thingstodo

There are so many political blogs aout there it is difficult to keep up. Some are more interesting than others and some are actually fun to read and for participation.

I know a person that is majoring in journalism. This person has a blog that began as part of a class assignment titled The Conservative Curve. I've had fun with this blog because I am in the middle: part liberal, part conservative and part everything else.

Here is an example of a recent post at : The Conservative Curve

Tears of Joy and... Sorrow
Inauguration day may be historic and significant for African Americans, but it will be a very sad day for one faction of America...the unborn.

"The first thing I'd do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do," Barack Obama stated at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event.

Really? With everything going on in the country, the first thing you'd do is make certain that a woman has every right America can offer her to murder her own child (or, if that makes you more comfortable, "evacuate her fetus")?

It isn't just that Obama is pro-choice. It's that he supports partial birth abortion and actually opposed the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act. This legislation was passed after Jill Stanek, an Illinois nurse, discovered live, aborted babies being placed in soiled utility rooms to await death following induced labor abortions. So disturbing is this practice that even Hillary Clinton supported the protection of infants born alive through failed abortion attempts.

Last year, Obama stood before a group of Planned Parenthood advocates, citing his two little girls as the reason for his presence. He claimed to want them to have the ability to "dream without limit, to achieve without constraint and to be absolutely free to seek their own happiness." Apparently, they can't do so without the right to have intercourse and later decide to kill their unborn child at will.

So, as tears of joy and pride are shed for the historic occasion slated for January, the cries of millions of babies will go unheard as he vows to silence them with every bit of power he has.
_____________________________

What do you think about political blogs and how do youi seperate truth from total bullshit?

__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.

samcol

These are the best kind of blogs in my opinion. I like ones like this that link articles at numerous references instead of doing it newspaper editorial write up style. At least you can tell where they are getting their facts, and it makes it easy to seperate what is fact and what is their analysis or opinion of the situation.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

filtherton

I think political blogs are a useful distraction. I don't think that it's really possible to separate truth from bullshit, because I'm pretty sure that the line between the two is usually sufficiently fuzzy so as to render any sort of objective division useless.

Willravel

You need a good BS detector when reading political blogs. Just in the article above, for example, I count four factual errors after skimming it once. And that's aside from the blatant conservative bias that could only find a home on Fox News.

Look for verification, citation, evidence; look for proof of what's said. Once that's established, take the article for what it's worth. Some blogs are absolutely astounding, and some are astoundingly stupid. Like any other media, really.

thingstodo

What errors did you detect? It would be cool if you refuted this one on the actual site.

I am so with you on Fox "News." My father is addicted to that network; I tell him Rush might as well produce and read the news for all the bias!!

__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.

Willravel

This is actually two misstatements. Barack Obama didn't oppose the "Born-Alive Protection Act", he simply wanted certain language in it fixed, and that language had absolutely nothing to do with "partial-birth abortion". He was concerned about language in the legislation that would put doctors obeying existing laws in danger of breaking the new BAIPA.
Ahh, Jill Stanek. What is generally known of this woman is the story of her discovering some sort of evil, liberal conspiracy to kill babies. What's not generally reported is that she's, for all intents and purposes, a wing-nut. Jill came into the public spotlight when she testified the above, but she is in no way a credible witness on the subject. She had a record of lying and exaggerating about abortion, and has done so repeatedly since giving testimony. She is the one that started the assertion that Barack Obama supports "infanticide". Quite simply, there's no reason at all to believe this woman. Stating as fact that she witnessed live babies being left to die is dishonest.
Media Matters - Media cite anti-abortion activist and Obama critic Jill Stanek as though she's credible
She supported an entirely different piece of legislation, actually, as Hillary Clinton would have no reason at all to be giving her opinion on Illinois state affairs.

Dead_man

Yes, the language he wanted to fix was the language that stated he didn't want the doctor performing the abortion to have to wait on another doctor to tell if the fetus was viable or not.

Totally different.

Anyone who cites media matters (a subsidiary of George Soros and founded in part by the Clintons) as factual, then calls Fox news biased needs a little reality check. Media matters is the Wikipedia of liberalism. Facts are changed on the basis of what makes who look bad and if they are for us or against us.


Back to the topic: I don't read many political blogs, but there is some stuff you'll never see carried on the news. The kid who asked Murtha if he's going to apologize to the Haditha Marines for lying about them. Classic stuff.

At the 2004 DNC for Billionaire "man-of-the-people" John Kerry, protesters were put several blocks away inside of a fenced in area called a protest zone. This didn't make it out into the "important news" areas but I read it and saw pictures on a political blog.

They definitely serve a purpose, but getting the news to the masses is definitely more difficult on blogs.

thingstodo

Hey Will: here's the blogger's response to your note:

Overzealous, liberal responder:

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001 was introduced in U.S. House on June 14, 2001
(H.R. 2175) and U.S. Senate (S. 1050).
Both Sens. Hillary Clinton (NY) and John Kerry (MA)voted “yes”. This legislation was not limited to Illinois. It simply stemmed from there.
I understand there is some controversy over the "verbiage" of the bill and that is now why Obama says he voted against it (before he voted for it). This is a typical dilemma for politicians. They don’t get everything they want and refuse to vote a certain way until they get their way. Well, it is my opinion that this was worth putting pettiness aside. Babies were suffering and being left to die (outside of their mother’s womb).
President-elect Barack Obama is one of the most pro-choice politicians of our time. Few would argue that fact. I am against abortion. You can bet that if I hear of brutality against children and politicians do nothing (or worse, make it easier for the acts to occur), I’ll be looking into it and writing about it.
I appreciate the opposition. It keeps me on my toes, but I firmly stand by my words.
Calling Stanek a "wing-nut" does not discredit her claim. This woman witnessed brutal acts against born infants. Her points were valid. If they were not, the issue never would’ve made it to the House and Senate. She had nothing to personally gain by exposing this horrible process.
Lastly, the venom in your words leads me to believe that you are pro-choice and most likely believe that my views stem from some crazy, religious, self-righteous background. I assure you, they do not. My views on abortion relate to my humanity, not my religion.
I take pride in what I write and if I am ever factually incorrect, I would hope that it would be respectfully brought to my attention. I would like you to know that I do research and check facts. It’s not some opinion I spout without serious thought.
I ask that you do not dismiss my words because you don't agree with them. I will do my best to offer you that courtesy in return.
Thank you for taking the time to read and thank you for your comments.

__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.

Willravel

This is completely incorrect. Are you making this up or do you have a source that's making it up?

Senator Obama wanted the following added:
Illinois General Assembly - Illinois Compiled Statutes

Obama didn't want doctors punished for obeying existing laws. There's nothing in there about permission. Oh, and the version Obama supported ended up passing and now infants are protected.
Do you know what an ad hom fallacy is?
-----Added 29/12/2008 at 01 : 49 : 20-----
Why would the blogger have a response to my post? Oh. That really wasn't necessary.

Dead_man

In laymans terms, it means that they did not want the docs to have to wait on another to determine if the fetus was viable. It means he didn't want the doctors punished for killing a live baby. You're reading the bill without seeing what it means to the end user.

Yes, you're doing it with that statement right there. Ignore the fact, deflect it, or whatever and spout some common as cornbread "I took a debate/critical thinking class one time" argument type to sound intelligent and further deflect.

Edit a little: Why is it ad hominem for me to let you know who runs the show there, and not ad hominem to say Dr. Tim Ball (the first respected scientist to deny global warming) works for an oil company? Is it because Media Matters doesn't have an agenda, but Dr. Ball does?

lol

Willravel

No, in layman's terms, existing laws shouldn't be contradicted, which is exactly what would have happened if the legislation passed. It was already illegal to kill a baby after it's been born, so that issue is completely moot. Obama not supporting this legislation had no effect on existing law.
Ad hom (or ad hominem) is a logical fallacy where one addresses the person or source of an argument instead of the contents of said argument. I'll tell you what, instead of saying "Media matters is the Wikipedia of liberalism", why not demonstrate that they have a history of misstatements? I can demonstrate that Jill Stanek is likely unreliable by providing her lies, misstatements, and fundamentalism:
Feministe » “Pro-Life” leader Jill Stanek shows her racist colors again
Italian abortion mafia
My pillow-talking presidential pick
Obama's relevant interview: Lies on lies
Early warning: Here comes the `Baby Killer!' brigade | Change of Subject
Dr. Ball has nothing to do with this. Why didn't you call me on Jill Stanek?

Dead_man

He was protecting abortions by the use of the word "live birth". Should a fetus seem viable, the mother might change her mind had she heard the baby cry or something that living things do. The physician performing the abortion would not have to find another doc to agree with him or disagree with him whether the child can live or not. Again, you're looking at how you feel rather than the brutal truth.

Here's the ad-hominem part: I'd suggest you look at other sources that aren't affiliated with different sides before you take what ANY politician says as truth.


Because Jill Stanek is not someone I know much about outside of her being yet another woman railroaded by liberals because she caught them in something that might be "misconstrued" as evil. Really, fella... why all the backpeddling from Media Matters when Babies technically aren't alive until they're born? That's what we're told, right? Is it not? lol

Quick list of people railroaded when they disagree:

Monica Lewinsky (and all of the Clinton harem for that matter)
Stephen Ambrose (more than just Band of Brothers)
Dr. Tim Ball
Sarah Palin (how dare she be a woman and pro-life! Even Camille Paglia agrees!)

robot_parade

To bring the discussion back to the topic at hand - are there any really good political blogs on the right? Sorry, the one the OP links to doesn't count...after skimming a few other posts, it's not something I could bear to read. Too much stupid for my taste.

Right now I read:
Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
Crooked Timber — Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made
Crooks and Liars
FiveThirtyEight.com: Politics Done Right
Paul Krugman - The New York Times

Which obviously has a bit of a leftward tilt. But every popular political blog I find that's labeled conservative seems to be utter crap - spouting neocon talking points, denying reality, and thought-free emotional screeds. Bleh. I know there's got to be a legitimate intellectual discussion from the conservative side of the political spectrum out there somewhere, I just can't find it.

Willravel

The best known conservative blogs—Drudge, World Net Daily, Human Events, Newsbusters—are all neoconservative.

Here is a long list of conservative blogs. I've not read them all, but the ones I have read don't really show much promise. I hate to say it, but you may be better off going the libertarian route if you're looking for more traditional conservatism, assuming you can put up with the Rand, Mises, and Ron Paul fetishes.

thingstodo

What's that supposed to mean? I thought you might appreciate what she wrote when I shared your comments.

__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.

Willravel

I appreciate that you thought you were doing something for me, but knowing her type it's likely a waste of time.

robot_parade

Sorry, but die-hard libertarians make me want to hurt small animals. I'll just live with being a bleeding-heart liberal.

roachboy

i am not terribly interested in political blogs. i've read alot of them, but for the most part i find the writing boring and the format problematic. so i seek them out for specific reasons, if i'm researching a specific issue. but even then, if i have the choice between a less anonymous source and a blog, i'll choose the former.

i read some experimental writing (even though i don't really know what the terms means) that happens in that format, but rarely any which use a standard blog template.

music blogs, however, are another matter altogether...

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

I peak in regularly to see who the blogging heads of the day are and what's on their mind:

Bloggingheads.tv

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

loquitur

I've done some blogging, but I won't blog about politics. I don't trust myself to be able to avoid confirmation bias, hindsight bias or any of the other things that get in the way of people arriving at the truth. And I just don't want to get into flame wars or anything else like that. I have my views, I think they are well-founded and occasionally I share them, but I have no illusions that mine are such jewels that the world really needs me to hold forth about them on a website. And the bother of dealing with spambots, trolls and other such things just isn't worth it. Life is way, way too short.

Willravel

This is exactly how I feel, minus thinking my views are all well founded. Some are nuts.

loquitur

I'll stipulate to that!!

Locobot

One of my favorite conservative bloggers is Andrew Sullivan. Of course since he's openly gay and not in lockstep with the American Fundamentalist Taliban some people don't consider him a conservative, but he is. Republicans would be wise to start paying more attention to some of their intelligent moderates like Sullivan.

On the OP: if thingstodo's friend wants to join the discussion here on TFP then she/he is free to create a login, otherwise I don't think we should be discussing her/his arguments with thingstodo as a proxy. FYI though - abortion threads go nowhere and tend to attract mod attention.

And remember: Every sperm is sacred!

Willravel

Moderate... Republican? What's that?