BACK SHE KOS POLITIKAKKE - Politics thread

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 22:01:40

pacino wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:There isn't an answer so contracted raises based on no qualifying criteria except getting the job in the first place is the only way to go. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Propose a solution, thanks. Post an article, something. I seem to remember Democrats being considered the party of 'no ideas' and simply being 'opposition'. Well, don't oppose. Solve.

None of what you asks for exists. You stand on the side of conservatism you conservative, leave well enough alone.

by **pacino** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 22:01:44

FTN wrote:Its a shame this will get buried at the end of this thread, but this makes me really sad.

Olbermann and Matthews removed

I love that the man who voted for Bush(Matthews) is suddenly some left-wing puppet.

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 22:02:08

No one cares.

by **pacino** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 22:03:41

VoxOrion wrote:
pacino wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:There isn't an answer so contracted raises based on no qualifying criteria except getting the job in the first place is the only way to go. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Propose a solution, thanks. Post an article, something. I seem to remember Democrats being considered the party of 'no ideas' and simply being 'opposition'. Well, don't oppose. Solve.

None of what you asks for exists. You stand on the side of conservatism you conservative, leave well enough alone.

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. You propose merit pay, but what kind of merit pay? Based on what? I suggest peer review, and you slam it as 'cronyism'. So you think test scores is the way to go? The amount of Skittles accumulated over the course of a year? Ability to fold a flag properly? How well they teach Palin-sponsored creationism class?

by **dajafi** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 22:03:45

FTN wrote:Its a shame this will get buried at the end of this thread, but this makes me really sad.

Olbermann and Matthews removed

This is the difference between Fox, where you have a political operative (Ailes) who became a network executive, and MSNBC, where you have b-school suits who merely want an exploitable market segment but have no other commitment to the programming.

by **FTN** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 22:04:40

TenuredVulture wrote:
FTN wrote:Its a shame this will get buried at the end of this thread, but this makes me really sad.

Olbermann and Matthews removed

Why?

um because a network is allowing political pressure to dictate their coverage of news/politics/events?

Third, this episode demonstrates what Eric Alterman documented several years ago: that the greatest and most transparent myth in American politics is that the U.S. has a "liberal media." That is a myth that is maintained, first and foremost, by defining anyone who isn't Rush Limbaugh as a "liberal." Hence, people such as the wife of Bush official Dan Senor (Campbell Brown) is a "liberal," as is Alan Greenspan's wife (Andrea Mitchell), along with establishment-worshipers such as Rush-Limbaugh-admirer Brian Williams, right-wing-talking-points-spouting Charlie Gibson, and anyone who writes for the war-enabling New York Times and Washington Post.

Perhaps nothing demonstrates this absurd dynamic more than the painfully inane perception that Chris Matthews -- for years a prime target of liberal media critics -- is some sort of "liberal." That's the same "liberal" Chris Matthews who, over the years, has said things like this:

I like [George Bush]. Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left . . . We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. . . . Why don't the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He did well today. . . . Thank you very much. James Jeffrey, assistant to Condoleezza Rice. We're huge fans [of Rice] -- bring her back with you next time.

Or see the "liberal" Matthews fawning over Fred Thompson's attractive manliness and Rudy Giuliani's powerful authority and the charming masculinity of Republicans versus the "geekier, nerdier" Democrats. That is who is deemed to be a "liberal" in our political culture because the reality, as Atrios frequently puts it, is that the only hard and fast rule is: "Your liberal media: no liberals allowed."

This has been going on for years. As I wrote in response to the uproar generated at places like The New Republic over the fact that MSNBC has now given an actual liberal, Rachel Maddow, her own show and is thereby jeopardizing non-partisan, objective, high-minded journalism:

Over the past seven years, the following people have hosted prime-time cable news shows: Joe Scarborough (MSNBC), Michael Savage (MSNBC), Glenn Beck (CNN), Tucker Carlson (MSNBC), Nancy Grace (CNN), Bill O'Reilly (Fox) and Sean Hannity (Fox). None of that seemed to bother the likes of [TNR's Sacha] Zimmerman. None of that was depicted as the downfall of objective journalism or the destruction of civil, elevated, high-minded discourse.

Several of those hosts had and continue to have atrocious ratings (Carlson, Beck, Scarborough), yet were kept for years.

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 22:05:00

FTN wrote:Its a shame this will get buried at the end of this thread, but this makes me really sad.

Olbermann and Matthews removed

What if it was posted and talked about back on page 45 or something?

by **pacino** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 22:05:18

VoxOrion wrote:No one cares.

She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.

OK, she only 'asked' about banning books, she didn't actually do it. Who the hell even asks a question like that? A loon, that's who.

Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

There are NOT 'two sides'! This is a crock and another slick way to propose an idea without actually tying yourself to it.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 22:05:35

All of you--the problem with television news isn't bias, it isn't corporate control, it's that anyone watches it. CNN, Fox, and MSNBC is the politics equivalent of WIP.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 22:06:15

I think the idea is to have people who have a shred of credibility as objective journalists anchoring news broadcasts.

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 22:06:16

pacino wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:
pacino wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:There isn't an answer so contracted raises based on no qualifying criteria except getting the job in the first place is the only way to go. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Propose a solution, thanks. Post an article, something. I seem to remember Democrats being considered the party of 'no ideas' and simply being 'opposition'. Well, don't oppose. Solve.

None of what you asks for exists. You stand on the side of conservatism you conservative, leave well enough alone.

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. You propose merit pay, but what kind of merit pay? Based on what? I suggest peer review, and you slam it as 'cronyism'. So you think test scores is the way to go? The amount of Skittles accumulated over the course of a year? Ability to fold a flag properly? How well they teach Palin-sponsored creationism class?

I proposed nothing. You proposed testing parents and students or something, and I lost all expectation of having a rational conversation with you, including your hysteria about Palin.

by **FTN** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 22:07:14

jerseyhoya wrote:I think the idea is to have people who have a shred of credibility as objective journalists anchoring news broadcasts.

Right.

What is credibility? Willingness to not criticize the President?

by **pacino** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 22:07:37

My hysteria comes from the fact that she is an utter loon potentially one step from the presidency. I could discuss merit pay all you want, but apparently you don't wish to read my posts. Then please, don't respond to them anymore.

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 22:07:51

jerseyhoya wrote:I think the idea is to have people who have a shred of credibility as objective journalists anchoring news broadcasts.

Why?

I say enough with that bullshit and just put on the people that will say what the audience wants to hear. No one believes news that didn't come from their guy anymore anyway. Let Olberman do his thing.

(FWIW I think Matthews ruined a great opportunity to step into Russert's shoes and blew it with all his petty bickering with Olberman - instead of maturing into the elder newsman he lowered himself)

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 22:07:53

VoxOrion wrote:
FTN wrote:Its a shame this will get buried at the end of this thread, but this makes me really sad.

Olbermann and Matthews removed

What if it was posted and talked about back on page 45 or something?

That was a link to the corporate controlled Washington Post. That doesn't count.

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 22:10:20

pacino wrote:My hysteria comes from the fact that she is an utter loon potentially one step from the presidency. I could discuss merit pay all you want, but apparently you don't wish to read my posts. Then please, don't respond to them anymore.

You responded to mine! You've read something or have some detail or opinion or something and are looking to drop it on us but you're waiting for the right moment. I read your posts - that's where I saw you come in and start spouting union pamphlets and now you're frustrated that no one wants to debate you.

by **pacino** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 22:11:50

VoxOrion wrote:
pacino wrote:My hysteria comes from the fact that she is an utter loon potentially one step from the presidency. I could discuss merit pay all you want, but apparently you don't wish to read my posts. Then please, don't respond to them anymore.

You responded to mine! You've read something or have some detail or opinion or something and are looking to drop it on us but you're waiting for the right moment. I read your posts - that's where I saw you come in and start spouting union pamphlets and now you're frustrated that no one wants to debate you.

Spouting union pamphlets? I believe some of what my union does is pointless and fruitless. I also think they provide a valid voice for many of the workers in it who individually have little ability to bargain for what they feel are good working conditions. That's the point of a union.

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 22:19:59

pacino wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:
pacino wrote:My hysteria comes from the fact that she is an utter loon potentially one step from the presidency. I could discuss merit pay all you want, but apparently you don't wish to read my posts. Then please, don't respond to them anymore.

You responded to mine! You've read something or have some detail or opinion or something and are looking to drop it on us but you're waiting for the right moment. I read your posts - that's where I saw you come in and start spouting union pamphlets and now you're frustrated that no one wants to debate you.

Spouting union pamphlets? I believe some of what my union does is pointless and fruitless. I also think they provide a valid voice for many of the workers in it who individually have little ability to bargain for what they feel are good working conditions. That's the point of a union.

I was referring to that weird line about how tests only evaulate parents and students but have no correlation with teaching - that's such a crazy and blindly partisan perspective it had to come from a union pamphelet.

by **pacino** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 22:21:43

My point was that there are too many factors that go into test scores to make the 'consequences' of the results felt by the teachers.

Isn't it cool we can keep replying and no one else can?!

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 22:29:35

pacino wrote:My point was that there are too many factors that go into test scores to make the 'consequences' of the results felt by the teachers.

Isn't it cool we can keep replying and no one else can?!

Yeah, it's got to be bugging someone.

Alls I'm saying (really saying for the first time) without a specific policy or paper to back me up, is that there has to be some way of evaulating teachers beyond trusting their buddies and that has something to do with their work product. NCLB begged for opposition, corruption, and malfeasance from the get go - but the idea of trying to evaluate teachers against some verifiable criteria is the right direction and it's logical - so logical it's dumbfounding to me that teachers are against it.

Archived

BACK SHE KOS POLITIKAKKE - Politics thread

Added for Jerseyhoya: Who are you voting for?