- I think the NYSRPA needs to elect a new President. Mr. King has done a great disservice to his members through this interview. First, for his rabid, irrational attitude. Second, because he doesn't understand that BL is giving him an opportunity to make his case, and he's ruining it for himself.
Good luck, Mr. King. You're going to need it.
- Great program - especially for agnostics like me who don't wish to be imposed on by Christmas or Chanukah traditions, much less holiday music.
In December, that's simply impossible though. The 'holidays' are pervasive at home, in the public realm (light displays, at city hall, at libraries, in the highway traffic, etc), on radio, on television, in stores. There's no escape. You must enjoy the holidays, and you must be happy, whether you're happy or not!
I simply cannot imagine Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist holidays become as secular and pervasive as Christmas has. That process has required a great deal of syncretism, given that Jesus was not born in December, his birth was not a miracle (his conception is said to be so and birth is merely a natural result of that), and Christmas recognizes a Dutch tradition of gift-giving from a 5th Century Greco-Turkish saint.
Well at the very least, modern Christmas music has become secularized by Irving Berlin, Felix Bernard, Mel Tormé, Sammy Cahn, etc. While that may make Christmas music more tolerable and marketable, it has probably helped make both the music and the holiday more pervasive and more secular too.
I'm not certain that's a good result, because even as the Christian holiday of Christmas became more secular in the 20th Century, it's influence as an national institution has grown. It is a holiday which is often for consumption and family - rather like Thanksgiving - than whatever were its Christian and Pagan roots.
Had Jewish musicians not secularized Christmas tunes as "holiday" music, would the holiday be as pervasive now? Probably. Enterprising capitalists and marketers would probably have found another way to sell it.
- The problem is the popular use of 'homophobia' and 'Islamophobia.'
The words may no longer identify phobias. They may not identify irrational fears. Rather, they often identify personal, institutional, and religious bigotry, bias, and prejudice against non-normative sexual practices or Arab and Islamic cultural practices.
So, those are not phobias per se. Homophobic and anti-Islamic hate crimes probably still are based in phobia and irrational fears.
When legislating or promulgating political, religious, and cultural practices, the so-called 'homophobes' may not be targeting homosexuality out of phobia. Rather, they're setting their preferred cultural norms and thereby excluding non-normative sexual practices. This is more sinister than phobias, which can be ignored and maligned for what they are.
So, the real problem is not personal bigotry or even phobia, but rather that public policies are set which are 'phobic' of homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, intersex and transgender lifestyles, etc. The public policy arguments against these lifestyles, while ultimately unfair and bigoted, can sometimes appear plausible or rational in the mind of the public.
Outright phobias do not appear plausible to rational people. The come from the irrationality of others.
The same problem can be said of the term 'Islamophobia'. After 9/11, 'Islamophobia' was sanctified as public policy on security grounds. Many people were interviewed, tracked, and deported for loose associations to "persons of interest". The public believed this rationale because it was not based on 'phobias' but rather 'security concerns.' It may have found legitimacy due in part to the public's phobia or bias.
So what's a better word than homophobia? Just call it what it is: prejudice and bias. Anti-gay bias, anti-Islamic bias, anti-immigrant bias, etc.
- From my perspective as a layman, it's hard to tell whether the science is legitimate or whether it is more akin pop-psychology. All the same, it is very interesting.
- Gary Johnson could afford to be a bit more buttoned up and "Presidential" (whatever that means). I suppose because the popular press and TV news ignore his candidacy, his responses and soundbites are not as tight, formal, and reserved as they could be.
Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, and certainly Lyndon Larouche suffered from the same treatment and the same affliction. I assume this was a lot different for third-party candidates Teddy Roosevelt (1912) and Robert LaFolette (1924).
Today, the political reality is that you have to 'sound' serious to be taken seriously. That, in addition to the hurdles placed on third-party candidates, makes it virtually impossible for even prominent third-party candidates to make an impact on the national stage.
- "Should the President approach China as a friend or foe?"
Neither. It should maintain diplomatic coolness as a trade partner. China is a grossly unequal society, where an aggressive state-sponsored variant of capitalism (though not quite fascism) is built upon the backs of a populace cowed by Chinese communism. Their "burgeoning" middle class exists because rural poverty is so great and so devastating that smart people are fleeing it, creating an internal brain drain. They will emigrate to the United States or Europe in time.
"How do the two countries perceive one another?"
China perceives the United States as suckers for buying their cheap, poorly-made products. They view the US as an internally conflicted, politically confused "trade partner" which is afraid of a trade war and the consequences for our elections and our economy.
The US views China as a sleeping tiger, but it's a paper tiger.
"Should we worry about China's investment in other countries?"
No. They're just trying to corner the market on oil, heavy metals, etc. It's capitalism and neocolonialism. The people who should worry are the citizens of those countries. Just ask Tibetans and Uyghurs what Chinese imperialism looks like.
- Lehrer got rolled over, but who cares?
Now there's just further proof that Romney is the kind who rolls over people in his way - even the referees. It confirms that Romney's reflexive stance is for ruthlessness, half-truths, and self-aggrandizement.
If Lehrer and Obama's relative passiveness in the debate provide a foil to Romney's prdictable alpha-male aggression, then so be it. I trust Americans are smart and conscientious enough to figure that out.
But, it's the media punditocracy whom I doubt. They expect and even demand that candidates to be the outspoken, rabidly big-talkers that they are. They are mistaken in prioritizing that. Go ahead, ask a poll of people about "Minnesota nice" and see which set of traits - Romney's caustic aggressiveness or Obama's studied, conversational passivity - is more highly valued as an interpersonal trait.
Which is more trusted, valued, and respected - even among politicians who are "protecting" us?
I would suggest that Obama's casual demeanor is preferred over Romney's attack-mode. A President Romney could not get wizened counsel from his staff if he is as impatient as he showed himself to be. (Nor could he effectively work with the Legislature - just as this weekend's NY Times showed he could not in Massachusetts.)
And which would you prefer to have in command of the world's largest and more powerful military? The cool operator or the pushy hot-head?
- As to women as moderators: this is itself a relatively small-bore issue provided all debate moderators do a good job.
The larger issue is that there's no accountability for Commission on Presidential Debates to do an effective job grilling a diverse pool of candidates from the political spectrum. Instead, the debate Commission and their corporate sponsors produce a narrow, rigged result for the bi-partisan duopoly. That the Commission does not have women as moderators is symptomatic of who their Executive Director is (the same woman it's always been) and the profile of their Board (probably 10-12 men and two women).
The Commission has a tin ear to criticism because they are themselves a monopoly.
- Clay from Long Island:
As I bet you know, the reason Jill Stein and Gary Johnson will not be on the dais is, as you know, due to the Commission on Public Debates and the 15% polling requirement. The CPD is a so-called bi-partisan commission peopled only by Democrats and Republicans.
So, they'll be slow to change anything which threatens their duopoly. That apparently includes putting a women in leadership roles as debate moderators.
- I won't repeat my comments at length: I'll just paste the link to the original story where I commented: http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/mar/18/does-npr-have-a-liberal-bias/
So:
The relevant question should not be whether NPR (and/or its affiliates and their local programming) has a liberal or "left wing" bias, but whether NPR (and/or its affiliates) do everything that can be reasonably expected of a group of human beings...
On balance, does NPR do a better job either to attempt or to achieve the journalistic balancing rubric I've expressed than do other comparable journalistic organizations?
- More
