take your answer off the air...

  • HorsesAss.Org: the straight poop on WA politics & the press
    progressive brilliance from the guy who pointed out Tim Eyman's nascent horse's-assedness
  • Talker's Magazine
    The quirky talk radio trade mag. Check the Talk Radio Research Project- it's not very scientific, but places on the top 15 talkers list (scroll down to Talk Radio Audiences By Size)) are as hotly contested as Emmys (and mean just about as much).
  • The Advocate
    No, not THAT Advocate... it's the Northwest Progressive Institute's Official Blog.
  • Media Matters
    Documentation of right-wing media in video, audio and text.
  • Orcinus
    home of David Neiwert, freelance investigative journalist and author who writes extensively about far-right hate groups
  • Hominid Views
    "People, politics, science, and whatnot" Darryl is a statistician who fights imperialism with empiricism, gives good links and wry commentary.
  • Jesus' General
    An 11 on the Manly Scale of Absolute Gender, a 12 on the Heavenly Scale of the 10 Commandments and a 6 on the earthly scale of the Immaculately Groomed.
  • Howie in Seattle
    Howie Martin is the Abe Linkin' of progressive Seattle.
  • Streaming Radio Guide
    Hellishly long (5795!) list of radio streaming, steaming on the Internets.
  • The Naked Loon
    News satire -- The Onion in the Seattle petunia patch.
  • Irrational Public Radio
    "informs, challenges, soothes and/or berates, and does so with a pleasing vocal cadence and unmatched enunciation. When you listen to IPR, integrity washes over you like lava, with the pleasing familiarity of a medium-roast coffee and a sensible muffin."
  • The Maddow Blog
    Here's the hyper-interactive La Raych of MSNBC. daily show-vids, freakishly geeky research, and classy graphics.
  • Northwest Broadcasters
    The AM, FM, TV and digital broadcasters of Northwest Washington, USA and Southwest British Columbia, Canada. From Kelso, WA to the northern tip of Vancouver Island, BC - call letters, formats, slogans, networks, technical data, and transmitter maps. Plus "recent" news.
  • News Corpse
    The Internet's chronicle of media decay.
  • The Moderate Voice
    The voice of reason in the age of Obama, and the politics of the far-middle.
  • News Hounds
    Dogged dogging of Fox News by a team who seems to watch every minute of the cable channel so you don't have to.
  • HistoryLink
    Fun to read and free encyclopedia of Washington State history. Founded by the late Walt Crowley, it's an indispensable tool and entertainment source for history wonks and surfers alike.

right-wing blogs we like

  • The Reagan Wing
    Hearin lies the real heart of Washington State Republicans. Doug Parris runs this red-meat social conservative group site which bars no holds when it comes to saying who they are and who they're not; what they believe and what they don't; who their friends are and where the rest of the Republicans can go. Well-written, and flaming.
  • Orbusmax
    inexhaustible Drudgery of NW conservative news
  • The Radio Equalizer
    prolific former Seattle KVI, KIRO talk host speaks authoritatively about radio.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2005

statcounter

« O'Reilly compares dailyKos to KKK; we compare o'reilly to major hoople (fap!) | Main | Fred Thompson: a radio platform for free »

July 24, 2007

Comments

joanie

It is all about name calling. They've taken the tactics of playground bullies and applied them to adult politics. It is the only way they can win.

I'm afraid it works. I wish we could all be as quick-witted as Moore. He sure put Blitzer on guard as well during the CCN interview about Sicko. Moore refused to stay and do a second "taped" half hour because he told Blitzer there was no way he was trusting them to edit it. Blitzer finally agreed to air the second half hour uncut/unedited if he agreed to stay. Moore did. I hope Blitzer was as good as his word. I didn't see the second half.

Duffman

Howdy folks, been away for a while (again in an area not conducive to internet access). I did catch the debate last nite (such as it was). I'm still very impressed with Mrs Clinton's poise and ease of pressure under fire. I believe Obama was the 'declared' winner (whatever that means), but in my book Mrs Clinton still is the ONE to beat and Obama makes a great VP candidate. Wow, seems I have a lot of catching up to do. :o) Nice to be back in the good 'ol USA!

seattlejew

I am an Obama supporter but agree with yu ... she is doing great.

The best news is that they are competing cordially!

Duffman

Agree SJ; nice to be reading your posts again.

sanka

little sick of all the nicey-nice. you know they want to rip ea ch other's faces off, why don't they do it? After all Hillary is a bitch, and Obama is an ex-gang banger. Take the gloves off, Dems, you know you will eventually.

Duffman

Reading thru some of these posts I see I've taken some 'hits' in my absence. For what it's worth, let me try to set the record straight.
Like trying not to use (what I consider) bad words in my posts I also do not post under false names. Like I've previously informed Bla'M I always post under my moniker and with my correct e-mail address. My situation here is thus: no less than 5 individuals (all of which are 'right-leaning') use these computers and as much as I consider them 'comrades' they take delight in any way they can 'get me', therefore I know they post as tho they were me (or whomever at my expense) at times. I will always try to correct that if I notice it.
So, I'm not trying to be ANY one else at ANY time - I says what I says as Duffman only. If you choose to not believe that, so be it. In the words of the great philosopher 'Popeye', I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam! :o)

joanie

Thanks for proving our point, sanka.

joanie

Check out Think Progress for a video of Specter and Gonzales"Today, Gonzales said Comey was referring to “other intelligence activities,” appearing to confirm that the Bush administration is operating more than one warrantless domestic spying program..."

You'll hear Conzales try to justify his visit to Ashcrost who was in the hospital under sedation. Interesting.

joanie

I'm glad to know that, Duff. You have certainly taken time to accuse others of doing it. I would suggest that if you don't want to be under suspicion yourself, you stop accusing others of it - even if you think you are being funny.

I take it Duffernais is not you?

Duffman

Hi joanie; nice to read your posts again; no 'Duffernais' is NOT me. I shan't accuse others of so doing again as it is futile. I would welcome a strict posting guide-line but realize that would not be feasible.

Andrew

Everybody treats the maneuvering of right wing figures and leaders as if it's somehow genius, but more and more it's obvious that their base has emotional deficits which are filled by the image their leaders and spokespeople embody, and that the specific verbiage is incidental.

While people who call themselves liberal don't identify closely with any popular figure, conservatives seem to hang on every word of various right wing talk radio hosts and take GWB on his word. Proof of the talk radio hosts influence was their ability to organize against the immigration bill. Proof of GWB's influence is people's mistaken and continued belief that Saddam Hussein had something to do with Al Qaeda. All they have to do is talk tough and their base will eat it up. The words they use could just as well be random sentances from the daily paper. There is no liberal equivalent to that phenomenon.

If I had to guess, I'd say, and it seems obvious to me, conservative = frightened, fearful of change, looking for a teddy bear to hug while liberal = brave, embracing of new ideas, making teddy bears out of hemp if anything.

sarge

Is this going to start being about you again, Duffman? We've had a nice break, here. On topic please. No need to address this, Duffman, just sit with it.
I thought Joe Biden provided some really meaty answers. He would be a great SeC.State as Richardson suggests, but he has a problenm with his feet- they keep ending up in his mouth.

mango

Hemp teddie bears, what a concept. How bout hemp teddies?

Duffman

Sorry 'sarge', didn't mean to offend (seems like it was about me to an extent in my absence, tho) so was only trying to address that.

Joe Biden will always be somewhat 'tainted' in my view because of the plagurism charge of years past. His tenured experience lends to answers of substance at times but he has no real chance.
I should imagine things will get a lot more 'hot and heavy' (in both camps) as candidates get pared down.

sparky

Bla'M...you can get $.79 a pound roast beef at the
Canned Food Warehouse...just ignore the green parts.

joanie

The "plagiarism" thing? That was another media exaggeration just like the Dean scream. Biden had sourced that quote many, many times but not every time.

I think the media subverts democracy. Sorry, I just don't know why else some of this ridiculously petty stuff gets so much press. We either have very lazy journalists who don't want to get the real stories and do the checking or we have media for profit which sensationalizes absolutely everything to monetary gain. The Fourth Estate isn't supposed to be all about profit. At least not the hard news part.

What do you do?

Bobo

This blog seems to be less and less about talk radio every time I read it. It seems to have degraded into nothing Moore than a conservative bashing, liberal rah-rah rant.

cowpotpi3

Welcome to the internet, Bobo! Please enjoy your stay!

Seriously, if you expect the people posting their ideas to restrict them to just things relating to talk radio on this blog you're going to be disappointed. About one in three posts will be on topic if you're lucky.

Bobo

I wasn't referring to the comments as much as the original post. I guess I just miss hearing about Dori's dog Star and some of the local blathering bozos.

joanie

Tommie still keeps us apprised of Dori's dog, Star. For the longest time, I thought Star was his pet name for Suzanne, his wife. :)

cowpotpi3

Using words to frame the issues in a way that proffers your objective is a tried and true conservative tactic (although progressives have caught on thanks to guys like Lakoff). Andrew was on to this when he spoke of the nature of the base that conservative power brokers have been consolidating. These people prefer a black and white assessment of life and the world around them, whether it be due to religious beliefs in good vs. evil or the like. I doubt that those who consider themselves liberal fall so easily for catch phrases.

Personally, if some candidate spews a line at me that sounds as ambiguous as the so-called frames we hear (both right and left these days) I always go, "OK so what is your actual plan for implementing that idea, what are you going to DO?" You will find that on the right there is almost never an actual plan behind the words.

Duffman

anamolos: See you've gained quite a reputation since I've been away. So, where are you? You seem to be an articulate soul - but not well founded in the political frame of things.

joanie

And almost never any evidence or facts to support their generalizations.

joanie

Funny, isn't it, Duff, how people seem to come and go . . .

cowpotpi3

Hold on, was Duff gone for a while just now too? Maybe I'm an alias of his! :) Let the conspiracy theory begin!

Duffman

ms joanie: I detect a slight implication there...hope you aren't accusin, after lecturing me for same. I can assure you that anamolos ain't 'bout me. Would be interested in conversing with him or her. But suspect all you want.
[Quite frankly I wish I were as articulate as anam]

joanie

Hmm. . . articulate? Mostly BS if you ask me. But, I'm sure you won't. I didn't find much substance in his arguments. Few specifics; lots of allegations and characterizations. You know about those, doncha Duff?

Duffman

I said articulate, I didn't say 'sensible'.

joanie

If you guys didn't listen to Dave Ross today, you missed a really good discussion on what to do with sexual predators and a first strike you're out law. If you're interested, listen to the podcast later. I think it was the third hour but may have started hour two. So riveting, I got caught up in it and didn't notice the time.

Duffman

Yes it started in hour two and continued in hour three and yes it was quite good (as usual for Dave).

joanie

Anybody checked out the Jet Blue take-off video on Horsesass? I'm a little behind sometimes. Funny.

Duffman

Wow, in catching up with the news I now see the Bush posse is referring to the 'Iraq al-Qaida' as opposed (I guess?) to the regular al-Qaida. In my mind therein admitting and confirming that we went to Iraq and lost at least 4,000 fighting an enemy that was in Afgh/Pak istan - but now we've created a new enemy that was heretofore unknown. But 'we're on their trail' - spoken just like a true Texas cowboy. Come on Jan '09 get here as quickly as possible!

chucks

Gotta say Michael,
I am one of those pro-life, pro-baby rights people you speak of. However, my opposition is to abortion as birth control and third trimester "partial birth" procedures. I would drive that eleven year old to the clinic. Of coarse, I would love to have a back alley conversation with the man who fathered the child's baby, assuming that he is an adult.

anomolos

A couple of points:

NAME-CALLING

The characterization of name-calling as a conservative trait is laughably disprovable, simply by reading this and the previous article and thread posts. Indeed, liberals in this forum have been complaining about conservative name-calling while simultaneously calling conservatives names. Whoops! There goes the moral high ground!

At one point in yesterday's megathread I compiled a quick list of the many names I had been called by forum leftists to that point--and if there are fouler names to be called ("evil fuck" being a typical example), I can't imagine what they might be.

Name-calling may or may not be nice or appropriate, but you are filtering your perceptions to a pathological degree if you can't recognize your share of culpability. Do I need to make another list?

HERO WORSHIP

Andrew said:
Everybody treats the maneuvering of right wing figures and leaders as if it's somehow genius[...]

Here we are treated to a chorus of pots bemoaning the temerity of kettles. For example, Joanie is almost laughably transparent in her uncritical hero worship of Michael Moore--a man who doesn't even pretend to present facts fairly, and has no credible defenders who claim that he does either. Michael Moore is the Leni Reifenstahl of the Progressive movement, yet leftists like Joanie consistently mistake the effectiveness of his propagandistic technique with persuasive argument. That's just sad.

NARCISSISM

Andrew said:
I'd say, and it seems obvious to me, conservative = frightened, fearful of change, looking for a teddy bear to hug while liberal = brave, embracing of new ideas, making teddy bears out of hemp if anything.

And here we have another episode of the ongoing tragicomedy wherein Andrew publicly indulges his compulsive need to affix positive, feel-good descriptors to himself (with a little name-calling thrown in for good measure). You may be brave, Andrew, but I certainly hope you are more brave than you are compassionate--because, as you amply demonstrated yesterday during our discussion about charity, you are not compassionate in the slightest.

An observer would be forgiven for suspecting a wee disconnect between who you are and who you conceive yourself to be. But then, perhaps that's why you're a liberal!

SELECTIVE ISSUE FRAMING

cowpotpi3 sez:
Using words to frame the issues in a way that proffers your objective is a tried and true conservative tactic (although progressives have caught on thanks to guys like Lakoff).

Framing issues to proffer your objective is an everyone tactic, in all spheres of human interaction, and has been since the invention of language. That you would ascribe it to your ideological opponent and not admit it in yourself is a) a perfect example of framing issues to proffer your objective, and b) stunningly narcissistic (see above).

IS ANOMOLOS MAKING SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENTS?

joanie said for the 500th time in two days:
I didn't find much substance in his arguments.

Must you repeat yourself to the point of tedium? We get it. In your opinion, my arguments are bad, flawed, insubstantial, circular, this, that, and the other.

The legitimate way to demonstrate that an argument is a poor one is to present a better one. Simply claiming that an argument is flawed immediately raises the suspicion that the claimant is in fact unable to construct a cogent counterargument. Claiming it repeatedly confirms this suspicion.

joanie

Some interesting sites including a video of Michael's picture of Moore above: "Hardball Plaza with Michael Moore" - "Christianized Medicine" Chris Matthews won't shut up, as usual.

Remember when the Republicans threatened to change the filibuster rule if the Dems used it? Well, guess who's using it now? I wish the Dems had done away with it and they'd have some power now. "Senate tied in knots by filibusters"

Finally, a great test on Yahoo assessing your ability to spot fake web sites. Very interesting. "McAfee SiteAdvisor Phishing Quiz" Ten questions. See how you do at spotting fake sites.

Listening to Mathews interview Moore - how can anybody stand Matthews? What a turn off.

sparky

The banana as we know it is on a crash course toward extinction. For scientists, the battle to resuscitate the world’s favorite fruit has begun—a race against time that just may be too late to win.

joanie

I'll bite. What is going on with the banana?

Andrew

anamonos says Here we are treated to a chorus of pots bemoaning the temerity of kettles. For example, Joanie is almost laughably transparent in her uncritical hero worship of Michael Moore

Moore is widely regarded as nothing but an extemist liberal entertainer. Rove and the RNC are contantly regarded with awe and amazement, the Einsteins of politics, for doing little more than scaring the shit out of conservatives.

and then as you amply demonstrated yesterday during our discussion about charity, you are not compassionate in the slightest.

Who's the one who is willing to pay higher taxes to solve the problems? Who's the one who wishes upon a star that charitable people among us will manage to foot the very large bill in full?

Using words to frame the issues in a way that proffers your objective is a tried and true conservative tactic

I think what he should say is it's far more effective on conservatives because they are jumpy and fright easily at the use of words like GAY and MARRIAGE in the same sentance.

With reagard to name calling; I think it's fun.

With regard to you lacking substance; well, I don't even know what that means.

cowpotpi3

Well I can already see the issues people have with this guy (Anomolos). Do yourself a favor and try to grasp what was actually said by me before you go off and respond to something completely different. That's called bashing a strawman and its usually the tactic of someone with nothing to back up their arguments (ie lack of substance). For example, you said:

"Framing issues to proffer your objective is an everyone tactic, in all spheres of human interaction, and has been since the invention of language. That you would ascribe it to your ideological opponent and not admit it in yourself is a) a perfect example of framing issues to proffer your objective, and b) stunningly narcissistic (see above)."

Nowhere in my original post did I state that I or those who share my political leanings do not engage in framing of the issues. Moreover, it was actually quite a compliment to the conservatives that they have grasped the power of using language to focus their frames on those constituents they perceive to need to win elections.

You assumed that this was somehow narcissism, which you obviously concluded based on a false pretense (again a point I never made). So now that we're clear, you may respond to my point that conservatives have been far more successful and crafty at shaping the framing of political argument to energize their base. Do you refute this? If you're half as smart as you'd have us all believe then you'll just move on and admit that you were missing the point.

joanie

Andrew, you are as big a fool as ano is to even engage in his attempts at debate.

As for substance? Familiarize yourself with a dictionary and you will know its meaning.

Name calling may be fun - when you're six. Hopefully, most adults have grown out of the habit and can have substantial debates. Again, look it up.

And, ano, (or whomever), you said you compiled a list of names. Post it.

Moore - laughably (your opinion, not fact) uncritical (how do you know?) hero-worship (again opinion and not fact) . . . so far zero for three . . . must I go on? Propagandist technique - which is? Or have facts, figures and statistics now become "propagandist techniques?" Yes, truth is now "liberal."

"Simply claiming that an argument is flawed immediately raises the suspicion . . . " Another opinion. My, you're just full of opinions aren't you? That's exactly an example of lack of substance. Thank you. You made my point.

This, Andrew, is why I don't choose to participate in debate with this person. Nothing of substance (look it up) yet again.

sparky

Joanie, it is pretty much just an urban legend about the demise of the banana. The Cavendish banana, the one Americans are most familiar with, is in some danger in some Asian countries due to a fungus, but there are about 300 varieties left so we will be fine.

Andrew

joanie, I'm a fair person, and in fairness, anom did post the list of names we've called him. I'm also being fair when I say that anom's reasoning skills are amateurish and he tends to compare apples and oranges wihtout a second thought. I caught him doing so numerous times.

You shouldn't use a word like substance, because it's lazy. Everything in the universe that isn't null qualifies as substance. Try using specific adjecteives, such as facts: "anom lacts facts" or support as in "anom doesn't support his conclusions."

joanie

If you know what I meant, what's the problem, Andrew. Or do you have a rulebook of words that work better than others?

And I didn'ty see him post any list. Tell me which link they are on, please. I recall reading one or two . . . evil fuck or something like that. Where did you see the others?

joanie

Andrew, you and ano spend your time characterizing everything. That isn't debate nor is it substantial, based on facts, composed of evidence . . . You characterize my use of a word as lazy. That's what I'm talking about. You guys are the lazy ones. Get to work and make your points and then support them with something besides opinion.

Good god, didn't either of you ever do debate club in high school?

joanie

Ano: The legitimate way to demonstrate that an argument is a poor one is to present a better one.

Sorry. Arguing an opinion is difficult. Mostly because I don't care what your opinion is. As I said before - and gave examples - you characterize everything in generalities. That is boring. Oh, it feels good and the people on the right who agree with your generalities stand up for you. But, sparring with someone who only paints in general terms, characterizes words, motives and statements without producing factual evidence, and never puts forth anything of substance to be challenged is meaningless and futile.

I can't recall one thing you have said to me that presents a challenge or requires critical thinking, investigation or even facts to refute.

If you have one, be my guest. Accusing me of being a michael moore fan is hardly worth the time or effort it would take to either prove I am, prove it is valid to be a fan, prove I'm not a fan, etc. etc. etc. What would be the point? Hardly an issue that excites me.

anomolos

cowpotpi3 said:
So now that we're clear, you may respond to my point that conservatives have been far more successful and crafty at shaping the framing of political argument to energize their base. Do you refute this?

No, I don't refute this. However, this is not precisely what you posted originally. In your original post you said:

Using words to frame the issues in a way that proffers your objective is a tried and true conservative tactic[...]These people prefer a black and white assessment of life and the world around them, whether it be due to religious beliefs in good vs. evil or the like. I doubt that those who consider themselves liberal fall so easily for catch phrases.

So, where your recent restatement could be fairly interpreted as, "Those conservatives sure are good at motivating the base!", your original post contained the additional meanings of "and they accomplish this by dishonesty (framed to proffer the objective), also their base can only think in black and white and are susceptible to catch phrases, unlike us liberals."

Although I jumped a little hard, I think my point stands. You clearly implied that conservatives framed issues in a dishonest fashion (again, proffered to an objective) and then drew a distinction with liberals (who are not susceptible to catch phrases). I simply pointed out this discrepancy. If I misunderstood, I apologize, but I think my interpretation was perfectly fair.

cowpotpi3

Well you just did it again. Are you consciously attempting to use strawman arguments or are you simply incapable of admitting that you are doing so (being narcissistic in your vernacular)?

Where did I say that conservatives framed issues in a dishonest fashion? I said that they framed issues in a black and white fashion, in a good vs. evil fashion and in a religious fashion. This strawman is dead, no need to keep flogging it.

Next, you state that I was claiming objectivity. Again where do I claim that? Strawman dead...move on nothing to see here.

Now that the strawmen are dead we come to the issue that we may have a valid debate over: whether or not the insipid "you are either with us or against us" rhetoric is simplistic and whether it would be effective (with a different spin of course). First we have to define the "conservatives" that I refer to in my original point. You are most likely sitting behind your keyboard thinking 'this does not meet with my understanding of what my conservative values and ideology means to me.' You would be right. I think we can agree, however, that the majority of those who comprise the bloc of right wing voters that respond to the Strong Father/Family Frame are quite susceptible to this kind of frame and general statement. It is these folk (who I do believe comprise a large portion of the Republican voting contingent) of whom I speak.

So there you go, I typically hold back putting all of this into text due to the fact that most of the right wing respondents here cease reading after 2-3 lines.

anomolos

joanie said:
Another opinion. My, you're just full of opinions aren't you? That's exactly an example of lack of substance. Thank you. You made my point.

Since joanie is focused on opinions, let's refresh our definition:

opinion
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

So let me get this straight, joanie. Am I to understand that, according your rules, opinions are necessarily lacking in substance, and ought to be forbidden in this forum? And that you believe that you've never posted an opinion--that is, all of your expressed views can be evidentiarily shown to be absolute certainties?

That is a remarkable claim--one that can never be proven to be false, at least to a person insane enough to believe it.

joanie said:
Andrew, you and ano spend your time characterizing everything.

Again, I didn't know that was a bad thing, so let's refresh:

characterize
1. to describe the character or individual quality of
2. to attribute character to

I don't get it. I thought discussing the nature of things and expressing our personal views was the whole point of the exercise. I must be missing something.

Oh wait, I know what I'm missing: substance

joanie says:
Sorry. Arguing an opinion is difficult.

Speak for yourself.

joanie says:
I can't recall one thing you have said to me that presents a challenge or requires critical thinking.

Or, it's always possible that you are incapable of recognizing it as such. I'm leaning toward that interpretation.

cowpotpi3

All of this tripe is interesting but its getting old. Let's actually debate an issue sometime rather that personal peccadilloes that descend into dicking around with who believes they have the best grasp on the dictionary.

anomolos

cowpotpi3
Where did I say that conservatives framed issues in a dishonest fashion?

I strongly suspect that, if asked in a neutral context, most people would consider the phrase "fram[ing] the issues in a way that proffers your objective" to describe a dishonest tactic, as opposed to framing the issues in a way that does not proffer your objective.

But, hey, I could be wrong. Let's agree to disagree.

Regarding the whole black/white with us/against us thing, I agree, let's talk about it.

Contrary to what many liberals profess to believe, it is in fact appropriate in many cases to view issues in black and white--specifically, when they are high-stakes zero-sum contests between two outcomes whose desirability is widely disparate.

For instance, global warming. If you believe, as many do, that the global warming issue represents a stark choice between two paths, one of which will lead to the destruction of civilization as we know it, it makes perfect sense to speak about the issue in black and white terms. And indeed, in this case, liberals tend to speak about this issue in just such terms.

So the question isn't really whether thinking in black and white is better or worse than thinking with more nuance. Instead, the question is, for which issues is a black/white approach appropriate, and for which issues is a more nuanced approach appropriate?

To give another example: legality of abortion. Liberals tend to think of the legality of abortion in black and white terms: it should be legal, period (I'm not talking about the various other issues surrounding abortion, just the question of whether it should be legal). This is perfectly appropriate if you believe that abortion legality is a high-stakes zero-sum contest between an acceptable outcome and its totally unacceptable alternative.

So again, let's move off the notion of "conservatives are simplistic because they think in black and white." That notion is, itself, simplistic.

A side effect of this reasoning is that, if true, the usual ascription to conservatives of simplistic black/white thinking by liberals is nothing more than a meaningless slur.

What do you think?

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

Tip Jar

Change is good

Tip Jar

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    pacific nw talk stations

    • KIRO 710ESPN Seattle 710 KHz
      Games and sports-blabber
    • KIROFM 97.3
      Multi-format: news and nearly all local talk. This is where classic KIRO AM news talk radio went... hopefully, not to die. The home of Dave Ross & Luke Burbank, Dori Monson, Ron & Don, Frank Shiers, Bill Radke, Linda Thomas, Tony Miner and George Noory.
    • KUOW FM 94.9
      Seattle's foremost public radio news and talk.
    • KVI am 570 KHz
      Visit the burnt-out husk of one of the seminal right-wing talkers in all the land. Here's where once trilled the reactionary tones of Rush Limbaugh, John Carlson, Kirby Wilbur, Mike Siegel, Peter Weissbach, Floyd Brown, Dinky Donkey, and Bryan Suits. Now it's Top 40 hits from the '60's & '70's aimed at that diminishing crowd who still remembers them and can still hear.
    • KTTH am 770 KHz
      Right wing home of local, and a whole bunch of syndicated righties such as Glennn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larsony, and for an hour a day: live & local David Boze.
    • KPTK am 1090 KHz
      Syndicated liberal talk. Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Norman Goldman fill in the large hole to the left on Northwest radio dial.
    • KLFE AM 1590 kHz
      Syndicated right-wing 2nd stringers like Mark Levin, Bill Bennett, Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager, Dennis Miller and Hugh Hewitt inhabit this timid-voiced neighbor honker for your radio enjoyment (unless you're behind something large like Costco).
    • KOMOAM
      News, traffic, Ken Schram and John Carlson.
    • Washington State Radio Stations
      Comprehensive list of every danged AM & FM station on the dial.
    • KKOL am 1300 KHz
      Once a rabid right-wing talker, except for Lou Dobbs, it's all business....