Daniel weighs in on politics--Special Edition

[danger03]

Ordinarily, Daniel and politics don't mix.  I've never participated in a protest.  I never saw Fahrenheit: 9/11.  On the war in Iraq I've said said next to nothing.  And watching CSPAN is about as appealing to me as jumping in a volcano.  Until about a month ago, I was completely apathetic about the political processes of our nation.

Comments

[havenli]

First of all, let me commend you on your decision to become aware of the importance this election and to cast your vote based on your beliefs and opinions. While I don't necessarily agree with you, I do appreciate that you are going out to the polls to voice your opinion. Good for you. :)

I do have one little thing I want to point out. News organizations such as the New York Times, Slate, NPR, and other public stations almost always lean to the left. And rather heavily to the left at that. I would tell you to watch FOX News instead, but general feeling there is that it leans to the right, and I don't want to be a hypocrite ;). But at the same time, if you were to watch FOX (and similar programs) as well as the stations you already watch/listen to/read, you would at least be hearing both sides of the story. I watch FOX mostly, but I do watch some of the other stations as well on a regular basis, because I want to give everyone an equal opportunity to state their case. You might even want to check out both liberal and conservatism. Now, due to my

[danger03]

Perhaps you raise a valid point. What if the sources I depend on are in fact skewed toward the left? I take it on faith that big name networks and newspapers are dependable, accountable, and objective. As I said, it is my hope that if they are not the most objective sources, than at least they are among the least biased ones. The reason I don't watch Fox News is simple: I don't have cable. Sometimes I force myself to sit through a political analyst debate on PBS. I am unashamed to admit I rely heavily on PBS and NPR. I sincerely believe that PBS has my best interest in mind

[havenli]

Well, I'll give you my views as best I can

pt. 1

[danger03]

I appreciate your taking the time to write out your views; now let me see if I can extend this discussion a bit:

First of all, just because I disagree with your choice for Bush doesn't mean I think you were were wrong about your whole reasoning. You said the large networks were skewed to the left. Guess what? You were right. It seems that Dan Rather's Vietnam reports are almost certainly bunk. This is a big shame, because it takes away credibility from CBS and the press in general, which most Americans depend on most to get accurate information about the world

Re: pt. 1

[havenli]

Oh, and I agree with you that there are people who are too rich and that don't necessarily get to the top the honest way. I believe that what goes around comes around for the most part. But that's besides the point. You could also flip it around to say that there are some lower-class people who take advantage of the system. True, they're not living high and mighty, but they don't have to work that hard (or in some cases, at all) to get paid. Story time again: I have an aunt (love her to death...but...) She's a single mom, bouncing from job to job, on welfare raising four kids ages 6-14. Recently she got breast implants. Now, I don't know why she couldn't have put that money into something more worth-while (like college funds?) but that money was the taxpayers' money. Then there was this guy in my neighborhood who was "legally blind" so he didn't have to work because he got paid disability (or something like that). Now as he was legally blind, he wasn't allowed to drive. However, that never stopped him. Day, night, sun, rain, it didn't

pt. 2

[danger03]

I respect your personal feelings about abortion and religion; mine are a bit different, but that's OK. Because of our respective personal situations, you identify with the abortion issue more strongly and I the ssm issue more strongly. That's OK too. But though they are both social issues, I think there is a main difference between them--whereas the abortion conflict is beginning to seem more and more unresolvable, the opposition to ssm seems to me to be based on misconception and simple fear of change, particularly among the fundamentally religious. (Might political opinions informed by religious fundamentals constitute a subtle violation of church and state? Well, you probably don't think they do, and I'm sure such opinions couldn't be helped anyway.) Anyway, what do I mean by misconception? A good example involves a certain passage in Leviticus that specifically mentions the word homosexuality (in some translations). But many of these translations--including the King James Version--are in error. Since the bible says very

[danger03]

I know you meant it as a compliment, but I don't really like to be known as 'very firm in my beliefs.' True, I am very firm in a few of them, like gay rights or religious tolerance. But I would much rather be known as someone who is willing to amend or even reject a particular belief when new evidence is brought to light.

In that spirit, I'll see what I can do about exposing myself to more conservative news sources. It ain't gonna be easy--I'll probably grit my teeth a lot--but I'll give it a shot.