jubilado 2 weeks ago on Letter - Fox News provides objective information

Please do try again. I think you will become at least a steady "sometimes" viewer of the News Hour.

0

jubilado 2 weeks, 2 days ago on Letter - Fox News provides objective information

Barracuda - Time to check in with PBS News Hour again. Jim Lehrer hasn't been on the News Hours for years.

0

jubilado 2 weeks, 2 days ago on Letter - Fox News provides objective information

Here's challenge to the Fox News supporters. Watch the PBS News hour (6-7 pm) at least once a week. They score highest on news programs for lack of bias. Both MSNBC and Fox News are highly biased. Backers of both are hearing what they want to hear, i.e. news that shores up their beliefs.

If you watch a number of PBS News Hour programs you will notice that on a given subject they have real experts on both sides of the question at hand and they don't yell at each other or make utterly outrageous comments. PBS goes into considerable depth on particular topics. It's caters to intelligent people who want news rather than opinion. If there is bias, it is hard to find, as opposed to MSNBC and Fox News where you are constantly hit over the head with their particular bias.

If you take the PBS News Hour challenge, please report back.

0

jubilado 1 month, 3 weeks ago on GeneandCassie

On the other hand, if there is too much CO2 in the air you are breathing you will die. The preponderance of scientific opinion believes CO2 is a greenhouse gas that raises global average temperatures and reacts with seawater to make the oceans more acidic. If the rise in temperatures begins to free the methane locked in the permafrost things will get much worse since methane is a much more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2 and billions and billions of tons of it are locked in arctic permafrost. Note: In in the Siberian city of Yakutsk the permafrost extends downward about 1,000 feet.

0

jubilado 1 month, 4 weeks ago on Letter - Letter berates corporations but ignores unions

Mr. Baker----Try to lose this, it's very lame: "By the way, we don’t live in a democracy. Last time I looked it was described as a representative republic with democratic elections."

Most people realize that we don't all meet somewhere in a big field in Kansas and raise our hands to vote yea or nay. Direct voting worked in Athens but is impossible here. Commentators talk about "Western Democracies." When someone does call the U.S. a small "d" democracy, they are referring to the fact that the Constitution starts "We the people of the United States..." and we are more a democracy than, for example, a monarchy. Could we be a plutocracy?

0

jubilado 2 months ago on Letter - Citizens United decision wreaks havoc

PealrY- You seem to have missed the point of this letter. The point is that the personification of corporation has progressed to an Alice in Wonderland state in which corporations claim to be able to suffer "mental anguish" and "emotional distress" just like real human beings. This is just silly.

Corporations can now use their money to buy influence on a new and unprecedented scale. Example--The recent 1.1 trillion budget contained a rider that effectively erased the regulation on derivatives, the things that were perhaps the major cause of the Great Recession starting in 2007-2008. Now just 9 banks hold $228.72 trillion in derivatives, 3 times what the entire world economy is worth. Dodd Frank would have limited the U.S. government's liability to a large part of these derivatives (think bailouts), but Wall Street and the big banks were against this, because cobbling together derivatives and betting on credit default swaps is fun, and the Republicans (and some Democrats) gave them what they wanted. If things take a nose dive again, the American taxpayer will be liable to save Wall Street's and the big bank's butts again.

0

jubilado 3 months ago on Letter - Stop president from violating Constitution

PearlY- You aren't as easy to rebut because you actually do research and have critical thinking skills. I'm sure you knew I was talking about Fox News. It has been consistently shown that people who watch Fox News as their main news source score very low on current events facts.

A Farleigh Dickenson U. survey ( http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed ) Here's the first 3 paragrphs: People who watch no news at all can answer more questions about international current events than people who watch cable news, a survey by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s Public Mind finds.

"NPR and Sunday morning political talk shows are the most informative news outlets, while exposure to partisan sources, such as Fox News and MSNBC, has a negative impact on people’s current events knowledge. People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category."

I looked up one of your R's are smarter than D's sources, and you are correct. The difference, however, was slight. Republicans average was just over one more correct answer on a 17 question news quiz. The PEW surveys do, however, show a wider difference.

Recent research once again finds that both sides tend to hold on to the opinions held by their "tribe."

As to members of Congress, take a look at this Psychology Today article in which Democrats greatly outperform their Republican counterparts. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/finding-the-next-einstein/201311/who-s-smarter-republicans-and-democrats-in-congress

You can find a number of sources that say very liberal people and smarter than very conservative people. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives But then you get tied up in defining liberal and conservative.

As far as the UB goes, some writers are rational and to the point and some are certifiable, just like society at large.

0

jubilado 3 months ago on Letter - Stop president from violating Constitution

I have no doubt how SCOTUS would rule, assuming they intervene. These are the jurists (at least the majority) who think corporations are real people. One corporation is taking it to its logical, if absurd conclusion and is claiming "pain and suffering."

0

jubilado 3 months ago on Letter - Stop president from violating Constitution

pdywgn-- First, "Congress" refers to both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is confusing because members of the House are referred to as Congressmen or Congresswomen. Put "Congress def" in Google to check this. Second, only "All Bills for raising Revenue" (Art. I, Sec 7 of the Constitution) have to start in the House, otherwise a bill can originate in the Senate and go to the House. Only when a bill has passed both the House and Senate in "identical form" does the bill go to the President for signature.

Very few people in the U.S. have read the Constitution. Probably the sharpest people in America on our Constitution are immigrants who have just studied for the citizenship exam. Usually, people on the left and right parrot what "their" commentators say on a constitutional issue.

That said, I think one side of the political spectrum has a much better chance of getting a decent score if there was a national pop quiz on civics. Many on the other side would have to try to remember what they've been told by their chosen news network, but they'd have a problem since that "news" very often is more opinion than fact.

0

Prev