Jon, neither your opinions or mine are proven fact.
I do believe that almost everyone working at NPR is more liberal than you. But that does not make them liberal. They may be liberal, but that does not mean their reporting is biased.
FAIR says they are Right slanted. AIM says they are Left. CPB-sponsored two studies to see if NPR was perceived as biased by the American public and the results said most Americans see them as balanced.
So who do we believe? FAIR is a left organization. AIM is the right. CPB is, well, basically the parent of NPR. And what parent doesn't want to see their child the best light?
I did not agree with the firing of Juan Williams after what he said on Fox about Muslims making him nervous on airplanes. I think that was an embarrassment for NPR executives.
I think NPR reporters covered that story well, by the way, and quite fairly.
In fairness to you, I will say if they tip slightly one way, I will say they tip to the left because they treat alternative voices and points of view with respect.
I can see how convervatives would regard this as left-leaning. I get it.
You imply that people who post on a website make the NPR website shows that NPR is left leaning.
It is quite possible that you are correct. (And doubtless, from your perspective you are correct.)
Yet using your logic, since the posts on Clay's cartoons are generally from two sides, then Clay must present a balanced opinion.
(Of course, I don't believe that. Clay is left. And funny, which is a matter of opinion.)
I think NPR plays things pretty straight, about half the time giving the Right the last word, about half of the time giving the Left the last word.
Most of my conservative friends see NPR as liberal.
Most of my moderate friends see NPR as in the middle.
What few true liberal friends I have see NPR as right-center, though I have known people who see them right.
I think it depends where on the political spectrum you are. If you are very far right then the mainstream looks like it's on the left.
I do think there are a LOT of stories which NPR does not cover. If you watch Fox and only see the missing Fox stories on NPR, you'd also think NPR was biased toward the left. And the opposite is true for MSNBC.
Overall, I think they try to get it right. They seem generally reasonable and willing to listen to multiple view points. I don't hear them shouting down their guests and, in fact, sometimes they are too polite.
In truth, the majority of Americans do not find NPR biased, so it does say something about me that I don't detect an overall bias. It says I'm with the majority. It says I'm not on the far right.
As a gunowner, I am agnostic on the current need for the second amendment. I'm not sure we have a need to maintain a well armed militia, as we did when the constitution was written. (I understand the fear of tyranny that some have, but think there are many other weapons against that.)
I think people on the extremes ends of this argument each have valid points, and if we ever tipped all the way to one side, there would still be some problems.
I would not be troubled by a near complete ban on gun ownership outside of shooting clubs where the guns would stay, as well as a limit on hunting rifles, or shotguns owned by any one person and a limited magazine capacity.
But because I don't see that as a viable political possibility, I can't disagree with arming teachers, if they are trained in police tactics, demonstrate high proficiency tactical training and maintain yearly certification and proficiency. I think all permit carriers should be similarly bound.
A buddy who is sells weapons to the US government tells me that locations where gun ownership is highest actually have the lowest crime rates. I asked him if these were registered weapons and asked him what the gun concentration was in high crime areas. He did not know. He said he would ask some friends who would know. I haven't heard back yet. I suspect it is not gun ownwership but the behavior, mental stability, social stresses and other factors which affect gun violence more than the gun itself.
Perhaps folks on Signal Mountain have more guns in the house than do people in areas with gang problems. A relatively wealthy person may own multiple guns. But I wonder if the number of gun owners are more equivalent.
While there are examples of this on both sides, the re-election of Scott Des Jarlais shows that people care more about the team than the players.
Partisanship has become more important than having ethical and reasonable people. (I know some would say that he has repented for his ways and has moved on; however, I would have given Des Jarlais more of a pass if he had come clean during the election than afterwards.)
Gerrymandering and the 24 hours news cycle where we give voices to the most extreme only fuel the partisanship.
We need thoughtful people who will work together to solve the complex problems in the US.
patriot1 is right about Medicare and social security. He's right about other countries investing in the future. When social security began, life expectancy in the US was < 65 years old.
We are going to have to make some changes in these programs and it will not be easy. We also need people to work responsibly, not in a partisan way toward tax reform, improved education, immigration and in the promotion alternative energy.
Republicans have become irrationally opposed to science and taxes.
Democrats have become irrationally opposed to changing entitlements.
Hopefully the nation as a whole is not really as divided as Congress or as the talking heads, or the people who post here. But we need to move beyond the team concept of politics. We can't elect partisans despite their poor character.
The morning after pill, and birth control pills and breast feeding.
All of them reduce the chance of ovulation (a woman producing an egg) and, if she does ovulate, decrease the chance of an embryo implanting in the uterine wall.
Aside from rendering the uterine lining less receptive to an embryo (and often unreceptive to an embryo) breast feeding causes uterine contractions which can expel the embryo from the womb prior to implantation.
One can argue that life begins at fertilization. Fine.
But pregnancy does not begin until implantation occurs.
An abortion is the disruption of a pregnancy.
Breast feeding, birth control pills and the morning after pill do not disrupt implantation.
Therefore, birth control pills and the morning after pill (which is really just a birth control pill at a high dose) do not cause abortions.
If Hobby Lobby is following the Christian beliefs of their owners, then why did God allow breast feeding?
Oh wait, why am I writing this? Since when do we let science or logic get in the way of reasoning?
After all, if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she can just pretend sex is legitimate rape. Yeah, that should shut that whole thing down.
I agree with you that if we go over the cliff then it is closer to what Obama wanted than what the Republicans wanted. We get tax hikes and spending cuts.
The problem is, we get tax hikes for all people, which is not what Obama wants.
It will be interesting to see whose narrative wins at that point. Most people say the president wins.
But you raise a good point, even though the general public seems to think Republicans will be to blame if a deal does not get done.... if the economy gets worse, the President could get the blame.
I think this is a real possibility. And it's not an alien strategy to root for misery so you can lay the blame at another's feet.
I don't know why this thought just popped into my head as I typed this... but thinking of so many of conservatives who post here or who I know, I can't help but think how nice it would be if we had more reasonable people like Bob Corker in politics. I don't agree with him on everything, but he is a very rational and reasonable person. I am very proud to have him as our senator.
Sensible republicans and sensible democrats say we need both.
Right now, the hard line in the sand is on tax hikes.
Even when Obama has proposed greater deficit reduction than the republicans did in 2011, it was rejected by republicans because Obama called for tax hikes.
Obesity
I think this is supposed to be a comment that high capacity drinks and high capacity clips do more harm than good.
The more you have to refill or reload, the less harm you can do....
Think of all the greenhouse emissions we would save if we made suburbans have 3 gallon gas tanks.
Maybe we could make cigarettes 1 inch long.
.... There are so many opportunities ....
White House Tour
Jon, neither your opinions or mine are proven fact.
I do believe that almost everyone working at NPR is more liberal than you. But that does not make them liberal. They may be liberal, but that does not mean their reporting is biased.
FAIR says they are Right slanted. AIM says they are Left. CPB-sponsored two studies to see if NPR was perceived as biased by the American public and the results said most Americans see them as balanced.
So who do we believe? FAIR is a left organization. AIM is the right. CPB is, well, basically the parent of NPR. And what parent doesn't want to see their child the best light?
I did not agree with the firing of Juan Williams after what he said on Fox about Muslims making him nervous on airplanes. I think that was an embarrassment for NPR executives.
I think NPR reporters covered that story well, by the way, and quite fairly.
In fairness to you, I will say if they tip slightly one way, I will say they tip to the left because they treat alternative voices and points of view with respect.
I can see how convervatives would regard this as left-leaning. I get it.
White House Tour
Jon,
You may be more right than you know...
You imply that people who post on a website make the NPR website shows that NPR is left leaning.
It is quite possible that you are correct. (And doubtless, from your perspective you are correct.)
Yet using your logic, since the posts on Clay's cartoons are generally from two sides, then Clay must present a balanced opinion.
(Of course, I don't believe that. Clay is left. And funny, which is a matter of opinion.)
I think NPR plays things pretty straight, about half the time giving the Right the last word, about half of the time giving the Left the last word.
Most of my conservative friends see NPR as liberal.
Most of my moderate friends see NPR as in the middle.
What few true liberal friends I have see NPR as right-center, though I have known people who see them right.
I think it depends where on the political spectrum you are. If you are very far right then the mainstream looks like it's on the left.
I do think there are a LOT of stories which NPR does not cover. If you watch Fox and only see the missing Fox stories on NPR, you'd also think NPR was biased toward the left. And the opposite is true for MSNBC.
Overall, I think they try to get it right. They seem generally reasonable and willing to listen to multiple view points. I don't hear them shouting down their guests and, in fact, sometimes they are too polite.
In truth, the majority of Americans do not find NPR biased, so it does say something about me that I don't detect an overall bias. It says I'm with the majority. It says I'm not on the far right.
Both would be correct.
White House Tour
JonRoss,
Did you not see the cartoon that was paired with it, giving the perspective from the Right?
NPR, gave two points of view, without commentary.
But you saw NPR as partisan. Seeing what you wanted to see?
White House Tour
Good job, Clay.
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/14/169143187/double-take-toons-locked-or-loaded
Gun Sales
As a gunowner, I am agnostic on the current need for the second amendment. I'm not sure we have a need to maintain a well armed militia, as we did when the constitution was written. (I understand the fear of tyranny that some have, but think there are many other weapons against that.)
I think people on the extremes ends of this argument each have valid points, and if we ever tipped all the way to one side, there would still be some problems.
I would not be troubled by a near complete ban on gun ownership outside of shooting clubs where the guns would stay, as well as a limit on hunting rifles, or shotguns owned by any one person and a limited magazine capacity.
But because I don't see that as a viable political possibility, I can't disagree with arming teachers, if they are trained in police tactics, demonstrate high proficiency tactical training and maintain yearly certification and proficiency. I think all permit carriers should be similarly bound.
A buddy who is sells weapons to the US government tells me that locations where gun ownership is highest actually have the lowest crime rates. I asked him if these were registered weapons and asked him what the gun concentration was in high crime areas. He did not know. He said he would ask some friends who would know. I haven't heard back yet. I suspect it is not gun ownwership but the behavior, mental stability, social stresses and other factors which affect gun violence more than the gun itself.
Perhaps folks on Signal Mountain have more guns in the house than do people in areas with gang problems. A relatively wealthy person may own multiple guns. But I wonder if the number of gun owners are more equivalent.
Does anyone have numbers on this?
Moving Day
While there are examples of this on both sides, the re-election of Scott Des Jarlais shows that people care more about the team than the players.
Partisanship has become more important than having ethical and reasonable people. (I know some would say that he has repented for his ways and has moved on; however, I would have given Des Jarlais more of a pass if he had come clean during the election than afterwards.)
Gerrymandering and the 24 hours news cycle where we give voices to the most extreme only fuel the partisanship.
We need thoughtful people who will work together to solve the complex problems in the US.
patriot1 is right about Medicare and social security. He's right about other countries investing in the future. When social security began, life expectancy in the US was < 65 years old.
We are going to have to make some changes in these programs and it will not be easy. We also need people to work responsibly, not in a partisan way toward tax reform, improved education, immigration and in the promotion alternative energy.
Republicans have become irrationally opposed to science and taxes.
Democrats have become irrationally opposed to changing entitlements.
Hopefully the nation as a whole is not really as divided as Congress or as the talking heads, or the people who post here. But we need to move beyond the team concept of politics. We can't elect partisans despite their poor character.
Hobby Lobby
The morning after pill, and birth control pills and breast feeding.
All of them reduce the chance of ovulation (a woman producing an egg) and, if she does ovulate, decrease the chance of an embryo implanting in the uterine wall.
Aside from rendering the uterine lining less receptive to an embryo (and often unreceptive to an embryo) breast feeding causes uterine contractions which can expel the embryo from the womb prior to implantation.
One can argue that life begins at fertilization. Fine.
But pregnancy does not begin until implantation occurs.
An abortion is the disruption of a pregnancy.
Breast feeding, birth control pills and the morning after pill do not disrupt implantation.
Therefore, birth control pills and the morning after pill (which is really just a birth control pill at a high dose) do not cause abortions.
If Hobby Lobby is following the Christian beliefs of their owners, then why did God allow breast feeding?
Oh wait, why am I writing this? Since when do we let science or logic get in the way of reasoning?
After all, if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she can just pretend sex is legitimate rape. Yeah, that should shut that whole thing down.
Mistletoe
jesse,
I agree with you that if we go over the cliff then it is closer to what Obama wanted than what the Republicans wanted. We get tax hikes and spending cuts.
The problem is, we get tax hikes for all people, which is not what Obama wants.
It will be interesting to see whose narrative wins at that point. Most people say the president wins.
But you raise a good point, even though the general public seems to think Republicans will be to blame if a deal does not get done.... if the economy gets worse, the President could get the blame.
I think this is a real possibility. And it's not an alien strategy to root for misery so you can lay the blame at another's feet.
I don't know why this thought just popped into my head as I typed this... but thinking of so many of conservatives who post here or who I know, I can't help but think how nice it would be if we had more reasonable people like Bob Corker in politics. I don't agree with him on everything, but he is a very rational and reasonable person. I am very proud to have him as our senator.
Mistletoe
Jesse,
I think you are wrong.
Sensible republicans and sensible democrats say we need both.
Right now, the hard line in the sand is on tax hikes.
Even when Obama has proposed greater deficit reduction than the republicans did in 2011, it was rejected by republicans because Obama called for tax hikes.