An excellent example of liberal media bias.

[jcx]

The following story by NY Times staff writer Ronald Brownstein is an excellent example of subtle media bias. In covering the story of George Soros' MoveOn.org raising a significant sum for ex-Klansmen Sen. Robert Byrd (A story in itself which I will not address here) Mr. Brownstein neglects to mention Sen Byrd's somewhat sordid past. Specifically, his former affiliation with the Klan is completely omitted from a story currently running on nytimes.com and the main page of Yahoo!

The only reason I have for pointing this out is to demonstrate what I believe to be a clear bias. If David Duke decided to re-enter the world of politics and for some
inane reason the Heritage Foundation contributed to his cause, his Klan affiliation would be mentioned in every paragraph (rightly so).

Thanks for your time.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=2&u=/latimests/20050406/ts_latimes/goppouncesonbyrdlinktoliberalgroup

[sam h]

The article is from the LA Times not the New York Times, but, hey, its all the same right?

Byrd is a total scumbag, but he did quit the Klan in 1943. Duke, on the other hand, was Louisiana's KKK Imperial Wizard into the 1980s, just before he started running for office. And since then, Duke has continued to publicly agitate for white supremacy when he hasn't been trying to get into politics. So they are really not that comparable.

[partygirluk]

Most media outlets will have some kind of bias.

[InchoateHand]

National Review doesn't. Fox doesn't.

[bholdr]

please include a smiley to denote sarcasam. i almost took your post seriously and nearly flamed you. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

also without bias:CBS, ABC, Washingto Post, Rush Limbaugh, HST, etc.. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

actually without bias (largely): CSM, AP, BBC

[Dead]

American Spectator, WSJ, and Ann Coulter's website are all great non-biased reads. If you don't get your news from them then you are certainly a commie. You don't want to be a commie, do you?

[Felix_Nietsche]

...suppose to be Neutral.
Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Al Frankin(sp?) are editorialist. To accuse them of be being biased is silly. They admit upfront that they are biased and the listener is forewarned. Accusing an editorialist of being bias is like accusing Kerry of being a Democrat......

Where bias is wrong is where news reporters who are suppose to be objective are allowing their personal views to color the news. Their tactics of introducing bias include:

1. Time devoted to a story.
E.g. The media spent FIVE YEARS trying to nail Bush about his national guard service. It finally climaxed with the Dan Rather fake memos. While the coverage for the oil-for-food lasted maybe a week.

2. Choice of words
E.g. In the fight over the judicial nominees, the Democrats have called the proposed rule changes the "nuclear option". Republicans call it the "constitutional option". Obviously calling the proposed rule changes the nuclear option is less flattering, so what does the mainstream media call it? the nuclear option.... /images/graemlins/frown.gif

3. Choosing what stories to run and which stories to muck.
This is a biggie!

The problem with news bias is with reporters who are suppose to report news in an objective are in a sense being dishonest with their readers/viewers by not admiting thay are coloring the news. In their defense, the view of the world is so warped that they actually believe they are objective. Dan Rather was one of these people. He called himself a moderate. There are whole websites devoted with examples of his biasness...

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Choice of words
E.g. In the fight over the judicial nominees, the Democrats have called the proposed rule changes the "nuclear option". Republicans call it the "constitutional option". Obviously calling the proposed rule changes the nuclear option is less flattering, so what does the mainstream media call it? the nuclear option....

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, those mainstream, pinko, Dukakis-voting, tree-hugging liberals and their spinsters in the media are up to their old tricks.

Just look at this article by some commie rag columnist, one Comrade Bob Novak, where the phrase 'nuclear option' appears numerous times!

Link To Some Liberal Calling it a 'Nuclear Option'; how biased! (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20041220.shtml)

Where did the liberal media get the term 'nuclear option' from, anyway? Must have been one of their Democratic allies in the Senate. No Republican would ever use such inflammatory language.

Some Democratic Senator Referring to it as the 'nuclear option'...no wonder the MSM picked up the phrase! (http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200502/POL20050224b.shtml)


[ QUOTE ]
Dan Rather was one of these people. He called himself a moderate. There are whole websites devoted with examples of his biasness...

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? Whole websites!?!? Wow. Maybe now that Rather's retired, he'll have more time to visit Lenin's Mausoleum and pray at the altar of Trotsky.

I'd comment further on Rather's bias but I've got to run and check out what the Aryan Nation, KKK, Nordic Thunder, White Aryan Resistance (WAR), and the American Nazi Party's websites all have to teach me about white supremacy, because if there are whole websites devoted to it, it's gotta be true!!!!!!

[Cyrus]

I understand that Byrd has completely denounced his past KKK affiliation. In fact, his record on politics, for anyone that does not know his personal history, is anything but a Klansman's.

So, although not a minor "youthful indiscretion" at all, why is Robert Byrd's past affiliation with a racist organisation used by his ideological opponents to this day? Should we not rather be concerned with his current ideas and positions on issues?

David Duke has never repented and is, in fact, still actively supporting his racist ideas. Comparing Byrd with Duke is not little idiotic. It is like putting on equal measure a straight-up guy that had broken the law once in his youth with a serial killer still out for blood. What's your story?

[zaxx19]

From Dukes Website:

[ QUOTE ]
The Jewish supremacists are the real supremacists, Yet, they diabolically label their enemies as racist, haters, anti-Semites, and racially prejudiced, when in fact they practice the most virulent, and violent racism and human oppression known to mankind. Israel is an Apartheid State that has cruelly ethnically cleansed huge sections of land and put additional lands and millions of people under a brutal military occupation for decades. It jails and tortures tens of thousands, sends missiles and machine gun fire into neighborhoods of women and children, and somehow is still described as a democracy by the Jewish-dominated press! It segregates Jews and Arabs in schools, facilities, apartment buildings and neighborhoods and even whole towns! Yet, the proponents of Israel such as the ADL are busy finding targets of “racial hate” in the United States. And who are their targets, the very groups who oppose Jewish supremacism!



[/ QUOTE ]

Now, Cyrus are you sure you dont like David Duke a little more than you initially thought?? Bc it seems like you 2 might have alot of commonly held values/beliefs.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
From Dukes Website:
...[anti-semitic claptrap]...
Now, Cyrus are you sure you dont like David Duke a little more than you initially thought?? Bc it seems like you 2 might have alot of commonly held values/beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

You arguments are getting more devastating by the day, Zaxx. Keep up the good work.

[zaxx19]

What arguement?

[Felix_Nietsche]

".....if there are whole websites devoted to it, it's gotta be true!!!!!! "
************************************************** ***
Sarcasm eh.....You have implied that these cites are not credible.
So are you disputing the accuracy of these websites which documents Dan Rather's bias? If so here is one of the websites>

http://www.ratherbiased.com/compare.htm

I suspect you rather make saracstic comments rather than back up your arguments with supporting facts and supporting examples.... Any chimp can make a post stating their opinions without supporting facts and supporting examples... Feel free to point out where they have unfairly documented Dan Rathers reporting... I won't hold my breath.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
So are you disputing the accuracy of these websites which documents Dan Rather's bias? If so here is one of the websites>

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not disputing the accuracy at all. I'm only claiming that merely because some quantity of websites (be they numerous or few) exist asserting that Dan Rather is biased is NOT sufficient evidence! Enough red herrings. I never disputed their accuracy; I'm only disputing the notion the because websites exist on a certain subject has little to do with their veracity.

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect you rather make saracstic comments rather than back up your arguments with supporting facts and supporting examples

[/ QUOTE ]

My argument is only that you made poor arguments, not that Dan Rather/the media isn't liberal. Sometimes I would rather use sarcasm to make my point, sometime I wouldn't.

[ QUOTE ]
.... Any chimp can make a post stating their opinions without supporting facts and supporting examples...

[/ QUOTE ]

The 'any chimp' part is just boring ad hominem. My opinion is simply that you made two arguments which were particularly ridiculous:
1) The 'words' debate. Some conservative media and politicians have been as willing to use the word nuclear option as liberal media/politicians. It's false to suggest otherwise. Please see the links I provided in the previous post.
2) The idea that 'because whole websites' are devoted to something proves, by the very fact that they EXIST, its assertions are true. This idea is easily rejectable. IMO, I agree with the websites! Rather was likely a liberal, and it showed in his reporting. But the fact that 'whole websites are devoted' to proving Rather is biased (whether or not you and I agree) is NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE! These claims deserve further investigation.

[ QUOTE ]
Feel free to point out where they have unfairly documented Dan Rathers reporting... I won't hold my breath.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I claim Dan Rather wasn't biased? I merely criticized your manner for justifying why you believe the media is liberal; I'm NOT claiming the mainstream media ISN'T liberal, only that your reasoning is poor. ENOUGH RED HERRINGS!

[Felix_Nietsche]

"I'm not disputing the accuracy at all. I'm only claiming that merely because some quantity of websites (be they numerous or few) exist asserting that Dan Rather is biased is NOT sufficient evidence!"
************************************************** *****
Then say so....sarcasm does not communicate this idea.
If your not disputing the accuracy of these websites which point out Rather's bias....then WHY EVEN COMMENT? Are you the 'Proper Argument Police'? If so please state your credentials which qualifies you for this position.
Most people on the forum focus on the IDEA FIRST....*THEN* they attack the supporting arguments (if poster gave any supporting evidence which rare on this forum). To ignore whether you think the idea is True/or Untrue and focus on other aspects of the post is the EPITOME of chasing 'red herrings'.


Did I claim Dan Rather wasn't biased?
************************************************** *****
You implied that he wasn't biased with your sarcasm...
I would bet most people reading your reply assumed the same thing.


"I merely criticized your manner for justifying why you believe the media is liberal; I'm NOT claiming the mainstream media ISN'T liberal, only that your reasoning is poor."
************************************************** ****
If you think the media is biased THEN SAY SO.
If you think it is not, THEN SAY SO.
And back it up with supporting facts and/or examples... Show us how a smart guy like you backs up his arguments...
In the politcal forum people argue IDEAS. Most Devil's Advocates would argue with a rock if they could.
If you want to be the forums OFFICIAL Devil's Advocate, then the job is yours.... just don't be surprised if people just see you as a major pain-in-the-***.

I look forward to your future posts showing us mere mortals how to make a proper argument...

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Time devoted to a story.
E.g. The media spent FIVE YEARS trying to nail Bush about his national guard service. It finally climaxed with the Dan Rather fake memos. While the coverage for the oil-for-food lasted maybe a week.

[/ QUOTE ]

by your reasoning, was the medis biased in favor of the republicans during the Clinton presidency? In both cases, IMO, they were after the one thing that REALLY drives news orginizations.... PROFITS.

I'm not saying thet the 'mainstream liberal news bias' is a total myth, there's some truth to it, but not at the level thet conservitives like to insinuate it is. you guys come off sounding like conspiricy theroy type nuts when you clain that the majority of the mainstream news media outlets are out to get the republican party and conservatives in general.

In fact, the leading news outlets these days may have a CONSERVATIVE bias, ABC, FOX, etc...


you bring up a good point about word choice, though- i studed journalism, and the myth of objectivity in reporting is clearly exposed when one considers that the very nouns and adjectives that a reporter chooses to use, conciously or not, reveal their bias.

"insurgents" vs "rebels" vs "freedom fighters"
"president bush 'speedily' did blah, blah..." vs "hastily" vs "aggressivly"

and so on and so forth.


I place the blame for such bias squarely on the veiwing public. it is the responsibility of the veiwer to sift through all this free content that we're getting and determine for ourselves what most closely approximates the truth.

personally, i watch both FOX and CNN, the BBC, i read the NYT and the WSJ ad the AP wire and NPR. Real Time and even a little Rush now and then

and, IMO, the most TRULY unbiased news source out there right now is the Christian Science Monitor- don't get hung up on the name, it is a FANTASTIC newspsper.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
If your not disputing the accuracy of these websites which point out Rather's bias....then WHY EVEN COMMENT?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because faulty logic needs to be exposed for what it is.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you the 'Proper Argument Police'? If so please state your credentials which qualifies you for this position.

[/ QUOTE ]

If referring to me as the 'Proper Argument Police' means that I believe justifications matter in arguments and not just conclusion, then sure, give me a badge, some handcuffs and a squad car.

I believe anyone is qualified to recognize disingenuous arguments (only Democrats/liberal politicians and media use the phrase 'nuclear options') or fallacies (claiming that merely because websites exist constitutes legitimate proof). Arguments matter, not just conclusions.

[ QUOTE ]
Most people on the forum focus on the IDEA FIRST

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not interested in how most people behave when posting. Should I call you the 'Forum Posting Etiquette Police'?

[ QUOTE ]
To ignore whether you think the idea is True/or Untrue and focus on other aspects of the post is the EPITOME of chasing 'red herrings'.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm allowed to focus on whatever aspects of the post that I choose to. You claimed only Dem./liberal media use the phrase 'nuclear option.' It's clearly not true. I stuck to the point. No red herring there.

You submitted that because 'whole websites exist' which claim Rather is a liberal, that constitutes conclusive proof. It doesn't. I stuck to the topic at hand. No red herring here either.

[ QUOTE ]
You implied that he wasn't biased with your sarcasm...

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
I would bet most people reading your reply assumed the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then they made a mistake too. My sarcasm was only meant to mock faulty logic; it did not make claims (or even imply claims) about my opinion of Dan Rather. If people misunderstood this, then they should assume less.

[ QUOTE ]
If you think the media is biased THEN SAY SO.
If you think it is not, THEN SAY SO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I under an obligation to do this? I don't think I am.

If people are dying of curiosity as to what my opinion is, I think the debate over media bias is framed poorly. Questions like 'are the media bias?' fail to discriminate between the thousands (millions?) of media sources which exist! Is the NYT biased? Is the WSJ biased? Fox News? CBS? TheDrudgeReport? DemocraticUnderground? CSPAN? The AP? Routers? All of these news sources deserve their own scrutiny. To make sweeping generalizations about the media being 'liberal' or 'conservative' is foolishness.

I feel as if I've read far too many 'gotcha' posts about media bias; someone posts some small tidbit of information from some small corner of the media universe, and it's supposed to stand as conclusive proof about biases and agendas on behalf of the entire media.

Let's segregate one portion of the media; the New York Times. Are the political reporters as biased as the business reporters? The education reporters? The science reporters? Certainly we could leave room for degrees of bias among individual reporters/columnists. Is Adam Clymer as biased as Carl Hulse? What about their corporate owners? Do they have biases and agendas?

Imagine the time and effort it would take to examine every facet of the New York Times editorial decisions, story choices, corporate strategy, etc. Thousands of man hours would be needed to carefully scruitnize the thousands of editions of NYT which have been printed in just the last 20 years. Imagine if we expanded our media investigation to include just daily newspapers. Does the New York Times coordinate their agendas with the Los Angeles Times? Does the Wall Street Journal share the same biases as the Washington Post? Imagine if we included in our investigation the national cable news networks, the Internet (newsites, weblogs, message boards), daily newspapers, local and network television news coverage, etc.

What's my point? This is a very complicated discussion that is treated with very little depth or serious inquiry. And perhaps well it shouldn't! Imagine if we could perform a serious investigation about bias in certain media sources. Imagine, then, it was conclusively proven that systemic, widespread media bias exists. Where would it get us? Well, we live in a pluralistic society with free markets and free speech. The government can’t regulate the media. The conclusion would invariably be caveat emptor, which is what everyone who claims the media is biased is essentially suggesting now anyway! With the plethora of media sources which exist, people of every political persuasion can go to whichever news source they feel most comfortable with; the debate over media bias is an elitist one. Anyone who wants to fight the media bias battle is claiming something along the lines of this: "I can easily recognize the bias of News Source XYZ; but the uneducated, ignorant masses who accept News Source XYZ as gospel are really having the wool pulled over their eyes! If they only knew what I knew, then we would get somewhere."

The days of a media controlled by Cronkite and a few localized newspapers are dead; let's let the media bias debate die with it.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to be the forums OFFICIAL Devil's Advocate, then the job is yours

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it pay well? Can I talk it over with my family first? Leaving the Proper Argument Police to become Head Devil’s Advocate is a big career move and shouldn't be taken lightly.

[ QUOTE ]
.... just don't be surprised if people just see you as a major pain-in-the-***.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heaven forbid.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"I'm not saying thet the 'mainstream liberal news bias' is a total myth, there's some truth to it, but not at the level thet conservitives like to insinuate it is."
************************************************** ***
I basically agree. The bias is more subtle.
E.g. When Clinton issued an executive order to reverse a small abortion related issue that Reagan signed. Rather refered to this as Clinton fulfilling a campaign promise. When Bush43 reversed that decision, Rather referred to the incident as Bush appeasing his right-wing base. /images/graemlins/frown.gif


"In both cases, IMO, they were after the one thing that REALLY drives news orginizations.... PROFITS."
**************************************************
I partially disagree here. At least at CBS, Dan rather was a strong proponent that the news divsions should NOT be held to the same P/L(profit/loss) standards as the other divisions... His position was in effect that the news division performed a valuble public service and profits/losses should not used to evaluated their division.


"In fact, the leading news outlets these days may have a CONSERVATIVE bias, ABC, FOX, etc..."
************************************************** ****
I would agree that Fox has a slight conservative bias. ABC conservative!!?? Peter Jennings is NOT conservative and he has shown a liberal bias in the past... One nice thing that this generation has today is the Big Media monopoly of ABC, CBS, and NBC has been broken by the internet, Fox News, and talk radio. In the past if I wanted to listen to the news I had to suffer with biases that I disagreed with....no more. I just change the channel. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Some may disagree with me on this but since Fox news and the internet took off, ABC, NBC, and CBS SEEMED to have shifted from left-leaning to now slightly left-of-center. The news on the big three still irritates me with their bias from time-to-time but not NEARLY as much as 10 years ago...
By the way, the audience size of Fox is no where near the size of CBS, NBC, or ABC....


"insurgents" vs "rebels" vs "freedom fighters"
"president bush 'speedily' did blah, blah..." vs "hastily" vs "aggressivly"
**************************************************
Good examples....


"IMO, the most TRULY unbiased news source out there right now is the Christian Science Monitor- don't get hung up on the name, it is a FANTASTIC newspsper."
************************************************** *
I haven't read that paper in a LONG time. I'll look it up gain next time I go to the library..


Very good post.....keep it up.

[bholdr]

"One nice thing that this generation has today is the Big Media monopoly of ABC, CBS, and NBC has been broken by the internet, Fox News, and talk radio."

...ABC & disney own a whole bunch of conservative talk outlets, including Rush. their prime time news programming is more than offset by their conservative endevours.

remember F-9-11- the whole contraversy about disney not wanting to release it because of it's political content? this from the company that produces EIB...

"By the way, the audience size of Fox is no where near the size of CBS, NBC, or ABC...."

am i the only one that's suprised that FOX hasn't yet started to show their news programming on their network broadcast outlets? one would think there's money to be made there...

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]

am i the only one that's suprised that FOX hasn't yet started to show their news programming on their network broadcast outlets? one would think there's money to be made there...

[/ QUOTE ]

They tried this a few years back, sort of a news magazine show featuring O'Reilly, Greta & a few others. Didn't last. FOX channel viewers would rather be watching Temptation Island.

[Felix_Nietsche]

.....many "Atomic Wedgies".

And deservedly so....

[DVaut1]

I'll assume Felix was never accused of having anything resembling coherent logic or relevant responses. Good atomic wedgie jokes, perhaps; profound thoughts? Not so much.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that Byrd has completely denounced his past KKK affiliation. In fact, his record on politics, for anyone that does not know his personal history, is anything but a Klansman's.

So, although not a minor "youthful indiscretion" at all, why is Robert Byrd's past affiliation with a racist organisation used by his ideological opponents to this day? Should we not rather be concerned with his current ideas and positions on issues?

David Duke has never repented and is, in fact, still actively supporting his racist ideas. Comparing Byrd with Duke is not little idiotic. It is like putting on equal measure a straight-up guy that had broken the law once in his youth with a serial killer still out for blood. What's your story?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Did you apply this logic to Strom Thurmond while he was still alive? After all, that embarrassing Dixiecrat stuff was, like, way long ago.

[Dead]

I thought that Strom was a racist pig while he was alive, and I think the same of Byrd now.

Getting Cyrus to see beyond the hypocrisy might be tough indeed.

[Hoi Polloi]

Byrd has publicly apologized for the error of his Klan involvement on numerous occasions. Further, he has stated that despite his apologies and change of heart those choices are part of his legacy.

How many other "reformed racists" such as Trent Lott have made such heart-felt and sincere apologies?

The Byrd/Klan story is not news. You're the biased one here, I'm afraid.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
what arguement?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Let C be the total of beliefs of Cyrus
Let D be the total of beliefs of David Duke.

If C and D have common elements, then C is D."

Ready to attack mapping, equipollence and diagonalisation? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought that Strom was a racist pig while he was alive, and I think the same of Byrd now.

[/ QUOTE ]

(shrug) If either esteemed Congessman is or was a racist in his years after adolescence, you are, naturally, correct in condemning them.

I have not followed their careers too closely. Is Byrd a racist now? Has he been a proponent of racist ideas or legislation in the last two or three decades? Íf so, I'd have no problem whatsoever to denounce his arse.

Well?

[Dead]

Yes he has.

He used the phrase "white nigger" on Fox News Sunday.

" The ex-Klansman showed his true colors when asked by Fox News Sunday morning talk show host Tony Snow about the state of race relations in America. Sen. Byrd warned: "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

Pwned.

[Chris Alger]

When the dumb guys refer to "liberal media bias," they usually mean that some article that failed to treat right-wing myth as truth or neglected a gratuitous smear against some liberal. This is an excellent example of the latter: a short article about Byrd's fundraising is "biased" toward the liberal cause by not mentioning that Byrd's anciently- repudiated membership in the Klan (for about a year 60 years ago).

If the press mentioned that Bush was a drunk driver in even a tenth of the stories about him, the same dumb guys would go nuts because the press played by their own rules.

[Dead]

Byrd is still a racist. He should be challenged in the WV Democratic primary by a true liberal. Byrd doesn't give a [censored] about WV. He's too focused with grabbing more and more pork to name more [censored] after himself in WV.

WV has an awful education system and an awful health care system. I feel bad for the residents there. Byrd could be doing a lot more but I doubt he cares.

I wish that Nick Rahall would run for Senate in WV.

Byrd used the phrase "white nigger" on Fox News Sunday a couple of years ago. He's still a racist.

He voted against Clarence Thomas AND Thurgood Marshall. Thurgood Marshall was one of the most liberal justices ever, and Clarence Thomas is one of the most conservative justices ever. What do they have in common? They're both black, of course.

Byrd=racist.

[ QUOTE ]
WV has an awful education system and an awful health care system. I feel bad for the residents there. Byrd could be doing a lot more but I doubt he cares.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know this? I am not questioning that you know it or that the statement is accurate -- I don't have any idea -- just wondering how you come about your information about West Virginia. The rest of the US isn't exactly wrapped up in West Virginia's affairs.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WV has an awful education system and an awful health care system. I feel bad for the residents there. Byrd could be doing a lot more but I doubt he cares.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know this? I am not questioning that you know it or that the statement is accurate -- I don't have any idea -- just wondering how you come about your information about West Virginia. The rest of the US isn't exactly wrapped up in West Virginia's affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I look at the rankings that various organizations put out ranking the state in their number of childern covered under health care and the adequacy of the state education systems.

Here's an example:

link (http://www.herald-dispatch.com/2004/July/11/LNtop1.htm)

"West Virginia is the most undereducated state in the nation, recent Census figures show, and it’s not just because it’s also one of the oldest states in the nation."

"For decades, West Virginia has ranked low on lists of education attainment, that is, the highest level of education people have completed. It’s made some improvements, but it’s fallen further and further behind in the national rankings -- not because it hasn't made progress, but because other states have made more progress.

West Virginia is the only state in the bottom five in both percentage of people ages 25 and older with high school diplomas and percentage with at least a four-year college degree.

Because education and income are linked, it may be no wonder that the least educated state is also the state with the lowest household income and among the lowest in per-capita income."

---------------------------------------------------

It is clear that West Virginians need some federal help.

We shouldn't consign people to poverty just because they don't have the means to afford a quality education.

It can't be done at the state level because the incomes in the state are not high enough. The state is tapped.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
He should be challenged in the WV Democratic primary by a true liberal. Byrd doesn't give a [censored] about WV. He's too focused with grabbing more and more pork to name more [censored] after himself in WV.

[/ QUOTE ]
And a true liberal wouldn't be focused on grabbing more pork...?

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He should be challenged in the WV Democratic primary by a true liberal. Byrd doesn't give a [censored] about WV. He's too focused with grabbing more and more pork to name more [censored] after himself in WV.

[/ QUOTE ]
And a true liberal wouldn't be focused on grabbing more pork...?

[/ QUOTE ]

Conservatives grab a lot of pork as well. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Pork is not bad, but Byrd grabs pork just so he can get [censored] named after himself, and a lot of it doesn't even go to actually help people.

I don't believe in pork for [censored] like a theatre or an exhibit on the mating patterns of some exotic bug.

Pork for a hospital to build a new children's ward to treat infectious diseases, would be good pork, in my opinion.

Or money from Washington for new computers at an elementary school. Good idea.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Conservatives grab a lot of pork as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Several Republicans grab a lot of pork (Ted Stevens of Alaska comes to mind!). Fiscal conservatives should not be grabbing pork.

When I think pork, I think waste that should come from the level at which the money would benefit. Federal money shouldn't be spent on things like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. That's waste.

[Dead]

You totally ignored the rest of my post. I agree that crap like this is a total waste.

But if it is going to something worthwhile like a hospital or a school, then it's a different story.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[Robert Byrd] used the phrase "white nigger" on Fox News Sunday. " The ex-Klansman showed his true colors when asked by Fox News Sunday morning talk show host Tony Snow about the state of race relations in America. Sen. Byrd warned: "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

[/ QUOTE ]

You think I belong to the Robert Byrd Fan Club, think again. If he is a racist, he is racist and should be denounced for that - period. If he is not (any more), I would not have a problem ignoring his "youthful indiscretions". And not because he is a Democrat, either.

Now, that quote from Fox sounds racist indeed. Was it? I do not know the context. (I don't care for the interpretation by Fox.) I hear the word "nigger" used routinely by people who have not a single racist bone in their body. Perhaps I should just mention Tarantino here. Anyway, I would rally want to learn more before I agree that "Byrd is still a racist".

[ QUOTE ]
Pwned.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple of presidential elections ago, or more, I saw a clip on TV from likely voters being polled and there was this one redneck right out from central casting, tatoos, fat, baseball hat, dirty clothes, the works. He was a rustbelt unemployed man, and the field of candidates was looking like the usual offering of bastards to him - except for Rev. Jesse Jackson who, at the time, was railing against corporate America. The redneck looked straight at the camera and said "I'm with the nigger".

Perfect.

[Dead]

I'd never heard Tarantino use that word in discussions or conversations, but I don't follow him close enough to know for sure if he has or not publicly. I know that he uses a lot in his movies. So do rappers. That's not the point.

The point is that it is all about context, as you said. And if it can't be determined from that, then you look at the person and their history of remarks. Byrd has been making racist remarks for decades.

There is no reason for us to conclude that his remarks on Fox News Sunday were anything but racist.


And the anecdote involving Jesse Jackson has nothing to do with this discussion.

I think that you are being too partisan here. Just because Byrd is a Democrat, just because he opposed the war(good on him, btw), doesn't mean that he should be immune from criticism and attacks.