Fungo, of course I understand the concern about biased media. That's why I included the link referring to and quoting the hearings regarding Ms. Harris' actions to show this wasn't just another conspiracy theory; that there were serious questions to be investigated. I felt the comments here regarding the 2000 Florida results were trivializing a serious issue; the question was asked to 'name one disenfranchised voter' (as if it hadn't happened at all), so I offered an answer.
Though I am certainly more liberal than many on this board (I'll pause now while you gasp and whisper "I had no idea"
), I share your concern about media bias, though I don't believe it's as all-pervasively left as it is often portrayed. I watched two networks on election night. CNN was almost gleeful as the trend for re-election emerged; ABC, funereal. You could pick your station to match your mood.
Between bajillions (that's the official number
) of internet news sources and hundreds of cable and satellite stations, people can choose the news source that "talks to them". Unfortunately, this can mean that we're not looking for news, we're looking for confirmation of already-held beliefs. I like your idea of you and I going in on a balanced news show. We could base it on all-baseball-analogies-all-the-time. But I'd really rather call it the Orlando Fungo Show
.
Good point, Hokie, the question definately colors the answer, (You probably got the old, "Are you still beating your wife?" one as well). And, as we saw during the election, if you get people asking the wrong questions, you really don't have to worry about providing answers.
Both questions are valid ones, and both could even be said to have religious implications, as there are cultures where women are second class citizens. I'd like to think ours isn't one of them. But they are (no kidding!) mutually exclusive, and the ensuing questions about what constitutes life, the repercussions of either stance, and respect for women as thinking citizens are all part of the entire question.
I, too, would like to see our country be the blend that we were all promised in our Social Studies classes. My concern after this election is less for the media, and more for the politicians and their advisors --- adopting whatever view simply in the hopes of getting votes and the chaos, repression, and backlash that could cause.
Blast, had to do some actual work there for a while, and seemed to have missed the "talking reasonably" window.
The only seemingly effective argument from the left always drags back around to religious extremism. That's just lame. The nature of laws in society almost always stem from some sort of moral issue. Laws "for the common good" are necessary for a civilization to continue to exist. History has numerous examples of fallen civilizations because morality was tossed out the window...I know, a blanket statement...please don't ask me to cite specifics. 
Abortion, same *** marriages, embryonic stem cell research...all have opponents based strictly on moral issues "for the common good"...yet the easiest argument is to label opponents religious extremists. Before you know it seat belt laws will have their origin in the church. 
