@ procuradorfiscal: I'm sorry you don't think the facts matter.If the father wants the government out of the rearing of his child, then
he needs to rear the child himself. Why is it the governments responsibility to
make sure the child is not exposed to things with which the father disapproves?
And how is the government controlling what the child is exposed to different
than the government rearing the child?So the family's
prosperity is more important to it than government programs such as the public
schools that pay them to maintain the kitchen equipment - but what happens to
that prosperity and their ability to save for their children's college
education if they are no longer being paid to maintain that equipment or if they
have to pay to send their children to private school?We do not live
in a simple black and white world.If you have compelling logic, then
use it. Dumbing down the conversation by ignoring real life and real facts
indicates a lack of compelling arguments.
Re: ". . . we do need more information, but it needs to be factual . . .
only when we ignore a significant portion of the facts do we get simple, clear
cut fantasies."I know it's hard for liberals to engage in
meaningful introspection, but listen to yourself -- you feel enabled, even
ennobled as a smug, self-appointed arbiter of what is "factual," which
"facts" are important, and that only "complex realities" deserve
consideration.In the real world, you can't actually get away
with it.Eg. -- the hypotheticals. A father is heartsick because a
child viewed pornography on a library computer and has lost some light in his
eyes. Who cares whether it's Victoria's Secret or Hustler? It's a
government violation of principles he values, and he justifiably wants the
government out of his child's rearing.The business
couple's experience persuades them that prosperity IS more enabling than
government programs.There IS a cogent, conservative side to issues,
supported by compelling logic.We're not the clueless rubes
liberal sophistry insists we must be, and we demand a voice, too.
@ procuradorfiscal: You are half right - we do need more information, but it
needs to be factual information.The fact that you view complex
realities as liberal and a limiting of information speaks very poorly of you -
only when we ignore a significant portion of the facts do we get simple, clear
cut fantasies.Take a look at the scenarios posited in the article:
In the first scenario, his son saw porn at a public library. Was his son the
one looking at the porn, or did he see it on someone else's computer? Was
it actual porn where people were having sex, or was it the Victoria's
Secret Fashion show? Was it a site that opened in a pop-up window as someone
was searching for information on an otherwise innocent topic needed for a
research paper? Looking at only the simple scenario presented in
the article it is easy to be shocked and dismayed - but the reality is much more
complex and makes the answer more difficult.What about
Melanna's comment? How would reducing taxes affect the business done for
the schools?Life is complex and the more information we have the
more complex it gets.
Re: "So keeping debate to "complex realities and not simplistic
fantasies" is liberal."Yep. Liberal and evil.I
know it's difficult for curiously smug, curiously elitist liberals to
engage in the sincere self-examination necessary to understand that
"Keeping" a debate to their particular topic or spin on that topic is
controlling that debate, but let's try, anyway.Participate,
don't participate. Agree, disagree. Accept, bullyrag. Understand, refuse to
consider. ALL are in keeping with American debate.But
"keeping" or controlling the debate, confining it to a subject, a set of
terms, a particular spin -- not so much.Requiring "balance"
[a horrifyingly subjective term that has been misused by despots since time
immemorial] IS stifling debate.The solution to any censorship you
allege may be occurring is MORE, not less information.
procuradorfiscal at 7:20: Re-read the original post. The comment was about
balance, not stifling a point of view. The DesNews already has a preponderance
of conservative opinion (Krauthammer, Will, Hart, etc.). Its only arguable
"liberals" are Pignanelli (Dem) and Kathleen Parker (Republican), both
of whom skew strongly centrist. Samuelson's point was that adding another
conservative voice does nothing to improve the quality of the debate or the
enlightenment of issues. It only increases the din in the echo chamber.procuradofiscal at 3:20: So keeping debate to "complex realities
and not simplistic fantasies" is liberal. I suppose it then follows
logically that conservatives work in the realm of fantasy and simplicity.
Do we need more people carefully framing the debate or do we just need the media
to do their job of reporting the facts?"Longtime political
observers Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, campaign coverage in 2012 was a
particularly calamitous failure, almost entirely missing the single biggest
story of the race: Namely, the radical right-wing, off-the-rails lurch of the
Republican Party, both in terms of its agenda and its relationship to the
truth.Mann and Ornstein are two longtime centrist Washington
fixtures who earlier this year dramatically rejected the strictures of false
equivalency that bind so much of the capital's media elite and publicly
concluded that GOP leaders have become "ideologically extreme; scornful of
compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and
science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."The 2012 campaign further proved their point, they both said in recent
interviews. It also exposed how fabulists and liars can exploit the elite
media's fear of being seen as taking sides."(Dan Froomkin)
To Procuradorfiscal:I don't believe Blue is taking about
"framing issues" but longs to discuss real-world issues and not
ridiculous "issues" like why progressives favor government control over
personal prosperity.I got one. Maybe we could discuss the real
world issue of how much money Churches should hoard (by buying up U.S. farmland
for example) while millions of people in the world are starving?
"How can they help their representative support policies that favor personal
prosperity over government control?"I can't even begin to
articulate how ridiculous the previous (straw man) sentence sounds. Who is
arguing for "government control" or against personal prosperity?What a joke.
Re: "I _don't_ want to stifle debate, but I do ask that the debate is
about complex realities and not simplistic fantasies."In other
words, you want to frame the issues so that only leftist points that you agree
with or advocate are heard.That's called stifling debate.
Let us explore the second scenario: What happens if taxes get cut? The school
budget gets reduced, his company either loses the contract or has to reduce
their rates to stay competitive. What effect does that have on his family
budget?I find it ironic when those who profit from government
contracts think they pay too much in taxes. They are making a profit -
obviously they are paying less in taxes than they are receiving from tax payer
money. Reducing taxes is going to cut their ability to get any tax payer funded
contracts - and they really think that argument makes sense?
It's said that, "He who frames the question wins the debate."The Deseret News apparently plans to be the ones who "frame"
discussions of current issues to ensure that the conservative theocratic
position wins.Will they ever begin by asking, "Are the
situations and people we're discussing real, or made-up?"Will the DesNews offer readers an in-depth, reality-based look at complicated
issues, or will it just skip like a stone on a pond over the hot-button bumper
sticker language that guarantees a strong reaction from readers?I
_don't_ want to stifle debate, but I do ask that the debate is about
complex realities and not simplistic fantasies.I'm not going to
hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
Why did the man not educate his child not to look at pornography?How
big is their small business that these tax increases are impacting them? Why
should they get to place their family prosperity above the safety and well being
of the public they serve?If the sex education class offends their
beliefs, why don't they opt their daughter out of it instead of insisting
that everyone else be restricted by their beliefs?If you want to
frame the debate as personal access to family, faith, and free enterprise then
frame it as such - but if the only way to do things is to demand that everyone
comply to your side, how is that any different from you are claiming the other
side is doing?The idea that you can make someone make the right
choices by limiting their options has a really familiar ring - and is an idea
that has been rejected since the beginning of time.
Re: "So we really need more conservative op-ed? Seriously?"It's interesting that the universal "progressive" response to
anything that opposes "liberal" thought is to suggest it should not be
heard.That so effectively rips the mask from the real face of
liberalism, I don't think further comment is necessary.
We'll be here, working to keep it real.
Is the assumption that where conservatives get their "news" not
conservative enough? Or is it the tired argument that while conservatives agree
with their news bias they want my news to be more conservatively biased?I have an opinion about the pornography though. We should zone the
internet just like anything else. Pornography should be on an .XXX zone instead
of .com . That way I can block it easier.
In this world where not only most media but also most public schools frame the
debate "to favor the tenets of permissiveness, secularism and public
control," I would love to see more editorials and commentaries framed like
this column.I am optimistic this will be principled, well-reasoned
discussion and not just a flood of emotion and talking points without much
substance to back it up. The latter is the type of TV/radio/newspaper op-ed I
can not stand from either side of the debate.Please keep it coming!
I look forward to seeing how this column unfolds!
It appears so, Eric. Or as Kurt Vonnegut would put it, "So it goes."
So this is the prospectus for a new column in the DN? Is that what's going
on? So we really need more conservative op-ed? Seriously?