair and balanced"? That I can go along with. But don't say "fair and balanced" when what you really want is "right-leaning".

Right Truthseeker, and may I point out how ironic that name is, now tell us how a roughly 90% liberal affiliation of reporters is also proof of the commitment to diversity.

It's the 10% personnel and 27% donation commitment to diversity of opinion that has you convinced. Keep seeking that truth there buddy. I'm sure it must be there somewhere, probably underneath all those uncomfortable facts.

Truth Seeker,I have given your point much thought and have come to the following conclusion;
The LEFT in North America has made it abundantly clear(through it's CONSISTENT hatemongering) that what they are promoting is the destruction of the RIGHT.They are either ignorant to,or simply don't care that Western society itself is suffering a lot of "collateral damage".

To "tooth seeker"

Since when do owners of broadcasters (who incidentally do not make money on producing news--they make it on ad sales) start dictating to editors the content and/or slants an baises of their stories? Their sole interest si the bottom line and news is a tiny portion of the mix that contributes towards that.

Besides, can you prove the "supposed" influence on the news?

Didn't think so. Mike-whale Moore Kool Aid drinker.

What can be proven are the biases and political leanings of the people who decide the stories and content and slants--the so called journalists and editors.

You have no teeth. Keep seeking.

What if they did find discrimination? Seems to me a dirty look, or some derogatory words are a lot less vicious than sawing somebodys head off because they're American. Or torturing and shooting somebody because they're Jewish. Or raping Swedish women because they're all 'whores.' Or blowing up train stations because they're Spanish. Or exterminating 2 million Armenians and Christians because they're not Muslim. Or flying airplanes into buildings.

Another day another atrocity commited by Muslims.

All Muslims are guilty, based on their silence.

the fact that these corporations own the networks does not mean that they dictate the content of the networks. They own them to make money and as long as they are profitable, they won't interfere.

Georgey, that's a pretty damning indictment against corporate America/Canada. Are you saying that if their media divisions did something unscrupulous or dishonest, they wouldn't care as long as they make a profit? Does this extend to other business enterpises and industries? Very interesting.

Truthseeker,

You make an interesting point. As a person with a rightwards political bend, I have trouble answering your questsion contained in the quote:

"Yes...Viacom, General Electric, Time Warner and Bell are notorious leftist organizations. None of you folks who harp on about this have explained how promoting the destruction of Western capitalism is in the interests of these media stakeholders."

Of course, I see the left in North American seeming to support groups and religions that have clearly stated they are against our way of life.

I find it incomprehensible that groups that support equality of women, homosexuals, etc before the law would act in ways to weaken a president trying to defend western civilization against those that would take away these rights.

To act against their own best interests seems illogical.

Perhaps this is why conservatives cannot understand liberals (I deal with this most every day, thanks to my wife).

Perhaps you can explain to us why liberals seem to act illogically, or perhaps there is a logic that I cannot see.

Bonus: It may help me with my personal relationship.

As a person who describes himself as a 'motorcyclist'(in the Englise sense- an ordinary person who rides a bike-no tattoes, no chains, no gang afiliations, ( who maintains that cars are 'wheels for wetbacks')- I can still 'make nice' with any 'greasers' who wanna talk cams, gears, ets,-whatever. Yaknow? (It's still that 'infernal combustion engine thing')
I still gotta marvel at NASCAR- I still watch their stuff on the speedchannel, and I still think: Lawsamercy- them guys are still going bumper to bumper at 200 miles an hour! ( Ya gotta give 'em credit)- but still.........Ya know what I'm saying?)

Viacom, General Electric, Time Warner and Bell are notorious leftist organizations. None of you folks who harp on about this have explained how promoting the destruction of Western capitalism is in the interests of these media stakeholders.

It's hardly that cut and dried, TS. It's more because the journalists/artists/performers supported by these organizations are usually on the political left and will filter their work through that lens, and the corporations, being run by profit-takers with relatively short time horizions for planning and a blinkered view of "content", leave them alone as long as the quarterly revenues look OK and major controversy of the sort that can lead to boycotts and lawsuits is avoided.

Did anyone catch The Right Brothers, Bush is Right? I couldn't help from thinking this is Stryper repackaged refurbished 10 years later and funded by Right money. The whole thing seems far too weird as musicians are commentators and lose their status as artitsts when they become lackies.

I draw this parallel because it seems just as fabricated and dramatized as this NASCAR/Muslim leftie MSM crap.

Is there some kind of de-evolution happening whereby the righties are starting to take on the characteristics of liberals?

Most journalists are 'left', and are operating in a socialist ideology. As such, their notion of reality is utopian. That means, it doesn't even have a foothold within reality.

Journalists don't think about reality; they live within their fictional dreams. They never venture into real, practical results - whether it be the real effects of the introduction of Sharia law or the real effects of relativism and a refusal to evaluate different ethical standards.

This outrageous and dishonest 'news report' is a deliberate attempt to demoralize Americans and Westerners, by showing them as bigots. I would bet that the producer will tell her actors to be deliberately provocative and alarmist, to be insulting, to be aggressive. This part of the action will be cut; what will be shown will be the alarmed and angry reaction of the 'ordinary Americans' to the aggressive behaviour.

This agenda - to show Americans as 'bigots' is an attempt to deny Westerners the Right to Evaluate. We do have this right, and must evaluate. We must evaluate the 'justness' of a people who murder civilians, in the name of their religion, who blow up commuter trains, restaurants, weddings - in the name of their religion; who forbid anyone to think, and kill anyone who rejects their ideology. We have the right to evaluate such an ideology. We have the duty to evaluate such an ideology.

I totally disagree with Truthseeker, who is confusing arriving at a reasoned conclusion..and calling such a conclusion, a Bias.
Arriving at a reasoned conclusion is not a bias; it is a truthful conclusion. Do not confuse valid conclusions with 'biases'...which are INVALID conclusions.

Remember, the Islamic world, with its rejection of thought and freedom, hasn't had a scientific idea in 1500 years; it is trapped within a deadend mindset; it has moved this frozen worldview into a political agenda. It has bonded its political agenda to its religious ideology, and as such - declared that you cannot criticize its political agenda..because that means you are 'discriminating against its religion'. Neat tactic.

This agenda of a prominent broadcaster ought to be blogged to death. Everyone ought to know that it's pure Michael Moore fiction - and that its agenda, is to discredit and demean the West.

MB.

Thank you for your measured and reasoned response. I'm not sure that I can help you in your marital situation, but I want to address one point in particular that is crucial.

I see the left in North American seeming to support groups and religions that have clearly stated they are against our way of life.

That is the great fallacy that contributes to the great divide. It is true that segments of the left have become contrarian to the point of supporting everything they stand against as long as it is perpetrated by foreigners. It is also true that many on the left have an irrational hatred of GWB - as we saw with Clinton from the other side before him. But while they are the loudest voices, they don't represent me or most people who consider themselves liberal or progressive. If you look at blogs from either side of the spectrum, you see that people like to highlight the most extreme positions from the other side and present them as the norm. The blogosphere is overpopulated with straw men.

Having said that, let's get back to the issue of bias and the news. If you want to argue that the MSM has a liberal slant, that is very arguable and we can discuss it - and I won't even tell you that you are wrong when it comes to social issues. But to take it a step further, like many of your friends here are doing, to suggest that there is some kind of organized conspiracy on the part of media outlets to promote a socialist agenda and lay to waste all the values that you hold dear in our society - well, isn't that just a bit over the top? Isn't that just a reverse Chomsky?

Truth Seeker?,
"Georgey, that's a pretty damning indictment against corporate America/Canada. Are you saying that if their media divisions did something unscrupulous or dishonest, they wouldn't care as long as they make a profit? Does this extend to other business enterpises and industries? Very interesting."

I don't know how you managed to read that indictment into my comment, or is that just your bias towards corporations showing through? I was simply saying that large corporations don't micromanage all of their various holdings. That is why each division or area has it's own president in charge. I am certain that MOST corporations would not tolerate illegal activity once it is found out as that reflects badly on the corporation as a whole (I know that there have been recent examples to the contrary so don't bother to point those out to me).
BTW, it's georgev, not georgey, to differentiate between another George that comments on this blog.

Perhaps NBC should be checking what Kyle Petty
http://www.topix.net/photos/nascar/kyle-petty?bigpic=af1e9eb75d5af60c2766e7f6d065da0e

has in his shoes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1731568.stm

"Boogety, boogety, boogety" (no racism there, though a different sort of pony)!
http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/p/ponytime.shtml

Mark
Ottawa

TS,

"I see the left in North American seeming to support groups and religions that have clearly stated they are against our way of life."

"That is the great fallacy that contributes to the great divide."

Is this a fallacy? Are there any groups considered "left wing" that supports the warr? Other than a few Democrats in Congress (Hillary Clinton?) I cannot think of any liberal group that has come out in favour of fighting terror. Perhaps they have not specifically said they are against it, but they certainly haven't supported it.

Just for interest, can anyone point to liberal or left wing group that supports the war on terror, either through word or deed? Just to aviod the fallacy of defining all groups supporting the war as right wing, I will state that any group considered left wing prior to 9/11 qualifies.

As for left wing media bias, look at it from the conservative viewpoint. Using the US as an example, Americans are fairly evenly split between left and right, based on the results of the last presidential election. Yet, the vast majority of persons in the news media self identify as left leaning. This is from a group that claims to be unbiased. One has only to read newsbusters to see some horrible examples of left wing media bias. Perhaps the right is bad, but no where near as bad as the left. Tell me that fox is right wing biased, but 1)many (on the left) think Fox is not fair anyway, while still thinking the NY Times is. 2) Perhaps Fox is fair, but our bias is so skewed to the left, the centre is now the right.

So, a group that claims to be fair and unbiased is seen by many as being the opposite, and not just by a small amount, but so far to the left that it becomes incredible to think that these people could even consider themselves to be fair.

Can you see how a person, watching something that they see as so profoundly biased, could come to the conclusion that it must be a conspiricy?

Sometimes I feel that way. Some of the things they put out are so biased, I think you would have to be insane not to see it. Even the most partisan person would have to see that the treatment would be unfair.

However, there is a much simplier explanation than a conspiricy. Certain organizations are reinforcing. Certain types of people gravitate towards certain professions and you will get certain traits with those groups.

Example, you don't get a lot of people who hate animals becoming vets. However, don't try to tell me that vets are unbiased when it comes to the question of loving/not loving annimals.

Is this what happens in the media? Lefties hire lefties. The righties leave/are pushed out/don't get promoted/ etc? I don't know, but it seems a bit more reasonable than a conspiricy theory. Occam's razor and all that.

So how do you explain the left wing bias of the north american media?

Has anyone here actually been to a NASCAR event.

I have.

A lot of the fans were the equivalent of christian soccer hooligans.

Before the race begins all the drivers line up in the infield, bow their heads and prayers are said over the loud speaker system asking God to watch over them as well as provide their cars with maximum horsepower. If you have young children with you they advise not to sit in the main sections because of bad language and poor behaviour.

NBC is painting a picture of right leaning Christian NASCAR fans as what they really are.

ET,

"...you cannot critisize its (Islams) political agenda, because that means you are discriminating against its religion."

Great observation.

thereligionofpeace.com has an article titled 'Political Islam' which is required reading for anybody interested in Islams objectives. (Which should be every non-muslim person in the world)

Soccer hooligans get drunk, fight, stampede, set things on fire.

NASCAR drivers say prayers and "bad language" can often be heard in the stands.

Yup, Dr. Wayne, I can see how you'd get the impression that those two things are exactly alike. *snicker*

MB- that's a great analysis.

Yes, the MSM is biased, and yes, it has a left perspective - and, it's a self-generating organization. Left-minded people hire clones of themselves.

And they aren't interested in the news and reporting facts; they are interested in creating fiction. That's what this NBC-Nascar event is all about - the creation of a fictional account which they will assert is 'fact'. That's because, as a leftist postmodernist, there is no reality other than what you, yourself, create.

Dr. Wayne - I disagree with your outline. What is objectionable about people praying before a dangerous sporting event?

How does 'bad language' (as found in any emotional sporting event) or 'bad behaviour' (???) provide evidence of anything other than excitement and a wish for one side/person to win?

What does this event, with its prayers and its excitement have to do with racism? Is it that this NBC FICTIONAL MOVIE is going to have their actors say offensive things, to provoke strong reactions?

What would it be like to go into a soccer game in Iran or Saudi Arabia - wearing a Jewish skull cap (the NBC actors will wear Muslim caps) or a large Christian cross? What do you think would happen - even without the individual saying a word?
And in this event, you can bet every penny you have, that those actors will be told by their NBC director, what to say - and it will be provocative, highly emotional, and even insulting. You won't hear that in the showing; the agenda is to show Americans as 'bad guys'.

How can praying to God equate with beating fans of the other team to a bloody pulp?

I think you are showing a bit of your own bias.

As for fans behaving badly and swearing, I think you can see such behaviour at any sporting event in North America. Been to a football or hockey game lately?

I fail to see what the religion of rowdy fans has to do with their behaviour.

If you had said NBC is painting NASCAR fans as what they really are, I may not have had a problem with it.

Funny how NBC seems to think they will get the story they want at a NASCAR event. If their "sting" is a failure and the "righ wing Christians" do not respond as expected, do you think we will see a piece on how tolerant these people are?

You probably have no need to worry, doubtless the "journalist" has thought of this and will have a behaviour so offensive that it is guarenteed to get the desired response.

Perhaps a sign with the capitalist pig cartoon, where Jesus is giving the pig a bj, will get the required level of rioting and death to make a good story.

ET, Nothing objectionable about people praying before a dangerous sporting event. I'm not religious but if I was driving one of those cars I might consider prayer as well.

It's just that NBC picked NASCAR for a reason, let's say over baseball or golf. What do you think that reason is?

I think it is because the sport sic is huge in Christian Right Jeb red Florida. If your going to make a statement make a big one.

MB.

"Are there any groups considered "left wing" that supports the warr?...I cannot think of any liberal group that has come out in favour of fighting terror."

That in itself perpetuates one of the great fallacies - conflating the war on terror with the action in Iraq. I feel like screaming that out to my computer everytime I read such rubbish. Just because I don't believe the invasion of Iraq was the best way to fight the war on terror doesn't mean that I'm against fighting terrorists! By pointing out that there might be a better mousetrap, I'm not defending the mice.

We can argue bias until the cows come home, and in many cases I will concede to you - in many I won't. But that isn't the issue, is it? I truly believe the argument goes back to transparency. After all, if Kate or Ed Morrissey or Newsmax tell you something, you will generally trust them, even though they are admittedly slanted. But they are slanted in your direction. By the same token, you will automatically dismiss anything that comes from a source that is openly liberal (unless it supports your argument and you want to use it as proof of bi-partisan opinion.) So I revert to my argument that "fair and balanced" neither exists, nor is it desired by the majority reading this blog. That's not a judgement, it's an observation.

There is a great big difference between writing opinion columns, like all blogs are, that are slanted and presenting slanted news reports as if it was objective coverage.

Truth Seeker - I disagree with you. You are asserting that people are incapable of ( or don't want to be bothered with) reason; that they only accept or want opinions or conclusions that agree with their own. That's not reasoning; that's enslavement.

I don't automatically dismiss something from either the left or the right. In fact, if someone writes from within the infrastructure of an ideology - I'm not interested in them at all. I'm not interested in propaganda, and slanted writing is exactly that.

You, Truth Seeker, reject objectivity. You think that people write only from within a closed perspective. That's relativism, that's postmodernism, that's constructivism..and I completely reject that perspective. I believe that objective reality exists, and that it can be known - and that I need not be trapped within the relativism of a 'perspective'.

You simply want speakers/writers to label their mindset/perspective so that you, the reader, can immediately either accept or reject the speech. Again, I reject your postmodern view of thought, which asserts that reality is only known through a 'biased mindset'.

The postmodern view rejects the reality of reasoning, which requires the individual to consider data from disparate sources, to evaluate, to analyze...and not just to gather fodder to support their own opinion.

ET hasn't read this

TS,

You can take my mention of the war in my above post to mean the war on terror, not specific to Iraq. I realize that the two are not necessarily the same, and there were conservative commentators who supported the war on terror that felt that going to war in Iraq was a distraction. I accept that people can be against the war in Iraq but for the war on terror (I do not like the phrase "war on terror" but I use it for the sake of simplicity. War against Islamofascism is perhaps a better description). However, a logical argument can be made for Iraq being part of the war on terror, from the reverse domino theory to the "give the jihadis a place to go and die that is not America." These are arguments that reasonable people can disagree on.

However, all I heard from the left is "we hate GWB" or the modern equivalent of "no blood for oil". What is the solution on the left for the problem of Islamofascism? The war in Iraq is ongoing, and to withdraw before victory is to give our enemies victory. Saying what the other guy is doing it wrong is not a solution to the problem.

Therefore you can see how those on the right may (mistakenly?) believe that the left aid and comfort our enemy? They criticize all of the actions taken to fight the war on terror and offer no solutions to the problems of Islamofascism. Some seem to believe there is no problem.

As for the media bias, I trust Kate because I have yet to find her wrong. I cannot say the same for the MSM, as I notice almost daily slanted writing masquerading as "fair and balanced". Is SDA slanted? Sure, and I accept that fact and read with that in mind. Sometimes I find things here stated in a way that may be a bit over the top, so I look around to check that slant. As everyone should.

Sitll, although I find some of Kate's posts stated a bit strongly, I have yet to find her wrong.

But here is the key: Kate is openly biased but truthful. Much of the MSM is biased, claims to be fair and that is untruthful.

Your last paragraph talks about what can be called the "echo chamber", be it right or left wing. I agree that this is a problem on the left and the right. I am aware of this problem as it relates to me, so I try to broaden my horizons but visiting left wing sites.

Unfortunately, I have all but given up. I cannot seem to get a logical argument from them. It's all "Bush is Hitler" and such crap. In fact, the most reasonable lefties I can find are the ones who visit sites such as SDA. The rest seem to love their I-hate-Bush echo chambers.

So I will have to disagree with you. I will call bullshit where I see it. The only reason I lean to the political right is that I have examined the arguments over the last 36 years of my existence and have, so far, decided that the ideas of personal responsibility an individual freedom are better than those of no responsibility and collective rights.

I don't know about the rest of those who read this blog, but my experience is that we on the right seem to be more open than the other side.

The reason I spend so much time responding to you is because I want you to convince me. I am open to being convinced. Show me what you see, because I cannot see it.

Don't give up TS. There is at least one person here who could be convinced.

Don't give up on me ;)

Besides, only a strong enemy will help me improve my "game".

I feel profiled. I've loved stock car racing and NASCAR forever. Sunday afternoons is race day on Fox.

Dale Jarrett is now 11th in the standings. A good year.

Avenger - thanks for the link, but the article completely misses the point. It's merely talking about bias: left bias and right bias. Who cares?

I'm not talking about bias. I'm talking about the fact that reality exists; that we can, by reason, logic and a careful attention to empirical factuality, arrive at a reasonable (never 100%) re-presentation of that reality.

Truth Seeker is a postmodernist; he says we cannot access reality; we are trapped within our 'textual images', our concepts, our ideas, which distort reality. Those concepts are what can be called bias.
I'm not a postmodernist; I totally reject that philosophy.

I'm a realist - and I say that we CAN access reality, objectively and realistically, without bias.

Actually, the best way to do this, is 'the scientific method'..which actually uses a 'community of explorers'. One person observes a situation and interprets it. Another person observes the same situation and says 'aha - but you missed that; what about....?" And other people add to it. You gather a reasonable data base. Then, you interpret it in the same way.
One person says..'Hmm. Possibly x caused y'. Another person says, 'no, I think x and z have to work together to cause y'.

And so on. The point is, the truth can be arrived at; bias and opinions need not act as a Permanent Set of Cataracts to obscure reality.

So- the article, which merely focused on two types of cataracts: left and right - had nothing to do with my argument.
Thanks anyway.

MB - nice argument. And I agree, that the war should really be called the war against Islamofascism.

I have, like you, tried to get, from the people on the left, their answers to 'what should be done about Islamofascism'. I've asked this repeatedly - and can't get any answer. Their focus is only on the foaming froth - of GWB and their hatred for him.

When asked how to justify the Islamic violence, the mass murders, the suicide bombings - they come up with 'the West deserves it'. When asked for specifics - they move rapidly into the empty rhetoric of 'postcolonialism'. When it's pointed out how the Arab states have massacred and colonized...they don't want to listen.

When asked - what to do about this fascist agenda - they have no answer, other than to deny that Islamofascism exists. They instantly distort your concerns to the new equally empty buzz word of 'Islamophobia'.

And then, the vicious ad hominem attacks begin. You are not permitted to discuss anything with them; you are too stupid, they declare, too racist, too...

There's a nice article by Bruce Bawer in The Hudson Review. Volume LVIII No 4 winter 2006. Crisis in Europe. It talks about how the left has both denied Islamofascism and/or romanticized it. ,,and how the partnership between the left and the Islamofascists is "founded not on shared beliefs but on shared hatreds (America, capitalism) and shared mindsets (puritanical, apocalyptic, utopian)."

It's that shared mindset that is disturbing. Both the left and the Islamofascist are collectivists, anti-individual, authoritarian - with the state as authority, rigid, utopian and apocalyptic..do this or else).

The Weekly Review, online, also has continuing excellent articles.

Sorry- the Weekly Standard, not review. I was thinking of another good onliner - the National Review.

I think this fellow is onto something. I found this little gem from Liberty & Culture. Its worth sharing.

What's Happened to the Left?
In the face of the Islamic attack of 9/11, the left has retreated from its historic antipathy towards religion. At least this is true in the case of Islam, despite the fact that Islam is a primitive religious fundamentalist ideology that sees no separation of church and state, that currently underwrites the most oppressive treatment of women and gays, and that is opposed to pluralism yet alone the multi-cultural so cherished on the left. If not supportive of Islam, the left has adopted a policy of anti-anti-Islam, attacking the critics of Islam, just as it became anti-anti-communism as the reality of communism became too absurd to defend outright. The rare exception is Christopher Hitchens, who was invigorated by the events of 9/11 to fight what he sees as a fascist and religious foe. But his singular example reminds us of the gulf between the contemporary left and what might have been.

As the threat of Islam became more and more apparent, the left has become dogmatically relativistic; they have ignored the vast distinctions between contemporary Christianity and an unreformed atavistic political ideology wrapped in religious garb by a vicious 7th century warrior/tyrant. To equate the two religions, they have minimized the faults of Islam and maximized the limitations of Christianity. In practice, this means the left has to come to the defense of Islam.

Let’s consider a counterfactual reality where the left had taken a very different path. Suppose they acknowledged Islam’s far greater faults but stressed that this was a difference of degree, not a difference in kind. For example, they might have put forth the thesis that Christianity has evolved by becoming tolerant, worldly, and accepting of secular knowledge, but Islam remains primitive, anti-life, irrational, un-reflective, dogmatic, and bellicose. They might even suggest that Islam is a reductio absurdum example showing what happens when faith, dogma, and religious authority are taken to extremes.

The Christian retort might be to acknowledge that there is a vast difference but it is a difference in kind. The example of Jesus and Mohammad are in stark contrast; Islam is inherently political by design; and the original focus of Christianity is the good news for the salvation of the individual soul. Both the secular left and Christian right could agree that Islam is a barbaric practice that needs to be scrapped if Muslims are to enter the modern civilized world. Both could agree that Islam has little room for reason while Christianity has welcomed reason into human affairs. And both could agree that in Islam, Mohammad’s harsh warrior-like tyrannical model is an antiquated Old Testament paradigm and that Jesus provides an alternative model.

That did not happen. The left couldn’t break free of its multi-cultural relativism nor turn-off its hatred of America long enough to get a reasonable perspective and a sense of proportion.

Let’s compare this to another time when we fought another enemy: Nazism.

In our fight against fascism, Nazism, and Japanese imperialism, we were keenly aware of our moral superiority and proud to be fighting on the side of liberty. There was no question about the vast difference between them and us; but we each had our differences in emphasis on how best to express the essence of our values. Even if one reached for the words democracy and liberty, there was disagreement on the meaning of those words. But we knew there was a profound difference between the enemies we faced and our great nation; and we never lost sight of that fact.

There was one writer who believed that the difference wasn’t fundamental but one of degree; we too were heading down the path previously taken by our European foes. In “The Road to Serfdom,” Friedrich von Hayek described how England started down that path three decades ahead of America and Germany preceded England by another three decades. He described in detail the steps to tyranny and the degree each nation had traveled down that road. Hayek understood the importance of not only isolating the principle but also respecting difference of magnitude. At no time was there an insinuation of moral equivalence. If he had title his book “Churchill is Hitler and Roosevelt is Stalin,” no one would have ever heard of him, England would still have a welfare state, and America would have a Canadian health system … or worse.

Social democrats dissented from his conclusion that it is only a difference of degree—seeing totalitarianism as a difference in kind from the welfare state. But that what makes for a reasonable debate between people who can respect each other. Today’s left has removed themselves from reasonable debate by failing to single-out the barbarity of our foes and the commonality on the right, center, and moderate left. Islam is a threat to all of us. We can argue about our differences but they are dwarfed by the nature of the threat created by Islam.

My explanation of our greatness emphasizes the importance of our Classical heritage, which since Aquinas championed Aristotle, has laid the foundation for the progress we’ve seen in the last 700 years. I’d argue that Christianity deserves praise for being flexible enough to absorb this heritage. Obviously, some of my Christian friends would put the emphasis more on religion. But in our disagreement, which in both cases reflects a lifetime of reflection, we are well aware of the odd man out: Islam. Why can’t the left get that?

posted by Jason_Pappas
The fusion of the Western hating left, with the Jihadist West haters is absurd on the face of it till you realize no matter how they hate each other on issues. There Tactics are the same. There ends coalesce or dove tail nicely, if your a mass murderer or sadist. Shut down your opponent. No logic. NO reality. Use violence & pretend to be a victim. For the heavy guns use bombs (So far most radical left groups save not gone this far except for the hard core.. Will that last?).They both pant after a system where an Elite controls all & the masses are nothing but chattel. In other words both memes want a totalitarian Umber group making all the decisions.

As Darwinism, the Lefts Religion of origins by Matter(frozen energy) & that there are no absolutes except there are no absolutes. Getting it now? Circular thinking. Date rocks by fossils & fossils by the rocks. No Catastrophes allowed to upset uniformities.

Both groups want us back in tents & caves. One for the purity of there Goddess. A rock spinning in space called Earth. The other because of divine law. Not much difference if you ask me. Just my opinion.

What’s is true is both left & Muslim radicals have an agenda that aligns. The left being stupid does not realize they would be the first to die in an Islamic economy.

Nascar is huge and growing, not only in America but here in canada and around the world. Its base started in the american south with bootleggers tricking out their engines while maintaining a plain exterior to out run and avoid the G-men.
There are a few blacks in Nascar but they have a disparity program to address this issue. If you equate Nascar with bigotry, you may as well include hockey.

Silverwinger: Or the NBA if one is not a non-American Slav.

Mark
Ottawa

Lets see, Muslim terrorist flew jets full of innocent men, women, and children into office buildings. Muslim terrorists blew up train stations in Spain, night clubs in Bali, tube stations in London, hacked the heads off hostages on television, chopped the heads off 11 year old Christian students in Indonesia, slaughtered hundreds of Bhuddists in southern Thailand, murdered hundreds of school children in Russia, etc etc etc.
They treat women like little more than beasts, stone them to death for adultry, shoot them for prostitution, rape them if they are infidels.
Gays of course, don't fare quite that well in Muslim societies.
With hardly a peep of protest out of moderate Muslims or the idiotic left.
And the American people's view of Muslims has dropped seven points?
I'd say the American people are very tolerant.
Certainly more tolerant than the Muslims.
So hats off to the Americans.