Polls
Login
RSS Feed: Local News
RSS Feed: Sports
RSS Feed: Voice
| A conservative irony |
|
|
| Written by Roger Adhikari, Tracy | |
| Tuesday, 19 August 2008 | |
|
A letter-writer finds hypocrisy — or selling out — in the political stands taken by some self-identified conservatives. EDITOR, I have been reading the comments on the Tracy Press Web site, and lately, I am finding irony in some of the comments, especially those made by so-called conservatives. It’s buffoonery that the same conservatives who fought hard for individual rights against federal tyranny throughout the 1980s changed their stance after 9/11 and gave carte blanche to the federal government to invade our privacy. In the city of Tracy, we have noticed a similar sea change. While California conservatives crafted and helped pass a term limits law to get rid of the so-called crooked politicians (especially then-Assembly Speaker Willie Brown), Tracy’s conservatives are doing everything they can to oppose term limits. It seems that conservatives have either lost their soul, or vested interest groups have taken over the conservative agenda. I have a message for the surrogates of this vested interest group camouflaged as conservatives: You’re not fooling anyone but yourself.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 608 Trackback(0)
Comments
(23)
 written by MarkDavis , August 20, 2008
There are other ironies, as well, like the unfairness, anti-law and anti-freedom policies from the extreme Right. Examples include wanting to prevent gay couples from having the same rights as other couples based on religious bigotry, distractions about judicial "activism" when opposed to court decisions, and anti-choice concerning women's rights.
 written by timcase , August 20, 2008
Religious Bigotry??? How can a God loving person be a bigot when they read the very plain text in the King James version of the Bible where the Lord very clearly states His view on Gays? This is a bigot? Only a true atheist could make such a statement.
So one must consider the beliefs of the writer. Distractions about judicial activism? When a ruling is judged by a judge's personal agenda AKA Justice Ginsburg as opposed to a very STRICT look at the ruling based on the Consttution AKA Justice Thomas, Roberts, Scalia. Yes, judicial activism is alive and well especially when it is opposed to what America was founded for. Anti-choice concerning women's rights. What about the rights of the other living being? Tim Michael Case written by MarkDavis , August 20, 2008
TMC: And so you think Sharia (Islamic Law) should also be part of American law, as well? How about stoning disobedient children to death. These are clearly declared in Abrahamic religious texts. Here's a definition of bigot (MW):
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudice Since there is no evidence of harm to others or society for gays to marry, it requires obstinacy and prejudice to hold fast to an opinion that limits their rights, just like the Christians of another era who justified racism based on Biblical ideas (Curse of Ham, for example). Scalia would disagree with your definitions, by the way. He often notes that interpretation over time is a necessity (e.g., freedom of speech obviously extends to email), but that the interpretation should have awareness of textual analysis (what words mean) and original intent. Any way you slice it, though, Conservatives bring as much activism to the bench as anyone else because they bring a specific philosophy. It was quite often the case that SCOTUS justices decided based on "what is for the public good" until around 1950 or so (from all political stripes), therefore they were typically making decisions extra-Constitutionally in any "strict" sense. Any way you slice it, pinning "activism" on some judges doesn't make much sense.  written by mark j , August 20, 2008
Mark D. and Roger, not all of us conservatives are blinded by religous zealotry. I would rather live next to a gay couple that are good people, good parents, and good neighbors, than some of the idiot straight couples and their moron kids that permeate this city. I have never had a strong opinion on abortion but I believe it should be allowed in certain cases such as rape.
I am sure some of my fellow Republicans will skewer me for those comments but its time for some of them to enter the 21st century and quite living by a book of fables written by men over 2000 years ago. written by MarkDavis , August 20, 2008
Point taken, MJ, that there is diversity in opinions among conservatives. Yet we do see some strong patterns in what is often called "movement conservatism": (1) conspiracy theories (2) pandering and incorrect use of terms like socialism or judicial activism (3) generalization based on incorrect facts (4) divisive rhetoric (5) populist appeals that invoke racial and religious bigotry.
As for Roger, he was not at all interested in the religious zealotry aspect, just the specific examples of anti-privacy legislation and term limit commitments. written by mark j , August 20, 2008
Mark D. You're right, I should not have included Roger in my comment.
 written by Tracyite85 , August 21, 2008
I think it's funny that markdavis accused conservatives of making incorrect generalizations while making a list of incorrect generalizations about conservatives.
written by MarkDavis , August 21, 2008
T85: If only those claims were incorrect. Let's just take the local lot of them to task:
(1) conspiracy theories: Dave Kerst (AKA Steve Reshrikas) pretty much continuously claims that the liberal left is out to do something or another. Tim Case repeats the same conspiratorial tones. That makes a conspiracy and is reinforced by just about every right-wing news organization out there. (2) pandering and incorrect use of terms: This happens repeatedly. Scott Hurban, Steve Reshrikas, Tim Case and others constantly make these sorts of claims. The claims are absent of any relationship to reality. (3) generalization based on incorrect facts: this is a no-brainer. Just look at any Scott Hurban letter and analyze the details. Scott has made claims about gay marriage that were directly contradicted by the very research he cited. Similar results emerge from health care debates with SR and SH where facts are left at the roadside in favor of cheap appeals to emotion and invective. And, critically, are startlingly wrong. (4) Divisive rhetoric: Any time one labels another as being guilty of an abstract charge of "socialism" or whatnot, that makes for divisive rhetoric. Now, for contrast, take a look at the pro-Obama letter in this issue and identify any divisive rhetoric. (5) populist appeals based on racism and religious bigotry: if one claims one's religion is superior to another's and that law should reflect those claims, then that amounts to a populist appeal based on religious bigotry. We see this in the entire Prop. 8 movement and in Tim Case's argument above. Now this is just a local scene. Try some AM radio and take a critical view of the manipulation underway.  written by Dave Hardesty , August 21, 2008
Mark Davis
"(5) populist appeals based on racism and religious bigotry: if one claims one's religion is superior to another's and that law should reflect those claims, then that amounts to a populist appeal based on religious bigotry." Intriguing. Am I to assume the Obama campaign has not been guilty of doing any of what you mention above? Populist appeals based on racism? No, don't see that in the Obama campaign now do we?  Religious bigotry? From a church and religious mentor Obama attended for over 20 years and only recently disowned as he caved to political pressures. Didn’t see that either in the Obama campaign. Let me logically ask how could Obama, who claimed to be a regular Christian church attendee, not know what was going on with his mentor and his church for 20 years? It boggles the imagination to accept that he is being honest with the American public here. Either he is not honest about his Christian beliefs or he accepts his church’s rhetoric and simply is denying it to the public in order to get himself elected. Either way, he isn’t being honest and that is more than enough to dissuade me from voting for him. written by Dave Hardesty , August 21, 2008
“Try some AM radio and take a critical view of the manipulation underway.”
With your comment regarding AM radio, am I to assume you don't like what is termed conservative talk radio but are thoroughly enamored with FM radio's PBS stations? What is your stance on the decidedly liberal NPR that is funded by government subsidies while other talk radio is privately and commercially funded? What's the real difference? Propaganda is propaganda and both sides have it. So would you propose banning one in favor of the other as seems to be the agenda in Congress today? So much for freedom of the press and the First Amendment I guess. Dave Hardesty written by MarkDavis , August 21, 2008
DH: NPR is actually not funded by the government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio Another fine example of factual problems :-)  written by Dale Cose , August 22, 2008 quoted From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia National Public Radio National Public Radio (NPR) is a privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization that serves as a national syndicator to 797 public radio stations in the United States.[1] NPR was created in 1970, following congressional passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, which established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,,, Public Broadcasting Targeted By House  written by Ian Stewart , August 22, 2008
The driving force in the modern conservative movement is uncritical nationalism. It's a throwback to the Cold War, not to some previous idyllic time of small government and individualism. That's why the major conservative media figures are so eager to caricature liberals and Muslims as dire threats to the coherence of American society. They're looking for an enemy to replace the Soviets. Why else would the conservative tastemakers be so willing to accept FDR, who was decidedly not a right-wing figure?
written by MarkDavis , August 22, 2008
Dale: You fail to separate CPB from NPR. Here's the Annual Reports from NPR:
http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.html Only between 1% and 2% of budget comes from competitive grants from federal agencies. written by Dale Cose , August 22, 2008 written by MarkDavis , August 21, 2008 DH: NPR is actually not funded by the government: written by MarkDavis , August 21, 2008 Dale: You fail to separate CPB from NPR. Here's the Annual Reports from NPR: Only between 1% and 2% of budget comes from competitive grants from federal agencies. ... and one-third from grants from state governments, university grants, and grants from the CPB itself. written by MarkDavis , August 22, 2008
Dale: Your claim is incorrect for NPR itself. However, there is support by CPB for member stations:
NPR member stations, however, receive an average of 15 percent of their budgets in grants from CPB that help support their local program production, program acquisition, community outreach and such day-to-day costs as paying the electric bill. written by MarkDavis , August 22, 2008
Now, having crunched some numbers, the additional question is whether NPR is liberally biased or whether I think as Dave suggested that AM conservative radio should be "banned". Of course not on both scores, but I do think that we, as media consumers, should apply the same standards of critical thinking to our news sources as we do to ordinary sources of information. That means not generalizing from incorrect facts, not pandering and using terms incorrectly, not stirring conspiratorial pots, and balancing perspectives to get good coverage of a range of ideas.
I see that less from the extreme Right than from mainstream news like regional and national papers, PBS, NPR. Now if you want the "liberal press" go listen to KPFA (which I can't stand myself). written by Dale Cose , August 22, 2008 With the exception of exception of the Washington Post, all the information came from your cited source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio. Look at the section discussing funding. written by Dale Cose , August 22, 2008 dang, written by Dale Cose , August 22, 2008 With the exception  written by Thinker , August 23, 2008
point being: if you are seure in your views you listen to both extremes.... ahhhh I love free speech and being a moderate! Go Liberman/McCain!
jk. written by MarkDavis , August 23, 2008
Dale is again factually incorrect. My quote above comes from the NPR Annual Report. Also, he tries to blur the distinction between funding for NPR (which receives virtually no government funding), and which produces most of the content, and member stations. Member stations do pay for content from NPR, but to claim that NPR is therefore receiving government funding is like saying Staples is receiving government funding because they sell pencils to the FDA.
written by Dale Cose , August 23, 2008 written by MarkDavis , August 21, 2008 My quotes came from the source you cited. Take your argument to Wilipedia. either way, you've given us... Another fine example of factual problems This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
|
|