From: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org (shindell-list-digest) To: shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Subject: shindell-list-digest V6 #254 Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org Sender: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk shindell-list-digest Friday, November 12 2004 Volume 06 : Number 254 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [RS] Taking the ... ["kunigunda" ] Re: [RS] Transit question [Phueber@aol.com] [RS] Clement [Jim Colbert ] Re: [RS] Taking the ... [Vanessa Wills ] Re: [RS] Taking the ... ["Kristen Myshrall" ] RE: [RS] Taking the ... ["Donald Frick" ] Re: [RS] Transit question ["ptpowerlists@juno.com" ] RE: [RS] Taking the ... ["Donald Frick" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:06:18 -0600 From: "kunigunda" Subject: Re: [RS] Taking the ... Logic must prevail even though our hearts don't want it to. Here is a less biased/paranoid article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41106-2004Nov10.html - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lisa Davis - home" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:46 PM Subject: Re: [RS] Taking the ... > If we don't want to read about it on the list, you might want to read > this -- interesting. (and sans virus.) > > http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110804Z.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:22:28 EST From: Phueber@aol.com Subject: Re: [RS] Transit question "Some time ago, Richard replaced "Reagan Republicans" with "Ashcroft Republicans" in Transit. Given that Ashcroft has resigned, what do you think Richard will do with the lyric?" Neoconservatives would be a fit. Paul ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:38:48 -0500 From: Jim Colbert Subject: [RS] Clement On Nov 11, 2004, at 4:55 AM, shindell-list-digest wrote: > Janet Cinelli's comment "Cowboy Jack Clement is credited with helping > launch Charley Pride's career" massively undersells one of the unsung > heroes > of American contemporary music [rock'n'roll, folk, country - call it > what > you will]. It's a comment that amused, but also greatly saddened me. > I'd go > check your history books, there's a lot you folks seem to have missed > in > your musical education. Jack Clement had done a heck of a lot more than > merely "help" Charley Pride. I don't think Janet was implying that's all he ever did. It's hard to sum up a, what, 6-decade career in a short e-mail, you know? (I also wouldn't devalue the impact of creating public acceptance for a black country singer at the time, though.) I don't recall Jack getting a tremendous amount of media coverage through the years I've been paying attention... No Depression is one exception... I think I first encountered the name back in the 60's during his collaborations with Johnny Cash, for the (vinyl!) record. He's certainly had a long and storied career- well worth reading about if you are so inclined. As an aside, personally, I've always found the core of this list to be pretty musically literate. I've learned a lot here. - -jim waist deep in designing a visitor's guide book ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:44:58 -0500 From: Vanessa Wills Subject: Re: [RS] Taking the ... I don't think it was necessary for you to imply that Lisa is being "illogical". The article she linked to simply cited a number of facts and suggested some explanations. It also considered many of the same explanations that are considered in the Washington Post article, so it's not as though the Post presented "logical" explanations that the TruthOut article simply ignored. For what it's worth, the Post makes quite an assumption in supposing that the folks at the top of the Democratic Party machine stand to gain much from contesting the election. My guess is that they have far more to gain from maintaining the status quo and keeping their corporate backers and friends on Wall Street happy than they stand to gain from stoking the flames of unrest among the masses. It's no surprise at all that they're not pursuing this issue. Thankfully, Nader is contesting the New Hampshire tallies, for a start. Whatever else a person can say about Nader, he still cares about democracy. (I voted Kerry, but not because I especially liked the guy or his party.) My point is that I think it is unfair for you to claim that the Post article is more "biased," "paranoid," and "logical." It's just not obvious that it is. The mainstream media has been beating the drum that "The exit polls were wrong!" But *that* is a grand assumption. Exit polls are standardly used as a protection against election fraud, as a check against the "official" tallies. It is a poor argument to say that the exit polls must be wrong, because they don't reflect what the official tallies reflect. They *might* be wrong, but the fact that they are so far off from the official tallies means that we need to look into why they might be so far off. We need to ask ourselves why the GOP wants to put an end to exit polling--one of the few independent checks we have to detect election fraud. I'm not pointing fingers, here. I'm just saying that you can't assume the conclusion and then say that anyone who disagrees with your assumption is being illogical, biased, and paranoid. Paranoidly yours, Vanessa http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/11/ana04027.html On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:06:18 -0600, kunigunda wrote: > Logic must prevail even though our hearts don't want it to. Here is a less > biased/paranoid article. > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41106-2004Nov10.html > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lisa Davis - home" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:46 PM > Subject: Re: [RS] Taking the ... > > > If we don't want to read about it on the list, you might want to read > > this -- interesting. (and sans virus.) > > > > http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110804Z.shtml > - -- "Oh yes, I know, the obligatory pieties about "healing" have begun; not least from the lips of the noble Loser. This is music to the ears of the Victor of course, who wants nothing better than for us all to Come Together, a position otherwise known as unconditional surrender." --Simon Schama, http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1343956,00.html "If we're to be damned, let's be damned for what we truly are." --Captain Jean-Luc Picard ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:39:25 -0500 From: "Kristen Myshrall" Subject: Re: [RS] Taking the ... >Logic must prevail even though our hearts don't want it to. Here is a less >biased/paranoid article. >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41106-2004Nov10.html Hehehehehe...less biased...the WASHINGTON POST?!?!?! Thank you...that was the best laugh I've had in weeks! _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar  get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:49:45 -0700 From: "Donald Frick" Subject: RE: [RS] Taking the ... "Hehehehehe...less biased...the WASHINGTON POST?!?!?! Thank you...that was the best laugh I've had in weeks!" If you're going to make accusations about bias, please provide facts/specific examples to support... Thanks, Don _________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:58:41 GMT From: "ptpowerlists@juno.com" Subject: Re: [RS] Transit question >>Some time ago, Richard replaced "Reagan Republicans" with "Ashcroft Republicans" in Transit. Given that Ashcroft has resigned, what do you think Richard will do with the lyric?<< Mmmmm... "lying Republicans" would fit, albeit a redundancy. Pat ________________________________________________________________ Juno Platinum $9.95. Juno SpeedBand $14.95. Sign up for Juno Today at http://www.juno.com! Look for special offers at Best Buy stores. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:34:05 -0600 From: "kunigunda" Subject: Re: [RS] Taking the ... Hmmm...Was just trying to find a mainstream news source rather than a little known website or one with obvious bias. Actually, I always thought the wash post was biased left. That's why I listed it, thinking that if they didn't have much to say about it, then certainly there wasn't much to it, other than wishful thinking on the part of the Bush haters. I understand being upset about the election results, but not the vehemence shown by some in attempting to discredit the process without having concrete evidence. It's just kinda scary that cooler heads can't prevail. Reminds me of the same frenzy occurring in the dark ages when they burned so-called witches at the stake!! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6463505/ - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kristen Myshrall" To: Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [RS] Taking the ... > >Logic must prevail even though our hearts don't want it to. Here is a less > >biased/paranoid article. > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41106-2004Nov10.html > > > Hehehehehe...less biased...the WASHINGTON POST?!?!?! > Thank you...that was the best laugh I've had in weeks! > > _________________________________________________________________ > FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar  get it now! > http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:22:10 -0700 From: "Donald Frick" Subject: RE: [RS] Taking the ... "Hmmm...Was just trying to find a mainstream news source rather than a little known website or one with obvious bias. Actually, I always thought the wash post was biased left." Sorry to harp on this, and I really don't want people to think that I disagree with the fact that the Post is biased, quite frankly I just don't know, but can anyone give a good (unbiased) argument based on facts that supports a claim of media bias? I don't read the Post. But it applies to anyone who has ever called the media biased - I've heard it a lot in the past three months. No one on either side has ever given me concrete, hard evidence, or a convincing argument that someone is biased one way or the other. It's been really frustrating for me, because when I try and support a proposition one way or the other (left or right), someone immediately disposes of my foundation (factual basis) by claiming it has come from a biased source. At least from what I have seen, and I don't watch/read a lot of the news as I have no free time when the news actually airs, and about all I have watched has come from NBC, the coverage has been balanced. If they were leaving out facts/evidence, it was left out on both sides. I really am open to hearing arguments on either side. I urge everyone to think about their own bias and how it has influenced the way you think about things. We all are all influenced by opinionated sources, and are all biased ourselves. It comes from the way we were brought up, who we associate with, the music we listen to, inter alia. Facts can easily be confused with opinion. The media has to be owned by someone - if it is owned by liberals, don't assume it necessarily creates a liberal bias, and vice versa. Lastly, there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. PLEASE! Someone enlighten me as to why NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox are biased. I take no position either way - no one, on either side, has provided me with an argument based on FACTS. If you're wondering, I based my decision last week simply on who supported the fundamental rights that are guaranteed to us in the Constitution, who did not seek to support take away these freedoms, and most importantly the belief that we can and should do everything possible, as voters, to progress, not regress, as a society for the support of peace and understanding throughout the world. To me the choice was clear. Thanks, Don ------------------------------ End of shindell-list-digest V6 #254 ***********************************