Fallout over Ollbermann remarks

[JolietJake]

Looks like some of the things that Keith Olbermann has been saying have come back to bite him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/ap_en_tv/tv_nbc_olbermann

[camoor]

Looks like some of the things that Keith Olbermann has been saying have come back to bite him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/ap_en_tv/tv_nbc_olbermann

As someone who watches alot of MSNBC, I noticed that Scarborough has been exiting stage right every time Olbermann came on - guess that explains it.

Personally I think Olbermann is hilarious - the shovel comment was a little out of line but IMO this has more to do with kowtowing to Palin's anti-media crusade then anything else. I'm getting sick of the NBC NBC NBC drill drill drill USA USA USA nonsense coming out of the right since Palin got on the ticket, she's really bringing home the idiot vote for sure.

[HotShotX]

Kind of sucks, but just as some of the more conservative anchors are getting reeled back in (i.e. the Terrorist Fist Jab debacle), the liberals too much keep their leash short. On either side, things are getting far too passionate about reporting on politics when it requires a neutral delivery.

A pity though, because I do like Olbermann, though he nor MSNBC are not my preferred news venue.

~HotShotX

[KingBroly]

Olbermann needs to go back to doing sports.

[Unickuta]

I like Olbermann, but it gets really annoying when everything he says he tries to make witty. And he talks in that tone...thank god I agree with his political beliefs and loved him as an ESPN guy, haha.

[dafoomie]

Too many anchors think that being "impartial" is letting both sides put their BS out there without being challenged on it. Its nice to see people like Olbermann and Campbell Brown out there calling people out.

[thrustbucket]

Too many anchors think that being "impartial" is letting both sides put their BS out there without being challenged on it. Its nice to see people like Olbermann and Campbell Brown out there calling people out.

But that's really not what people watch News Anchors for. They watch it to get the news, as reported. Not commentary.

Olberman needs to be thrown back in the O'Rielly, Hannity and Colmes, Glenn Beck play pin where he belongs.

[JolietJake]

But that's really not what people watch News Anchors for. They watch it to get the news, as reported. Not commentary.

Olberman needs to be thrown back in the O'Rielly, Hannity and Colmes, Glenn Beck play pin where he belongs.
Ehhhh, maybe that was true at one time. I think people want a little commentary these days. Otherwise i don't know why news stations would let their anchors do it. That's why some people only watch fox news, they want commentary they agree with.

[thrustbucket]

I haven't watched Fox News in some time, but I don't recall any opinions during the news breaks or news segments. Granted, most of their schedule is filled with talking heads commenting on the news, I think that's different.

[bigdaddy]

Olbermann needs to go back to doing sports.

He is doing sports.

[dafoomie]

But that's really not what people watch News Anchors for. They watch it to get the news, as reported. Not commentary.

Olberman needs to be thrown back in the O'Rielly, Hannity and Colmes, Glenn Beck play pin where he belongs.
Reporting the news is about facts. And when guests are being dishonest on your show, you have a responsibility to not let it slide, and report the facts as they are. This isn't NBC Nightly News, where you're strictly just reporting news, its coverage of a political convention.

Their job isn't to simply give equal time to both parties, its about the facts. And when people are loose with the facts, its their job to say so.

[dafoomie]

I haven't watched Fox News in some time, but I don't recall any opinions during the news breaks or news segments. Granted, most of their schedule is filled with talking heads commenting on the news, I think that's different.
They work that in under the guise of, "some people say" in order to inject unsourced opinion.

[Koggit]

Olbermann sucks, but so does Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc, etc, etc. Conservatives will talk about the liberal media all day and all night, but fact of the matter is conservative commentators are far more outspoken. My point is that, despite Olbermann being a hack, we need tools like him to be getting even more exposure and being even bigger hacks to counter the countless right-wing hacks. Trash like DailyKos and HuffPo are nice, but they hardly get the attention of the Fox News talking heads. Those outspoken right-wing hacks on Fox News are helping, greatly, the GOP -- the DNC needs its equivalent.

[mykevermin]

So Olbermann gets silenced but that fat fuck Scarborough gets nothin' (but god only knows MORE airtime)?

Liberal media indeed. :rofl:

David Gregory = ratings DEATH. They'll come to their senses soon enough.

thrust, the best example of a reporter not wearing their views on their sleeve and still calling dude on their shit was the late, great, great, great Tim Russert. He would call everyone on their shit, cite sources, quotes, tough questions - NOBODY can hold a candle compared to him.

You know who doesn't need to ask questions? Bill O'Reilly; you pretty much write yourself off the "journalist" roll call once you ask someone like Obama about William Ayers. I'll bet that pinheaded fuck hammered John Kerry about the Swift Boat Fuckers, too.

[camoor]

I haven't watched Fox News in some time, but I don't recall any opinions during the news breaks or news segments. Granted, most of their schedule is filled with talking heads commenting on the news, I think that's different.

That's funny, in all the times I've passed by Fox News, I don't remember seeing any news.

BTW - some funny MSNBC clips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CudatgNdoIU&feature=related

[mykevermin]

I want to beat Scarborough to death with a corn dog.

[JolietJake]

Damn, Scarborough is a dick.

[elprincipe]

Olbermann is a douchebag. He has no business doing real news coverage and should stick to his hyper-partisan commentary show. Having him anchor during a convention would be like Fox putting Sean Hannity in the same spot.

[KingBroly]

He is doing sports.

Let me clarify: As the only thing he does.

[Koggit]

Olbermann is a douchebag. He has no business doing real news coverage and should stick to his hyper-partisan commentary show. Having him anchor during a convention would be like Fox putting Sean Hannity in the same spot.

But... didn't they? I thought it was Hannity & Greta for FOX News at the Republican convention...

[elprincipe]

But... didn't they? I thought it was Hannity & Greta for FOX News at the Republican convention...

Was it? I watched C-SPAN personally...if they did that was stupid as well.

[JolietJake]

Networks want their biggest names doing their biggest stories.

[elprincipe]

Networks want their biggest names doing their biggest stories.

It's sad when the "biggest names" are partisan hacks.

[depascal22]

All of the anchors are partisan hacks even if it's just a persona. It's the WWE-fication of the news. People like to see drama and conflict instead of rational discourse and balanced news.

[Chase]

How is Bill O'Reilly not under any media scrutiny? Is it because he says stupid shit so often that everyone's used to it?

[Frogurt.man]

How is Bill O'Reilly not under any media scrutiny? Is it because he says stupid shit so often that everyone's used to it?

Loofahs.

That is all.

[bmachine]

Olbermann's Countdown is just about my favorite hour of TV. I watch it because it seems to be the only place on TV that I can find that "liberal bias" the conservatives are always bitching about.

I think Rachel Maddow's new show is pretty fucking excellent, too.

[KingBroly]

All of the anchors are partisan hacks even if it's just a persona. It's the WWE-fication of the news. People like to see drama and conflict instead of rational discourse and balanced news.

I'd love to see good 'ol J.R. as a News Anchor. But that's just me.

[dopa345]

Olbermann's Countdown is just about my favorite hour of TV. I watch it because it seems to be the only place on TV that I can find that "liberal bias" the conservatives are always bitching about.


It's all over the place. Just pick up your local major newspaper.

[mykevermin]

*groan*

Always with the allusions, never with the proof.

Sometimes I feel like I'm having the same conversation when we discuss proof that god exists or that there's a liberal bias in the media.

[camoor]

*groan*

Always with the allusions, never with the proof.

Sometimes I feel like I'm having the same conversation when we discuss proof that god exists or that there's a liberal bias in the media.

Don't forget the myth of global warming and the theory of evolution!

[elprincipe]

*groan*

Always with the allusions, never with the proof.

Sometimes I feel like I'm having the same conversation when we discuss proof that god exists or that there's a liberal bias in the media.

C'mon, myke, I gave you plenty of proof in the past (the polls that have 90+% of journalists voting Democrat) but you just won't accept them.

[RollingSkull]

You know Myke, I've applied for a security clearance. The form actually asks if you've ever been associated with someone who plotted to destroy the United States. Now, if I filled that section out with a name, I likely would not have gotten that clearance.

Obama would have to put down William Ayers and still gets a security clearance.

C'mon, myke, I gave you plenty of proof in the past (the polls that have 90+% of journalists voting Democrat) but you just won't accept them.
Myke's a liberal, remember? He needs only to keep repeating the same thing and it becomes true, regardless of facts. OBAMA IS THE MESSIAH SWIFT BOAT IS THE ONLY TRUE EVIL etc etc. It is really the only thing he's ever been good at on this site.

I mean, seriously. Just compare the media's silence on Edwards's affair before he finally came out with it vs. their feeding frenzy on Palin's kid being pregnant. If you don't see bias there, you're just willfully ignorant.

EDIT: Really though, I have to commend him. The rhetorical position he takes is an excellent position. He only needs to dismiss any actual evidence as outliers, that Olbermann's childish playing at being an infantile Murrow-wannabe is an outlier in a right-wing dominated press. He can laugh off and dismiss anything as "unconclusive" or "unconvincing" while howling about those evil righties. I'll give him that he knows his stuff.

[Msut77]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[bmulligan]

I mean, seriously. Just compare the media's silence on Edwards's affair before he finally came out with it vs. their feeding frenzy on Palin's kid being pregnant. If you don't see bias there, you're just willfully ignorant.

C'mon, that's not proof. Anything less than signed affidavits or on-air admissions of personal, left-leaning bias means they're closet conservatives by default.

[thrustbucket]

C'mon, myke, I gave you plenty of proof in the past (the polls that have 90+% of journalists voting Democrat) but you just won't accept them.

Don't be silly. That's no proof they are biased. It's just a statistical fact that higher educated (read: smart) people vote Democrat. Duh. And only greedy ignorant people that don't care about the poor vote Republican.

[SpazX]

So they vote Democrat, does that necessarily mean that what they report has a liberal bias? Do you think people say that the people on Fox are biased to the right because of how they vote?

[RollingSkull]

Don't be silly. That's no proof they are biased. It's just a statistical fact that higher educated (read: smart) people vote Democrat. Duh. And only greedy ignorant people that don't care about the poor vote Republican.

Dems do care about the poor. Quite a bit, they want to teach those uneducated rubes how to think and act. You know... just so long as they don't actually have to see or touch them... Disgusting creatures.

And the dirty poor definitely should stay away from the our upper class lefty parties. Disgusting stupid creatures... some of them are even religious? Can you believe that? Well, it is our burden as the white, educated men to bring civilization to these poor, stupid rubes through the power of our caring.... just... eh... so long as we can do it from over here.

[camoor]

I mean, seriously. Just compare the media's silence on Edwards's affair before he finally came out with it vs. their feeding frenzy on Palin's kid being pregnant. If you don't see bias there, you're just willfully ignorant.

Sorry to break up the Republican circle-jerk, but Edward's affair was broken by the National Enquirer (of all publications) and he only came clean before it became public knowledge anyway.

Much like the story about Palin's daughter was broken by left-wing blogs, and Palin only came clean because it was a matter of time before we found out the whole truth anyway.

Now, if you think any reporter is going to sit on a juicy sex scandal for any candidate (liberal or conservative) you need to go back in the cave and tighten up that tin-foil hat a few notches.

[depascal22]

I think it was the National Enquirer thing that scared them all off. Who wants to say that their source was a tabloid rag?

[mykevermin]

C'mon, myke, I gave you plenty of proof in the past (the polls that have 90+% of journalists voting Democrat) but you just won't accept them.

Find me those again. I don't recall seeing them.

[RollingSkull]

Sorry to break up the Republican circle-jerk, but Edward's affair was broken by the National Enquirer (of all publications) and he only came clean before it became public knowledge anyway.

And yet despite the photo-ops of Edwards as white as a sheet at the same hotel as his mistress, not MSM publication one sent their reporters in to investigate.

For the record, the Enquirer has scooped the MSM on this, on Rush's painkiller addiction, on the shoes O.J. Simpson wore that were pertinent to the case, and the list goes on...

[camoor]

And yet despite the photo-ops of Edwards as white as a sheet at the same hotel as his mistress, not MSM publication one sent their reporters in to investigate.

Come on, you're really reaching here.

Coverage of the affair was all over newspapers and TV, even MSNBC did a full-on expose of the affair from the beginning to end including the documentary he paid his mistress to make, titled "The Real John".

Face it - sex scandals get big ratings, and at the end of the day that's all media corporations really care about. If they really had an ideological bent they'd be giving you dry lectures full of facts about how much we're spending in the Iraq war, how far into debt it's putting us, how screwed up our patchwork healthcare system is, etc

[RollingSkull]

Come on, you're really reaching here.

Coverage of the affair was all over newspapers and TV, even MSNBC did a full-on expose of the affair from the beginning to end including the documentary he paid his mistress to make, titled "The Real John".

Face it - sex scandals get big ratings, and at the end of the day that's all media corporations really care about. If they really had an ideological bent they'd be giving you dry lectures full of facts about how much we're spending in the Iraq war, how far into debt it's putting us, how screwed up our patchwork healthcare system is, etc

Yes, but only AFTER Edwards confessed it. They didn't dig for this they way they would have.

And you have a very narrow definition of "ideological bent." They don't have to give you dry lectures to give you lefty news. They can pick and choose the sexy stories all the same. It is much easier to talk of "grim milestones" of US casualties and Gitmo than it is to report enemy casualties and progress in Iraq.

Hate to break it to you, but you don't own the definition of what would be liberal.

Oh, and in relation to thrustbucket's fallacy-riddled excrement "smart people are democrat," rather than debunk it, I'll just return fire with successful people are Republicans. People who know how to succeed in life, run businesses, provide services people need in exchange for money, are Republicans. No wonder the bitter democrats who make nowhere near that kind of money or enjoy nowhere near that kind of success want to levy taxes on the successful.

Gotcha games are fun, aren't they?

[RollingSkull]

Alternately, you could just play the game I do. Find a news article, AP is usually the best for this sort of thing, since most news outlets just feed you AP stories, describing malfeasance on the part of a Congressman or some other political type and play "Guess that party." See how long it takes for the article writer to indicate the party of the alleged perpetrator of villainy or sexual indiscretion.

I'll give you a hint: If the R-word isn't mentioned in the first paragraph, ten will get you one the person in question leans leftward.

[mykevermin]

Which is simply more untruth and allusion.

I mean, really, anyone who claims that there is a "firestorm" of news about Bristol Palin is utterly full of it.

[bmulligan]

Alternately, you could just play the game I do. Find a news article, AP is usually the best for this sort of thing, since most news outlets just feed you AP stories, describing malfeasance on the part of a Congressman or some other political type and play "Guess that party." See how long it takes for the article writer to indicate the party of the alleged perpetrator of villainy or sexual indiscretion.

I'll give you a hint: If the R-word isn't mentioned in the first paragraph, ten will get you one the person in question leans leftward.

That's a good example of bias by omission. As well as all the stories they decide NOT to run in the first place. Alternatively, there's a greater attachment of "right wing" to "conservative", or "republican" in television media reporting than the mention of the word "left-wing" in connection with "liberal", or "democrat". It's as if there are no conservatives, just right-wing ones, and they are all fringe reactionaries. You people who don't notice this shit are blind, or ignorant, or both.

You can dissect almost any news story from CNN, AP, MSNBC, or any daily newspaper and note the adjectives used to describe Bush, his policies, his staff, fellow republicans, and his advisers are far from objective and are selected for the express purpose of shaping viewer opinion on a given story's premise. This is not even mentioning the facts they choose to omit from stories as well. Fox does it too, no one could deny that. They're just the reverse to most all others' obverse.

What I've been noticing more and more lately is small, off-hand, off-cuff remarks or one word quips at the end of location shoots and viewer interest pieces. Joe anchor will sum up the previous reporters story with a snide comment or feigned bit of altruism after the story has ended, instead of just launching to the next story or commercial break. Even just one word said in a particular way can telegraph the anchors opinion on a subject. It's unprofessional, but I guess the networks encourage this behavior to make the anchors more human, like our best buddy is delivering the news to us. It's disgusting. It's like watching an entire day of Fox and Friends on every channel.

[camoor]

Yes, but only AFTER Edwards confessed it. They didn't dig for this they way they would have.

And you have a very narrow definition of "ideological bent." They don't have to give you dry lectures to give you lefty news. They can pick and choose the sexy stories all the same. It is much easier to talk of "grim milestones" of US casualties and Gitmo than it is to report enemy casualties and progress in Iraq.

Hate to break it to you, but you don't own the definition of what would be liberal.

Oh, and in relation to thrustbucket's fallacy-riddled excrement "smart people are democrat," rather than debunk it, I'll just return fire with successful people are Republicans. People who know how to succeed in life, run businesses, provide services people need in exchange for money, are Republicans. No wonder the bitter democrats who make nowhere near that kind of money or enjoy nowhere near that kind of success want to levy taxes on the successful.

Gotcha games are fun, aren't they?

You're the kind of guy who gives conspiracy theories a bad name. Everything is so ass-backwards in your post even a casual google search will prove it wrong.

I don't have time to debunk everything, but just lemme at that "Republicans are successful" tripe.

Bush W's business experience is a study in taking advantage of political connections and massive taxpayer-provided subsidies to make up for piss-poor business skill. When the Chinese employ the same techniques we call it "communism".

Oh - and if Republicans are the party of the financially successful, how has Obama raised record amounts of funding? Even with all the massive corporate donations rolling into McCain's lobbyist-controlled campaign HQ, it's Obama who is breaking records for campaign contributions in these last months.

You see - you can be successful and reform the healthcare system and be against a costly and unpopular war. I don't care if you think I'm not a liberal, you're probably right, that label doesn't accurately define the entirety of my political beliefs, but I could live in a country run by forward-thinking compassionate people. I can't live in a world run by a sell-out old man and his war-mongering theocratic hypocrite of a VP.

[mykevermin]

That's a good example of bias by omission. As well as all the stories they decide NOT to run in the first place. Alternatively, there's a greater attachment of "right wing" to "conservative", or "republican" in television media reporting than the mention of the word "left-wing" in connection with "liberal", or "democrat". It's as if there are no conservatives, just right-wing ones, and they are all fringe reactionaries. You people who don't notice this shit are blind, or ignorant, or both.

Show me stats.

You can dissect almost any news story from CNN, AP, MSNBC, or any daily newspaper and note the adjectives used to describe Bush, his policies, his staff, fellow republicans, and his advisers are far from objective and are selected for the express purpose of shaping viewer opinion on a given story's premise. This is not even mentioning the facts they choose to omit from stories as well. Fox does it too, no one could deny that. They're just the reverse to most all others' obverse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

What I've been noticing more and more lately is small, off-hand, off-cuff remarks or one word quips at the end of location shoots and viewer interest pieces. Joe anchor will sum up the previous reporters story with a snide comment or feigned bit of altruism after the story has ended, instead of just launching to the next story or commercial break. Even just one word said in a particular way can telegraph the anchors opinion on a subject. It's unprofessional, but I guess the networks encourage this behavior to make the anchors more human, like our best buddy is delivering the news to us. It's disgusting. It's like watching an entire day of Fox and Friends on every channel.

Care to provide an example of how this is inherently a "liberal" problem?

[elprincipe]

Find me those again. I don't recall seeing them.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

[thrustbucket]

Oh, and in relation to thrustbucket's fallacy-riddled excrement "smart people are democrat," rather than debunk it, I'll just return fire with successful people are Republicans. People who know how to succeed in life, run businesses, provide services people need in exchange for money, are Republicans. No wonder the bitter democrats who make nowhere near that kind of money or enjoy nowhere near that kind of success want to levy taxes on the successful.


Sarcasm, it's what's for dinner.

[Koggit]

I'd love to hear a republican explain why democratic candidates nearly always performs better with those who have a college education than those who are less educated, which the opposite is true of republican candidates.

[mykevermin]

Thanks. It's interesting data, and the trend is definitely there in terms of liberal leanings for presidential candidates.

That said,

1) presidential candidate preference is not always a suitable proxy for general voting patterns/party preference. Inferences and guesses can be made, but that's about it.

2) this doesn't really refute what I was saying about socially liberal and economically conservative ideological preferences of media figures. I'll see if I can find that study sometime this week.

2) this doesn't really support or refute any claim of biased reporting. Again, for you all, there's no mistake where I sit politically. But I do not, implicitly or explicitly, allow that to enter the classroom. Likewise, we're still stuck at square one, with people simply living in la-la land thinking that the media's gone apeshit covering Bristol Palin (folks evidently didn't want to do an AP or Lexis Nexis search before making that claim), and on the other, people saying "oh, you only need to examine articles with a critical eye" sort of confirmation bias nonsence to demonstrate liberal media bias.

I'm still not sold - but one thing you did prove; it's logically fallacious to incorrectly extend data findings that don't come from what the data say, but nevertheless, we can be sure that, of the people surveyed in the link you provided, the majority are highly likely to vote Democrat.

Ok.

I'd love to hear a republican explain why democratic candidates nearly always performs better with those who have a college education than those who are less educated, which the opposite is true of republican candidates.

college degree = more likely to be Republican

professional/graduate degree (MD, PhD, JD, EdD, etc.) = more likely to be Democrat

[thrustbucket]

college degree = more likely to be Republican

professional/graduate degree (MD, PhD, JD, EdD, etc.) = more likely to be Democrat

I'd like to hear your own personal opinion of why that is the case (if it is).

[elprincipe]

Thanks. It's interesting data, and the trend is definitely there in terms of liberal leanings for presidential candidates.

That said,

1) presidential candidate preference is not always a suitable proxy for general voting patterns/party preference. Inferences and guesses can be made, but that's about it.

2) this doesn't really refute what I was saying about socially liberal and economically conservative ideological preferences of media figures. I'll see if I can find that study sometime this week.

2) this doesn't really support or refute any claim of biased reporting. Again, for you all, there's no mistake where I sit politically. But I do not, implicitly or explicitly, allow that to enter the classroom. Likewise, we're still stuck at square one, with people simply living in la-la land thinking that the media's gone apeshit covering Bristol Palin (folks evidently didn't want to do an AP or Lexis Nexis search before making that claim), and on the other, people saying "oh, you only need to examine articles with a critical eye" sort of confirmation bias nonsence to demonstrate liberal media bias.

I'm still not sold - but one thing you did prove; it's logically fallacious to incorrectly extend data findings that don't come from what the data say, but nevertheless, we can be sure that, of the people surveyed in the link you provided, the majority are highly likely to vote Democrat.

Ok.

Fair enough. i wasn't the one pushing Brisol Palin; I think that came and went rather quickly.

[mykevermin]

I'd like to hear your own personal opinion of why that is the case (if it is).

I'll have to think about it. It's more than, I suspect "education."

elprincipe, I know RollingSkull was pushing Bristol, not you. Christ, now I'm beginning to think I've addressed her more in this thread than the AP has period.

[bmulligan]

Show me stats.

In bias by omission, where exactly do we start? Is there a way to count the number of potential news stories in the world for a given day and then sort through them according to how they favor democrats or republicans? How about we try a statistical analysis of the number of thoughts a human brain can initiate in a day, then calculate the number of things not thought about? I'll leave proof of a negative to a professional statistician such as yourself.

And I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you might be a victim of confirmation bias yourself. A redundant term, IMO. Created, no doubt, to make the learned caste feel more entitled to their smartidness.

[depascal22]

My one thing about Bristol Palin is how come no one has said anything about the boyfriend? She is 17 after all. Anyone else would've been thrown in the clink for statutory rape.

EDIT -- Just searched and found the age of consent in Alaska is 16.

So what makes girls in Alaska more mature than girls in say, California or New York? Gasp, two blue states that actually have laws set up to protect teenage girls?

[camoor]

So what makes girls in Alaska more mature than girls in say, California or New York? Gasp, two blue states that actually have laws set up to protect teenage girls?

States rights. And states rights are something I'd like to keep.

[RAMSTORIA]

States rights. And states rights are something I'd like to keep.

holy shit im agreeing with camoor in more than one thread today, hell is freezing over!

[depascal22]

I like the idea behind states rights but it's start to become antequated like townships. For every good thing that comes from states rights like California's more stringent environmental standards and legalization of medical marijuana, you get states that outlaw gay marriage and allow gun dealers to sell to anyone. It's just enforced the whole Red State - Blue State division in America right now. Roe v Wade and the Civil War were the biggest indictments against state's rights that there's ever been.

[Koggit]

My one thing about Bristol Palin is how come no one has said anything about the boyfriend? She is 17 after all. Anyone else would've been thrown in the clink for statutory rape.

EDIT -- Just searched and found the age of consent in Alaska is 16.

So what makes girls in Alaska more mature than girls in say, California or New York? Gasp, two blue states that actually have laws set up to protect teenage girls?

Do you really, honestly believe a sixteen year old doesn't possess the mental capacity to understand decisions regarding sex?

Alaska's age of consent laws are much, much better than California's...

[thrustbucket]

I like the idea behind states rights but it's start to become antequated like townships. For every good thing that comes from states rights like California's more stringent environmental standards and legalization of medical marijuana, you get states that outlaw gay marriage and allow gun dealers to sell to anyone. It's just enforced the whole Red State - Blue State division in America right now. Roe v Wade and the Civil War were the biggest indictments against state's rights that there's ever been.

States rights are nearly always more important than federal. The only times it's not, is in proven cases of civil rights.

I don't really see the Red State/Blue State division as a bad thing. People should be allowed to move to a state and community that most closely reflects their views and opinions on morality and laws.

[camoor]

States rights are nearly always more important than federal. The only times it's not, is in proven cases of civil rights.

I don't really see the Red State/Blue State division as a bad thing. People should be allowed to move to a state and community that most closely reflects their views and opinions on morality and laws.

Exactly - vote with your feet.

[depascal22]

I've moved 26 times in my life. I'm not moving again. My wife is from Indiana. We moved here to be closer to family so I'm stuck in a Red State. Neighbors sit outside our windows smoking all day and night. Huge gas guzzling trucks roll down the street spewing out nasty black smoke because there aren't any emissions standards. Kids roll down the highway with Confederate flags on their trucks. We're the only family that recycles.

It's ridiculous. I moved here so my daughter could be closer to family (my wife's in Indiana and mine in Illinois) so now I have to move again because Indiana is a Red State and will always be one? I thought things might be better in and around Indianapolis but this is one of the most redneck cities I've ever been around.

People don't move because of morality and laws. We move for work opportunities. We move for cost of living. New York was great but I was paying over $2000 a month for a two bedroom apartment for most of the three years we lived there.

I'm not trying to whine about my situation but I'm just trying to illustrate that moving just because of politics can lead to sticky situations. It leads to the situation where certain types of folks become unwelcome because there are other parts of the country that are more suitable for them. This is supposed to be a free country. Not a free half of the country where all the people think and say the say things I do.

[depascal22]

Do you really, honestly believe a sixteen year old doesn't possess the mental capacity to understand decisions regarding sex?

Alaska's age of consent laws are much, much better than California's...

Sorry for the double post. But here's something else from my personal history. My mother had me at 16 and had to give me up at 23. I don't wish that on any other child.

You need a bare minimum of a high school degree these days and that's not even good enough. So no, I don't think a 16 year old is old enough to make decisions that might lead to having babies. Have you talked to anyone under the age of 18 lately? Most of them are too busy texting about Gossip Girl to even have a clue what life is really all about. Now you want them to have babies?

[mykevermin]

In bias by omission, where exactly do we start? Is there a way to count the number of potential news stories in the world for a given day and then sort through them according to how they favor democrats or republicans? How about we try a statistical analysis of the number of thoughts a human brain can initiate in a day, then calculate the number of things not thought about? I'll leave proof of a negative to a professional statistician such as yourself.

And I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you might be a victim of confirmation bias yourself. A redundant term, IMO. Created, no doubt, to make the learned caste feel more entitled to their smartidness.

In other words, you can't support your claim.

Fair enough. I understand. It was a pretty crappy claim, so I wouldn't want to have to support it either.

[elprincipe]

Thanks. It's interesting data, and the trend is definitely there in terms of liberal leanings for presidential candidates.


You may also find this interesting:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/69_say_reporters_try_to_help_the_candidate_they_wa nt_to_win

[mykevermin]

I think that's interesting, but just more confirmation bias in action. Perception =/= reality.

> 50% of Americans believe in god and/or an afterlife, too, you know.

I think I like the fact that everyone hates the media, generally speaking. It means, in some small way, they're doing a good job.

[RollingSkull]

I think that's interesting, but just more confirmation bias in action. Perception =/= reality.

> 50% of Americans believe in god and/or an afterlife, too, you know.

I think I like the fact that everyone hates the media, generally speaking. It means, in some small way, they're doing a good job.

Same way with Congress then?

[mykevermin]

Wholly different phenomenon.

Congressional approval ratings are indicative of very little, since incumbent re-election rates are typically very high (1992 and 2006 being anomalies).

Plus such questions don't get at the root of the disapproval; disapproval doesn't automatically mean people will vote the minority party into the majority.

I'm disappointed with the Democratic Congress because, despite the majority, they allow Republicans to filibuster, they kowtow to Republican proposals (FISA/retroactive immunity for the very people spying on you and I right now, drilling in the US right now). For me personally, they're capitulating far too often and getting nothing in return. It's too much like the 2001-2006 sessions to me.

Which means that, despite my disdain for Congress, I'm certainly not going to go vote (R) this far, y'know?

[MSI Magus]

I've moved 26 times in my life. I'm not moving again. My wife is from Indiana. We moved here to be closer to family so I'm stuck in a Red State. Neighbors sit outside our windows smoking all day and night. Huge gas guzzling trucks roll down the street spewing out nasty black smoke because there aren't any emissions standards. Kids roll down the highway with Confederate flags on their trucks. We're the only family that recycles.

It's ridiculous. I moved here so my daughter could be closer to family (my wife's in Indiana and mine in Illinois) so now I have to move again because Indiana is a Red State and will always be one? I thought things might be better in and around Indianapolis but this is one of the most redneck cities I've ever been around.

People don't move because of morality and laws. We move for work opportunities. We move for cost of living. New York was great but I was paying over $2000 a month for a two bedroom apartment for most of the three years we lived there.

I'm not trying to whine about my situation but I'm just trying to illustrate that moving just because of politics can lead to sticky situations. It leads to the situation where certain types of folks become unwelcome because there are other parts of the country that are more suitable for them. This is supposed to be a free country. Not a free half of the country where all the people think and say the say things I do.

I feel for you....but seriously just move. I say we just split America up already. Give the Republicans/Conservatives the first choice even. You can have the West Coast/East Coast, the South or the North. Pick a side any side we dont care....just pick a side and all of you move there. You can allow inbreeding, pollute all you want, drop taxes to nothing and teach Creationism in schools its not our concern anymore. Gurantee within 20 years they will run the place into the ground and within 20 years the liberal side may have its problems(too high tax rates for instance)but it would be a competitor in the world, run compltly on clean renewable energy and have every citizen well taken care of.

Like I said I feel for you, im in Ohio which isnt nearly as bad but still has plenty of Religious conservative morons. But you can always move! Maybe you can be the ripple that starts the wave that finally divides the states enough that we are two nations!

[depascal22]

I don't want to divide the country though. Besides, the Red States have all the cheap land.

[camoor]

I don't want to divide the country though. Besides, the Red States have all the cheap land.

You get what you pay for...

[MSI Magus]

I don't want to divide the country though. Besides, the Red States have all the cheap land.

It was meant as a joke....though to be honest if someone proposed it I might be tempted to bite.

[depascal22]

You get what you pay for...

Yeah, but it's ridiculous that a house in a good school district in San Fran, LA, or NY goes for nearly a million while I can get the same for around 150k in Indy.

[MSI Magus]

Yeah, but it's ridiculous that a house in a good school district in San Fran, LA, or NY goes for nearly a million while I can get the same for around 150k in Indy.

Then dont live in the major cities. Seriously I hear people say this kind of stuff all the time and there is just no reason for it. I have never known someone that has said something like this that I couldnt find a city 30 mins from where they currently live where houses are much cheaper but still nice.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Jeffersonville, IN.

Crossing the Ohio River drops property values by $50K.

[MSI Magus]

Jeffersonville, IN.

Crossing the Ohio River drops property values by $50K.

Exactly its like how if you live in Ann Arbor your looking at mostly $300k to 1 mill homes. But yet I lived just 20 mins outside Ann Arbor in a place called Ypsilanti. Ypsi public schools were actually pretty good and the home values are more in the $100k-$300k range.

People who live in big cities cant whine about the price of living....they CHOOSE to live there.

[thrustbucket]

I feel for you....but seriously just move. I say we just split America up already. Give the Republicans/Conservatives the first choice even. You can have the West Coast/East Coast, the South or the North. Pick a side any side we dont care....just pick a side and all of you move there. You can allow inbreeding, pollute all you want, drop taxes to nothing and teach Creationism in schools its not our concern anymore. Gurantee within 20 years they will run the place into the ground and within 20 years the liberal side may have its problems(too high tax rates for instance)but it would be a competitor in the world, run compltly on clean renewable energy and have every citizen well taken care of.


The problem with your proposal is that most self proclaimed "conservatives" (read: people that can't stand liberals) don't like most or all of those things either. So where should they go?

[depascal22]

I wouldn't mind living twenty minutes outside of town if there was a decent public transportation system.

Also, I used to live an hour outside of Manhattan and rent was 2 grand a month. I looked another hour north at a house and they wanted over 400k for it. Where the hell was I supposed to go then? Montreal? It's ridiculous that people literally had to move two states away in Pennsylvania just to afford to live. They even advertise for subdivisions in PA in the New York Times.

Also, I don't want to spend another hour in a car sucking up gasoline. I like to be able to walk to work and I'd like my daughter to be able to walk to school. I know it's "old school" but it's cost effective and good exercise.

Maybe I save 50k on a mortgage over 30 years but how much of that will go towards gasoline and maintenance? Having a longer commute with 4 dollar gas isn't a great alternative to spending a little more in the city and walking or taking the bus where I need to go.

[MSI Magus]

I wouldn't mind living twenty minutes outside of town if there was a decent public transportation system.

Also, I used to live an hour outside of Manhattan and rent was 2 grand a month. I looked another hour north at a house and they wanted over 400k for it. Where the hell was I supposed to go then? Montreal? It's ridiculous that people literally had to move two states away in Pennsylvania just to afford to live. They even advertise for subdivisions in PA in the New York Times.

Also, I don't want to spend another hour in a car sucking up gasoline. I like to be able to walk to work and I'd like my daughter to be able to walk to school. I know it's "old school" but it's cost effective and good exercise.

Maybe I save 50k on a mortgage over 30 years but how much of that will go towards gasoline and maintenance? Having a longer commute with 4 dollar gas isn't a great alternative to spending a little more in the city and walking or taking the bus where I need to go.

Every last place you are naming is a huge city. Stop looking at big cities and your problems will dissipate. Look for small towns outside of medium towns its perfect. I keep praying my fiancee is going to get a job back in Ypsi and we can move from the Toledo/Rossford Ohio area. Ypsilanti was just so perfect. I mean ya there were some poor/ghetto ass sections and Michigan is a depressed economy. But it was alot of suburbs, lots of stores close to you and public transportation that would take you anywhere in Ypsilanti or Ann Arbor. I could walk all sorts of places, there were like 6 HUGE gorgous state/city parks within a short drive from my home.....and the food...o man the food. With Eastern Michigan University being in Ypsilanti and University of Michigan being just like 15 mins away from that(plus the community colleges)it was College town which meant the food was dirt cheap and you could get any type you could ever want. The parks and transportation and everything is nice but man that food is seriously the reason we are moving as soon as she can get a good job in that area. I miss having Korean, Indian and other Ethnic foods so close to home and I miss $5 Xlarge pizzas!

[Koggit]

My cousin bought his 1100 sqft house on bayou-front property in Charenton, LA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charenton,_LA) for $10,000.

A similar house would cost at least $500,000 in Lake City, a cheap neighborhood about 15min out of downtown Seattle (the neighborhood I live in -- it's pretty ghetto).

Location is ridiculous...

[depascal22]

Every last place you are naming is a huge city. Stop looking at big cities and your problems will dissipate. Look for small towns outside of medium towns its perfect.

You missed my point. We moved to a medium sized city with a low cost of living and good restaurants. Besides, there wasn't much of a choice. Move to to Indy to be close to her family or to LA to be closer to mine.

When you have kids, family becomes more important. You don't have to move closer to family but it's much better to see grandparents and cousins ever two or three weeks instead of every two or three months. This move wasn't because of me but because of her. If I had a choice, we woud've moved to North Carolina or Minnesota.

[camoor]

You don't have to move closer to family but it's much better to see grandparents and cousins ever two or three weeks instead of every two or three months.

There you go. That's your answer right there.

You could move if you wanted to, you don't have to be close to your family, but you wanted the convenience. For that you pay.

I think you have a point about the dismal state of public transportation in America - industry, government, and the general public all deserve equal parts of blame on that. We could probably also do a better job of providing designated lower-income housing in high density areas, otherwise we'll have labor shortage problems when it comes to staffing blue-collar or low-wage jobs like policing, teaching, home contracting, etc.

But might as well face it, it will never again be affordable to live in a nice section of a city as popular and famous as NYC for the average man. Many, many people want all the great city parks, the celebrity sightings, the history, the food, etc. Personally I think NYC beats the hell out of Peoria, and judging by census data approx. 8.2 million Americans agree.

[depascal22]

NYC already has labor shortages in all the key services jobs. There was a big expose in the Daily News about new police officers that had to go on welfare and food stamps. They coudn't afford rent and groceries. Hell, even crappy houses in bad sections of the Bronx and Queens run 300k plus. Ghetto living for 300k. No thanks. So most of them had to work two and three extra jobs to make ends meet. So we have armed cops running around making life and death decisions on two to three hours of sleep. It's a bad mix. It led to Bell getting shot up in Queens. No one ever said that all the cops in the shooting had been at other jobs for the last two days and one cop even admitted to being up for over 36 hours straight.

Back to the difference between red and blue states. I hadn't thought it was as bad as it is. It's more of a city vs. rural. I don't see people around here clinging as much to guns and religion but they do love the WWE and cheap cigarettes. Get rid of those two and you'd see riots that could topple whole governments.

[MSI Magus]

NYC already has labor shortages in all the key services jobs. There was a big expose in the Daily News about new police officers that had to go on welfare and food stamps. They coudn't afford rent and groceries. Hell, even crappy houses in bad sections of the Bronx and Queens run 300k plus. Ghetto living for 300k. No thanks. So most of them had to work two and three extra jobs to make ends meet. So we have armed cops running around making life and death decisions on two to three hours of sleep. It's a bad mix. It led to Bell getting shot up in Queens. No one ever said that all the cops in the shooting had been at other jobs for the last two days and one cop even admitted to being up for over 36 hours straight.

Back to the difference between red and blue states. I hadn't thought it was as bad as it is. It's more of a city vs. rural. I don't see people around here clinging as much to guns and religion but they do love the WWE and cheap cigarettes. Get rid of those two and you'd see riots that could topple whole governments.

Hehe Ralphie May once said that if you disrupted the distrubtion of Bush Beer in America you would see an Army of Mullets rise to fight in a way the world has never before seen.

[depascal22]

Don't forget Natty Light and Keystone. Along with Busch, they form the Holy Trinity of cheap nasty swill that people suck down by the case full. The economy has forced me to switch from Heineken and Stella to MGD and Miller Lite but I can't stoop that far down. My toilet would hate me the day after.

[MSI Magus]

Don't forget Natty Light and Keystone. Along with Busch, they form the Holy Trinity of cheap nasty swill that people suck down by the case full. The economy has forced me to switch from Heineken and Stella to MGD and Miller Lite but I can't stoop that far down. My toilet would hate me the day after.

Meh I dont drink so this economy doesnt effect me on that end. Beer tastes like piss and gives you a big gut so I always thought it was stupid to drink and thus never started. However Ill get drunk off my ass on girly drinks if im at a party and dont have to pay for them!

Again no offense you know I love ya bro....but iv got no pitty for those that drink, smoke or have other vices which are negative to health and wallet. My only vice is food, and even that I spend half a % what most Americans do.

[depascal22]

Oh, my vice is under control. That's why I drink the cheaper beer now. I have a couple after a hard day's work but it's not like I'm pimping out my wife to pay for beer. I don't $30 bucks a month is a horrible expenditure considering the amount of money we pay video games.