More direct evidence of media bias...

[lifeloyalsigmsu]

And don't worry guys, the groups that voted the stongest for Kerry were younger people, and we're not going anywhere, in fact there's going to be a lot more people turning 18 and becoming eligible to vote in the next 4 years...

Yeah, and as they grow up and mature they will learn to think for themselves instead of voting for whoever Puff Daddy and Cameron Diaz and Eminem tell them to vote for. They will get married, work at a real job, change their idealism from utopianism to realism, and vote Republican.

Or they will become highly educated (graduate degrees) and become intellectual Democrats. It is interesting how the Democratic party skews to both the young idealogues and the very highly educated types, while the Republicans tend to do better in between.

So as long as those young kids don't get too much book learnin', they might become Republicans. Although I think it is safer to say that they will probably not abandon their social liberalism (as age and experience do nothing to make people more intolerant of people who don't look and/or act like themselves), but might become more fiscally conservative. That would just make them part of the swing voters group that doesn't have a home and think that both sides have a lot of things wrong with their platforms.

Well BAC, one can look at all the book learning that we have received and it's clear that many of us have taken different paths/views politically. What you neglect to mention is that a huge portion of our formal education teaches everything in an ideal standpoint and a "utopian-esque" approach that many democrats subscribe to. A pragmatist realizes from day one that that approach is seldom seen nor practiced (regardless of the setting). However, for you to allude that those who don't get too much "book learnin'" will become Republicans is a nice little slam and I resent it. So with that assessment, does that mean you are intellectually superior on account that you have liberal leanings (I'll assume you're socially liberal and fiscally conservative) and perhaps because of your hardcore liberal indoctrination as a result of your exposure to the left of left cities in San Francisco? As for me, I"m probably like you....I"m socially liberal in some ways and fiscally conservative. I have a formal education that has reached a post-doctoral level; does that mean that I'm an idiot because I don't harbor beliefs that are in line with yours or the democrats?

[lifeloyalsigmsu]

here's a great excerpt from a commentary:

Conservatives may be happy about the shift to the right in this country and may even see it as a major victory. But I doubt it will last. History has shown us time and again that when it comes to big social issues, conservatives invariably get it wrong and eventually get left behind as society evolves. One-time hot-button subjects such as civil rights, evolution, the Earth being round and many others are now viewed as silly fights fought by those who refused to acknowledge reality and/or science. Gay rights, the right of a woman to choose an abortion and global warming are just contemporary versions of the same thing.

In the end, we have to choose. Are we to be a country dominated by religion and those who say something is so just because they say so (Iran) or a country that makes its decisions based on science and rational thinking? If history is a good indicator, we'll eventually choose the latter.

Greg James lives in Seattle.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/2 ... son22.html

I saw Kerry try to speak french to some Haitians, on the daily show; as someone who does speak french, it was hilarious. Almost as amusing as w trying to speak english (I can't imagine how hilarious his spanish must be). I finally figured out how shrub can lie about Iraq's nuclear program with a straight face: It's a trick, he never says "nuclear", he only wants us to think that it's because he isn't able.

Well Velo, I can see that by your frequent viewing of the daily Seattle rags that you buy into the rhetoric of what The People's Republic of Seattle say.

I'm sorry, but could you enlighten me with any type of proof (instead of pure idiotic and asinine conjecture) that Bush was lying about Iraq's nuclear program? After all, even intelligence in other countries (before we went into Iraq) such as the UK and Russia came to the same conclusion. That was the evidence used back then and clearly it was all they had at the time. I'm sure your armchair politician response would be that diplomacy would have worked with these people though right?

[SonomaCat]

And don't worry guys, the groups that voted the stongest for Kerry were younger people, and we're not going anywhere, in fact there's going to be a lot more people turning 18 and becoming eligible to vote in the next 4 years...

Yeah, and as they grow up and mature they will learn to think for themselves instead of voting for whoever Puff Daddy and Cameron Diaz and Eminem tell them to vote for. They will get married, work at a real job, change their idealism from utopianism to realism, and vote Republican.

Or they will become highly educated (graduate degrees) and become intellectual Democrats. It is interesting how the Democratic party skews to both the young idealogues and the very highly educated types, while the Republicans tend to do better in between.

So as long as those young kids don't get too much book learnin', they might become Republicans. Although I think it is safer to say that they will probably not abandon their social liberalism (as age and experience do nothing to make people more intolerant of people who don't look and/or act like themselves), but might become more fiscally conservative. That would just make them part of the swing voters group that doesn't have a home and think that both sides have a lot of things wrong with their platforms.

Well BAC, one can look at all the book learning that we have received and it's clear that many of us have taken different paths/views politically. What you neglect to mention is that a huge portion of our formal education teaches everything in an ideal standpoint and a "utopian-esque" approach that many democrats subscribe to. A pragmatist realizes from day one that that approach is seldom seen nor practiced (regardless of the setting). However, for you to allude that those who don't get too much "book learnin'" will become Republicans is a nice little slam and I resent it. So with that assessment, does that mean you are intellectually superior on account that you have liberal leanings (I'll assume you're socially liberal and fiscally conservative) and perhaps because of your hardcore liberal indoctrination as a result of your exposure to the left of left cities in San Francisco? As for me, I"m probably like you....I"m socially liberal in some ways and fiscally conservative. I have a formal education that has reached a post-doctoral level; does that mean that I'm an idiot because I don't harbor beliefs that are in line with yours or the democrats?

I think you were reading too much into the "book learnin'" quote -- I was poking fun at the idea that, for whatever reason, polls show that people with post-grad degrees tend to vote Democrat. I tend to vote Republican, but disagree with a lot of the far right's views, so I am in a no-man's land politically. As such, I feel free to poke fun at the whole range of labels and trends.

In fact, the phrase "book learnin" was used in the context that you described -- learning theories as opposed to hands-on experience. I think I was actually poking fun at the egghead stereotype, but not in a real malicious or deliberate manner.

Since I haven't actually competed my MST yet, I would have to say that having an undergrad is enough to be pretty well educated (that's pragmatism for you).

As an aside, I think it is somewhat dangerous to collectively dismiss Democrat's views on issues as being stuck in utopian virtues and lacking a footing in reality. In truth, the moderates from both parties are the only ones who really seem to have any grasp of true reality, and the extremes of both parties are the ones rooted in their utopian ideologies, although one side sees utopia as a socialist state and the other side sees it as a theocracy.

[lifeloyalsigmsu]

I'm convinced. There is a right wing corporate bias to the media, in general. In the case of Fox news disease and talk radio, it's extreme right wing.

Yet you only see Fox with the likes of a semblance of fairness in Hannity and Colmes (the self proclaimed liberal). Fox also invites people from across the entire political spectrum to come onto their shows to talk, even Jean Francoise Kerry. You just don't see that anymore with the media giants that portray the liberals and/or democrats as their media darlings do you?

For that post earlier, Kerry has a cousin who is the mayor of one of the cities in France. His family, in the 1600's I think, sailed away to North America from France and the Netherlands (I think) and they made their family fortune off the opium trade back then. That's stuff I've read in the past. If you question it, go look it up yourself.


Dan Rather- CBS--I don't think that bulging vein in his forehead has gone away since election night and funny I don't think he ever annouced that Bush won. Perhaps he's still waiting for the latest conspiracy theory over "cheating" in Nevada or Colorado or Ohio.

Maureen Dowd, Molly Ivins, Arianna Huffington, Paul Kruger, James Carville, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Katie Couric, et al.....these are the people who represent the NY Times, the democrat party themselves, MSNBC, etc. Just do a search on these people (especially Maureen Dowd). Maureen Dowd, in her infinite "wisdom", has made an amazing career at the Times out of name calling President Bush regardless if her assertions are made up or not.

And you libs say that Republicans don't think........that's laughable!!

[lifeloyalsigmsu]

And don't worry guys, the groups that voted the stongest for Kerry were younger people, and we're not going anywhere, in fact there's going to be a lot more people turning 18 and becoming eligible to vote in the next 4 years...

Yeah, and as they grow up and mature they will learn to think for themselves instead of voting for whoever Puff Daddy and Cameron Diaz and Eminem tell them to vote for. They will get married, work at a real job, change their idealism from utopianism to realism, and vote Republican.

Or they will become highly educated (graduate degrees) and become intellectual Democrats. It is interesting how the Democratic party skews to both the young idealogues and the very highly educated types, while the Republicans tend to do better in between.

So as long as those young kids don't get too much book learnin', they might become Republicans. Although I think it is safer to say that they will probably not abandon their social liberalism (as age and experience do nothing to make people more intolerant of people who don't look and/or act like themselves), but might become more fiscally conservative. That would just make them part of the swing voters group that doesn't have a home and think that both sides have a lot of things wrong with their platforms.

Well BAC, one can look at all the book learning that we have received and it's clear that many of us have taken different paths/views politically. What you neglect to mention is that a huge portion of our formal education teaches everything in an ideal standpoint and a "utopian-esque" approach that many democrats subscribe to. A pragmatist realizes from day one that that approach is seldom seen nor practiced (regardless of the setting). However, for you to allude that those who don't get too much "book learnin'" will become Republicans is a nice little slam and I resent it. So with that assessment, does that mean you are intellectually superior on account that you have liberal leanings (I'll assume you're socially liberal and fiscally conservative) and perhaps because of your hardcore liberal indoctrination as a result of your exposure to the left of left cities in San Francisco? As for me, I"m probably like you....I"m socially liberal in some ways and fiscally conservative. I have a formal education that has reached a post-doctoral level; does that mean that I'm an idiot because I don't harbor beliefs that are in line with yours or the democrats?

I think you were reading too much into the "book learnin'" quote -- I was poking fun at the idea that, for whatever reason, polls show that people with post-grad degrees tend to vote Democrat. I tend to vote Republican, but disagree with a lot of the far right's views, so I am in a no-man's land politically. As such, I feel free to poke fun at the whole range of labels and trends.

In fact, the phrase "book learnin" was used in the context that you described -- learning theories as opposed to hands-on experience. I think I was actually poking fun at the egghead stereotype, but not in a real malicious or deliberate manner.

Since I haven't actually competed my MST yet, I would have to say that having an undergrad is enough to be pretty well educated (that's pragmatism for you).

As an aside, I think it is somewhat dangerous to collectively dismiss Democrat's views on issues as being stuck in utopian virtues and lacking a footing in reality. In truth, the moderates from both parties are the only ones who really seem to have any grasp of true reality, and the extremes of both parties are the ones rooted in their utopian ideologies, although one side sees utopia as a socialist state and the other side sees it as a theocracy.

BAC, ok I overlooked your context in terms of your word choice. My apologies. I am in agreement with what you said. Each major party is snipping itself away at the edges as the extremes from both the left and right are distancing themselves from the moderates. What's unfortunate is that the extremists are taking control of both parties. I primarily vote Republican myself but I had a hell of a time choosing between Bush, Badnarik, and Nader (but he wasn't on the AZ ballot).

I can only hope that those subordinate parties who embrace both sides will start making a strong name for themselves. I would love nothing more than to see more independents, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and Federalists come back. At this point, I'm with you in no man's land because of my views that tend to be socially liberal yet fiscally conservative.

You hit it on the head. The left's extremists strive for a socialist state while the right's extremists strive for a theocracy/theoligarchy (if that is even a word).

[El_Gato]

I have one question for bay & sig,

How the heck can you be socially liberal & fiscally conservative? To me, that is an oxymoron; the more you want to "help" the less fortunate through GOVERMENT (aka FORCED) methods, the more it costs. The more it costs, the more money you MUST extract from the citizenry...

Institutionalized charity (my term for government welfare) simply has proven wasteful & ineffective at solving societies "ills". One of the political moments I will remember for the rest of my life was the "infomercial" put on by Ross Perot before the 1992 election. His infamous charts were amazing; he laid down graph after graph that showed a DIRECT correlation between the amount of money spent by the federal government in an effort to "fix" various social ills, and the increasing rates of EVERY ONE of those ills. In other words, the more money the gov't spent on a particular problem, THE WORSE THAT PROBLEM GOT!

It takes a total idiot to believe that the answer to those problems, then, is to simply SPEND MORE on them, yet to me, that is the definition of a "social liberal". If not, please define what that term means when you use it.

Maybe one of these days you superior intellectuals on the left will figure out that maybe we should try the opposite; spend less & the problems go down as people realize that their laziness &/or their mistakes will NOT be subsidized by the American taxpayer...

My favorite analogy: I lived in Eugene, Oregon for 2 years and I can honestly tell you that I've never seen more flop-houses and soup-kitchens in any other community I've ever lived in (a fact that was supported by a recent article I read in Pravda, I mean, the Missoulian). You want to know what else I never saw more of? That's right; BUMS. Sorry if that term offends you, but it is the best description I have. I loved Eugene; it is my favorite among cities I've lived in but I was VERY uncomfortable in that city after dark.

A second favorite analogy: How many of you have ever been to Browning? To me that "town" is the crown jewel of what happens when you give people "money for nothin'" (apologies to Mark Knopfler and Dire Straits) for generation upon generation. It's not the Indians fault; any city with any ethnic base would end up essentially the same way if you routinely gave those citizens money simply because they were alive... That's not Indian nature; THAT'S HUMAN NATURE. And our federal government FEEDS it by allowing far too many people to live governmentally subsidized lives. Look at all the social ills we measure in our society & you'll find them to occur at far higher rates on Indian reservations than in our society as a whole. Again, it's not the Indian's fault, it's the fault of a system that provides them subsistence with NO effort.

American society excuses far too much detrimental behavior and in too many cases, asks the American taxpayer to fund people's bad decisions rather than just their bad luck. I'll help someone if I feel they deserve it; that should be MY choice with MY hard-earned money. The federal government has proven to be a bad choice when it comes to distributing charity; they've tried for a very long time yet all I hear about is the ever-growing poverty level. Maybe it's time we get the government OUT of the charity business and let US make better decisions about who we help & when...

I relinquish the podium...

[SonomaCat]

"Social spending" falls under my "fiscally conservative" side, where I probably agree with you for the most part. I am not against spending money on programs that work, but I don't believe that spending money alone is the answer to anything. I am, in general, in favor of limited government to the extent possible, especially in economic matters. However, I tend to cherry pick the issues on this one -- each issue presents its own challenges, so I try not to speak in sweeping generalizations as to my fiscal theories.

In my mind, being a "social liberal" has nothing to do with wealth redistribution. What I am talking about relates to such things as equal rights for all people, separation of church and state, free speech, and other things where small government (contrary to the far right's thinking) is also a good thing.

I also think that being a social liberal and a fiscal conservative (also known as a Libertarian) is much more consistent that being either a Democrat or a Republican. I believe that the role of government in an individual's life should be limited to the extent practical, whether it be in the form of excessive taxation or telling them who they can sleep with, marry, or watch on TV. I'm against government as a babysitter in all facets of our lives, not just on the tax and spend side.

[velochat]

There's nothing fiscally conservative about the folks in Washington. They're mostly about corporate payoffs and dictating morality. The current debt is totally the result of irrational actions and failure to think long term, in many aspects. Our system seems to fail consistently to look out for the interest of people beyond the next election cycle. We're going to pay big time for our self indulgence down the road.

[lifeloyalsigmsu]

There's nothing fiscally conservative about the folks in Washington. They're mostly about corporate payoffs and dictating morality. The current debt is totally the result of irrational actions and failure to think long term, in many aspects. Our system seems to fail consistently to look out for the interest of people beyond the next election cycle. We're going to pay big time for our self indulgence down the road.

Are you referring to the current administration or are you making a sweeping generalization of the govt. throughout all the recent years? I could only hope that the latter is true. Partisanship overlooked, what you just described has been evident over the last 20+ years.

[lifeloyalsigmsu]

I have one question for bay & sig,

How the heck can you be socially liberal & fiscally conservative? To me, that is an oxymoron; the more you want to "help" the less fortunate through GOVERMENT (aka FORCED) methods, the more it costs. The more it costs, the more money you MUST extract from the citizenry...

Institutionalized charity (my term for government welfare) simply has proven wasteful & ineffective at solving societies "ills". One of the political moments I will remember for the rest of my life was the "infomercial" put on by Ross Perot before the 1992 election. His infamous charts were amazing; he laid down graph after graph that showed a DIRECT correlation between the amount of money spent by the federal government in an effort to "fix" various social ills, and the increasing rates of EVERY ONE of those ills. In other words, the more money the gov't spent on a particular problem, THE WORSE THAT PROBLEM GOT!

It takes a total idiot to believe that the answer to those problems, then, is to simply SPEND MORE on them, yet to me, that is the definition of a "social liberal". If not, please define what that term means when you use it.

Maybe one of these days you superior intellectuals on the left will figure out that maybe we should try the opposite; spend less & the problems go down as people realize that their laziness &/or their mistakes will NOT be subsidized by the American taxpayer...

My favorite analogy: I lived in Eugene, Oregon for 2 years and I can honestly tell you that I've never seen more flop-houses and soup-kitchens in any other community I've ever lived in (a fact that was supported by a recent article I read in Pravda, I mean, the Missoulian). You want to know what else I never saw more of? That's right; BUMS. Sorry if that term offends you, but it is the best description I have. I loved Eugene; it is my favorite among cities I've lived in but I was VERY uncomfortable in that city after dark.

A second favorite analogy: How many of you have ever been to Browning? To me that "town" is the crown jewel of what happens when you give people "money for nothin'" (apologies to Mark Knopfler and Dire Straits) for generation upon generation. It's not the Indians fault; any city with any ethnic base would end up essentially the same way if you routinely gave those citizens money simply because they were alive... That's not Indian nature; THAT'S HUMAN NATURE. And our federal government FEEDS it by allowing far too many people to live governmentally subsidized lives. Look at all the social ills we measure in our society & you'll find them to occur at far higher rates on Indian reservations than in our society as a whole. Again, it's not the Indian's fault, it's the fault of a system that provides them subsistence with NO effort.

American society excuses far too much detrimental behavior and in too many cases, asks the American taxpayer to fund people's bad decisions rather than just their bad luck. I'll help someone if I feel they deserve it; that should be MY choice with MY hard-earned money. The federal government has proven to be a bad choice when it comes to distributing charity; they've tried for a very long time yet all I hear about is the ever-growing poverty level. Maybe it's time we get the government OUT of the charity business and let US make better decisions about who we help & when...

I relinquish the podium...

I guess BAC cleared up a lot of things and I'll add my own 0.02 from what I believe. Fiscally conservative, to me, entails spending only on what works. In terms of welfare, I don't have a problem with helping people to get back on their feet; I only wish there was a timeline on that because I think we've seen what shelling out free money does to people when they are not required to get off their rear ends to prevent where they were initially. Additionally, in terms of fiscal conservative, I believe in a very limited form of govt. When you limit that, you limit the amount of sources who are capable of spending. I'm as far from an expert on fiscal/monetary politics as they come, but I don't like how the current and recent administrations have fattened the size of govt in lieu of lining more and more pockets for more and more people who don't do jack squat. Additionally, I'm partial to completely getting rid of the IRS. We have a tax system/code that, most likely, isn't even understood in its entirety by even the most savvy of lawyers or accountants. Maybe BAC can fill me in on whether I"m wrong there but I've never seen anything good that's came out of the IRS nor the excessive volumes of constantly changing tax codes. I guess I view the fiscal system (in my standpoint) as simple though I know it's not. It's just been made more and more confusing over the years.

In terms of social liberalism, I view it strictly on issues that aren't fiscal though your illustration of Ross Perot's charts and Browning are fitting in terms of seeing social ills as a result of a lack of fiscal conservatism. However, how I view SL is in the realm of anything that involves messing with the privacy of an individual. BAC alluded to his distaste for the govt's role as being a baby sitter. My sentiments exactly.

I can only hope that you didn't classify me as one of those "intellectual superiors" from the far left. I'm a Montana native still and hell will freeze over on the day I classify myself as such. I just moved from Seattle and as you spent your time in Eugene, you can obviously relate to the concept of what having a far left group of lawmakers does. I love Seattle as much as you love Eugene, but I would be inclined to believe that the govt systems of those respective cities are beyond that of lunacy.

[velochat]

I'm talking about the general trend in politics over probably the last 30 years, but corruption has gotten even worse and decisions even more short sighted in the past 4 years. The current administration is as bad as I could even imagine. If the party in power wants to clean up Washington, they can start with "the Hammer".

[raincat]

I'm not good at politics, but do tend to take an interest. Just an observation..the Seattle PI is left to the extreme. Even my most liberal Seattle friends of which I have many, many to choose from, when questioned about the PI's leanings mostly just laugh and nod. The editorials, especially the cartoons are little about journalism, but primarily based on hate.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone. Good luck to EWU and the g*. Raincat is signing off and heading for dryer land. See you all next year. Go Bobcats!! where's the golf course..