"Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half." ~ Gore Vidal
One current controversy is the push in Congress for revival of the "Fairness Doctrine".
According to Answers.com:
"The doctrine that imposes affirmative responsibilities on a broadcaster to provide coverage of issues of public importance that is adequate and fairly reflects differing viewpoints. In fulfilling its fairness doctrine obligations, a broadcaster must provide free time for the presentation of opposing views if a paid sponsor is unavailable and must initiate programming on public issues if no one else seeks to do so."
I see no problem with this, and indeed, I see potential benefits for Conservative and religious broadcasters. For instance, a Conservative broadcaster such as Rush Limbaugh could interview a conservative pundit like Robert Novak or Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter and then, for the opposing view, put on some airhead like Cindy Sheehan or Al Franken for the counter point. He could even pull an average American war protestor off the street for his "balanced" interview.
Oh, what fun that would be!
On the other hand, Liberals could do the same. Wait a minute.
They already do that.
Think of the last time you saw a Liberally biased TV program or radio program do a point/counterpoint feature. They stack the left side with 2-4 Liberal commentators and, for "balance", stack the right side with uh...1 Conservative.
Now, that's balanced.
I noticed a perfect example of this yesterday while someone in my house was flipping channels on the TV, and lighted momentarily on ABC's Program, "The View". Four women, three of whom who were unabashed Liberal, and one Conservative.
This is what the Liberal media calls "Fair and Balanced".
As far as I can see, the lone Conservative on these panels usually has a more lucid, logical argument, anyway. The Liberals usually lose in my opinion. What happens is the Liberals end up insulting and/or shouting down the Conservative.
Liberal radio has been tried now, and it has been pretty much unsuccessful.
According to Wikipedia (usually Liberally biased itself):
"Air America was conceived as a for-profit operation in response to the perception held by many that conservative dominance of talk radio ... gave the Republicans an electoral advantage over the Democrats because it helped the Republicans turn out their political base...The growing belief that liberal groups were ineffective in getting their viewpoint across in the media was the reason the concept of creating a liberal talk radio network emerged."
Air America recently filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy in order to stay on the air while they straighten out problems with their creditors.
So now, The reason for this entry, a question:
Why has Liberal talk radio been unsuccessful? If you pay attention to the media, (the Newspapers, radio, and television), it seems obvious. There are more than enough Liberal Americans in America to support and fund them, aren't there? Why are they failing?
I have a theory. It may be whacked, but here it is, nevertheless:
The majority of Liberal leaning Americans care nothing for talk radio of any persuasion. They are not news junkies. They don't pay attention to the issues. They would rather listen to music.
This would account for the prevalence of Liberals in "Man-on-the-street" interviews who cannot answer simple questions like, "Who is the Vice President?", or "Who is the Secretary of State?"
This would also account for the apparent lack of lucid and logically thought out arguments for their stated strong positions on various divisible topics, like the stem cell research controversy, or abortion, or gay marriage.
Many Americans, who identify themselves as Liberal or Democrat, simply parrot Liberal talking points and bumper sticker phrases to make their points. It's as if they don't have an original thought in their heads.
This is not to say that many Liberals don't have reasonable well thought out arguments. Many do. But they are the ones, one would think, that would support Liberal talk radio.
So why don't they? Or do they? Are there not enough of them? Or are they just apathetic to the plight of Air America and the other Liberally biased broadcasting organizations?
It just seems to me that there are a lot more Conservatives that take the time and make the effort to familiarize themselves with the issues than Liberals.
Maybe I'm wrong, and if I am, I'm sure that the Liberals who frequent my blog will set me straight. Perhaps they can even offer a plausible explanation as to why Liberals feel the compulsion to introduce legislation in Congress to save Air America.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
Been listening to Laura Ingraham, I take it?
It makes me bristle to listen to Bill Moyers, Jane Fonda, Danny Glover, and all the rest of those misguided fools push their partisanship while claiming a desire to have "fair and balanced" representation. What a canard, to listen to Rep. Hinchey's rationale for the fairness doctrine.
Maybe I'm wrong, and if I am, I'm sure that the Liberals who frequent my blog will set me straight.
Well...I think you are in part, wrong. I know a number of people period, left or right, who simply don't follow the issues as closely as those of us in the political blogosphere. But I do think that most people are influenced by a predominantly left-leaning media culture.
"Been listening to Laura Ingraham, I take it?"
Actually, no. Since I moved to this area, I haven't been able to get her program on the radio. I can get it but there is so much static I can't hear it.
This post was my own idea. I miss Laura Ingraham.
"But I do think that most people are influenced by a predominantly left-leaning media culture."
Exactly, Smithy, This is what I meant when I said they simply reply with Liberal talking points and bumper sticker phrases. Where do you think they get them?
Left wing media culture, of course.
"Why has Liberal talk radio been unsuccessful?"
We have lives.
We work, take care of our children, protect the environment, feed the hungry, go to church, sometimes blog and we just don't have time to listen to talk radio.
Dan, you are one Liberal that usually does have lucid well thought out comments. But do you really think that Conservatives don't have lives, jobs, and families too?
No, there has to be another reason. But thanks for playing.
Hmm...
If you view the vast majority of the people you see and hear through the media as crazy liberals, could it be that objectively they are a balanced sample of American society and in fact it’s you that’s the crazy right-wing extremist…?
Just a thought ;o)
Have a good weekend!
I told you, you would do a better job than I did lol.
I have a big problem with this, A Bill in the House? Forcing talk show host's to offer opposing view points? They already do that. They dont need to be forced.
It's the "Forcing" part that get's me.
Will this also apply to the print press? NO!
However I like your idea of pulling the "Average Joe" anti-America/protesting whatever off the street for an interview!
We work, take care of our children, protect the environment, feed the hungry, go to church,
As Mark indicates, how can you make such a blanket statement? It's as bad as when our side makes broad generalities, disparaging liberals...only we're always right, when we do it. (^_~)
mark--
You're generally right about this. The left can see its views reflected in Hollywood, Big Media, and Wackademia, which makes talk radio superfluous for them. They are creatures of emotion who respond to fluffy stuff about compassion, tolerance, diversity and so forth without thinking it through. That's why they can relate to Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Dan Rather, but not to some Joe on the radio who wants to dissect a single political issue for three hours. Better to shout a bumper sticker phrase to show your authenticity and commitment and be done with it, they feel. But you can't keep radio interesting for long periods of time on the cynical Jon Stewart adversary pose-- you need actual content.
Liberals have no tolerance for a detailed explanation why, to take an example, government health care spending drives up everyone's premiums-- it violates the assumptions of their do-gooder universe and their conception of their moral place in the world. Many liberals are miserable people searching for "meaning" and "purpose" and they won't let objective reality take that away from them.
This also explains why Air Anti-America doesn't have a market-- the left already has CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and most the weekly newsmagazines and big newspapers. If they want to feel like righteous fighters for the common good out to stop homophobes, racists, misogynists, tyrants and so forth, there are plenty of outlets that will give them that feeling, even while they give de facto support for regimes like Iran that are genuinely racist, homophobic, misogynist and so forth.
Oh well. Logic is just a phallocentric construct to oppress the female mode of knowing anyway. Who needs evidence and consistency, especially if you have the audacity of hope to believe in socialism *ahem* that it takes a village?
The majority of Liberal leaning Americans care nothing for talk radio of any persuasion. They are not news junkies. They don't pay attention to the issues. They would rather listen to music.
I strongly disagree. I think liberals and neocons basically have the same agenda until it comes down to not WHO rules, but HOW they rule.
Neocons are offensive to liberals with their "in your face," idiocy which is, in liberal/progressive opinion, shortsighted "conservative" politics. It stirs up the natives.
Therefore, liberals etc. don't need their own radio show to listen the few "left" leaning hippies with their "radical" views. Just stop the neocons from being so "unenlightened" and in your face. hide them damm it!
I disagree. The majority of Liberal Americans don’t really care who rules, but how they rule. Conservative talk radio stirs up the natives with, in the liberals enlightened mind, offensive, in your face comments. On the other hand, the liberals/progressives don’t need a radio show run by a few left leaning “radical hippies.” They too sometimes go too far (read anti status quo American) and become offensive to the cerebral (hypocritical) liberal thereby turning them off to liberal talk radio.
Here's another thought:
Has anyone noticed that Liberal comedy does well but serious Liberal talk shows do not?
Conversely, Serious Conservative talk shows do well, but for the most part, Conservative Comedy does not, Dennis Miller's commentaries notwithstanding.
I wonder what significance, if any, there is to that.
Let's discuss that!
Ya got the wheels turning with the original topic and then tweaked it at the end. Allow me to add to the original.
I think, first of all, that it's a little bit much to say that the conservatives dominate without offering opposing views. Of the hosts I choose to patronize, Ingraham, Limbaugh, Hewitt, Medved to name a few, the only one I would say doesn't welcome liberal callers without getting in their face is Savage, who I think is goofy. For sure, the four listed above have no problem talking to lib callers, Limbaugh routinely gives them more airtime, in the hopes of persuading them to conservative thought, and Medved speaks to almost no one else. He invites authors and politicians who espouse liberal thought and debates them openly and happily.
That said, the only thing I can think of is that IN GENERAL (that means not everyone for those in Rio Linda *snicker*), liberals are content with the superficial message of liberal philosophy without wanting to get down to the details. As the expression, "the devil is in the details" would suggest, there is trouble when one looks deeply at lib philosophy in comparing it with conservative philosophy. For example, it's one thing to say every deserves health care, but when one looks at the ramifications of universal health care or discusses the fairness of say, asking hard working citizens to support the lazy in society as would happen in such a case, it's not such an easy thing to support or implement.
No doubt that there are liberals who would love to have their version of Rush Limbaugh thrive in the market, as evidenced by those who visit blogs or call into "our" shows, but there just isn't enough of them who care enough about anything outside of their own worlds to justify keeping lib shows on the air. It's part of what makes them liberal. IN GENERAL.
As to comedy, it works better for libs. The reason is due to something Rush has often said, that comedy works best when based on truth. The truth for libs is based on such limited and superficial perceptions that they are all too willing to believe that eventually it has become truth to them. A conservative has to work harder at both getting the conservative message out there and most likely adding superfluous stuff to get the laughs. The libs can just dress up someone in a three piece suit, have him frown, and bingo! you have a conservative businessman or politician. The libs already view conservatives on a level that is cartoonish. Even though libs like Cindy Sheehan, Ted Kennedy et al are jokes, it's not the same since we view their antics as dangerous or harmful to our culture and society.
Quite frankly, I find political humor by lib comedians not funny at all because I see they are dealing with something that really isn't the truth. (I will say that I do find Stewart funny, but the stuff I laugh at isn't directly a shot a conservatism, but Maher is so bad I can't believe he's considered a comedian.) When people like Robin Williams gets political or jokes about religion, it's typically insulting or simply using isolated incidents and applying that to the whole group. So there ya go.
mark--
Why does liberal comedy do well? Because it fits into their pomo way of looking at the world -- the academic culture of routinized repudiation, which has allied itself with the ubiquitous youth culture. The adversary posture against all that is happens to be all that is required to consider yourself enlightened, which is thought to be more important than being educated these days.
Think of Marcel Duchamp's parody L.H.O.O.Q. That is the essence of the leftist spirit.
Read any text by any modern leftist thinker. They do not talk about truth, justice, courage, heroism, democracy, human rights and so forth, but "truth," "justice," "courage," "heroism," "democracy," and "human rights." Reality itself is a scarequoted joke to liberals-- their flippancy has become institutionalized-- they cynically believe everything is pretence.
What makes the cynicism possible? The affluent, self-satisfied belief that our civilization cannot fail. I remember Jon Stewart, after a huge cynical act, offering wisdom in a guilty manner that things will always work out for us in the end.
But looking at history from the Rome to the Abbasid Dynasty, sometimes great civilizations get pwned by barbarians (Visigoths, Mongols, etc). That America is so powerfu, that everything will work out in the last chapter is a dogma, very similar to the notion that our society is so robust that it can survive any social innovation. The irony is that liberals dissent from America as ideally conceived because they have a misguided faith in its future.
Air America is having financial difficulties. As I understand it, some of that may be due to some large corporate sponsors who are reluctant to advertise on Air America. But then some large corporate sponsors are beginning to listen to the crap they are paying for on conservative talk shows and stopping their support.
Actually, even with financial difficulties, Air America has 86 affiliates and XM, so there apparantly is an audience out there. I'm one of them. And there are a lot of liberal talk show hosts who are not affiliated with Air America.
Mark said, "The majority of Liberal leaning Americans care nothing for talk radio of any persuasion. They are not news junkies. They don't pay attention to the issues. They would rather listen to music."
I think this is not true. I listen to talk radio most of the time, usually moderate or liberal, but I listen to Hannity and BO for giggles. I watch BO and Hardball, I read the newspaper everyday. I read the Economist. I read several blogs every day. I believe I am a typical liberal.
"This would account for the prevalence of Liberals in "Man-on-the-street" interviews who cannot answer simple questions like, "Who is the Vice President?", or "Who is the Secretary of State?""
Who says these are liberals? They are ignorant. There is no evidence that liberals are any worse at these questions than anybody else and I would submit that liberals are better educated and more likely to answer these questions correctly. Prove me wrong.
With all due respect, Jason, your comment appears very erudite. However, upon closer reading, I believe you haven't the faintest clue what you are talking about.
Wordsmith. In no way should Moyers be lumped in with Jane Fonda or Danny Glover. You have obviously never read or listened Bill Moyers.
"Conversely, Serious Conservative talk shows do well, but for the most part, Conservative Comedy does not, Dennis Miller's commentaries notwithstanding.
I wonder what significance, if any, there is to that."
Liberals are funnier.
I suspect biological causes. I think conservatives are born with no irony bone.
"The affluent, self-satisfied belief that our civilization cannot fail."
What do you make of all the "doom and gloom" environmentalists who keep insisting we can't keep living the way we're living - is that not a belief that our civilization can and will fail?
Jason, Marcel Duchamp's parody L.H.O.O.Q.? I don't know what that is and I am not afraid to admit it.
Mom2, I have no idea what you're talking about but I appreciate the comment.
Marie, you are right. Nothing wrong with fairness but no one is keeping Liberals from getting equal time with Conservatives except the listening audience. There apparently is little support for Liberal viewpoints and that's the crux of my question. Why?
Dan, your comment that the Liberals are funnier, was...well....funny. Thanks for the laugh. But you have a very good point about the number of Liberals with the doom and gloom philosophy. Rush Limbaugh says Liberals have no sense of humor. The very fact that Liberal comedy shows do so well contradicts that, doesn't it?
I think Conservatives and Liberals both have a sense of humor, we just laugh at different things. Check out my post entitled "A Little Humor". for example. Only one Liberal responded to that one.
mark--
Marcel Duchamp was a dadaist, and the crappy work of modern art I referred to is a Mona Lisa with a mustache and a thin goatee beard drawn on it. It defaces what has been cherished. 'L.H.O.O.Q.' reports as a pun on the phrase "Elle a chaud au cul," which translates colloquially as "She is hot in the ass." The work also supposedly exposes Leonardo DiVinci as a homosexual.
Like Tyler Durden in the movie Fight Club, anti-modern anti-rational radicals feel like destroying something beautiful. And they think it is funny. Moreover, they can't bear themselves to talk about anything serious like justice or truth without using the scarequotes.
Leftist humor has little wit -- it is more like a kid rebelling against authority.
Jim--
The academic culture of repudiation I described has a common unity — the Western tradition is logocentric, phallocentric, hegomonic, reactionary, elitist, sexist, racist — and needs to be replaced. Nothing is understood until it is exposed as corrupt, duplicitous, or hypocritical. Behind the deliberate obscurity is the notion that the value of something is not determined by instrinic qualities but by how well it sticks to the party line. This means slave narratives and forgettable Navaho stories are good, and Shakespeare and Dante are bad, unless they can be used to attack bourgeois society.
Youth culture, which arrived in full force in the 1960s, is the same deal-- lose your inhibitions, whether they be aggressive or sexual. Instead of the singer presenting a song, the songs now present singers, as if they were sexual totems. Anything handed down by tradition is held with suspicion.
These are general cultural trends; some people have had literally decades of the media, hollywood, and academics bombarding them with this stuff from all corners. As a result, the left doesn't want to sit down and think. Being Enlightened with the free love, government giving what you want now, and being suspicious of all authority that comes with it is now a commonplace thing, and those who dissent are now target of jokes, as if they were archaic, confused individuals who hold on to old myths like freedom, liberty, happiness, and self-government.
Or should I say, "freedom," "liberty," "happiness," and "self-government."
There's a reason why conservatives from Bush to Ford to Reagan to Eisenhower have been portrayed, well, as doofuses. Liberals, if criticized through humor, usually get a different stereotype, and I think marshall is generally correct in that conservatives look at people like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore in a mood of horror first, not amusement. Conservative humor regarding liberals has a mood of contempt, not rebellion, and that brings all of the "hate" and "meanspirited" charges against them. That's why Bush can be called a fascist routinely, but calling Hillary 'Hitlery' is out of bounds.
"It just seems to me that there are a lot more Conservatives that take the time and make the effort to familiarize themselves with the issues than Liberals."
---------------------------------------
This will tick many liberals off but I totally agree with this statement. IMHO liberal women are too busy watching Oprah or Dr. Phil or The View instead of paying attention to current events and politics.
But on the Fairness Doctrine not being a bad idea I TOTALLY disagree with you. #1--I don't want the government telling me what I can or can't listen to on the radio and #2--Like you point out if there was an audience out there for liberal talk radio they'd have it. Its not a matter of unfairness, its called there is no audience for it.
"Being Enlightened with the free love, government giving what you want now, and being suspicious of all authority that comes with it is now a commonplace thing" -jason
Question is being "enlightened" with any kind of love, free or brought a bad thing? Should we embrace free hate?
If you look at the history (a realistic look) you'll see that government shouldn't be trusted especially if you are a non white. (if you are any type of scholar, look at the supreme court decisions as regard to parity in the U.S. hell just look at the history of the U.S. toward its non white pop.)
Please, government giving you what you want? you must have selective memory. What do you call government grants to institutions, corporations, etc? What do you call government support of corporate failures? This amounts to the BILLIONS of dollars,(99.9% to already wealthy or well to do white gentile and jewish folk) but they don't get the play social welfare does IN THE CORPORATE MEDIA.
"and those who dissent are now target of jokes,"-jason
Of course they are jokes with their racist, sexist, xenophobia mind set.
"as if they were archaic, confused individuals who hold on to old myths like freedom, liberty, happiness, and self-government."-jason
Freedom? In the past freedom meant freedom to do with less powerful people any way those with power chose. Get real and maybe America will get better.
But it's folk like you jason who think they are correct and they know what's best. If you want America to remain white, European run colony, then I can see your dissatisfaction.
Yes Hitlery is fine with me because she is the other side of your coin!
africanvoice.com--
Remember that the Republican party itself was founded on the premise of eradicating slavery. And this tradition didn't die. Eisenhower sent federal troops to Little Rock in 1957 to enforce desegregation. And George W. Bush's administration has greater ethnic diversity than any other administration in human history.
Government intervention into the economy is not to be trusted, not because it is an authority, but because of the bad results it creates with the best of intentions. The Great Society, for example, did what centuries of slavery, racism, and segregration could not do -- destroy the black family. (Socialism creates social breakdown wherever it is tried.) In contrast, in the free market, there is only one color, and that is green. Nobody says race affairs are perfect, but if racism was as rampant as leftists say it is -- Arab families, who should have faced the most discrimination after 911, wouldn't make an average of 69K a year, 20K higher than the American average.
What happened? Did all of these white racists suddenly cut other races some slack? What gives?
Wordsmith. In no way should Moyers be lumped in with Jane Fonda or Danny Glover. You have obviously never read or listened Bill Moyers.
Lol..."obviously" you haven't been listening to Bill Moyers these past few years. What did you make of him at the National Conference for Media Reform? No, my friend...he belongs in the current company he keeps.
Where do you stand on the Fairness Doctrine, Jim?
Was there even one conservative voice who spoke at the Conference? Can it be any more obvious that all this is designed to do, is shut down conservative voices.
If you look at the history (a realistic look) you'll see that government shouldn't be trusted especially if you are a non white.
So then, Africanvoice, where do you stand on the Fairness Doctrine issue? To endorse it, is to bring in government control over how information is being disseminated.
African, "government shouldn't be trusted especially if you are a non white."??
Now you got my dander up. No race in this country get's more handed to them than the black race. Blacks have surpassed equality with the white man and have become the superior race.
I am a big believer that God created all men(and women) equal. But I have seen the black people get all the breaks over and over. I have been job hunting lately and I have seen first hand how blacks are treated vs how whites are treated.
Blacks get first choice of every job, and every scholarship, and every opening for college enrollment.
Why? Because they are smarter than whites? Well, yes, sometimes they are. I have no problem if a black person gets preferential treatment over me for a job if he/she is more qualified than me, but when the only criteria is what color they are, it is discrimination. Not reverse discrimination. Just plain discrimination.
Don't come into my place whining about how badly the non whites are treated in this country. Just go back to my blog post entitled "The Pendulum Swings" and read for yourself.
You don't know how good you've got it. Or you do but you've let the likes of those racists Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan convince you that you are still being held down. Well, you're not, buddy. Now it's the middle aged white man on the bottom rung of the ladder.
Wake up and smell the coffee, man.
I'm, sorry, African. But it really ticks me off when I hear some black person complaining how bad they are treated in this country. Blacks have it way better than whites do nowadays.
And even if they do get treated unfairly, or even if they only say they are being treated unfairly, all they have to do is scream "Racism" and everybody bends over backwards to hand them anything they ask for and more.
I will repeat I am not a racist. I believe you and I are equal in the sight of God. Neither of us are superior to the other in any way. But as far as this government you despise is concerned, blacks are vastly superior to whites and have proved that fact over and over.
It is all about color. I wish you could wake up white and try to find a job for just one week so you could see for yourself.
I was going to post a lengthy essay here, but it would be a waste of time. How do you reason with people (liberals) who are incapable of rational thought? As the old saying goes, garbage in, garbage out.
Ahh, what the heck, I'll give it a try.
I find it VERY difficult to believe this so-called fairness doctrine would be fairly enforced. Can you imagine a liberal nutcase like Keith Olbermann devoting half his show to the conservative viewpoint? He'd jump off a ledge first -- as long as he could land on a Republican. O'Reilly is up against Olbermann in the prime time lineup. Nobody is to blame for O'Reilly's ratings being 300% that of Olbermann. Nobody is paying people to watch Fox News. It is the marketplace of ideas at work. It is not the conservatives' fault that people find the liberals' ideas to be repugnant. Instead of forcing their ideas on others, maybe liberals should be working to refine them.
Jim, you said, ""This would account for the prevalence of Liberals in "Man-on-the-street" interviews who cannot answer simple questions like, "Who is the Vice President?", or "Who is the Secretary of State?"
Who says these are liberals? They are ignorant. There is no evidence that liberals are any worse at these questions than anybody else and I would submit that liberals are better educated and more likely to answer these questions correctly. Prove me wrong."
First of all, Jim, I can't prove you wrong.
But what I said was based simply on what I have observed. I know Leno does man-on-the street interviews with his "Jaywalk" feature, and they don't say whether they are liberals or not. However, they are in California, which is an overwhelmingly Liberal state. Odds are they are Liberal.
Hannity does them too and he does ask. They are usually Liberal.
"will repeat I am not a racist."
Let white folks tell it, none of them are racist unless they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. If you are white in America, socialized on this planent, you have some degree of racist tendencies. It's just that some whites are more cerebral about it.
"I believe you and I are equal in the sight of God."
That's "religionism". What if I don't have a god? See that's how racism works, you had NO idea you were being a "religionist."
"Neither of us are superior to the other in any way."
I disgree with this statement. We all have strengths and weaknesses.
But as far as this government you despise is concerned,
Hey I don't "despise" this government. It's the only one I got. I just don't agree with it most of the time and I think history would tell anyone with a clear head I'd be crazy to do so. Blacks are treated differently in a white colony and that is fact no matter how ugly or "insane" it may seem to you. America is a white colony from the start and still is.
"blacks are vastly superior to whites and have proved that fact over and over."
WTF? are you serious? Black are no where near as technologically savy as whites in developing weapons and things non spirutal, although we could learn. Whites are no where near as spiritual as Blacks although I think (since I'm not white) that they could learn.
Do you think a black man could invent a symphony? (albeit we could learn to write them) Do you think a white man could "instinctively" play the drums without written music? (albeit he could learn)
I don't want to carry this further because i think we could never agree.
For some reason, Blogger.com is not allowing mne to allow a comment sent in by Rustyshackelford, so I am copying and pasting his comment for you all now. Here it is, in it's entirety:
rusty shakelford has left a new comment on your post "The Fairness Doctrine. Why Is It Needed?":
Dan: you have no life.
Liam: it’s you that’s the crazy right-wing extremist…? that makes no sense since that phrase is nowhere in the post ;o)
AFRICANVOICE.COM: Just stop the neocons from being so "unenlightened" and in your face.
Jim:I believe you haven't the faintest clue what you are talking about.
The above are typical liberal arguments. Now I only took one debate class in college but I do remember them saying something about backing up a statement with a list of facts, or logical thought used to draw a conclusion. The above are closed ended statements that have no place in debate but have a happy home in liberal thought. Liberal play book reads: If someone disagrees with you fist label them then condem them as closed minded, repete steps one and two as necessary.
Jason, good arguments and supporting arguments.
African says, "That's "religionism". What if I don't have a god? See that's how racism works, you had NO idea you were being a "religionist"
It doesn't matter whether you believe you "have" a God or not. He still exists.
Blacks are treated differently in a white colony and that is fact no matter how ugly or "insane" it may seem to you.
Racism and oppression of "the other", is not exclusively a "white thing". Blacks enslaved blacks...Arabs enslaved all...Mayans were destroying each other long before Spanish Conquistadores...the Chinese looked at the rest of the world outside of China as barbarians...white Christians were the ones who began the first real anti-slavery movement in the world.
"It doesn't matter whether you believe you "have" a God or not. He still exists."
OK if YOU say so! Too bad if I can't say differently.
Racism and oppression of "the other", is not exclusively a "white thing". Blacks enslaved blacks...Arabs enslaved all...Mayans were destroying each other long before Spanish Conquistadores...the Chinese looked at the rest of the world outside of China as barbarians...white Christians were the ones who began the first real anti-slavery movement in the world.
January 22, 2007 1:14 PM
I can't speak for the Mayans because a lot of that is speculation. However in all your examples, only the whites practiced the type of enslavement that removed the person from their "humanbeingness." By that I mean I have NO idea of my ancestral name, culture, ancestry, place of origin, etc. And this was done by "white xtians."
Geez!
"It doesn't matter whether you believe you "have" a God or not. He still exists. "
January 22, 2007 11:16 AM
-----------------------------------
What this about not needing a "fairness" doctirne? Here's an example. 90% of the Nation feels like him so we don't need the view of the opposing 10% huh? Just shut up and think as I think.
"AFRICANVOICE.COM: Just stop the neocons from being so "unenlightened" and in your face.
Of course this is an opinion!
Sometimes opinions don't need to be singled out as fact by the writer if one reads. And this is the crux of a lot of disagreements. People can't discern opinion from fact in the written word.
in all your examples, only the whites practiced the type of enslavement that removed the person from their "humanbeingness." By that I mean I have NO idea of my ancestral name, culture, ancestry, place of origin, etc. And this was done by "white xtians."
Geez!
"Geez" is right! It is narcissism to think that blacks were the only ones who have suffered gravely from the injustice of slavery (in the terms you've used: having their cultural identity stripped away from them). White Christians have no more committed atrocities than any other group of people. Every culture in the world has not had their hands clean from brutalizing those outside of their own tribe/society.
Keith Richburg in his book, "Out of America" is one man who recognizes that the America of today is not the America of his ancestors; that he lives in a good land, and is grateful for being an American, with an American identity. Given the suffering going on in many parts of Africa, he feels blessed to be where he is today.
By criticizing "white Christians", you fail to acknowledge the fact that it was white Christians who began the world's first abolitionist movement to condemn slavery. To end its practice. This was begun in the west; and the British government, motivated not by personal gain and profit, went out of its way to pressure other governments to also end slavery, as well as physically stopping the slave trade through force of arms.
"blacks were the only ones who have suffered gravely from the injustice of slavery"
I didn't say that blacks were the ONLY ones. What I did say is that the type of injustice is unique to the European when it comes to black enslavement. Find another group that "decultured" a whole race of people in history for me will ya?
Slavery in other lands and times ran across the "racial" board, but the european white CHRISTIAN man enslaved the black exclusively based on his "blackness." He tried with the indian but it didn't work.
"Keith Richburg in his book"
So this negro speaks for all black people? Look just because he feels "god" (read white man) has been good to him doesn't mean that the white man is good or that there's a god. It means that keith has been "decultured" to the point where he has abandoned his own ancestral African-ness.
"By criticizing "white Christians", you fail to acknowledge the fact that it was white Christians who began the world's first abolitionist movement"
This is how european culture has survived so long by presenting to the world the "good cop, bad cop" dichotomy. Look a cop is a cop!
Did white xtians benefit from black enslavement? Did blacks benefit (other than keiths view) from their enslavment? What socio economic position do blacks hold worldwide?
Look you are a racist albeit probably a covert one. Racist always try to justify their historical evilness and their aberrant behavior.
We'll never agree because we have two different agendas. You want to remain a privilege white man and I want parity. See ya!
AFRICANVOICE.COM has left a new comment on your post "The Fairness Doctrine. Why Is It Needed?":
"blacks were the only ones who have suffered gravely from the injustice of slavery"
I didn't say that blacks were the ONLY ones. What I did say is that the type of injustice is unique to the European when it comes to black enslavement. Find another group that "decultured" a whole race of people in history for me will ya?
Slavery in other lands and times ran across the "racial" board, but the european white CHRISTIAN man enslaved the black exclusively based on his "blackness." He tried with the indian but it didn't work.
"Keith Richburg in his book"
So this negro speaks for all black people? Look just because he feels "god" (read white man) has been good to him doesn't mean that the white man is good or that there's a god. It means that keith has been "decultured" to the point where he has abandoned his own ancestral African-ness.
"By criticizing "white Christians", you fail to acknowledge the fact that it was white Christians who began the world's first abolitionist movement"
This is how european culture has survived so long by presenting to the world the "good cop, bad cop" dichotomy. Look a cop is a cop!
Did white xtians benefit from black enslavement? Did blacks benefit (other than keiths view) from their enslavment? What socio economic position do blacks hold worldwide?
Look you are a racist albeit probably a covert one. Racist always try to justify their historical evilness and their aberrant behavior.
We'll never agree because we have two different agendas. You want to remain a privilege white man and I want parity. See ya!
Look you are a racist albeit probably a covert one. Racist always try to justify their historical evilness and their aberrant behavior.
We'll never agree because we have two different agendas. You want to remain a privilege white man and I want parity. See ya!
You, my friend are exactly what you refuse to see in yourself, but impart unto others. A racist. You perpetuate racism. If you want a colorblind world, quit obsessing over it. As Morgan Freeman said on 60 Minutes, "stop talking about it."
And you can ask Mark as to my ethnicity. How funny that you should assume that I am a "privileged white man". You only got one word in that phrase, right.
"You, my friend are exactly what you refuse to see in yourself, but impart unto others. A racist."
I have no power to be racist. I may sound like one because you want me to be, but I can't act upon any racist notions like white folks who make the laws and control the resources! I'm sure your can comprehend this simple fact.
"You perpetuate racism."
Nope, I speak my mind and it upsets real racist who like to hide behind their hypocrisy.
If you want a colorblind world, quit obsessing over it.
Then the only color will be white! Speak for yourself, I want color in my world!
As Morgan Freeman said on 60 Minutes, "stop talking about it."
Fluck that negro facsimile
And you can ask Mark as to my ethnicity.
If you are not white then you are a facsimile (see morgan freeman)..they count as white too you know...
How funny that you should assume that I am a "privileged white man".
Then woman..(ref: see the transfer of affirmative action to white women from blacks, especially black men) it makes no difference.
You only got one word in that phrase, right.
nantucket person, you are socialized in a white world whether you or skinned white or not and your level or acceptance education (and maybe white skin) gives you priviledge and your rank in the peckin order.
You have no clue or care to understand people of color's fight for liberation from your colony. This doesn't include negros, coconuts, bannanas, oreos, and the rest of the "assimilated" bunch.
Maybe I missed the gender...
Amazing. Your last comment just proved my point: You, my friend, are racist.
It is unfortunate that you cannot even see it.
No doubt about it. Africanvoice is a racist. He's a racist AND a victim. That's a two-fer. Not easy to do. He must be proud.
But what's this crap about not having the power to be a racist? I answered my own question it seems. It's crap. Racism has nothing to do with power or wealth. It's all about blaming one's troubles on the color of others. "Life is hard because of the white man." "I can't get a job because they're giving them all to the black guys." Tell ya what, AV. You need to start up a black KKK. Why fart around? You WANT racial disharmony. Don't deny it. Why else would you crap on Freeman except that he refuses to buy into the black victimhood nonsense? It's really pathetic.
Here's a movie for Africanvoice. Just in time for black history month. Go see it. It'll round out your education from all the race-blame.
May I just say that it's people like you that make America stuck in its rut. Can we let go of the victim complex we all see much too often from both sides of the fence (Liberal and Conservative?) The hatred and vileness that spews from right wing talk radio is shameful and embarrassing, perhaps limiting some of it and opening up people to other viewpoints would be nice for a change? Talk radio in this decade has merely given more foolish, angry people a place to congregate and split America in two even more. We need to come together and rid ourselves of silly partisanship, or at least act civil about it in this century or America is on its way out, sorry.
Post a Comment