From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #144 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, June 8 2005 Volume 14 : Number 144 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: pres shrub shat on from great height ["Marc Alberts" ] Re: pres shrub shat on from great height ["Matt Sewell" ] Re: pres shrub shat on from great height [FSThomas ] Re: I've written pages upon pages just to rid you from my bones..... [St] Re: stop me before I buy again ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: I've written pages upon pages just to rid you from my bones..... ["] Re: stop me before I buy again [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: stop me before I buy again [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: stop me before I buy again [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: stop me before I buy again [Jeff ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:30:27 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: pres shrub shat on from great height Jeff wrote: > > The average poverty-stricken American has a car. A cell phone. Air > > conditioning. Microwaves. Cupboards full of junk food. A couple of TVs > > and spare change for cigarettes and alcohol. How do I know? I live in > > one of the poorer sections of Atlanta. I see it every day. It > > practically drives me to violence when I hear someone crying poverty > > while driving a piece of shit car with fucking spinners on it. > > > > What other country do you know of that would define you as "living in > > poverty" if you had a couple hundred K in the bank and lived in a > > paid-for multi-million dollar house? > > Erewhon? Zembla? > > I have never in my life heard of anyone with "a couple hundred K in > the bank" and "liv[ing] in a paid-for multi-million dollar house" > defined as "living in poverty." If there are such people - who fit > (supposedly) into the technical def. of poverty based on annual income > - there are surely very, very few, few enough percentage-wise to make > no difference. That is, if such people exist, that they exist is > trivially relevant to the argument - no more relevant than the fact > that probably, somewhere, there's a wacked-out person drawing several > million a year in stock dividends who lives in a cardboard box on the > streets. Well, since you've never heard of anyone in this situation, my parents are. Both are retired, earn about $10k per year between them, and are busy living off their assets, many of which were converted to money markets during the 2001 stock market crash so their income is quite low off them, and the ones they didn't convert they don't sell so they don't have capital gains. The federal definition of poverty is based entirely on pre-tax income and transfer payments, so by definition my parents are dirt poor. AARP calls them at least twice a month because they obviously are in so much need. I would say they are relevant, however, since the numbers are far higher than the number of whacked out millionaires living in cardboard boxes. It is also relevant because transfer payment bureaucracies have difficulties addressing these folks who nominally meet standards for transfers and yet are not what we would consider deserving. > > How bad does it have to be to be bad? That is, what's the investment > in pointing out that "some" people officially counted as poor aren't > poor by normal standards...rather than addressing the argument? Why is > it more important to deflate the statistics than recognize their > essential truth? It does address *an* argument, though, the one I mentioned above. That is primarily that government, because of the rules it has to play by in order to "fairly" distribute wealth tend to be very inefficient. It has been estimated that somewhere between 1/4th and 1/3rd of every dollar the government takes in goes to bureaucracy necessary to spend that dollar. It may not be the argument you want to discuss, but it comes down to this: you can help people by using the government, or you can help people in other ways, and the debate should be about the most efficient way to help the most people the most, not whether people should be helped at all, which seems to be your argument. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:43:38 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: pres shrub shat on from great height Jeme wrote: > Um, not "estimated" at all. Census numbers are by actual count. And > we're looking at a national average of almost around 11% at or below the > poverty line. Census numbers are estimated these days. They had a big stink about this in 2000, actually. > The purpose of civilization is to bring up the level for all people. If > we set that arbitrary mark of "poverty" somewhere just above where, say, > you live, we should still be committed 100% to bringing all people above > that mark. If that were the case, what would be the point of measuring poverty? Poverty, by definition, must be the people who are relatively poorer than the rest. The richer society gets, the higher that line is set, but that still defines those who are relatively less well off. The only way you can avoid this is through systems like the Soviets uses, and those basically worked by making everyone who was not a member of the political leadership relatively impoverished. > Of course, capitalism can't do that. Capitalism requires a certain > percentage of people to be out of work and miserable, so that wages stay > low and profit margins are maximized. This isn't even remotely true, and shows a staggering ignorance of what capitalism is about. I would suggest you stop reading the Karl Marx comic books and actually investigate what capitalism actually includes or does not include before you continue to argue about economic issues. How do you even take yourself seriously when you say stuff like this? On second thought, I'll take Eb's advice and retract the question. I am afraid that after an answer I'd be right back where I am now--bemused. What's next, calling everyone "capitalist running dog lackeys" like Mao did in his little red book? Marc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 23:04:48 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: pres shrub shat on from great height Jason wrote: > On 6/7/05, FSThomas wrote: > > Jeff wrote: > > > > > > I have never in my life heard of anyone with "a couple hundred K in > > > the bank" and "liv[ing] in a paid-for multi-million dollar house" > > > defined as "living in poverty." If there are such people - who fit > > > (supposedly) into the technical def. of poverty based on annual income > > > - there are surely very, very few, few enough percentage-wise to make > > > no difference. That is, if such people exist, that they exist is > > > trivially relevant to the argument - no more relevant than the fact > > > that probably, somewhere, there's a wacked-out person drawing several > > > million a year in stock dividends who lives in a cardboard box on the > > > streets. > > > > Anyone. Any. One who files a tax return stating an income under the > > poverty index is rated by the US Government as "living in poverty." > > No questions asked about the value of your home, your balances in the > > bank, nothing. > > Um, sorry the US Census is just not that simplistic. This not a > single number statistic. In fact a massive survey of income tax > returns are not part of their methadology. For more information see: > > http://www.census.gov/Press- > Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html > http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/guidance081904.html I wouldn't say the Census isn't that simplistic but rather they have to use different methodologies. After all, tax returns are filed only by people who make enough to have to pay taxes or to get a refund on taxes, which doesn't cover a good chunk of income earners. Instead, they base poverty rates off a survey which has a pretty low confidence interval (most political polls have a confidence interval of higher than 90%, but the poverty method is right at 90%). The survey asks about all income sources and takes incomes pre-tax. As John Goodman said in "Barton Fink,": "I can feel my butt gettin' sore already!" Marc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 09:25:17 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height, whilst singing... Hi, - --On 7. Juni 2005 23:15:10 Uhr -0400 FSThomas wrote: > On a completely different note: that Coldplay album is pretty danged good. > > This coming from a guy who wasn't that much a fan of their first effort. > > From a different angle, this is pretty funny: > > From http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/arts/music/05pare.html I saw them at a "secret" gig here in Cologne a few weeks ago. I haven't heard the new CD, but I am inclined to side with the NYT on this one. I enjoy "Rush Of Blood" to some degree, but the concert didn't convince me at all. To me it sounded like more of the same and I was underwhelmed by the performance as well. YMMV. - -- Sebastian Hagedorn http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 09:43:11 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height Hi, - --On 7. Juni 2005 15:36:13 Uhr -0400 Christopher Gross wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, FSThomas wrote: > >> Hell, the >> poverty-stricken in the States live at a standard that is above the >> average European. Not the average poor European, but the average >> every-day European. >> >> The average poverty-stricken American has a car. A cell phone. Air >> conditioning. Microwaves. Cupboards full of junk food. A couple of TVs >> and spare change for cigarettes and alcohol. > > I'm not sure if you meant the second paragraph to refer directly to the > first. If you did: it's my impression that "average every-day Europeans" > have cell phones, TVs, microwaves, and cupboards full of junk food. Maybe > not as many cars as in America, but then, cars are both cheaper and harder > to avoid needing over here. (Admittedly I don't have that much first-hand > experience, but then do you? Or was that based more on something you read > on a conservative blog?) > > Sebastian, any comments? well, Europe is pretty large ... I haven't personally been to every European country, only to: Iceland, Denmark, England, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Yugoslavia, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg His assessment may be true wrt Eastern Europe, but it's certainly *not* true wrt Western Europe. In fact, Europeans are often shocked by the slums in the US, because that's something that simply doesn't exist around here. Sure, there are bad neighborhoods in Cologne. Actually conditions seem to worsen there due to rising unemployment and cuts in the social system, but still it's nothing like some areas I've seen in the US. Maybe the "average poor" don't do so bad, but there *are* many people that apparently get left behind entirely - and that's something I don't want to happen in Germany. I am a child of "social democracy" and I believe in government. There are now many so-called neo-liberals in Germany that advocate the US model of freedom, self-reliance and self-determination. Sometimes I wonder if my conception of people and government isn't really chiefly determined by the prevalent notions during my formative years. No way to be sure, I guess. - -- Sebastian Hagedorn http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:52:53 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height Actually I'm an average, every-day European myself. From the European country of the United Kingdom... Cheers Matt >From: Christopher Gross the average > > every-day European. > > > >Sebastian, any comments? >--Chris "I hardly know any Bush voters, so he must not have gotten any >votes" the Christer ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:34:36 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: A European writes... (100% Nupp content) Flicker Mask by Lazerlove5 (band led by our own Nuppy) arrived yesterday. A cursory listen reveals it's a goodie - I'll post a more in-depth review once it's had a chance to sink in... guests on the album include Bid from The Monochrome Set and dear old Matthew Seligman... Does that mean this post contains RH content... distantly, yeah! Cheers Matt ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:02:36 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: Re: stop me before I buy again Would that be the media owned almost exclusively by obscenely wealthy white men? Known more for their pursuit of their own business interests than their pursuit of balanced objectivity? I think maybe you trust the media a little too much, Benjamin. cheers Matt >From: Benjamin Lukoff > > Objectivity is the responsibility of the audience, not the media. > >It would help if the media did it a little more, too. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:29:53 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height I'm right behind you there, Cappy - I've even got a plan: I hate Tuesdays... utterly pointless day as far as I'm concerned. I find it difficult to concentrate and hard to get any meaningful work done... so I'm saying Abolish Tuesdays and put an extra weekend day in between Saturday and Sunday. Who's with me?! Cheers matt >From: Capuchin >I firmly believe that this country, right now, would benefit enormously >from the institution of the 30 hour work week. Unemployment would go down >and quality of life would go up. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 06:46:48 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: A European writes... (100% Nupp content) Matt Sewell wrote: > > A cursory listen reveals it's a goodie Indeed. It's a fine album. cheers, Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 07:44:51 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height On 6/7/05, FSThomas wrote: > Jeff wrote: > > So you're saying that those two-and-half-years of driving a good car > > were worth that schedule - as opposed to a more humane schedule > > driving a less-good-but-adequate car? And as for the paid-off loans: > > presumably the "extra" money you had then benefited you, then. I guess > > I don't see why not spread out both the sacrifice and the benefit, > > instead of digging your grave in slow motion. > > > The situation was a bit more complex then I initially let on. > > The work that got my student loans paid off also allowed me to be 100% > debt free when I got married in 1997, something that wouldn't have been > possible in the least if I had stuck to one 40-hour job. My (now ex-) > wife was from Great Britain; we met during my last year at college (when > I was working another totally different bar job). In the time between > her return to the UK in November of 1993 and when we married in 1997 the > work, while not only paying off debt and getting me transport, allowed > me to fly back and forth across the Atlantic (guessing) eight or ten > times. We got married and paid for both an American and British > ceremony, and a honeymoon to Greece, ourselves. > > I worked pretty damned hard those years--both prior to and after landing > a "real" job--in a self-serving fashion to not only to dig myself out of > a hole, but to build our relationship, and see a good chunk of the world > at the same time. So the slow grave I dug, while unbeknownst to me at > the time, seemed like the right decision to make. We split in 2000, and > that was difficult for both of us, but I wouldn't trade the time > committed for anything in the world. One thing your story suggests is that one-size-fits-all solutions are not good ones, since the bare facts don't account for a lot of situations. But what's interesting is that you could revise one or two items in your story, and it would look considerably worse from yr typical talk-show viewpoint: (1) your career didn't work out, and (b) your (ex-)wife and you had a child, which became your responsibility to raise. In this case, imagine you're not making enough to support the child, and that time commitment prohibits you from (say) going back to school to get a different degree to advance your career. Should you have ended up on some form of public assistance (the wellbeing of the child being more important than ideology, one presumes), someone from the outside could easily say, who's this person who wasted all his money jetting back and forth to Europe and now he's got a kid on welfare? The point is, it's not always fair to judge people's motives or character from their economic decisions, esp. from the outside when all the facts aren't known. (BTW: I wasn't *judging* you earlier, only putting forth a hypothetical question about the choices you'd made as you'd presented them at the time.) So I don't know: maybe some people have good reason to own cell phones when they don't have a job (actually, if you're homeless and want a job, a cell phone's more relevant than an address, I'd say). > > As for depriving anyone of nigh two full-time jobs: neither subbing nor > bar work are for everyone. The retail gig, yes, most could have done, > but it was a good fit, what with my background in fine arts. (It was an > art supply shop, with my splitting my time between that and custom framing.) Again (as my parenthetical comment was meant to suggest) I wasn't actually accusing you of that or putting you down, only offering it as a slightly tongue-in-cheek interpretation. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:15:09 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height Jeff wrote: > But what's interesting is that you could revise one or two items in > your story, and it would look considerably worse from yr typical > talk-show viewpoint: (1) your career didn't work out, and (b) your > (ex-)wife and you had a child, which became your responsibility to > raise. In this case, imagine you're not making enough to support the > child, and that time commitment prohibits you from (say) going back to > school to get a different degree to advance your career. Should you > have ended up on some form of public assistance (the wellbeing of the > child being more important than ideology, one presumes), someone from > the outside could easily say, who's this person who wasted all his > money jetting back and forth to Europe and now he's got a kid on > welfare? Good scenario, however unlikely. While we talked about having children, it never came to pass. We decided that until we were both stable in our jobs (I was just starting out and she wasn't eligible to work for most of the first year), we wouldn't consider it. The relationship turned rocky after the first year and a half and we had split prior to our third anniversary. Having kids is a massive undertaking that I think far, far too few people fully grasp. They get baby-mad and next thing you know unfortunately end up in situations like the one you describe. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:51:59 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height On 6/8/05, FSThomas wrote: > Having kids is a massive undertaking that I think far, far too few > people fully grasp. They get baby-mad and next thing you know > unfortunately end up in situations like the one you describe. Or - as the great philosopher Elvis Costello once wrote - accidents will happen. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:21:53 -0400 From: Steve Talkowski Subject: Re: I've written pages upon pages just to rid you from my bones..... I've been crazy busy, but have been meaning to respond to Jill about all this Decemberists bidness. (Keep in mind I'm composing this whilst listening to Castaways and Cutouts - slide guitar and all!) On May 30, 2005, at 7:27 PM, Jill Brand wrote: > I only know that I am a rabid fan, It's rubbing off on me. DAMN YOU JILL BRAND AND YOUR DECEMBERISTS OBSESSIVENESS! (see below) > This morning at breakfast, while > reading the sports section, I mumbled, "This is so unfair." My son > came > back with, "What, that they didn't mention the Decemberists?" That's just plain funny. > Steve wrote and I reply: > > "Colin Meloy's voice doesn't grate on me as much as I thought it > would." > > Sweet, golden tones, my boy. Grate? Never. Forgive me, I didn't mean it in a bad way. I think when everyone was first talking about the Decemberists a few years ago I tried giving them a listen to and didn't get turned on right away, as I thought Colin's voice sounded too much like Linnell and Flansburg, aka TMGB. (btw, check out their website http://www.tmbg.com/ froMain.html with a fun, new interface) Tell me that July, July! couldn't be mistaken for a TMBG song! Even Apology Song for that matter. ;) > OK, so first you go out and buy Castaways and Cutouts and MEMORIZE it. Check. > Then get 5 Songs (which is really 6 songs). Check. > Then get Her Majesty, which gets better and better with each > listening. Check. Funny thing is, I was at a CD shop a few days after the Warsaw gig and these exact three albums were what they had, so I bought 'em all. 5 Songs is great. I knew that I recognized "Shiny" from the show. I was making a mental note to find out what song featured both the accordion and slide guitar. What a pleasant surprise to find more than one with that combination. Oh cool, they also played "My Mother Was a Chinese Trapeze Artist" too. Leslie Anne Levine. What a fucking great song. I can't remember if they played this one, but damn, I just love that lush accordion with slide guitar sound they achieve. And The Chimbley Sweep - they played that one too! > See if you can dig up The Tain, and get a copy of Colin's Morrissey > covers. Workin' on it. Very curious about the Morrissey covers. > P.S. If anyone wants copies of either of the above shows, let me > know. We > can work something out. Yes please! So, I've been listening to all three of these albums non-stop for the past week 1/2 (along with the new Sleater-Kinney, British Sea Power and Stereolab 3-disc boxset) What else am I missing??!! - -Steve ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:29:34 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: stop me before I buy again At 06:16 PM 6/7/2005 -0700, Capuchin wrote: > I assure you that my views are almost universally unaccepted. Yeah, you're soooooo fucking punk. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:50:11 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: I've written pages upon pages just to rid you from my bones..... Steve wrote: > > What else am I missing??!! There's a new Dressy Bessy CD out extremely soon ... that's likely to be a not-to-be-missed. cheers, Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:00:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: stop me before I buy again On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Capuchin wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Capuchin wrote: > >> Objectivity is the responsibility of the audience, not the media. > > > > It would help if the media did it a little more, too. > > That's just not possible. When you speak, you have a perspective. When It's not possible to be *completely* objective, that's true. But bias can be toned down. > you show something, you have a limited camera viewpoint. Bias is inherent > in communicating. The listener has the job of maintaining objectivity and > listening/watching for the things that are potentially misleading. True > So the question I would pose follows: Was there misleading information > presented or did you merely object to the perspective of the filmmaker? Misleading by omission. (And I also objected to the filmmaker's perspective.) > Personally, I think it's much more dangerous for media to pretend to be > objective. First, I think it has the undesirable effect of giving absurd > notions equal time with confirmable ones. (Note how the news doesn't ever > call anyone on their lies anymore. They just "report" when someone else > accuses a person of lying. Facts become perspectives and all opinions > become equally valid.) Second, I think people get lazy when they believe > their media is "unbiased". The myth of objectivity coupled with the > profit motive has made a mockery of news media. I'm not arguing with you on this one! > Educating people is a very tricky business. I think that maybe the > advertisers are the only ones who really know anything about it. We should learn from them! > Nah, all you can do is live the way you think is right and share the ideas > that you have (just don't confuse that with education). agreed ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:06:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: stop me before I buy again I didn't say I trust 'em. I said it'd be nice if they were more objective. On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Matt Sewell wrote: > Would that be the media owned almost exclusively by obscenely > wealthy white men? Known more for their pursuit of their own business > interests than their pursuit of balanced objectivity? > > I think maybe you trust the media a little too much, Benjamin. > > cheers > > Matt > > >From: Benjamin Lukoff > > > Objectivity is the responsibility of the audience, not the media. > > > >It would help if the media did it a little more, too. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:17:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: stop me before I buy again On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Jeff wrote: > First: I'm not sure the relevance of "I don't buy everything I'm > advertised." No one does - so I'm not sure what your point is. But if A demonstration that I indeed have a choice as to where I spend my money. > it's "I'm not influenced by advertising," how can you prove that? As That is not my assertion. > Anyway: You say your consumption patterns are your own doing. At some > level, of course this is true. But how conscious are you when making > purchasing decisions? (I should note right now that I'm not claiming > every individual can be expected to analyze every purchase they make - > I mean, it'd be a good idea, but expecting it, and blaming people when > they don't, would be impractical.) And how much choice do you have? Perhaps not many *choices*, but my choice is indeed free. I am actually pretty conscious when I make purchasing decisions, I'd wager more than average, but of course I am influenced by advertising...I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, though. Imagine how many people would be thrown out of work if you eliminated it! :) > Let's look at something extremely trivial: flavored sugar water. If Yum, Coke! > you develop a taste for Offbrand Cola, at most purchase points you can > buy any cola at all, you will not be able to buy Offbrand Cola. You > could, of course, not patronize those places...but they sell other > things you want, let us say. So: either you buy no cola, or you > eventually decide that some cola is better than no cola, and you end > up buying a Pepsi or a Coke (and at a lot of places, you can choose > one or the other, not both). At restaurants, I will often forgo the cola if it's Pepsi. I shouldn't be drinking so much sugar water anyway. Groceries, on the other hand, sell both, plus off brands besides, and I will go where I need to to get a particular minor brand if I want it. > The point of this isn't to claim that you're a mindless robot > consuming whatever's pushed at you. It's to move beyond the simplistic > notion that each individual freely chooses what to consume. With many > consumer products, the choice you confront is highly constricted, and > it takes way more time to find alternatives - time a lot of people > aren't willing to spend, whether they're aware of those alternatives > or simply proceed assuming Big Fronted Display Brand is the only thing > around. There isn't 100% free choice, true. But if you care enough, you'll take the time to find alternatives. They obviously don't care enough, if they're aware of them. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 14:29:17 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: stop me before I buy again On 6/8/05, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Capuchin wrote: > > > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Capuchin wrote: > > >> Objectivity is the responsibility of the audience, not the media. > > > > > > It would help if the media did it a little more, too. > > > > That's just not possible. When you speak, you have a perspective. When > > It's not possible to be *completely* objective, that's true. But bias can > be toned down. It's possible, sometimes. But not always: much bias isn't particularly conscious. The solution isn't an effort by media to be more objective (although certainly, when media aren't specifically speaking from a particular perspective, they should either try, or make their perspective and interests clear). The solution is a broader, more representative media. And not just the media (insert semi-annual rant re winner-take-all two-party "democracy"). Take for example, White House press conferences. It's an abomination that the WH *chooses* whose question to address. Time should be allotted for some particular number of questions, designated by previously picking a set of random numbers from a larger set equal in number to the number of journalists present - or some other system so the WH doesn't know which question, or who's asking it, in advance. That's a mechanical solution to a general problem, whereby access (necessary to do the job) translates to coziness and thereby unwillingness to be unpleasant. And then there's the problem of ownership and income sources (advertisers): those views receive undue precedence, and anything that roils their calm waters is either openly quashed or subtly discouraged (i.e., the phenomenon of "workplace culture" whereby there's no need for censorship per se, as it's clear that to get along, you're the kind of person who thinks X, doesn't ask the wrong questions, etc.). Finally, the need for readership means that its most desired demographic is unlikely to have their views excessively questioned: TV news is probably the most obvious example of this, with Jim and Jane Nascar in their modest tract home dictating tone and content, cuz god knows you don't want them changing channels or sic'ing their church or political group on you for "bias." - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #144 ********************************