20th October 2012, 10:21 PM
Well said! I first will say that for the good things he's done, Obama DOES have a lot to answer for. In a different time, some of the things he's done would disgust a lot more people, but here's the thing, NONE of those things have touched republican lips. Not one republican has called out Obama on drones killing US citizens on foreign soil. Not one has called him out on expanding warrentless observation of US citizens, or his failure to close certain torture camps. There was a short period where they called him out on starting a war with Libya without going through congress, but they've swept their complaints under the rug now and the public consciousness has forgotten it happened.
ANY of these things, if they railed on Obama for it, could cost Obama the election. They could sail to victory on these issues by casting doubt on some people merely "leaning" democrat. However, they don't. Romney, near as I can tell, is NOT going to call Obama out on these things, as powerful as they could be. That should frighten people as much as what Obama's done, because, in my interpretation, it can only mean that the republican party approves of all these things and intends to do all of those things if they ran the executive branch. So combine that with the things Obama does that I DO support, which Romney repeatedly states he's against (whenever he's not saying he's for them, so at the very least his position is unclear, and at most dishonest), it pushes Obama as the clear choice to me.
So instead of calling out Obama on that, they instead take their time inventing entirely fictional problems with Obama. It really is disgusting that it works on so many people.
Fox News is NOT fair and balanced, but you are right, it has forced CNN to stay as neutral as they possibly can in an attempt to seem "fair and balanced". Got someone talking about evolution? Invite some random nut who thinks Shiva pulled the universe out of a ball of twine as "counter point". Most of their interviews these days consist entirely of establishing WHAT two viewpoints are, WHAT their claims are, with not a single attempt at any point to look INTO their claims for accuracy, because fact checking might offend someone.
Look at the recent debates. Put aside the fact that these debates are pretty useless to begin with, with "winning" them being determined in rather arbitrary ways like "eyeball time" and other pointless metrics. The first one was moderated with a series of questions that amounted to "I just want to make sure we know there are two people, and I can't tell what the difference between you two is" (that guy apparently should be checked to be sure he isn't putting socks on his hands every morning). The next one was actually fact checked, shocking me completely, and BOTH parties sent what amounted to a cease and desist warning for the 3rd debate that the moderator should just be a "traffic cop" (maybe traffic cone). Third debate comes along and again, to my utter shock, some fact checking actually occurred with the moderator correcting false statements. Fox is all over it saying that the moderator should "be furniture". With that statement, it becomes clear. We've reached a point where checking to make sure the people running for most powerful position in the entire country are telling the truth is seen as a problem, where narrative should be allowed to be spun freely and checking people on that is the wrong move.
Jefferson knew what he was talking about when he warned that the greatest enemy to a democracy is an uneducated public. Politicians these days have finally found a way to glorify ignorance, at least at certain times, namely when people are actually paying attention.
"Is this the time to focus on fact checking?" Yes, it is ALWAYS the time to focus on fact checking, every day, every way, forever.
ANY of these things, if they railed on Obama for it, could cost Obama the election. They could sail to victory on these issues by casting doubt on some people merely "leaning" democrat. However, they don't. Romney, near as I can tell, is NOT going to call Obama out on these things, as powerful as they could be. That should frighten people as much as what Obama's done, because, in my interpretation, it can only mean that the republican party approves of all these things and intends to do all of those things if they ran the executive branch. So combine that with the things Obama does that I DO support, which Romney repeatedly states he's against (whenever he's not saying he's for them, so at the very least his position is unclear, and at most dishonest), it pushes Obama as the clear choice to me.
So instead of calling out Obama on that, they instead take their time inventing entirely fictional problems with Obama. It really is disgusting that it works on so many people.
Fox News is NOT fair and balanced, but you are right, it has forced CNN to stay as neutral as they possibly can in an attempt to seem "fair and balanced". Got someone talking about evolution? Invite some random nut who thinks Shiva pulled the universe out of a ball of twine as "counter point". Most of their interviews these days consist entirely of establishing WHAT two viewpoints are, WHAT their claims are, with not a single attempt at any point to look INTO their claims for accuracy, because fact checking might offend someone.
Look at the recent debates. Put aside the fact that these debates are pretty useless to begin with, with "winning" them being determined in rather arbitrary ways like "eyeball time" and other pointless metrics. The first one was moderated with a series of questions that amounted to "I just want to make sure we know there are two people, and I can't tell what the difference between you two is" (that guy apparently should be checked to be sure he isn't putting socks on his hands every morning). The next one was actually fact checked, shocking me completely, and BOTH parties sent what amounted to a cease and desist warning for the 3rd debate that the moderator should just be a "traffic cop" (maybe traffic cone). Third debate comes along and again, to my utter shock, some fact checking actually occurred with the moderator correcting false statements. Fox is all over it saying that the moderator should "be furniture". With that statement, it becomes clear. We've reached a point where checking to make sure the people running for most powerful position in the entire country are telling the truth is seen as a problem, where narrative should be allowed to be spun freely and checking people on that is the wrong move.
Jefferson knew what he was talking about when he warned that the greatest enemy to a democracy is an uneducated public. Politicians these days have finally found a way to glorify ignorance, at least at certain times, namely when people are actually paying attention.
"Is this the time to focus on fact checking?" Yes, it is ALWAYS the time to focus on fact checking, every day, every way, forever.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)