BS: 'Liberal media'?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 06:41 AM

A few too many typing errors in there, so I'll post it again:

I disagree with troll on quite a lot of things it seems, but I think he is spot on here.

And Doug, I thought the last post I wrote was pretty clear, but I'll flesh it out.

That standard dictionary definition is a good definition of something that needs a good word. I don't like to see a word which has a whole lot of positive meanings for qualities that are shared across much of the political sprectrum (though not across it all, sadly), being distorted and dragged into a political squabble like this.

Obviously there is room for disagreements about policies and political philosophies and such. But the qualities decribed in that definition, I hope are ones which are common to people who disagree about a lot of political issues.

Surely any conservative minded person who shared those kind of qualities would object to having the word used to apply only to their political adversaries, either as a compliment or an insult. There are lots of more specific and accurate words to describe the differences you have.

Is there really anything in that dictionary definition which you would not wish to see applied to yourself?

Even when it comes to the (pol)definition, would you really claim to be unalterably opposed to "democratic reforms" and in favour of "preserving privilege"? I don't mean that there mightn't be room for a lot of disgreement about what reforms were democratic, and about what sort of things counted as privilege. But what is all that rhetoric people spout in poltical campaigns and debates on both sides, if it isn't a claim to be in favour of proper democratic reforms and opposed to unjust privilege?

It's a bit as if people who were critical of "Do Gooders" had extended that into using "good" as an insult. I'd call that very dangerous indeed. It would directly feed into intolerance and hate and fanaticism.

You'd be inviting a situation where people on one side would be taking pride in being against "the good"; and everyone else would very reasonably be justified in feeling that people who are self-proclaimed enemies of "the good" have to be seen as enemies of humanity. Does that sound a bit familiar?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 08:19 AM

I think you'd find that the demonization of the "Liberal Media" goes back further than the Nixon/Watergate era to that saintly old Conservative, Senator Joseph McCarthy, and his moral crusade against things "un-American"- according to his personal definition. For those who think his was only an "anti-Communist" effort I recommend checking the record, where he rails against the media, Hollywood films, homosexuals, actors, institutions of higher learning, as well as those Spiro Agnew would later characterize as "effete intellectual snobs". Its also well to remember that McCarthy's right-hand man throughout the witch-hunt was- yep! Tricky Dick Nixon.

I think part of the difficulty is that Americans by & large have no knowledge of or experience with REAL Left politics- as an example, the two moderate Republican candidates currently vying for the White House. A population that can still stigmatize health care for its citizens as "the menace of Socialized medicine", advocates of Women's Rights as "femiNazis" or pacifists as "Communist sympathizers" with a straight face obviously doesn't know what its talking about.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 09:01 AM

Joe McCarthy was a demagogue. No question about it. The funny thing is that Nixon was responsible for opening up relations with China so I'm afraid that you'll have to find other things to demonize him for. It shouldn't be hard.
As for "REAL Left politics", no, we've been spared that!
Health care for all is not "the menace of Socalized Medicine". I know first-hand what the British system is like where people have to wait for months for needed surgery and the lack of a routine x-ray leads to death from cancer. Our system isn't perfect, but don't hold up systems like the British have as the ideal.
Rush Limbaugh's "FemiNazis" comprise a very small number of the women who were and are active in womens rights. They are the ones who ridicule women who just want to stay at home and raise a family. They seem to think that EVERY woman should aspire to be the CEO of a multi-national corporation and they look down on those who don't. THOSE are the "FemiNazis" and my definition is taken pretty much from Limbaughs own definition. He coined the phrase.
Lastly,during the Cold War, the "Peace at any price-unilateral disarmament" type of pacifist certainly aided, at least verbally, the avowed communist aim of world military superiority. Since the communism has pretty well gone bust, this no longer applies.
However, the world being what it is and people being what they are, total disarmament and world peace seem as far away as ever.One has only to look at East Timor or Nigeria or the former Yugoslavia to realize that.
Peace is a much desired goal but it cannot be preached to one side only. Nations do not trust one another and disarmament, even on a small scale, comes only after much negotiation any many years.
" What do we want? Peace! When do we want it? Now!" is a great slogan for chanting at rallys in the park but has little to do with the actual process.
It isn't that we don't know what we are talking about, Greg. It's that you have been listening to the wrong people.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 10:23 AM

Troll: Nixon was responsible for opening up relations with China True enough!- suppose no-one is all bad; I understand Hitler was fond of dogs and Pinochet is kind to his friends, etc.

...Greg. It's that you have been listening to the wrong people. This could cut both ways- I might suggest the same!   ;-)

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 10:34 AM

Oh, and Troll- interesting that you chose to include yourself in the group I referenced- I wouldn't necessarily have done so. Until now.  ;-)

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 11:18 AM

Greg: I certainly didn't intend to group myself with that group but I can see why you might think so.
Re: Nixon. As youstated, no ane is all bad. I'm sure you yourself have many redeeming qualities.
As far as listening goes, I read five or six newspapers on line daily including The Guardian and The Washington Post. I also check out several web sites that provide links to all manner of news sources. Some right, some left.
I strive for a balanced view of the news. If I read only those publications which supported my particular predjudices, I would be one-sided indeed. By knowing what the other side is saying, I can better formulate an opinion as to the validity of what MY side is saying.
If everyone would do this -look at both sides- there wouldn't be so much misunderstanding of motives. But, over the years, I've found that people really DON'T want to know anything that goes against what they have always believed. It's a case of 'better a comfortable lie than an uncomfortable truth'.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Skeptic
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 11:25 AM

troll,

I never apologize to you. So far it hasn't been necessary. Of course, as part of my onging personal campaign to help the rationally challanged, I will continue to apologize FOR you.

As easy as it is to demonize McCarthy as a demagogue, lets all remember how effective he was, and why. Most politicians of the era share whatever blame is heped on McCarty, as sins of commission and of omission. Even Edward R. didn't take on Joe until he was on the way out.

Limbaugh continues to remind me of the guy who shouts "fire" in a crowded theater and then apologizes after the riot. Or the liberal newspaper that makes some wild accusation and prints a retraction on page 12 of section e. Both lack a sense of responsibility. Ironic since the decline of personal responsibilty is decried by both.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 11:28 AM

If everyone would do this -look at both sides- there wouldn't be so much misunderstanding of motives.

I don't think any rational person could argue with you there, Troll. And, as you do, I try to listen to as much info from different perspectives as I can- always have. Just goes to show ya that two people can look at the same evidence & draw totally different conclusions. Too many variables in the human psyche, I guess. Best regards- I'm outa here for a bit-I don't want to turn the thread into a 2-person discussion-

Greg

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 11:35 AM

Thanks Greg.
Now Skeptic; if I have said or done things that made you feel you had to appologize for me,GOOD!
It keeps you on your toes, wondering what I'll do next, what else I'll say to embarrase you since you were so foolish as to ADMIT that you know me personally.
Serves you right I say. You could have kept your mouth shut but NOOOOO! you had to stick your oar in the water.
Pity you only have the one oar.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 12:04 PM

Troll,

I fail to see why Nixon's record with Red China has anything to do with what he did with Joe McCarthy. Are you saying that his opening up China to the West in the 1970s proves he wasn't a red-baiting demagogue in the 1950s? If so you need to supply the missing premises because as it stands the argument isn't terribly convincing.

Secondly, Yugoslavia still exists. It consists of Serbia and Montenegro.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Skeptic
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 01:28 PM

Alex,

Red-baiting in the 50's was popular. Not that "well everybody else is doing it" makes it right. But is standing by and doing/saying nothing worse than open support? I seem to remember that JFK was absent from the Senate when they voted to censure McCarthy.

By the time the Senate got around to censuring McCarthy, he'd become almost a caricature. Didn't take a lot of courage to vote against him. Of course there was Papa Joe, who apparently made McCarthy seem like a Liberal in comparison. Can you fault a man for not wanting to hurt daddy's feelings?

And lets remember that stuff coming out of the Kremlin indicates that there was an active effort by the USSR to infiltrate and disrupt the US. Not particularly effacious, but it was there.

troll, one oar yes, but a damned impressive one.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 01:55 PM

"I know first-hand what the British system is like where people have to wait for months for needed surgery and the lack of a routine x-ray leads to death from cancer. Our system isn't perfect, but don't hold up systems like the British have as the ideal."

I don't know anyone who'd say that the National Health Service is ideal. It suffered a lot under the ideologically driven changes imposed by that Nineteenth Century Liberal Mrs Thatcher. It needed changes, it got changes - but not the right ones. It's tuirning itself round now, but there's a long way to go.

Things go wrong anywhere, under any system. If the American system really does measn that fewer people have to wait months for neweded surgery, or never get it at all, and don't have routine x-rays so that they die of cancer, I'm very pleased.

That isn't how I've heard it is for millions of people who haven't got adequate health insurance, but then maybe I've heard it wrong.

But I'll tell you one thing - any time there is an election here, and somebody suggests that the Conservatives would abolish the NHS, and replace it with something more like the American system, they will very angrily deny that they will never do anything of the kind, and they will say that it is a foul and filthy libel.

And if anybody ever did do that, I think there quite literally would be blood on the streets. And remember, this is a populace that gets most of its news from papers which are pretty rightwing. The Guardian is very much the exception. (And that is hardly a left-wing publication.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 02:01 PM

Ah, so Nixon was a coward AND a hypocrite? Now I feel a LOT better about him.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 03:31 PM

Alex, are you familiar with Harry S. Truman on Dick Nixon? (may not be 100% correct, but close):

"Richard Nixon is a lying son of a bitch. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at once, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in."

Personally, I think Harry was being way too kind.
Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 05:10 PM

The media per se shows no real liberal bias since it has given hours to Bush and Cheney as well as to the position of Gore. I think Gore's point is strong and the reaction against it needs to be tempered with consideration whether you agree with it or not.

I believe that the so-called "conservatives" have given up a conservative view a long time ago and should be properly named reactionaries. That suggests reacting rather than being proactive.

Another aspect of reaction is to deominze those who you don't agree with by referreing to them as liars or dishonest and making loud moral proclamations about them as if they were minions of the devil. Thus we have loud individuals shrieking about "stealing" votes. The rhetoric is pretty high in reactionary circles these days.

I can see the case for an honest disagreement about how issues should be resolved that doesn't entail rhetoric and reaction.

"Liberal" as Studs Terkel has pointed out means "generous". "Conservative" means "cautious or measured".

"Reactionary" means reacting to and rejecting out of hand anything that someone doesn't agree with. (Usually accompanied by loud moral pronouncements placing the exhorter in an exalted god-like position in their own minds).

The media looks for hot potato issues that will awaken a soporific audience. It's bias is about selling products for sponsors, creating show business personalities such as Cokie, Sam and George Wills and making money.

I welcome a reasoned, clear explanation of of the important issues of the day which excludes the demonizing rhetoric and sticks to the facts. You don't get this too much from media these days.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Skeptic
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 06:20 PM

McGrath,

Thirty million Americans have no health insurance, a portion of the rest that do have minimally adequate coverage. Until recently preventative medicine was rarely covered at all by health plans.

If you have no insurance and are close to a major urban center, maybe you can get seen/treated more than purely symptomatically and maybe not.

Having a bit more background on the situation troll refers to, and having banged around the medical field in my not nearly misspent enough youth, I can match troll story for story, although knowing the story, its certainly an incitement of the individuals providing the care (or lack thereof).

Is it the people or the system. I can think of examples on this side of the Atlantic to support either side of the argument.

Lets remember that the only reason an Emergency Room can't turn away an indigent patient who's having a heart attack because they can't pay is that they lost the lawsuit (back in the 70's in New York). As I remember the patient died and his family sued, won and established the principal of universal emergency care, regardless of ability to pay. But i fits not an emergent (immediately life threatening problem) they can and do.

It's sad, to me, that we are the richest country on Earth and 30 million people have access to health care that's extremely limited: i.e overworked and understaffed and under- funded public clinics.

Also interesting that our liberal media says so little about it, to sort of get back on thread.

Regards John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 07:26 PM

Well, the main point I was making was that getting rid of the National Health Service would be a very extreme position indeed here. In no way "conservative" ("cautious or measured"), or for that matter Conservative, for whom it would be suicide.

If I can suggest a parallel case - I believe you don't get many American Conservatives calling for the Declaration of Independance to be abrogated.

As I've said before, my dearest dream would be to live in a society where I could be passionately in favour of preserving the status quo, because the status quo was OK. Roll on the age of real conservatism. But it's got a long way to go before that'll be here. And it's not going in the right direction too much of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 08:23 PM

Alex
If you will read GregF's posting of 12/4/00 at 0819 you will see the begining of the Nixon thing. I simply meant that no one is wholly bad and that even a scoundrel like Nixon can do positive things.
Frank.
I concur that the opposition should not be demonized by refering to them in perjorative terms. That is why I use "Conservative" instead of "Reactionary", and "Liberal" instead of "Bleeding Heart".
Skeptic
A damned impressive oar indeed. And it propells you in damned impressive CIRCLES!

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 08:37 PM

But in principle Reactionary and Conservative are in mkst ways opposite philosophies; and when Mrs Thatcher was correctly identified as being ideologically a Nineteenth Century Liberal, noone took that as meaning she was a Bleeding Heart.

A "Conservative" (using that as a label for a philosophy rather than a party) would surely disagree with political adversaries because he or she thinks what they do or propose to do is wrong, at this time and in these circumstances, not because it falls into a particular category.

After all, in 10 or 5O or 100 years, the very same policies will have been incorporated into the philosophy, if they proved reasonably successful and enduring. Like the American and French Revolutions and the NHS.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: John Hardly
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 10:17 PM

One question I don't see addressed here;

What media outlets/personalities are considered authoritative in a sense that is suppose to cross ideological boundaries?

Another question;

Accepted that Will, Novak et. al. are Conservatives...uh...who are the Liberals? Why doesn't "This Week (with Sam D and Cokie R)" have a Liberal voice to balance Will's extreme rhetoric?

It seems obvious that it's elementary--anyone can point out the Conservatives in the mainstream authoritative media--they are labeled as such. There are no anchors, editors, or commentators who are labeled as Liberals. Therefore the media is obviously dominated by Conservatives.

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 11:40 PM

Troll, if you are afraid that I am going to make the mistake of thinking any one person can be 100% bad with no good at all, you may rest your mind at ease. But thanks for worrying about me, all the same.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 09:02 AM

Thanks, everyone, for weighing in on this one -- all in all it's been a remarkably civil discussion. I think the exploration of the words themselves is interesting (the "liberal" vs. "Liberal" discussion started by McGrath). I also appreciate the thoughtful comments offered by troll and DougR, which help balance the discussion and offer opposing points of view to the generally liberal leanings of the Mudcat. This has been educational for me -- I honestly wanted to know how people felt about this, and despite my own liberal leanings I had no particular axe to grind in asking the question. It's nice to have discussions about these kinds of things without throwing stones at each other -- thanks again.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 10:21 AM

John, this should be a no-brainer. The reason the "Consrevatives" are labeled is that everyone ELSE is Liberal.
Sorry buddy. You left yourself wide open for that one.

troll ***BG***

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 01:34 PM

I often think it's comical
How Nature always does contrive
That every boy and every gal
That's born into this world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative

Except of course that's not true, either with Upper Case or lower case...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Jim Krause
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 01:38 PM

McGrath, Your point in defining liberal vs. Liberal I think is well taken. This is why I often refer to myself as progressive. I would like to see greater progress made in matters of economics, that is movement toward elimination of poverty, progress in cleaning up the environment, progress in improvment in peoples' health, progress in education and literacy. And if that takes legislation by Congtresses, or Parliaments, then so be it.

Conservative philosophy, as I understand it says that the above is not the province of Legislatures, but rather the function of the Free Market. I disagree. The purpose of the Free Market, is to make money. The health, education, and welfare of the Citizenry cannot be effectively turned into a profitable business. And it shouldn't be, in my humble opinion.
Jim Krause

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Skeptic
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 02:06 PM

John H.

I've always understood that it wasn't so much that you could point to specifics and say "this is Liberal and proves the bias" as it is a feeling of implication by the media that Conservativism = bad, Liberal = Good.

This idea of a penumbra of Liberalism in the media is avidly supported by the same group that decires the idea of a penumbra of implied rights in the Constitution but why look for consistancy.

Studies on the bias of the media that I recall always seemed to contradict one another. Probably methodilogically flawed as a snapshot of a given time makes a lot of assumptions.

The days of the authoratative media figure seems past. Cronkite was probably the last who a lot of people respected. Edward Morrow being a better but earlier example. sadly, the days of the demagogic media figure linger on.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 02:46 PM

Jim Krause:
My brand of conservatism feels that health, education and welfare should be the province of state and local govt since they are WHERE the problems are and would know how to best allocate the available funds. Dealing with local problems at a national level seems mostly to create expensive beauracracy and endless rules which are mainly designed to cover someones ass rather than help the needy.
Whlie there probably should be some oversight to make sure that fraud doesn't take the place of help, it shloud be more in the form of an auditor and less in the form of national control.
I agree that the job of the Free Market is to show a profit. Enlightened self-interest is rare in these days of multi-nationals and giant corporations; where a company takes an interest in ALL the citizens in the area of its location.
Thanks, though for a well thought-out and, above all - brief post.
Skeptic. Well done lad! Another of those flashes of rationality. If we could only increase the frequency...*sigh*

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: John Hardly
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 08:49 PM

JK

With what product will the health, education, and welfare of the citizenry be maintained if not that created BY the free market?

What better incentive is there to progress in the health field, education, literacy, science and any other endeavor than profit? I doubt that many of us have spent many hours working for no reward. It does not benefit the farmer to muzzle the ox that plows the field.

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Skeptic
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 02:24 PM

John H,

Conversely, or so studies show, very few people spend a lot of time working only for money. Its usually 5 or 6 on the list of "reasons why I work where I do".

The question goes to the priority of motive. The profit motive sees no problem with doing cost benefits analysis on things like, Do we recall the care or is it cheaper to pay off the lawsuits? What is the minimum level of care we can provide to indigents before the cost of insurance/lawsuits is greater than the cost of providing the care?

Another side of the issue is to consider that while Hoover Dam was built by private companies (who made a profit), its purpose wasn't to make money. Nor were other products of the bureaucracy like the Blue Ridge Parkway or the Panama Canal.

"Senior Management" in any company, can isolate itself behind numbers. Much like running a war from well behind the lines. Its so much easier to send people out to be killed when they're just little colored pins on a map. Or numbers on a spreadsheet?

Or my favorite example of the profit motive at work. Windows Operating System (pick a version). Microsoft products are designed to make money. Sad that mediocrity can do that

troll,

The problem with leaving the issue to local governments is that health care providers are regional, national or international. With commensurate resources. In the good old days, local social controls worked fine. Because the health care providers depended entirely on the local economy. Abuses could be countered with local sanctions (formal or informal). That is no longer possible.

Governments do have a lot of redundancy. Advisedly so. How many stockholders know or are comfortable with the idea of "opportunity costs". While government, at least in Florida, must be open to the public, business can hide their little (or big) mistakes behind a wall of numbers. Most stockholders ask the question "What are the dividends?" Few ask "What would they be if all those opportunity costs and $100 dollar dinners were better controlled".

The Government has to account for every penny. In part as a matter of acting as trustee for public funds, in part because when the didn't have all the controls in place, you go things like the Teapot Dome scandal or the excesses of Tammany Hall

I'm am, btw, deeply concerned that you recognize rationality when you see it. Hardly fits you personality or intellectual abilities

Regards and Happy Holidays

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 03:03 PM

"It does not benefit the farmer to muzzle the ox that plows the field." Oxen work hard and get modest returns. All enterprises have people like that - they aren't ones who get the big rewards, but they are the ones who do most of the work. And there are "farmers" who do in fact attempt to muzzle them, if they can get away with it.

But I've been thinking again about the different meanings a word like liberal can have, and how to distinguish. It's complicated.

In a country like the USA where there isn't a Liberal Party, then using it with a capital latter to mean a political philosoph, and a small letter to mmean a gernal attitude to life works.

But when you've got a Liberal Party, then capital L Liberalism will inevitably mean the policies of that party. So I suppose sticking it in quotes "liberalism" or "Liberalism" to mean the political philosophy is the best you can do, with small l when you're talking non-politically.

But the bottom line is, it's all so fluid that liberal really isn't a word that is very efficient in politucal discourse, and it'd be much better if it was retired.

For example: "Conservative philosophy, as I understand it says that the above is not the province of Legislatures, but rather the function of the Free Market." Actually I'd say that is a good definition of the classical "Liberal" position, which is miles away from the current viewsd of the Liberal Party in England (or even the Liberal Democrat Party), and is pretty illiberal, in the dictionary meaning of that word.

Wouldn't it be better if we just tried to say what it is we disagree with or agree with in the policy/practice if a paper, person or party, rather than trying to tie it up in a package and attach a highly misleading and contentious label?

For example, if I was explaining why I think Mrs Thatcher was to be deplored, I might mention that her political philosophy was "Economic Liberalism", but that's not the reason I deplore her time in office. (It's much more the other way - Mrs Thatcher provides an example of how Economic Liberalism is a badly flawed philosophy.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 11:05 PM

Skeptic, My major objection to govt. oversight all the way to the top is the seemingly inbred tendency of beauracracies to multiply and form multiple levels with each level siphoning off just a little more money. By the time the dollar reaches the intended recipient, said recipient is lucky if he doesn't OWE the govt. for the priviledge of being helped. Most of the funds wind up going for "administrative costs".
Always remember that the first job of a beaurocrat is to protect his job.
BTW, how strange that YOU should mention personality. I shouldn't have thought you'd be familiar with that.
Oh yes, my wife wanted to know how the adult education class was going. Are you still having problems with long division?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Skeptic
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 04:48 PM

troll,

An argument that can be made against any institution. Not just government. In the private sector there isn't any public oversight so its not as apparent and the assumptions and requirements are different.

Certainly there is a tendency of any organization to grow but public and private entities respond to different stimuli. The idea of a bureaucracy growing because that is the nature of the beast is flawed (IMO). As interesting as Dr. Parkinson's studies were, there were a number of other factors at work in the institutions he studied.

The over-abundance of checks and balances, the direct cause of bureaucratic bulge in the public sector, are more properly laid at the feet of the legislature. Knee-jerk response to the demands of special interest groups keeps adding levels of people to regulate programs. The law is written to require that the public entity proves to the public that they are (or aren't) protecting this or that sacred cow. When the government grants money to WHO but adds the caveat that the money can't be used to fund birth control, then the bureaucracy had better develop forms and a structure to monitor same. All it takes, literally, is one letter to a legislator accusing one dollar of going to a legislatively forbidden program and the appropriate bureaucrat had better give up his three hour lunch and get his staff (three times as large as it needs to be, to be sure) to produce proof that such is not happening. Ask Microsoft (as a stockholder) which candidates and issues the corporation gave money to in the last election and they go to court to get a ruling so they don't have to answer. Or require that corporation inform stockholders of what they are paying their CEO's. More lawsuits. And more growth in the public sector to make sure the latest law is followed.

The tendency to build a personal empire isn't limited to the public sector. If anything, its more prevalent in the private sector. Conversely, as the public body is governed by law, prioritizing (or letting things slide, if you will) isn't a real option. It all has to be done because it's the law. In a private company you can decide not to do something and the results are less profit, not a grand jury investigation.

The private sector can add employees in anticipation of some new way to generate profits, or to "gear-up" for a new marketing campaigns. Public sector is more reactive. Another element that plagues the public sector is that many of the functions are "station filled". It doesn't matter if one person or fifty come in to renew car registration, someone has to be there. I've always found it curious that people who complain bitterly about the government "bureaucracy" tolerate far worse service levels from almost any private company. Illustrative an anecdotally, my office used to be next to the Vehicle Registration Counter at the County Admin building. One day I happened to watch a man complaining loudly about all "long wait" (3-5) minutes, the over-staffed bureaucracy and all the rest. The epitome of the indignant taxpayer. I happened see the same man later that day at a McDonald. Waiting patiently for over ten minutes, then finding out his order was wrong, waiting another five minutes and paying, leaving with a cheerful "have a nice day". Maybe at the Registration Counter he was running late. Maybe not.

The nice lady who asked about my progress in school wasn't your lovely wife. She was one of your "special friends". You know, like when you have long arguments with Ivan the Terrible or swapping cake recipes with Maire Antoinette.

Regards and Happy Holidays

John

ps: There is no need to be civil. It won't work anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 05:37 PM

Since they sold off British Rail the amount of public subsidy has gone through the roof, the quality of service has gone through the floor, and the fares have skyrocketed, and the timetables are a laughing stock, and the trains are filthy. And the shareholders are doing very nicely indeed, as are the executives.

You've even got Conservatives calling for re-nationalisation. The only reason the "Labour" Government doesn't do it is because it thinks that, if it renationalised, the Government would be having to carry the blame.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 05:38 PM

Since they sold off British Rail the amount of public subsidy has gone through the roof, the quality of service has gone through the floor, the fares have skyrocketed, and the timetables are a laughing stock, and the trains are filthy. And the shareholders are doing very nicely indeed, as are the executives.

You've even got Conservatives calling for re-nationalisation. The only reason the "Labour" Government doesn't do it is because it thinks that, if it renationalised, the Government would be having to carry the blame.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 09:06 PM

Ah yes. Marie Antoinettes cake recipe.
"Let them eat cake." she said.
If it was made from the recipe she gave me, it's no damned wonder the French revolted!

troll

Oh,I don't argue with Ivan. Ever.

Happy Solstice,

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Skeptic
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 10:23 AM

McGrath,

When we tried to create a semi-public rail system in the US (called AmTrak), the privately owned railroads cheerfully sold the unprofitable passenger lines and poorly maintained tracks to the new corporation and kept the profitable freight lines (that had been subsidizing passenger trains). And then Congress puzzled over why AmTrak kept not making money. Why they had to poor money into upgrading and repairing and why, as services and schedules kept getting cut (due to budget cuts) rider ship declined.

Conversely, on the private side, some years ago (after the bureaucracy finally got some control over medicare so hospitals couldn't pad bills as easily) one of the major private hospital ownership companies collected all their hospitals that weren't making much money, or losing money, and spun off another corporation of doubtful value. They used the pension fund of the employees in the new corporation to pay the old parent company for their interest in the new company.

Fortunately they got caught. Strangely the liberal media that covered the failure of AmTrak, (and blamed the Liberals for it, barely mention the second incident.

Or when the liberals proposed and passed the highly controversial (at the time) minimum wage increase, the liberal press failed to mention that there was 125 billion included in tax breaks and so on for corporations

Then we come to the latest "evidence" of the liberal media conspiracy. Never mind that the vast majority of the media outlets arfe run by fairly conservative and Conservative men and women, or that the Boards are dominated by same. Instead, lets find/manufacture clear evidence of liberal bias. Or at least claim it exists.

But why? One reasonable answer is that if you characterize the press as a liberal conspiracy, you don't have to answer the charges. Just fall back on "There they go again". If you can't win on the facts, baffle them with bullshit.

Regards and Happy Holidays

John

troll, only you would have a discussion with a hallucination about a recipe whose antecedents have no basis in fact. Sorry to, for of course you don't argue with Ivan as you tend to support his methods of government, social interaction and so on.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Troll
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 12:09 PM

Skeptic. As usual you are only partially correct. While I may agree with Ivan on certain portions of his theories of government,etc, the MAIN reason I don't argue with him is that when people argue with him, he gets PISSED.
Ivan's a real sweetheart but you wouldn't like him when he's angry.
He breaks things.
Re: your defense of the Media; there you go again.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Liberal media'?
From: Skeptic
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 12:47 PM

troll, Even if you cqan't keep your arguements comphrehensible, at least keep track of your own hallucinations.

There I go again? I expected better. (A little better)

Anyway, I'm OOT for the weekend.

Regards and Happy Holidays

John